Support Our Troops

Yes.

Some of our best friends I served with came out to me and my first wife years after our tours of duty.

Our response was pretty much: "yeah.. and.."

It wasn't like we didn't know.

Most of our service men and women will have no problem.

The hate groups that have made their way into the command structure with a holey book in one hand, a gun in the other and small mind to run them will have the problems.

The idea is so simple in nature, one would think it should be a given. However, it isn't.

Even the United States military establishment should have realized by now "One Size Does Not Fit All." Just leave them be.

'Nuff said, Woody

I bet everybody is just chompin at the bit to hear my take on this one. I'm gonna let this sizzle for a bit.

If you are a true libertarian, Larry, you would be in favor of repealing this civil rights abomination.

The basic premise of libertarian philosophy is that each individual should be free to do as he or she pleases so long as he or she does not harm others. In the libertarian view, societies and governments infringe on individual liberties whenever they tax wealth, create penalties for victimless crimes, or otherwise attempt to control or regulate individual conduct which harms or benefits no one except the individual who engages in it.

The ban on homosexuals serving in the military is an obvious violation of basic libertarian principles.

A "true" Libertarian believes the Federal Government should only be involved in Safety, Security and Infrastructure. With that being said which side of the fence do you think I will throw my hat? I'd be interrested to here what Scott, Rolando, Alprova, Canary and Nucanuck have to say on the topic.

Pardon me for saying, Larry, but do you really think we're THAT curious about where you stand on this issue?

That being said, if you're not for liberty (in this case, the equal right of gay Americans), you shouldn't call yourself a Libertarian.

Now, back to the cartoon...

Thank you, Clay... for this cartoon, and the numerous others you've drawn on gay rights. Your vigilant support for the equality of ALL Americans in admirable.

Toolfan, I would assume that you value my opinion as much as I value yours. That being said, don't lecture me on liberty.

Good one, Clay!

I'm very excited about this repeal. I served in the Army and have friends in all branches of the service. I've known several military personnel who are homosexual and they are better Soldiers, Marines, Sailors and Airmen than some of their heterosexual counterparts.

In this case, life-style choice does NOT make the Protector of our national freedoms. It shouldn't be an issue.

I've been just following along for the last few days for some of the recent cartoons. To say the least, it's been interesting.

DADT was put in place originally to protect homosexuals in the military, with then President Clinton citing abuses to service members because of their known sexual orientation. It was to prevent any rifts in unit moral, cohesion, etc. Now it's a civil rights abomination if it's not repealed? Wasn't original purpose to protect the "civil rights" these individuals?

Homosexuals should (and do) have the freedom of choice of whether or not to serve in the military. If certain laws are or are not required to protect that, then so be it. I could care less if the law is repealed or not. Frankly, this is being made more of an issue than it is in actuality.

Larry, apparently you don't have the "liberty" to consider yourself a libertarian. For what it's worth, I'm interested to see your opinion, although it appears your opinion has already been judged before you can even state one.

aces25 states, "Homosexuals should (and do) have the freedom of choice of whether or not to serve in the military."

Gays and lesbians cannot serve in the military if their sexual orientation become known, so there is no choice.

aces goes on to say, "I could care less if the law is repealed or not. Frankly, this is being made more of an issue than it is in actuality."

Would you care more if African Americans were being barred from military service? Would you be alarmed if Jewish Americans were restricted from joining the armed forces? If you find those restrictions unacceptable than the ban on gay soldiers, then it is the victim of the policy and not the issue itself that you find so unworthy of your concern.

Ace, you make some excellent points. This isn't as black and white as people are trying to make it. I'm leaning toward supporting the repeal because I don't care what other people do in the bedroom. As a libertarian I do think people should have the right to do what ever they want as long as it doesn't hurt or harm anyone else. I don't think their is enough evidence to show that allowing homosexuals to serve would jeopardize our national security. On the other hand I really get ticked when people compare the "gay rights movement" to the civil rights movement in the 1950's. Their is no question as to whether or not someone can choose their skin color. Their is some question on whether or not someones sexual preference is a choice.
DADT will be overturned and this time next year their will be openly homosexual men and women serving in the military. I have no doubt about that. I just have one question. What will the shower arrangements be in the barracks?

ctfpfan08-

I'm glad you support the repeal of this discriminatory law. I would take exception to your characterization of homosexuality as a "life-style choice". Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is not a choice, it is a preference.

eeeeks hatred of anything Christian spilled over when he stated "The hate groups that have made their way into the command structure with a holey book in one hand, a gun in the other and small mind to run them will have the problems."

