Hateful thoughts from a right winger

[bytor2112]

This weekend I watched the GTLB Rally in DC. Not all of it but well over an hour off it on CSPAN. They were some of the most angry, hateful and pathetic people I have seen in a while. While they claimed to be loving and caring, there words were filled with hate and loathing.

Constant comparisons to the struggle for civil rights that black people endured in the 60's sickened me. How dare they and how obnoxious. The common thread that seemed to link the speakers was how evil the "right" is and how they need to be stopped at all costs. There idea of freedom was to legislate away my opinion....typical leftist nut jobs.(not to be confused with typical leftists or typical right wing nut jobs)

Some other common tirades included:

1. A moratorium on mortgage foreclosure.

2. Eliminate all student loan debt.

3. Tax the Church.

4. End don't ask don't tell.

It seems that not only were they spewing hateful venom, but they felt entitled to as many "free" government hand outs as they could envision receiving. Watching this rally has really colored my opinion in a very negative way. Oh......the men in lovely flowered dresses was a nice touch though.

-Bytor

Edited October 13, 2009 by bytor2112

[Moksha]

Bytor, do you have those same feeling against BLTs? I ask that because I was yearning for one at Subway Sandwiches.

Be careful what you say about flowery dresses, because the Tongan and Samoan Church members are pretty darned big.

[Good Days Last]

The gay-alternative community will continue to gain sympathizers as this drags on.

The name of equality will drown out the cries for morality.

It's time to gather those closest to you and prop them up. It's only beginning.

[hordak]

.

2. Eliminate all student loan debt.

give me about 4 more years and i might be on board:D

[StallionMcBeastly]

This weekend I watched the GTLB Rally in DC. Not all of it but well over an hour off it on CSPAN. They were some of the most angry, hateful and pathetic people I have seen in a while. While they claimed to be loving and caring, there words were filled with hate and loathing.

Constant comparisons to the struggle for civil rights that black people endured in the 60's sickened me. How dare they and how obnoxious. The common thread that seemed to link the speakers was how evil the "right" is and how they need to be stopped at all costs. There idea of freedom was to legislate away my opinion....typical leftist nut jobs.(not to be confused with typical leftists or typical right wing nut jobs)

Some other common tirades included:

1. A moratorium on mortgage foreclosure.

2. Eliminate all student loan debt.

3. Tax the Church.

4. End don't ask don't tell.

It seems that not only were they spewing hateful venom, but they felt entitled to as many "free" government hand outs as they could envision receiving. Watching this rally has really colored my opinion in a very negative way. Oh......the men in lovely flowered dresses was a nice touch though.

-Bytor

Lool did you see Lady Gaga (I cringe at even typing her name it sounds so freaking stupid) give her speech? She looked like a lunatic.

I wonder how much coverage this got in comparison to the Tea Party march?????

[Guest Godless]

While they may be a bit brash and unreasonable at times, they do have some legitimate concerns, DADT being one of the big ones from where I sit. It pains me to think that quite a few of my fellow soldiers (one of them a very close long-time friend of both me and my family) have to live in secrecy just so they can continue to serve their country.

[Just_A_Guy]

DADT is an imperfect solution to an unsolvable problem.

I can completely understand straight males not wanting to be quartered with gay males (and straight females not wanting to be quartered with lesbian females), for more or less the same reasons that straight females wouldn't want to be quartered with straight males (and vice-versa).

But then--do you put the gay soldiers in with the women, and suddenly have every soldier in the army claiming he's gay?

Or do you quarter the gay soldiers off in some other location, and open yourself up to segregation claims?

It's a conundrum. I wish the pols would listen to the unit commanders on this one. If the unit commanders think their troops can handle it--repeal DADT and let 'em integrate. If not--let's not conduct social experiments with our fighting forces.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Maxel]

Aaaaahh JAG, that little bit of reality is harmful to the progression of social justice. Wouldn't it be better just to sweep that under the rug so that everyone can have their liestyle vaidated by society? You heartless right-winger you!

[Guest Godless]

Co-ed quarters are used to a very limited extent in the military, mainly in warzones. I've shared quarters with females before, and there were no issues. I've served with females who were quartered with known lesbians, and there were no problems (aside from the normal issues that arise when you have 20-30 women living together ). When you have a large group of people living together, even if they're all straight and of the same gender, there will occasionally be minor issues and altercations. It's a very normal part of the military lifestyle. I have no reason to believe that gay-straight integration would ruffle things up very much.

