Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Time to Get Rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to eliminate the Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) policy for the US military. The public doesn't want it, military leaders don't want it, there is simply no sense in getting rid of perfectly good soldiers because of their sexual orientation.

But in recent weeks the promises have been watered down. Now the administration talks about "changing" and not eliminating DADT, and it is frequently mentioned that there are a lot of other things to do, too, and this might not go first. Well, it is the most important thing to a lot of people, including a lot of people who are risking their lives to serve our country.

Aubrey Sarvis, Executive Director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, writes at Huffington Post:
New President. New Congress. No Change. Here is the latest evidence of what our country is losing under the law that prevents gay men and women from serving openly in the armed forces of the United States.

Lieutenant Colonel Victor J. Fehrenbach, a fighter weapons systems officer, has been flying the F-15E Strike Eagle since 1998. He has flown numerous missions against Taliban and al-Qaida targets, including the longest combat mission in his squadron's history. On that infamous September 11, 2001, Lt. Col. Fehrenbach was handpicked to fly sorties above the nation's capital. Later he flew combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has received at least 30 awards and decorations including nine air medals, one of them for heroism, as well as campaign medals for Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. He is now a flight instructor in Idaho, where he has passed on his skills to more than 300 future Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force weapons systems officers.

Since 1987, when Fehrenbach entered Notre Dame on a full Air Force ROTC scholarship, the government has invested twenty-five million dollars in training and equipping him to serve his country, which he has done with what anyone would agree was great distinction. He comes from a military family. His father was a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, his mother an Air Force nurse and captain. Lt. Col. Fehrenbach has honored that tradition.

And the Air Force is about to discharge this guy, a virtual poster boy for Air Force recruiting, because he is gay? Someone has to be kidding. This is sheer madness. Air Force Boots Their 25 Million Dollar Aviator (He's Gay) VIDEO

During the Bush years there was evidence that some parts of the military were being taken over by born-again Christian officers who proselytized on the battlefield and in training. It is time for that to come to a screeching halt, the religious practices and all that goes along with it. The military is no place for bigotry, and our country could be capitalizing on all its sources of talent, skill, and knowledge -- the last thing that should matter is an individual's romantic inclinations.
But Lt. Col. Fehrenbach does not have to be discharged. There is something the Pentagon can and should do now. Lt. Col. Fehrenbach's commanders and senior commanders can retain him in the service. Individual commanders are allowing many gays and lesbians to continue to serve openly in the armed forces. They are doing so because these are good service members who are doing their jobs. Lt. Col. Fehrenbach is no danger to unit cohesion, or to morale, or to good order and discipline. He goes to work every day, does a fantastic job for his country, has all the medals and job performance evaluations to prove it, and he should be allowed to serve.

Is the discharge of an officer with such critical and valuable skills, whom the government has spent millions training, is that really what Congress intended when it gave us "don't ask, don't tell"? Only last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told members of Congress, "If we don't get the people part of this business right, none of our other decisions will matter." Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress, "This is how we take care of our people."

He should have said, "This is how we take care of some of our people," because neither Secretary Gates nor Admiral Mullen could have been thinking of the 65,000 gays and lesbians in uniform today. Certainly they were not thinking of Lt. Col. Fehrenbach when they talked about "getting the people part right" because they got the "people part" wrong.

People are watching the new guy to see if he will keep his promises. A couple of things are giving cause for worry, and this is one of them. Don't Ask, Don't Tell simply needs to go. It might have been the best we could get in 1993 (being gay was not grounds for discharge in the US military until 1942), when attitudes were just beginning to shift, but everybody knows better now.

You should go read this article. It also has some video of Fehrenbach on the Rachel Maddow show.

31 Comments:

Anonymous Robert said...

With respect to action on the military's discriminatory policies (which, despite common nomenclature, are not Don't Ask Don't Tell; the policy is more If We Investigate You, You're Fired), I feel like our President has entirely picked us up and thrown us under the bus.

May 21, 2009 4:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"some parts of the military were being taken over by born-again Christian officers who proselytized on the battlefield and in training. It is time for that to come to a screeching halt, the religious practices and all that goes along with it. The military is no place for bigotry,"

When individuals express their faith, that's not bigotry.

Requiring them not to, is a violation of their rights and bigotry against religions that feel sharing one's faith is important.

DADT has nothing to do with religion, btw. The view that homosexuality is immoral does not belong exclusively to any particular religion.