I would point eeek to the long tradition (including today's) of Military Officers, Generals and Presidents who have thought it best to either not allow gays to serve or, when it was allowed, to keep the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy in place (including Pres. Clinton). All these armchair critics who don't have to direct huge contingents of soldiers seem to think they know what's best for our Military.

Ollie furthered the debate with "The ban on homosexuals serving in the military is an obvious violation of basic libertarian principles."

I'll let larrythelibertarian answer to that one re: libertarian principles. But Ollie needs to re-word that statement. The military does not "ban" gays, they allow them and look the other way as long as no gay makes a big deal out of being gay. Neither should hetereos make a big deal of being hetereo.

I know of and don't agree with any kind of abuse against any group in the military or civilian life, including gays. Gays, as citizens of the US, have a right to serve their country, as long as they qualify for service, but like any other citizen-soldier who acts up or harms another, they should also be subject to discharge or military discipline. No false cries of discrimination or handling with kid gloves, like the Ft. Hood Muslim mass murderer, because of political correctness (proven abuse is another story).

Hetereosexual soldiers should not and don't want to be distracted by homosexual soldiers and that has happened too. In WWII, my uncle had to share a bunk with another male soldier, who in the night..tried to get a wee bit too cozy, to put it mildly. This has happened in many places and under many circumstances, nothing new. On a battlefront, it is unacceptable, with either sex. This is probably why a great number of male soldiers are uneasy about women fighting in combat with them also. It's distracting and when women get pregnant (as is happening in the military today), they have to go home, their unit loses backup, it decreases morale, etc. Women are great in many capacities and as long as they keep the job in mind and focus, no problem. But humans being human, I don't see our fighting forces today as disciplined and as focused as they were in past wars. There are far too many crazy things happening with today's troops that are troubling.

Right now, our country faces huge challenges and threats, both on the battlefront and at home. The last thing Americans need is for some to be pushing another agenda on this country that it can ill afford. As long as gays do the job they are sworn to do in the military and focus on doing that and not weakening or distracting the units they are assigned to, I have no problem with them serving our country and serving it well. My last thought is we will see how this all plays out in the long run and how well it will work out.

canary states, " The military does not "ban" gays, they allow them and look the other way as long as no gay makes a big deal out of being gay. Neither should hetereos make a big deal of being hetereo."

Nobody wants to make a 'big deal' about being gay, they just don't want a raw deal should their orientation becomes known.

Currently, the military ABSOLUTELY does ban gays from its ranks. They no longer ask you directly, but, if it becomes public knowledge that you're gay- you're out! End of story.

By the way, if someone's heterosexuality is exposed, they're fine. That seems to me to be the very definition of inequality.

Give it a rest Ollie, you're nitpicking. We all get it.

Technically and legally, there is NO BAN. Homos and Hetereos aren't in the military to make a deal about their sexual orientation or about SEX. My posts were balanced and looked at both sides. Did it occur to you that military leaders are in a difficult position when they try to protect both Homo and Hetereo soldiers from hurting each other?

Ollie, it's not a law it's a policy. Their are some questions as to whether or not the homosexual lifestyle is a choice. For example, their have been prisoners who lived very happy hetero lifestyles, while in prison turned to homesexual behavior, were released from prison and then went back to a hetero lifestyle. Was that a choice? Their are countless examples that favor either argument.

OllieH, you are nitpicking with those words, "choice or preference". Either way, Homosexuality is a choice. Heterosexuality is what comes naturally.

Skin colors or races can not be changed. Choices can change.

Aces and Canary make the most sense here. For gays protection this should not be repealed.

OllieH is absolutely right about the term 'choice' versus 'orientation'. And before even one more person uses the unfortunate 'choice' misrepresentation, let me make one point.

If it is a choice, why would anyone choose to be gay? What would they gain? Alienation? Intimidation? Abuse? Prejudice?

Being gay has made me a target of physical and emotional abuse. It has lost me friendship and cost me a relationship with my father. I have been fired from jobs, and been denied apartments. It lead me to feelings of isolation, loneliness and depression, all the time being told that people like me were either immoral, perverted, or just plain 'broken'. All in all, it has not been a pleasant experience.

The only choice that was involved in my lifestyle, was the one to come out of the closet, to live my life openly and be true to myself. Homosexuality is my orientation. Honesty was my choice.

toonfan states "Gays and lesbians cannot serve in the military if their sexual orientation become known, so there is no choice."

Key words, "...if their sexual orientation become known...". Whether you agree with it or not, the Executive Order as issued by Clinton was originally intended to protect homosexuals who wanted to serve in the military. By having a mandatory nondisclosure, the attempt was eliminate issues, tensions, etc that might arise. If someone who is a homosexual really, really, wants to serve in the military, they simply don't disclose their sexual orientation.