As for commander's discretion, that's going to vary. I've served in two units with known homosexuals who were protected from DADT by both their fellow soldiers and the unit leadership. Naturally, this type of progressive camaraderie isn't going to exist in every unit. Some units have better cohesion than others. This is no reason to balk at reform, though. The first unit I was deployed with had some severe racial tensions that stemmed from the fact that half of us were from the Baltimore/DC suburbs and the other half was from rural PA. Does that mean that we should have been segregated? Of course not. We worked through our issues the best we could and managed to get the job done without any major incidents. I have no doubt that the same thing would happen in many of the less cohesive units if DADT were to be abolished. Yes, there will be some problems. Bigotry and prejudice exist in every level of our society, including the military. However, our general sense of brotherhood and comaraderie hasn't failed us yet.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm getting soft in my old age. DADT is something I'd willingly sacrifice on the altar of compromise. In Washington we're on the verge of passing an "Everything But the name" bill. It will grant same-sex couples all the custody, hospital visitation, adoption, and other legal rights, that married couples have, but it will maintain the distinction between domestic partners and married people. If I'm not mistaken, the religious right is on board with this.

[talisyn]

give me about 4 more years and i might be on board:D

I'm totally on board with this one. Where's my bailout?

[sixpacktr]

The gay-alternative community will continue to gain sympathizers as this drags on.

The name of equality will drown out the cries for morality.

It's time to gather those closest to you and prop them up. It's only beginning.

Perhaps that is why the dresses were so flowery??

[Just_A_Guy]

As for commander's discretion, that's going to vary. I've served in two units with known homosexuals who were protected from DADT by both their fellow soldiers and the unit leadership. Naturally, this type of progressive camaraderie isn't going to exist in every unit. Some units have better cohesion than others. This is no reason to balk at reform, though. The first unit I was deployed with had some severe racial tensions that stemmed from the fact that half of us were from the Baltimore/DC suburbs and the other half was from rural PA. Does that mean that we should have been segregated? Of course not. We worked through our issues the best we could and managed to get the job done without any major incidents. I have no doubt that the same thing would happen in many of the less cohesive units if DADT were to be abolished. Yes, there will be some problems. Bigotry and prejudice exist in every level of our society, including the military. However, our general sense of brotherhood and comaraderie hasn't failed us yet.

I appreciate your insight, Godless.

Regarding the question you ask in the bolded section of your post: I would say "it depends" on a ton of factors, and I think it's best left to the commander who is on the scene. If people are dying because a unit just can't gel together--even if it is their own fault for not overcoming their prejudices--I'd hate to have the commander's hands completely tied in the name of political correctness.

[jadams_4040]

This weekend I watched the GTLB Rally in DC. Not all of it but well over an hour off it on CSPAN. They were some of the most angry, hateful and pathetic people I have seen in a while. While they claimed to be loving and caring, there words were filled with hate and loathing.

Constant comparisons to the struggle for civil rights that black people endured in the 60's sickened me. How dare they and how obnoxious. The common thread that seemed to link the speakers was how evil the "right" is and how they need to be stopped at all costs. There idea of freedom was to legislate away my opinion....typical leftist nut jobs.(not to be confused with typical leftists or typical right wing nut jobs)

Some other common tirades included:

1. A moratorium on mortgage foreclosure.

2. Eliminate all student loan debt.

3. Tax the Church.

4. End don't ask don't tell.

It seems that not only were they spewing hateful venom, but they felt entitled to as many "free" government hand outs as they could envision receiving. Watching this rally has really colored my opinion in a very negative way. Oh......the men in lovely flowered dresses was a nice touch though.

-Bytor

Just remember they are a bunch of gay people not democrats; and because democrats suport equal rights and freedoms for all Gods children,Does not make them gay lovers, there is not one documented iota of anything anywhere that dems support gay lifestyle; so when you use the words "leftist" or liberals" that is simply insinuating things that are really obnoxious and very untrue. I know yu hate president Obama and everything he does or says and likewise everything liberal; but please quit playing games with words trying to "skirt" the political rules of this board simply to spread more missinformation.

[hordak]

Co-ed quarters are used to a very limited extent in the military, mainly in warzones.

I don't know if the army has more money (they don't build billion dollar jets) but in the Airforce your first 3 years, for the most part, (if unwed/ enlisted) are spent in the dorms

I've shared quarters with females before, and there were no issues.

I've served with females who were quartered with known lesbians, and there were no problems (aside from the normal issues that arise when you have 20-30 women living together ). When you have a large group of people living together, even if they're all straight and of the same gender, there will occasionally be minor issues and altercations. It's a very normal part of the military lifestyle. I have no reason to believe that gay-straight integration would ruffle things up very much.