Jim is displaying his bias against religion here.

May 21, 2009 4:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I feel like our President has entirely picked us up and thrown us under the bus."

Very good, Robert.

You finally figured that out.

May 21, 2009 5:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

America generally considers bias against gays to be discrimination with cause.

Last night on American Idol, more than 50 million chose an OK singer who is a church worship leader over a very talented gay guy who was unanimously chosen by the judges the night before but who has had pictures of himself kissing other guys all over the internet.

Go, Team USA!

May 21, 2009 6:52 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Anonymous, on the other hand, is driving the bus.

You make discussion difficult, my friend. Go play in another sandbox.

May 21, 2009 7:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You make discussion difficult"

Just errant discussion.

Truth has a way of making that difficult.

May 21, 2009 7:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You make discussion difficult"

Just errant discussion.

Truth has a way of making that difficult.

May 21, 2009 7:47 AM  
Anonymous ha-ha said...

that's double truth fer ya!

May 21, 2009 7:49 AM  
Anonymous ha-ha said...

"America generally considers bias against gays to be discrimination with cause"

that's right!

discrimination with cause!

May 21, 2009 8:14 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Is Electonic Multiple Troll Personality Disorder in the DSM-IV?

May 21, 2009 9:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" is just a psychotic egotistical freak who loves to read his/her vomited bile as much and as often as we allow it to be printed here. He/she has already soiled so many sand boxes there are none left to accomodate his/her reprehensible egotism. He/she apparently has nothing better to do in his/her life than to practice asocial behaviors here. Such a pity that we are so tolerant - but imagine what would happen if he/she had no other outlet for his/her hatred!
Diogenes

May 21, 2009 9:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dio apparently feels threatened by the notion of protecting the life of unwanted children or helping disadvantaged kids escape dangerous hell-holes or favoring non-deviants in singing competitions

that's too bad, Dio

May 21, 2009 11:45 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

You're right, I think, Diogenes, he's becoming more strident.

"Non-deviant" from him is yet another example of too-good-to-be-true irony.

A genuine discussion on abortion, school reform, marriage, almost anything would be interesting here, given the intelligent and hard-working people who blog here. Anonymous is like a shrieking child in a wedding, making it hard to focus on the matter at hand.

His parents should take him outside until he is able to be around people. Jim?

May 21, 2009 1:57 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I myself would like to talk about Obama's nd his administration's and advisor's statements on DADT and DOMA. He's backpedalling so fast the bike gears will break. Whose votes is he seeking? Is he trying to appease bigoted military officers in hopes of better waging the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan? What is he doing? I really don't understand. We gave money, time, effort, votes and support, and, as I said above, he seems to have said we can come to the party as long as we don't say anything. Truman didn't cowtow with respect to racial integration, he gave direction. We elected Obama to do that, and it's time he did.

Anonymous need not respond.

May 21, 2009 2:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

for the hundredth time, Robert, race and deviance are not equivalent

Obama's developing good sense

you should be dancing a jig

May 21, 2009 2:51 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "When individuals express their faith, that's not bigotry.".

If their faith is that other races or religions or sexualities are inferior, that is bigotry.

Bad anonymous said "Requiring them not to, is a violation of their rights and bigotry against religions that feel sharing one's faith is important".

Wrong. Your freedom to swing your fist ends where it meets my nose. No one, no religion has absolute freedom to do as they wish. Compromises are mandatory in achieving fairness, equality, and justice.

Bad anonymous said "for the hundredth time, Robert, race and deviance are not equivalent".

Your repeating a lie 100 times does not make it the truth. If you're referring to deviance in terms of being different race and deviance frequently are equivalent. In the case of gayness and race both are harmless characteristics that only a bigot would discriminate on the basis of. I might add that a genius is a deviant from the norm - few of us would say that being a deviant like that is a bad thing and no rational person would say being gay is a bad thing either.

May 21, 2009 4:03 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

I would prefer that President Obama move swiftly on his campaign promises with respect to civil rights.

That there have not yet been significant steps is reminiscent of how President Kennedy dealt with the civil rights issue of his era. Through backchannels, he essentially told the NAACP and SCLC to create the groundswell that would give him the political support to act.