Thank you for twisting the words in my post. I could argue the semantics as much as you would like, but take a step back and read the post for what it is: I am not overly concerned if the law is repealed or not. There are bigger issues on the plate of lawmakers I'd rather see them focus on.

It really isn't a case of choice or preference!

Surely it has been proved that homosexuals have no choice or preference.

However, the state of being bi-sexual, attracted to both men and women, enters the situation. This could be the reason for choices or preferences, such as those in a prison or the military.

No one has addressed the bi-sexual problem here!

toonfan, your point is about as appropriate as a murderer saying that it was his "orientation" to kill someone because he could not stop his feelings.

I am truly sorry for the abuse you have suffered regarding your choices. Mistreatment of a person like yourself is wrong in itself.

Here’s a quote by the man who would have been a great president; the last true republican and certainly the most libertarian candidate of the two major parties in the past hundred years.

"You don't need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight."

For Goldwater's complete statement, go here.

http://tiny.cc/6AzL1

You're actually using 'Prison sex' as proof of 'choice', Larry?!

That's the lamest argument I've ever heard. There is no choice in prison. If you're stranded on a desert island, a coconut will start to look pretty sexy after a week or two.

You folks really don't have a clue, do you? When did you 'chose' to become heterosexuals? What's that- you didn't choose? Then why it is so difficult for you to accept that homosexuals might have come by their sexual orientation just as naturally as you did?

nurseforjustice stated, "toonfan, your point is about as appropriate as a murderer saying that it was his "orientation" to kill someone because he could not stop his feelings."

So you're equating being gay to being a murderer? Excuse me if a take some offense at that.

nurseforjustice continues, "I am truly sorry for the abuse you have suffered regarding your choices. Mistreatment of a person like yourself is wrong in itself."

You're sorry about my mistreatment, but you don't want to do anything about it, right? I don't want your pity. I want justice.

toonfan, notwithstanding your horrible experiences and not wanting to make light of anyone's abuse, there are homosexuals, as heterosexuals who choose the sexual lifestyle primarily. San Fran's lively S&M community can testify to that.

I have known gays and lesbians who chose the lifestyle or 'orientation' because they were horribly abused by one parent or both. I have also known some who chose homosexuality because of the sex. They turned from hetero to homo for that reason alone. Another point is that most of us, if not all have experienced discrimination of one sort or another. Because of sex orientation, gender, age, color, race or religion. It's all bad and all wrong. Sadly it is the nature of the beast, Life on earth. Re: the military experience, I am very concerned that there will be problems, including abuse of homosexuals if they choose to "come out of the closet".

I don't care if someone is gay. I don't care whether it's a choice (free will) or orientation from conception. It doesn't matter to me.

I do care about how that person treats me and others. That's my value judgment for a person's morality.

I believe the comparison I made is very valid. I did not have to chose heterosexuality because it is the natural order of existence. Life cannot be sustained without it.

As for justice, I believe I pointed out that their actions were wrong. There are laws in place to keep that from happening. Justice will be served in the end since everyone has to give an account to God at that time.

Clara, homosexuality has not been proven to be anything but a "choice or preference". There have been attempts to link it to dna with no real proof.

I look forward to the day when this discussion is no longer a current topic. We have come along way since DADT,I suspect that ten years from now,we will reflect back and wonder why all the fuss.

Harry..yours is the most valid point I have read, and to that I add..Amen!!

Woody

Bi-Sexuals are the only ones who make choices or have preferances for the opportunity at hand.

Heterosexuals and Homosexuals have one natural orientation.

I'm afraid I had trouble making myself clear!

Ollie, I'd like to take up the "sexy coconut" issue with you, but this isn't the time or the place. Suffice it to say not everyone needs or wants a coconut-in or out of prison.

Clara, I'm just curious why you are so adamant about sexual orientation and bisexuals, hetero and homosexuals? The bisexuals I've talked with are extremely confused and either very sad or hyper-sexual (underlying issues?).

I'm aware of the studies out there, pro and con re: DNA, natural tendencies, gay penguins in the arctic, the homosexual man in San Fran who had an embryo implanted behind his abdominal wall, etc. It seems to be that nature (as the Lord created it), does delineate the bodily orifices and what they are supposed to be used for. Just ask a proctologist, esp. in high-risk, highly Gay-active areas of the country what 'issues' and physical 'problems' his patients have. They ain't nature and they ain't pretty.**

As we speak, the Darwinists are probably attempting to find another 'transitional' link or species to disprove the Creationists on the gender/orientation issue. Curious to see how that will play out.

Disclosure: If you are prone to faint or even faint of heart, read no further

Canary you are eloquent in speech.