I think you need to define quarters for the civilians. Again my experience is limited to Airforce but i think most think quarters like Full metal jacket style barracks. Which is nothing like what we had.(when we finlly had co-ed living) I shared "quarters" with women in that they were living in the same building. In fact I met my wife because she lived just below me. But there was still quite a separation between men and women as far as privacy is concerned.

As for commander's discretion, that's going to vary. I've served in two units with known homosexuals who were protected from DADT by both their fellow soldiers and the unit leadership. Naturally, this type of progressive camaraderie isn't going to exist in every unit. Some units have better cohesion than others. This is no reason to balk at reform, though. The first unit I was deployed with had some severe racial tensions that stemmed from the fact that half of us were from the Baltimore/DC suburbs and the other half was from rural PA. Does that mean that we should have been segregated? Of course not. We worked through our issues the best we could and managed to get the job done without any major incidents. I have no doubt that the same thing would happen in many of the less cohesive units if DADT were to be abolished. Yes, there will be some problems. Bigotry and prejudice exist in every level of our society, including the military. However, our general sense of brotherhood and comaraderie hasn't failed us yet.

I think the camaraderie aspect is a red herring. As you point out people from different backgrounds put in such a high stress environment will have there ups and downs.

I think those who worry about straights fighting beside gays haven't spent enough time in the service.

However I think DADT is a good policy that protects the service and it's members from rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and fraternization.

These things still happen but by separating men and women (as much as they can in the living situation) they are able to cut down on the opportunity for these events to occur.

Obviously putting a group of openly gay and straight men into the barracks together doesn't mean things will get sexual anymore then putting 5 women in the barracks with 40 men would. But you wouldn't be wrong to try and avoid the situation all together.

Again I can only speak for the Airforce but they are pretty adamant about keeping the members focused on the mission. I know a legally married straight couple who received article 15s for sleeping together while deployed. Why would they want to make it easier?

[bytor2112]

Just remember they are a bunch of gay people not democrats; and because democrats suport equal rights and freedoms for all Gods children,Does not make them gay lovers, there is not one documented iota of anything anywhere that dems support gay lifestyle; so when you use the words "leftist" or liberals" that is simply insinuating things that are really obnoxious and very untrue. I know yu hate president Obama and everything he does or says and likewise everything liberal; but please quit playing games with words trying to "skirt" the political rules of this board simply to spread more missinformation.

Lets see. No, I didn't say Democrat or Obama. Huh, maybe in addition to learning to spell, you should learn to read too.

[prisonchaplain]

Just remember they are a bunch of gay people not democrats;

I'm going to go out on a limb here, by into some sterotypes, and suggest that they probably are democrats...at least better than 80%. The Log Cabin Republicans (gay GOP group) are noteworthy precisely because they are so unusual.

and because democrats suport equal rights and freedoms for all Gods children,Does not make them gay lovers,

It doesn't? Too bad. Personally, I do not support equal rights for those who violate God's laws, but I love them, and hope they might be redeemed.

there is not one documented iota of anything anywhere that dems support gay lifestyle;

Well...they support the opposition to any governmental attempts to discourage it. Further, they support public school education that tells children GLTB folk are a minority, oft persecuted, who should be respected just like racial minorities. Remember "Sally has Two Mommies?"

so when you use the words "leftist" or liberals" that is simply insinuating things that are really obnoxious and very untrue.

Oh come, now. Leftists and liberals support social laise faire (sp?). They tend to argue against in public social morality or standards. Further, as a group, they are less religious, when it comes to affiliation with organized faith groups. So, what's obnoxious?

I know yu hate president Obama and everything he does or says and likewise everything liberal; but please quit playing games with words trying to "skirt" the political rules of this board simply to spread more missinformation.

I don't know about you, but I tend to pray harder for leaders who's policies I do not agree with. And, on a personal level, I do like Obama's professorial style. He's kinda like Reagan...enjoy his communication, just don't agree with his policies. So many Democrats said likewise about him.

[Guest Godless]

I don't know if the army has more money (they don't build billion dollar jets) but in the Airforce your first 3 years, for the most part, (if unwed/ enlisted) are spent in the dorms.

Yes, well, I think it's no secret that the Air Force pampers its troops. Actually, it sounds like your living quarters are fairly similar to ours. Keep in mind though, that standard is mainly limited to Active Duty soldiers in the US and Germany. It's a completely different ballgame when you're in a warzone, and Reservists on stateside orders don't always get the same quality of living as our AD counterparts.

I think you need to define quarters for the civilians. Again my experience is limited to Airforce but i think most think quarters like Full metal jacket style barracks. Which is nothing like what we had.(when we finlly had co-ed living) I shared "quarters" with women in that they were living in the same building. In fact I met my wife because she lived just below me. But there was still quite a separation between men and women as far as privacy is concerned.