The appearance Tuesday evening on the Rachel Maddow Show of Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach, an F-15 fighter pilot, an 18-year veteran of the United States Air Force, is the sort of thing that could create that groundswell. Here is the story on LTC Fehrenbach, who is being thrown out of the Air Force due to Don't Ask, Don't Tell:

"On September 11th, Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach was picked to be part of the initial alert crew, immediately following the 9/11 attacks. The following year, in 2002, he deployed to Kuwait, where he flew combat missions over Afghanistan, attacking Taliban and al Qaeda targets. After the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach deployed there, flying combat missions in support of Operation: Iraqi Freedom.

"Over the span of his career, he has flown 88 combat missions, including missions that were the longest combat sorties n the history of his squadron. He logged more than 2,000 flying hours, nearly 1,500 fighter hours, 400 combat hours.

"Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach is also highly decorated. He‘s received nine Air Medals including one for heroism. After 18 years of active duty in the Air Force, this experienced, decorated fighter pilot says he is ready and willing to deploy again, he‘s ready to do whatever his country and the United States Air Force ask of him."

For the rest of the story, see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30869189/

Anonymous, I would be interested in hearing why you believe that our national defense is enhanced, rather than damaged, by the discharge of LTC Fehrenbach and so many like him.

May 21, 2009 4:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If their faith is that other races or religions or sexualities are inferior, that is bigotry."

All religions believe other religions are inferior, by definition. You can choose any religion you want and, obviously, you want to join the religion with the superior argument. That would include atheists who also feel their view is superior.

Race and sexuality are red herrings, and completely different attributes. Jim was objecting to officers in the military expressing their faith not any particular theology.

While we're on the topic, racism is anti-Christian and while Christians do believe homosexuality is immoral, they don't feel superior to any other human beings. Part of Christian doctrine is that all mene are sinful.

"Wrong. Your freedom to swing your fist ends where it meets my nose."

It is a particular error of psotmodern thought that expressing disagreement is the equivalent of violence. How puny the lives of these postmodernists are!

"No one, no religion has absolute freedom to do as they wish."

Freedom of speech and religion harms no one.

"Compromises are mandatory in achieving fairness, equality, and justice."

Why don't you start, then, by dropping your intolerance of the religious beliefs of others.

"Your repeating a lie 100 times does not make it the truth. If you're referring to deviance in terms of being different race and deviance frequently are equivalent."

My bad, I should have said "sexual deviance".

Everyone but you got it, so I guess you are intellectually deviant, on the left side of the curve.

"In the case of gayness and race both are harmless characteristics that only a bigot would discriminate on the basis of."

There you go again, Priya, conflating a physical characteristic with a psychic one.

Race is a physical condition.

Sexuality is a desire manifested by a behavior, and a legitimate target of discrimination.

If you don't like that, don't tell.

"no rational person would say being gay is a bad thing either"

Priya, rational people say that all the time.

"A genuine discussion on abortion, school reform, marriage, almost anything would be interesting here, given the intelligent and hard-working people who blog here."

Abortion is a clear-cut evil.

Discussing whether it should be allowed is like discussing whether crashing planes into buildings should be allowed.

"I would be interested in hearing why you believe that our national defense is enhanced, rather than damaged, by the discharge of LTC Fehrenbach and so many like him."

Did I say that, David?

May 21, 2009 7:17 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Excellent question David. One I suspect bad anonymous won't have the integrity to address honestly.

May 21, 2009 7:24 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

May 21, 2009 7:47 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "Jim was objecting to officers in the military expressing their faith not any particular theology.".

No, he was objecting to religionists in the military proselytizing and oppressing gays. If the essence of your religion is oppressing gays (and it seems it is) there is nothing of value to it and it best be extinguished.

Bad anonymous said "racism is anti-Christian".

LOL, that's a good one. The Jews were god's CHOSEN people. God commanded them to go into other people's lands, not make any peace treaty with them, but to utterly destroy them, every man, woman and child. The foundation of Christianity, Judaism, and Islma IS racism, it is what's at the very heart of your religion.

Bad anonymous said "while Christians do believe homosexuality is immoral, they don't feel superior to any other human beings.".

Yeah, sure, you're believable on that. That's why you go out of your way to call gays deviants, perverts, evil, and hellbound nazis. No one thinks they're superior to perverts, deviants, and evil hellbound Nazis - you must think people are as stupid as you are (hint - they're not).

Bad anonymous said "Why don't you start, then, by dropping your intolerance of the religious beliefs of others.".