Canary,

You might find this URL intersting.

http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9591/9591.intro.php

Your mention of S and M's is interesting. These people are in an entirely different category of psychiatric definition, although there are certainly homosexuals and heterosexuals and another whole spectrum of people that engage in the practice, and, inarguably, "sick."

What I am expressing is the belief that the sexual expression in any form of homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual sex, as long as it is consensual, and a true expression of attachment and love, cannot be wrong. Love, in any form, DOES NOT HURT.

Does anyone else feel like getting naked and starting the revolution?

Canary cranked up with: "I have known gays and lesbians who chose the lifestyle or 'orientation' because they were horribly abused by one parent or both."

And yet, there are millions of homosexuals who came from loving homes, including those who think they raised their children to be anything but gay.

"I have also known some who chose homosexuality because of the sex. They turned from hetero to homo for that reason alone."

Do tell. Are there skeletons lingering in YOUR closet?

"Re: the military experience, I am very concerned that there will be problems, including abuse of homosexuals if they choose to "come out of the closet"."

And if there were, and idiots decide to act violently towards someone simply because they let their preferences be known to others, that would be considered to be assault, attempted murder, or murder in the first degree, depending on how far one's objections are taken.

The simple answer to any concerns is to enforce laws that are in place and on the books as we speak. Sexual harassment laws can simply be expanded to those serving in the military. Unwanted, proven advances should be prosecuted to letter of the law.

I seriously doubt that there would be very many gay folks who would be subjected to such complaints. Most of the people who worry themselves silly over the issue are not exactly known to be targets of desire to begin with.

Clara wrote: "What I am expressing is the belief that the sexual expression in any form of homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual sex, as long as it is consensual, and a true expression of attachment and love, cannot be wrong. Love, in any form, DOES NOT HURT".

Respectfully, that is your opinion, just as some of the above posts disagreed and voiced their opinions. I read your link re: the Kinsey report on human sexuality. I'm familiar with the Kinseys from the sixties and the adulation of followers they enjoyed. You need to do an objective search on their background because they definitely had an agenda, a 'bent' if you will. Many of their subjects had sex with them in those free-wheeling years-hardly an objective study. That said, we should never shy away from discussing the pros and cons of any issue before us in our society. It is part of reality for both heteros and homos. (note: I see I went a little overboard with the eo's on my other posts-sorry).

This is the problem we're up against in this society. Yes there are honest, decent people of all persuasions. Yet, let's not forget it's not all roses and Sunnybrook Farm here. I mentioned Gay-active areas of the country and S/M for a reason. Let's use San Fran as an example because it has the largest population of Gays and the most public displays of homosexual behavior. What other city in America can you witness heteros displaying themselves on the street in full daylight, in front of families and kids, like the nude men and transsexuals dressed in full leather did, riding on floats and copulating in full view of the hapless populace on a sunny San Francisco day (I lost my heart in San Francisco? No, You lost your mind dear)? Or bursting into Catholic churches during Mass, dressed as garish nuns and demonic looking nutcases, demanding communion? Yes, I read (and have read) many studies, many agendas, many politically-correct 'discourses'. It's all wearying and alot of gibberish as dear Rolando is fond of saying.

Sometimes, in life the simpler, the better. When the Lord Himself has provided simple observations of nature to get to the truth of things, then I'm going to choose His explanation. What folks choose to do with their lifestyle is none of my business, unless it becomes a dictatorial agenda intended to change America or hurt America's children (such as NAMBLA does). Other than that, Justice and the seat of Judgement awaits us, that's about all I can say at the end of the day.

The Twisted perverted Progressive mind speaks again and reads into what is not there. I guess the ones who visit perverted websites and pass themselves off as one persuasion or another will always attempt to 'advise' the rest of us. And take our words out of context. Oh well, Justice and truth will out re: the military issue, I have no doubt.

Larry: 6:55 pm. I'm still laughing and cannot stop..Larry, you're killing us...

To all those who think that being gay is a choice, consider the issue for a moment.

If you readily accept the notion that it is a choice to be gay, then being straight is also a choice. It cannot be any other way, if that is what you truly believe.

You no more sat down at the tender age of twelve or thirteen and had an in-depth conversation with yourself about which way you were going to lean, or to make a conscience decision as to where you were going to float your dingy. What you found to be attractive evolved over time and it remains pretty doggone constant throughout one's life.

I'm betting that most of you who are adamantly opposed to homosexuals would never consider same-gender encounters, and most gay people are not interested in checking out opposite-gender encounters.

So why is it so easy to believe that just because people may differ from you, that it is a choice? It's an illogical thought process to think that people choose to be attracted to what turns them on.