The Full Metal Jacket style barracks (we call them open bays) are common overseas and for reserve units training stateside. Here in the States, they separate us by gender, and they usually do so overseas as well. However, I've been in situations where males and females have shared open bay quarters or something similar to it (tent city) in a wartime environment. It depends on the nature of the mission.

However I think DADT is a good policy that protects the service and it's members from rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and fraternization.

These things still happen but by separating men and women (as much as they can in the living situation) they are able to cut down on the opportunity for these events to occur.

DADT is applicable to homosexuals only. I'm not sure how the other branches work, but in the Army we have an EO (equal opportunity) policy that covers discrimination based on gender, race, and religion. We also have a policy called POSH (Prevention Of Sexual Harassment) , which is independent of DADT, that address the issues of rape, sexual harassment, and sexual assault. In the absense of DADT, I don't see how it would be a problem to implement policies regarding homosexuals into the EO and POSH policies. It won't stop problems from arising, but it'll offer guidelines and means of enforcement, which should be more than enough to keep things from getting out of hand.

Again I can only speak for the Airforce but they are pretty adamant about keeping the members focused on the mission. I know a legally married straight couple who received article 15s for sleeping together while deployed. Why would they want to make it easier?

General Order 1

This is the policy regarding servicemember standards of conduct overseas. In it, it expressly states that married couples are allowed to share quarters when available. I don't know the specifics of the situation you're referring to, but it's possible that their commander made an error by punishing them. Keeping focused on the mission is important, but military knows that it has no right to keep married couples in separate quarters if it can be avoided.

On a side note, the version of this policy for Afghanistan was amended about two years ago to allow sexual relations between unmarried servicemembers. That may have been reversed in light of the recent controversy surrounding those State Dept. employees, but last I heard it was okay for single soldiers to have sex in Afghanistan.

[hordak]

Y

DADT is applicable to homosexuals only. I'm not sure how the other branches work, but in the Army we have an EO (equal opportunity) policy that covers discrimination based on gender, race, and religion. We also have a policy called POSH (Prevention Of Sexual Harassment) , which is independent of DADT, that address the issues of rape, sexual harassment, and sexual assault. In the absense of DADT, I don't see how it would be a problem to implement policies regarding homosexuals into the EO and POSH policies. It won't stop problems from arising, but it'll offer guidelines and means of enforcement, which should be more than enough to keep things from getting out of hand.

.

That is precisely my point. Even though there are written policies in place to protect service members from sexual misconduct the military still takes extra precautions (like separation of men and women) when possible to prevent "stirring up a hornets nest"

If POSH isn't good enough to for the service to drop it's extra precautions and start making basic training barracks and showers, coed why would it be good enough to protect open homosexuals?

You prevent "hanky panky" by separating people from those whom they desire sexually. The military does this based on gender as it is the status quo.

Open homosexuality put a wrench in this system. Letting gay members be open about their sexuality in such an environment is the same as mixing men and women. It doesn't mean something will happen, but it makes it easier.

P.S Interesting read on the general order. I memory severs me right the incident was in a tent city, so sharing quarters was not an option and it could have more to do with the where it occurred rather then the what.

[Guest Godless]

That is precisely my point. Even though there are written policies in place to protect service members from sexual misconduct the military still takes extra precautions (like separation of men and women) when possible to prevent "stirring up a hornets nest"

If POSH isn't good enough to for the service to drop it's extra precautions and start making basic training barracks and showers, coed why would it be good enough to protect open homosexuals?

You prevent "hanky panky" by separating people from those whom they desire sexually. The military does this based on gender as it is the status quo.

In the end, it comes down to individual responsibility and accountability at the unit level. POSH and EO haven't eliminated harassment and discrimination, nor have gender segregation. However, these policies and implementation practices have kept such issues from breaking down mission focus. I believe that a more progressive approach to gays in the military could easily do the same. It won't eliminate problems, but it'll keep them from getting out of hand.

Open homosexuality put a wrench in this system. Letting gay members be open about their sexuality in such an environment is the same as mixing men and women. It doesn't mean something will happen, but it makes it easier.

Even in environments where gender segregation is prudent (which is most environments, even overseas) General Order 1 does little to prevent soldiers from bumping uglies. Soldiers will be soldiers. In the case of gays, I think most have the good sense to respect the boundaries of their straight counterparts. Sure, there will be deviants, but the same is true of straight soldiers as well, isn't it? And there are systems in place to punish deviant behavior in the military.