I'm perfectly tolerant of your religious beliefs. I don't care if your religion requires you to bugger a goat as long as its not my goat and you keep it in your church. When you step outside of running your own life as you see fit and choose to use your religion as an excuse to try to control others who are hurting no one that's when you've gone too far, that's when I won't tolerate your evil.

Bad anonymous said "There you go again, Priya, conflating a physical characteristic with a psychic one.".

The distinction is irrelevant. They're both characteristics of a person and immaterial to a person's morality.

Bad anonymous said "Race is a physical condition. Sexuality is a desire manifested by a behavior, and a legitimate target of discrimination."

Behavior that doesn't hurt others is never a legitimate target for discrimination. Having same sex desires no more validates discrimination than liking the taste of pork makes you a valid target for discrimination. You hurt others - you are a legitimate target for discrimination.

Bad anonymous said "rational people say that all the time.".

No rational person says that a characteristic which harms no one (like being gay or black) is a bad thing. You and your right wing religionists say it, but you most definitely aren't rational.

Bad anonymous said "Abortion is a clear-cut evil.".

And so is dying in childbirth. And severely disabled babies. And forcing women to have children they can't afford and won't do a proper job raising. The question is how do we strike the best balance between competing needs.

David asked bad anonymous "I would be interested in hearing why you believe that our national defense is enhanced, rather than damaged, by the discharge of LTC Fehrenbach and so many like him."

Bad anonymous responded "Did I say that, David?".

I knew you wouldn't have the integrity to answer honestly. You've long supported discriminating against gays and denying them the right to serve in the military. Tell us how the discharge of LTC Fehrenbach is good for the national security you were so panicking over yesterday.

May 21, 2009 8:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Priya the Liya said about Jim's comments:

"No, he was objecting to religionists in the military proselytizing and oppressing gays."

Jim said:

"During the Bush years there was evidence that some parts of the military were being taken over by born-again Christian officers who proselytized on the battlefield and in training. It is time for that to come to a screeching halt, the religious practices and all that goes along with it."

Truth is, the evangelical Christian presence in the military began long before the Bush administration. Media attention doesn't signal the commencement of phenomena.

Military officers have the same right of religious expression as everyone else.

"The Jews were god's CHOSEN people."

You misunserstand. He chose them as the means to reveal himself to the world. They weren't better or worse than anyone but merely represented all mankind.

"God commanded them to go into other people's lands, not make any peace treaty with them, but to utterly destroy them, every man, woman and child."

There were some people that they made peace with. Some were chosen to be destroyed. It wasn't on the basis of race but on the evil character of their societies. People of good character from those tribes that were destroyed were saved.

One example is Rahab, a prostitue who lived in Jericho. When Jericho was destroyed, she and her family were saved. Among her descendants was Jesus. Her son was Boaz, a notable Old Testament figure, and she is referred to many times in the New Testament as a person of faith, despite her race.

Time is short this morning. Maybe we can examine some more Priya idiocy later today.

Priya has really piled the crap up high today!

May 22, 2009 7:58 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Military officers have the same right of religious expression as everyone else.A federal lawsuit has been filed because some military officers apparently don't know that. Some have acted as if they think only Christians have that right.

May 22, 2009 8:13 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

David, I appreciate your comments on the pace of civil rights legislation. In Fairfax, politicians interested in such reform asked us to talk publicly and get people involved, so it wasn't just they making a proposal in isolation.

rrjr

May 22, 2009 10:05 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous said "Military officers have the same right of religious expression as everyone else.".

No one said they didn't. What they don't have the right to do is to try to force their religion on others as frequently is the case. Non-Christians have been threatened with murder if they didn't convert and endlessly harrassed:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20922106/


http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/08/atheist_mistreatment_in_iraq.php

I said "The Jews were god's CHOSEN people."

In one of the most hilarious examples of cognitive dissonance in the history of the planet bad anonymous said "You misunserstand. He chose them as the means to reveal himself to the world. They weren't better or worse than anyone...Some were chosen to be destroyed. It wasn't on the basis of race but on the evil character of their societies.".

That's friggin hilarious! The Jews weren't better or worse than anyone god just destroyed other peoples because they were evil. Being evil doesn't make you worse than anyone else?!?! God favoured one group and destroyed another, but it wasn't because he thought one was better and one was worse?!!? Give me a break you twisted delusional fool!