I've used this analogy before, but even among straight men, you'll not find ten men in a room that are all attracted to the same things when it comes to a female. There are sometimes stark differences in what excites them. For some, it may be the color of a woman's hair. It may be that what is above the waist that charges their ions. Others may lose all self-control and become prone to buying expensive cars for women who have large bottoms.

You don't choose what makes you drool like a baby.

It just is.

good lord, why should anybody care who somebody else likes to screw

Canary wrote: "The Twisted perverted Progressive mind speaks again and reads into what is not there. I guess the ones who visit perverted websites and pass themselves off as one persuasion or another will always attempt to 'advise' the rest of us."

You know, for a man who has been caught with his pants down so many times for abject dishonesty, and who finds it necessary to proclaim his religious proclivities over and over for whatever reason there may be, you seem to have an extensive knowledge of the seedier sections of San Francisco, and what allegedly goes on there.

What's up with that?

My personal interest in the site is focused on newsworthy items and the occasional interesting, but quite innocuous conversation. I also like the site for the simple fact that news hits the site 48 hours before you see it make it's way to more mainstream outlets.

You're not fooling anyone. You're as transparent as glass.

Now please...go back to wagging your puppy tail, running from person to person, trying to get petted on your little puppy head, and try not to wee wee on the carpet if someone strokes your ego a little for pity's sake.

Clara wrote: "What I am expressing is the belief that the sexual expression in any form of homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual sex, as long as it is consensual, and a true expression of attachment and love, cannot be wrong. Love, in any form, DOES NOT HURT."

Very well said Clara.

Military service is about a denial of individuality and an allegiance to the unit. If homosexuality benefits that paradigm and can help units complete missions then I am all for it. If it is a detriment to good order and discipline then it should be eliminated from the ranks.

The military is not the place for egalitarianism. Soldiers are not equal. They are not equally valued. They are not equally useful. Decisions about the functionality of the armed forces should be influenced by experienced military leaders, not sophomore policy wonks in a new administration, not political cartoonists and certainly not by local pharisees behind the pulpit.

Military decisions are of the life and death variety. Whether Private Johnny is offended by a gay squad leader is of no consequence to me. Likewise, if Private Johnny is court marshalled for eyeing Private Peter, I'll lose no sleep. When generals debate strategy we win. When politicians debate strategy we lose.

harrystatel, great quote.

Clay, I was hoping you’d weigh in on this.

To those who have expressed concerns for soldiers' safety, I don’t think repealing DADT is going to result in gay soldiers yelling out their sexual orientation from the rooftops. In a population that (I assume) consists largely of young, conservative Alpha males, I’d expect the majority of gay soldiers to keep mum on the subject, as they do now, if they feel those around them will be intolerant or unfair.

What will change, and what MUST change, is the fact that the military will no longer be able to discharge soldiers based solely on their sexual orientation. Being gay has nothing to do with performance, physical or mental health, or ability to serve. An anonymous email “outing” a gay soldier can result in that soldier’s discharge, even if he has an exemplary record. How does that make sense?

The military doesn’t just defend our country, it represents us. How can we be an example of democracy and tolerance in the world when we discriminate against our own soldiers?

Repubs may be stuck on this one. They have to oppose everything the President does, and now they have to oppose our military leaders as well. Let the spin begin.

Canary,

You didn't even read the report. You stopped at "Kinsey Report" and had a frenetic outbreak. The Kinsey Report, according to the study was put together in the late 40's and early 50's.

The article describes a book and its contents.

I think you are afraid to read it because it might change your outlook.

I'm sorry you're so disturbed by the "problem"?

"Support Our Troops." Used early in the invasion and occupation of Iraq as a counter to the growing anti-war movement, this patriotic slogan has since undergone a metamorphosis. As the scores of mentally disturbed soldiers return from the battle fields to their home-towns and try to re-integrate into society, their friends and families are learning that no amount of support can ever heal the psychological wounds that soldiers suffer. I invite you to my political discussion blog: http://pltcldscsn.blogspot.com/. I especially like to receive comments from those who disagree with me…

Humphrey wrote: "good lord, why should anybody care who somebody else likes to screw"

That is the question of the millennium.

Wrong Clara, don't you be assuming things like some of your comrades here have a bad habit of doing. I read the whole thing, mind-numbing as it was. As I said before, I'm much familiar with the Kinsey research. Doing reams of it for 4 decades and 4 years of university, I think I'm at least a bit qualified re: the art of research and am able to discern between truths and non-truths on my own, thanks very much.

Note: The Twisted little Alpie mind speaks again and lies again. Ho Hum.

Canary,

There you go again!

I wish I could do something to releive your fears.

Your defense mechanisms are working overtime.