P.S Interesting read on the general order. I memory severs me right the incident was in a tent city, so sharing quarters was not an option and it could have more to do with the where it occurred rather then the what.

Okay, the commander's action makes sense then. Thanks for the clarification.

[hordak]

Even in environments where gender segregation is prudent (which is most environments, even overseas) General Order 1 does little to prevent soldiers from bumping uglies. Soldiers will be soldiers. In the case of gays, I think most have the good sense to respect the boundaries of their straight counterparts. Sure, there will be deviants, but the same is true of straight soldiers as well, isn't it? And there are systems in place to punish deviant behavior in the military.

Yes soldiers will be soldiers. And deviants are not unique to any gender or sexual orientation. There is the system to punish the behavior. But there is also a way to cut down on it as well. With straights it's gender segregation, since gays cannot be segregated it's DADT.

I should note I think it's pretty ridicules to discharge a troop based on the policy in many cases. I have known gay service members,who were as good as any other, who had understanding supervisors take them aside and emphasis the policy rather then take it up the chain.

I also think it becomes less of an issue the further one advances in the service.(at least in the airforce)You gain more privacy as you advance.Barracks in basic - 3 in a dorm room for tech school - single dorm room at duty station- base housing or apartment after hitting senior airman

But the MTIs and MTLs (aka drill instructors) have more then enough to worry about. I believe it would make their job that much harder if DADT was dropped. It would require an extra amount supervision, same as if basic/ tech school living conditions were made co-ed.

I agree a more progressive approach could be used. DADT could be treated like alcohol use in the Phase program (don't, know what the army called it). DADT could be followed throughout basic, tech school, phase 2 training, but dropped once they get privacy at their first duty station. (Don't know how to work out deployments) But i think many (on both sides of the issue) would see this as an opening to rescind the policy altogether so many gays would complain that they have to wait to be open and it's unfair, while many DADT supporters would complain it will lead to the death of the policy and be unwilling to compromise.

However in many situations, basic and tech school especially, allowing gays to be open is the equivalent of tossing men and women in together. It don't mean something will happen, but now it can.

[unixknight]

I'm not a member of the military so I may be speaking out of turn here, but there's a sort of pattern I've noticed in the last few posts and I think it is interesting because it may be indicative of the effect the mass media has had on even those who typically disagree with it.

Why do men and women generally have separate facilities? Is it to protect the men or the women?

Most people will agree that it's more to protect the privacy of the women than the men. So when we talk about integrating facilities in a co-ed arrangement we're typically going to look more closely on how it impacts the women, and we're more concerned with their comfort than the guys'.

Which is fine. It's because of behavioral differences between men and women. I have no problem with that.

But now let's look at the current topic: Homosexuals and Heterosexuals. When we talk about integrating them and our focus is on privacy, whose privacy would we be worried about?

The heterosexuals. We know the straight guys aren't going to be peeking at the gay guys. It's the reverse scenario that is of concern. (I know we also need to worry about anti-gay violence, but I'm keeping that separate at the moment.)

And yet not much has been said about that in his thread. Just as women have a reasonable expectation of privacy from members of the opposite sex, do straight men not have a similar right to this expectation? (under reasonable circumstances. Obviously there will be conditions where such considerations need to be put aside for everybody.)

Now, I'm not vain enough to presume that if I'm in a locker room with a homosexual that he's going to be checking me out, and frankly if one did I'd probably be more flattered than angry, but not everybody feels the same way. Some people do feel threatened by that idea and I don't think that's so unreasonable. Shouldn't straight men have the right to expect the same level of privacy that we accord to women?

I don't know the answer to that and that isn't the point anyway. My point is to bring everybody's attention to the fact that this doesn't seem to be much of a factor. Why is that?

I think it's because we've been trained, on some level, to disregard that argument as being just a knee-jerk reaction by paranoid (or insecure) straight men. We've been taught that the idea of a homosexual being interested in looking at the men surrounding him is preposterous.

But is it really?

I like to think of myself as a moral man in reasonably good control of myself but I'd be lying if I told you I'd absolutely not notice undressed females in the same locker room as me. And in no way am I unique in that. Are we to believe now that homosexual men are somehow magically more moral or exercise better self control than their heterosexual brethren?

Watch what happens if you try and argue that point to the people who are the subject of the OP.

[Guest]

Interested to know how you deal with openly gay men in a submarine.

[annamaureen]

Vaguely related to gender segregation in the military... I believe studies have been done that in a war zone, when the infantry is mixed men and women, the men will become distracted and often make attempts to "protect" the female soldiers.

Edited October 15, 2009 by annamaureen