And of course you were wrong about that on several levels. The bible passages in question didn't say that god ordered the Jews to destroy their neighbours because they were evil, he ordered the jews to destroy them because he wanted to give the Jews their neighbours land. The idea that the Jews were god's chosen people because they were selected to "reveal himself to the world" is illogical as well. If god weren't favouring the Jews over everyone else he wouldn't have favoured them as the ones to reveal himself to - he'd have revealed himself to all peoples all over the planet and saved all those who would otherwise have chosen other religions from an eternity of torture - unless of course god is a sadist and wants to eternally torture the vast majority of humans that ever lived - do you think that's what your "loving" and "just" god wants?

As I predicted you once again sidestepped a critical question that demonstrates your irrational hatred of gays.

David asked "I would be interested in hearing why you believe that our national defense is enhanced, rather than damaged, by the discharge of LTC Fehrenbach and so many like him."

In a pitiful dodge you said "Did I say that, David?".

Tell us the truth for a change - do you favour the military discharging soldiers for being openly gay? If so, how do you feel that enhances the national security you were so freaking out over two days ago?

May 22, 2009 1:17 PM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

I'd like to offer a perspective on ancient religions. As a committed Reform Jew, I have always been uncomfortable with the concept of "The Chosen People." As with many ancient religious concepts, many of us interpret it to fit our emerging understanding of the world and of the capabilities of human beings. For the concept "The Chosen People" to have any currency in the 21st Century, we must interpret it to mean that we (as Jews) have a special responsibility to advance the well-being of all people. To the extent that we (and those who convert) are "chosen," it is only for one reason: To help repair the world -- Tikkun Olam (another old concept.)

The sad fact is that in the ancient world, survival was typically a zero-sum game. Everyone lived on land that their tribe, at some point, seized from some other tribe. Indeed, that is largely true today, as well.

European Americans seized the land from Native Americans.

Hungarians seized the land on which they have lived for centuries from Slavic tribes (I have seen a chilling 19th Century panorama in a national park in Hungary commemorating that seizure).

Germans pushed Slavs out of ancestral lands; and Slavs pushed Germans out of ancestral lands.

Germanic tribes attacked Roman areas and brought in their own people, after Rome had earlier conquered much of their territory.

Greeks expanded into Asia Minor, displacing people, only to be displaced themselves when the Turkish Empire (tribes from central Asia who swept into Asia Minor) expanded across the Aegean.

Arabs swept into Iberia, conquered the inhabitants, moved into France, were pushed back, and then created an empire in Iberia, only to be displaced themselves.

Crusaders swept into the Middle East, slaughtering "infidels" along the way, ultimately losing in their effort to keep Jerusalem, but in the meantime severely weakening Arab civilization. Which then fell to the Turks.

Angles and Saxons pushed the Celts out of much of Britain, only to be colonized later by the Normans.

Jews were thrown out of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean by the Babylonians; then the Persians allowed the Jews to repatriate (I am sure to the dismay of those who had made homes in the old Jewish villages); then the Romans (sick of Jewish revolutions) removed most of the Jews from the land; then European "civilization" -- embarrassed by the Holocaust -- facilitated a return of Jews (this time to the dismay of the Arabs who had been living their, albeit under Turkish and the British colonialism).

The Hutus were oppressed by the Tutsi, and then visa versa, lord knows how many times.

The Chinese Empire ebbed and flowed, displacing groups on their periphery.

Those with greater knowledge of east and south Asia could continue the examples.

My point is that religion is not necessarily to blame. Often religion was/is used as an excuse to carry out such conquests. But it is not inherently a religious problem; it is a human problem. Religion, properly employed, can be a force for goodness. Christianity simply as set forth by Jesus (not necessarily the later salesmen) -- it would be nice.

Our goal, whether we adhere to a religious tradition or not, should be to end the murderous game of musical chairs (land) that has brought so much suffering. To end the cycle.

May 22, 2009 6:01 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

David said "My point is that religion is not necessarily to blame. Often religion was/is used as an excuse to carry out such conquests. But it is not inherently a religious problem; it is a human problem.".

I agree. The Jews, like so many peoples before them, made up a story about how their god had given them this land in order to justify their actions. In a strange "coincidence", their god hated all the same people they did, just as did everyother people's gods.