Clara, there I go again, what? You accused me of not reading the article and misread or ignored the rest of my post. How old do you think I am? I started doing research in the sixties, which is what I meant. It was then that the Kinsey Reports were made much ado about (nothing). My fears? I fear no one or nothing except the Living God of Israel. And that fear includes the magnitude of His wrath and pure awe at who He is and what He has accomplished.

Canary wrote: "My fears? I fear no one or nothing except the Living God of Israel. And that fear includes the magnitude of His wrath and pure awe at who He is and what He has accomplished."

I fear religious fanatics whether Taliban, Jihadists, Nation of Islam, Scientologists, Puritans, Christians, and all the other goof-balls who claim to know God's will.

Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Jim Jones, The sleazy PTL Club, The Phelps Klan, just to name a few of those good "Christians".

Snake-oil salesmen and huckster lawyers should take notes from these purveyors of putrid propaganda.

It that's your idea of God, that's your privilege to believe such trash.

No wonder there's more agnostics and atheists everyday. Robert Ingersoll was right!

You're one sick honcho Harry. I'm sorry you have so many fears. That's probably reason enough for you to believe in Him rather than huddling with the other sick minds who post here and there. Robert Ingersoll can't save you from yourself, now can he?

harrystatel, congratulations on beating me to posting the Goldwater quote about being straight vs. shooting straight. That was the first thing I thought of when I saw this cartoon. If gays in the military wasn't a problem for "Mr. Conservative" then it sure isn't a problem with me.

If someone is being paid with my tax dollars, whether it is to protect me, educate my children, sweep the streets, or whatever, then the only thing I care about is whether or not they do their job well and behave professionally while on duty. What they do on their own time and their own dime is their business ... not mine, and not anyone else's either.

If a soldier/sailor/airman/marine can do his (or her) job well, whether it is toting an M-16, flying an F-16, translating Arabic documents, or requisitioning supplies, what the hell does it matter who they sleep with when they go off duty? It matters not at all, that's what.

Canary says.."You're one sick honcho Harry. I'm sorry you have so many fears".

Excuse me, but the very basis of most ALL major religions is based on fear. Fear of death, fear of "hell", fear of daring to question teachings that are illogical, fear of thinking for yourself.

Count me as one of those "sick minds who post here and there". If you choose to seek comfort in your invisible friend, more power to you. You have ranted on here numerous times about a person thinking for himself. I guess that includes everything except daring to question a belief in an invisible friend.

As for myself, I still lean towards the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I am not sure if it is a Him as you propose that your deity is a "him". His image has been spotted in numerous locations including a piece of toast, a weathered tree, and a puddle of oil. There is also a video, (link below), of him/her/it.

The FSM gives me comfort as I am sure your friend does also.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL7Fcv...

Those are Catholic imaginings hotdig. Catholicism is man's doctrine mixed in with Roman pagan beliefs. I follow no organized 'religion' like your nasty Atheism or mere human doctrine. Your ignorance betrays you. My beliefs and those of the early Believers have nothing to do with your pitiful human fears. I stand by my faith because I know He is real. In fact He is more real than you and your pathetic kind who have nothing decent to say most of time. You guys seem to get your 'thrills' by trashing some of us when you can't address the issues in a truthful, honest manner.

hotdiggity,

I think MY God is trying not to laugh at the SpMn but failing miserably and spewing his/her watered wine all over the place through his/her nose.

In any case, since I became aware of what they were pounding into my head since I was 3 yrs old, I finally understood. As a more mature person, I absorbed the fact that God, whom I beleive in, but do not know, (phrase extracted from the movie,"Rudy,") created all,even the multiverse and us and let us fend for ourselves.

God does not create the MISERY of this earth and the universes, but it sure helps to reach out for his/her comfort.

I'm sure you've said "OH GOD" several times in your life, even though you might not have been aware of it.

Anyway, I liked your pasta in any form. Who knows.

Harrystate, I too, bemoan what passes for some human preachers and priests. I say "OH GOD" a lot. for lots of reasons.

I'm not alone. I've heard lots of scientists express their belief. What's out there is too much for my and their comprehension. I could not envision him/her as a single entity.

Canary..as usual you continue to confound me with your posts that seem to insinuate you have some sort of monopoly on "truth".

What "ignorance" of mine are you referring to? Is my ignorance because I do not believe as you do and therefore am not as enlightened as you presume to be? Please explain what ignorance of mine you are referring to.

Why is Atheism "nasty". Your posts are continually filled with derogatory adjectives like "nasty", pitiful" "twisted" etc. to anyone who appears to differ or reject your beliefs or opinions. And that's just in this article.

“If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.” Elbert Hubbard -American editor, publisher and writer, 1856-1915

What "pitiful human fears" of mine are you referring to. I see nothing in my post stating any fears? Please, spare me any of your pity, I don't need it from you.

It appears you think that Atheism is a "religion". Hint: it's not a religion OR a belief. It is an absence of belief. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Unsure who you mean by "You guys" or your reference in regards to, "some of us". Perhaps you mean anyone who disagrees with you?

What the heck do you mean by "you can't address the issues in a truthful, honest manner". What issues are you referring to? Please be a little more specific.

The only "truth" that you have asserted is a belief in a deity. I would hope you know that there has been no "truth" shown as to the existence of any Deity, even my beloved Flying Spaghetti Monster. Surely you know the difference between truth and faith. But by all means, please expound on these truths you seem to think our "pathetic kind" are missing out on. So far, you continue to only make rambling assertions without anything rooted in "truth".

The best for last is your statement- "You guys seem to get your 'thrills' by trashing some of us". I can only say.. Oh My (insert your favorite deity)! Please go back and read your dozens of posts trashing people. Would you consider some of them as "trashing", as you accuse others.

I'm sure you remember the biblical verse about casting stones or removing the beam from your own eye. (Matthew 7:5). Perhaps you should take more time practicing your supposed beliefs, rather than denouncing others who disagree or are not as enlightened as you seem to think you are. There are many in history who disagree with your beliefs. Check the List of Quotes at http://www.positiveatheism.org/

Clare, nicely stated. Your posts, in my opinion, have always been clearly stated and fair. You strike me as a nice person and I have respect for your posts.

I will be honest as regards to religion. I begrudge no one for any belief they have that brings them comfort in this world, (including the FSM, LOL). This world and this life are hard enough without having some sort of core beliefs to sustain a person. I have strong core beliefs of fairness, compassion, and the dignity entitled to everyone. BUT, I do not feel I have to supplicate nor demean myself before any supposed deity I feel was created from man.

Nor do I feel I need to stand by without comment while other people attempt to bully another because that person does not share their belief and presume they have some special knowledge or "truth". We are currently at war with people who have this belief and history is littered with the carnage of these people with supposed superior beliefs.

Peace to you and thank you for your post which I enjoyed. BTW, in reference to saying "Oh My God", you will see a reference to that before I even read your post, LOL. Also, that term is a conditioned response of exclamation usually from childhood, no different than saying "dang" when you are disappointed.

A person brought up under the religion of Pastafarianism, (the belief in the FSM), would exclaim (Oh My Noodliness), LOL

Peace to you.

Every religious belief is irrational, except the one _ holds. (Fill in the blank with your own name.)

That one, of course, is divinely inspired and represents The Truth. All who doubt it are doomed to eternal punishment.

But what, "pray" tell, does any of that have to do with whether or not homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual Americans are qualified to serve in the military?

Sounds like we have someone in here who is discriminative because of someones beliefs! But, whatever you do, do NOT disagree with what he has to say! He will then slap you down and call you names! Hmm...This sounds a lot like the abusive people I learned about in Psychology! That's one thing that I wish did not exist...Discrimination. All it does is hurt everyone in the long run.

As far as my belief on gays in the military...It don't matter who you are...as long as you are trying to keep the US safe. I have a brother in the Army. He and his bi-sexual wife joined on the buddy system just after 9-11. They volunteered to go to Iraq twice, and soon to be a 3rd time. I don't see that she did any harm to anyone or anything with her sexual preference. She has fought just as hard as the heterosexual troops! I praise him & her, along with all of the other Military personnel for what they have done and tried to accomplish for our country! If the ppl who are against gays in the military are not comfortable with the decision, maybe you should join the military yourself and try to make the change..but, I don't think your opinion would matter, just like mine doesn't! All it is, is freedom of speech!

God Bless you all!

Mountain, I think the point of your post answers your own question. Some of the most vocal opposition to gays in the military has come from the very people your post talks about. Mainly, people who feel they are handed the "truth" and will deny their fellow man their, ummm, "God given rights".

I have always found it interesting that some of these same people go out of their way to insist that homosexuality is a choice, rather than biological. I wonder if they have ever seen farm animals, chimps, dogs, etc of the same sex attempting copulation. It is a fact that HS behavior is observed in a huge part of the animal kingdom.

Is this a choice by these animals? Nature? It is easy to see that across the animal kingdom there will be a certain percentage of animals who will have a predisposition to HS behavior. This percentage will not be large but will nonetheless represent a animal whose genes have predisposed it to that tendency, not a choice.

I see no reason to persecute nor deny a gay person any rights allowed to any other person. My point being that a certain percentage of our population will exhibit HS tendencies because nature has decreed it and hardwired it in the genes of a percentage of the population. It is a "normal" phenomenon across a large part of the animal kingdom.