If there truly were a loving and just god acting to benefit all mankind we wouldn't have seen all these displacements and evil. If we assume that there is an omniscient and omnipotent god, then the world must always be exactly as he wanted it to be. Wars? Just the way he wanted it. Millions of abortions? All part of his master plan. Genocide? Brings joy to god's heart. The omnisicient god knew exactly what was going to occur on this planet at every step along the way, and being omnipotent and able to change it for the better, he declined because this is the way he likes it.

May 22, 2009 6:09 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

May 22, 2009 6:16 PM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Sociopathanon: “DADT has nothing to do with religion, btw.”

But the desire to keep it in place, does.
--
“The view that homosexuality is immoral does not belong exclusively to any particular religion.”

Since when do you defend heretical religions?
--
“Jim is displaying his bias against religion here.”

All religion? Then would you also be in favor of equal time for all other religions?
--
Sociopathanon: “Race and sexuality are red herrings, and completely different attributes.”

Show us where the “monolithic gay agenda” has claimed that skin color or place of origin is the same thing as human sexuality.

Straw man: The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.
--
“Jim was objecting to officers in the military expressing their faith not any particular theology.”

There’s a difference between “expressing” one’s faith and government sanctioned proselytizing. You might want to research that.
--
“While we're on the topic, racism is anti-Christian

Not the KKK or the Christian Identity Movement, et al., they’re perfectly Christian. In fact, the KKK isn’t racist, or hateful.
--
and while Christians do believe homosexuality is immoral,”

Now that’s a red herring: This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion.

And for the umpteenth time, how is same-sex attraction, or even same-sex sex, an ethical issue? In 5 years of arguing with people like you, I have NEVER received an answer to that question.
--
“they [Christians] don't feel superior to any other human beings."

Says you. Pro-gay, pro-choice, Mormons, among a litany of other Christians who aren’t “true” Christians.

Christians like you just hide your sense of superiority.

May 24, 2009 5:02 AM  
Blogger Emproph said...

Sociopathanon: Part of Christian doctrine is that all mene are sinful.”

And part of the anti-gay “Christian” doctrine is to hide the second portion of that sentence: We’re all sinners, but some of us are more repentant than others.”
--
“Freedom of speech and religion harms no one.”

Hate speech promotes hatred, which results in violence. Simple math.

And by “hate speech,” I mean:
-The misuse of studies to dehumanize LGBT’s
-Saying Nazis were gay, to imply that all LGBT’s adhere to Nazism, and thus are responsible for the Holocaust
-Defining SSA as a behavior, and thus a choice (another straw man).
-Calling us deviants, and then claiming you don’t mean it as pejorative
Etc.

All examples of bearing false witness. So much for your “beliefs” being religiously motivated.
--
Priya Lynn: "Compromises are mandatory in achieving fairness, equality, and justice."

Sociopathanon: “Why don't you start, then, by dropping your intolerance of the religious beliefs of others.”

Of course what you really mean is: “Why don't you start tolerating my intolerance."
--
Priya Lynn: "In the case of gayness and race both are harmless characteristics that only a bigot would discriminate on the basis of.”

Sociopathanon: “There you go again, Priya, conflating a physical characteristic with a psychic one.

The equation was with “harmless characteristics.” Priya’s right. Further more, your use of the term “psychic” is meant to imply that gayness is not an intrinsic characteristic. You’re word-play is a “psychic” characteristic.
--
“Sexuality is a desire manifested by a behavior, and a legitimate target of discrimination.”

More of the “SSA = behavior = choice” canard. Like Priya said, repeating a lie 100 times -- in this case, your chosen beliefs -- doesn’t make it true.
--
"A genuine discussion on abortion, school reform, marriage, almost anything would be interesting here, given the intelligent and hard-working people who blog here."

“Abortion is a clear-cut evil.

Therefore, God is evil because S/He’s responsible for spontaneous abortions/miscarriages.

Nice god you worship.
--
You’re quite the coward Sociopathanon, so much subterfuge.

Perhaps you should consider growing a pair.

May 24, 2009 5:10 AM  
Blogger Jahid Aniket said...


Get inside touch with 1-855-637-4055 for a expert clairvoyant readings. I'd appreciate take time to tell you all about MY freshest the all effective clairvoyant content page. I have been working really tough, thanks for permitting me to talk about the along throughout you.

August 23, 2014 2:14 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home