Nurse, as to your post on Feb. 3, "Clara, homosexuality has not been proven to be anything but a "choice or preference".

With all due respect, what proof are you citing that would show that choice or preference is more likely than a biological determination. I stated in my last post that homosexual tendencies are seen throughout a wide range of animals. The very best that can be said is the jury is still out and neither side can be "proven" as yet.

That said, there IS proof of this behavior in nature even of animals who don't have the brain capacity to formulate "choice".

Not bashing you, just offering something for consideration.

Hotdiggity, I agree with you totally. I don't believe that being gay is a choice. I believe that somewhere it states that homosexuality is in the genes...which, last time I checked, choosing your genes are not an option!

Neither I nor anyone else knows with any certainty whether homosexuality is a choice or not. The one thing I do know is that I don't care. What two other adults choose to do, regardless of why they choose, is none of my business.

Canary wrote "It's distracting and when women get pregnant (as is happening in the military today), they have to go home, their unit loses backup, it decreases morale, etc. Women are great in many capacities and as long as they keep the job in mind and focus, no problem."

Maybe the men in the military need to be keeping the job in mind and focus, too.

I don't think that gays in the military are the problem. I think that it is SEX in the military that is. I've known many homosexuals that served our country. Why in the world would anyone think that gays are not as Patriotic as heterosexuals.

Humphrey, you are right on target.

It is always good to find that Canary has yet another bias to be added to his bigot list. Now it's Catholicism. Your ignorance never ceases to amaze.

I re-post my posts above for further proof of what I have stated over and over-the truth. The twisted, perverted Liars who posted above and elsewhere, are the ones full of hatred and bile. They are the sickest of the sick in our society. Evil, empty vessels, some pretending to be Christian, they twist every word we say and ignore the rest. Judgement awaits them, hopefully sooner rather than later. Whatever the case, their arrogant fall will be assured.

Those are Catholic imaginings hotdig. Catholicism is man's doctrine mixed in with Roman pagan beliefs. I follow no organized 'religion' like your nasty Atheism or mere human doctrine (No bias here, just stated the facts and many folks opinion re: the religion of atheism)

eeeeks hatred of anything Christian spilled over when he stated "The hate groups that have made their way into the command structure..." I would point eeek to the long tradition (including today's) of Military Officers, Generals and Presidents who have thought it best to either not allow gays to serve or, when it was allowed, to keep the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy in place (including Pres. Clinton). All these armchair critics who don't have to direct huge contingents of soldiers seem to think they know what's best for our Military.

I'll let larrythelibertarian answer to that one re: libertarian principles. But Ollie needs to re-word that statement. The military does not "ban" gays, they allow them and look the other way as long as no gay makes a big deal out of being gay. Neither should heteros make a big deal of being hetero.

I know of and don't agree with any kind of abuse against any group in the military or civilian life, including gays. Gays, as citizens of the US, have a right to serve their country, as long as they qualify for service, but like any other citizen-soldier who acts up or harms another, they should also be subject to discharge or military discipline. No false cries of discrimination or handling with kid gloves, like the Ft. Hood Muslim mass murderer, because of political correctness (proven abuse is another story).

On a battlefront, it is unacceptable, with either sex. This is probably why a great number of male soldiers are uneasy about women fighting in combat with them also. It's distracting and when women get pregnant (as is happening in the military today), they have to go home, their unit loses backup, it decreases morale, etc. Women are great in many capacities and as long as they keep the job in mind and focus, no problem. But humans being human, I don't see our fighting forces today as disciplined and as focused as they were in past wars. There are far too many crazy things happening with today's troops that are troubling.

Right now, our country faces huge challenges and threats, both on the battlefront and at home. The last thing Americans need is for some to be pushing another agenda on this country that it can ill afford. As long as gays do the job they are sworn to do in the military and focus on doing that and not weakening or distracting the units they are assigned to, I have no problem with them serving our country and serving it well. My last thought is we will see how this all plays out in the long run and how well it will work out.

Technically and legally, there is NO BAN. Homos and Heteros aren't in the military to make a deal about their sexual orientation or about SEX. My posts were balanced and looked at both sides. Did it occur to you that military leaders are in a difficult position when they try to protect both Homo and Hetero soldiers from hurting each other?

Sometimes, in life the simpler, the better. When the Lord Himself has provided simple observations of nature to get to the truth of things, then I'm going to choose His explanation. What folks choose to do with their lifestyle is none of my business, unless it becomes a dictatorial agenda intended to change America or hurt America's children (such as NAMBLA does). Other than that, Justice and the seat of Judgement awaits us, that's about all I can say at the end of the day.

The Lord God made us all.