Teapublicans Jeer Gay Soldier

fife wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I think homosexuals should be able to be out and in the military. I think there are at least a few Republican candidates who agree with this stance. Trying to label the entire party based on one segment, is actually "stupid".

Regardless, on the priority list of things that should be discussed during the Presidential debate, this is pretty damn low.

so you believe that something called equal rights is not a high priority for a presidential debate. I can't imagine a higher one.

Well, first, the economy, for instance, impacts our entire country. That's more important. Then there's about 100 other things.

Second, I'd say the topic impacts less 5% of our population.

Third, it's not really about equal rights. It's about a moral equivalency. Here's why: Don't Ask Don't Tell could be applied to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. That would mean they are still being treated equally. They both are not saying anything about that stuff. Am I for this? No. But, is it because of equal rights? Nope.

Let me ask you, do you think it's not "equal" for a military woman to have to shower with military men? Why?

To me, gay rights is about a strive for moral equivalency in the end. The irony, of course, is you can never really get there. People have their own views of right and wrong. What Bob thinks is ok and fine, might make Mary not comfortable. As a society, we can debate these things, but my thinking is the government should just get out of the judging right and wrong all together. That's why I'm fine with gays in the military. Let the military units handle it. So, get the government out.

inlet13 wrote:

fife wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I think homosexuals should be able to be out and in the military. I think there are at least a few Republican candidates who agree with this stance. Trying to label the entire party based on one segment, is actually "stupid".

Regardless, on the priority list of things that should be discussed during the Presidential debate, this is pretty damn low.

so you believe that something called equal rights is not a high priority for a presidential debate. I can't imagine a higher one.

Well, first, the economy, for instance, impacts our entire country. That's more important. Then there's about 100 other things.

Second, I'd say the topic impacts less 5% of our population.

Third, it's not really about equal rights. It's about a moral equivalency. Here's why: Don't Ask Don't Tell could be applied to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. That would mean they are still being treated equally. They both are not saying anything about that stuff. Am I for this? No. But, is it because of equal rights? Nope.

Let me ask you, do you think it's not "equal" for a military woman to have to shower with military men? Why?

To me, gay rights is about a strive for moral equivalency in the end. The irony, of course, is you can never really get there. People have their own views of right and wrong. What Bob thinks is ok and fine, might make Mary not comfortable. As a society, we can debate these things, but my thinking is the government should just get out of the judging right and wrong all together. That's why I'm fine with gays in the military. Let the military units handle it. So, get the government out.

first off, equal rights effects the whole country too. i'm reminded of that old story about how ...

"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me"

second off i don't agree that it is a moral equivalency. while yes the same rule can be apply to both heterosexual and homosexual people lets be honest with ourselves its not. my cousin was in the army in the states and he would tell me that yes while people didn't ask him if he was "straight" comments from upper management assume that he was.

3rd, you know that your question about woman and men shower together is crap and has nothing to do with equal rights. a fair analogy would be if would it be OK for woman to have to pretend to be men to join the army.

sorry one last thing. the government should be involved in the military. the president is the leader. no government should ever place any laws that make people less equal in their country.

norm wrote:

did any of the "candidates" denounce the booing?

no?


well there ya go

and that right there is the point.

OH SNAP!!!





woot

he still stands wrote:

so why don't you just call yourself a Libertarian?

edit; regardless of who hijacked who, the Tea Party now is full of fascists who want to tell me how to live my personal life. If that's not your view then why associate yourself with them?

Because everyone I personally know who values the Tea Party is loving and kind. I don't go to rallies or crap like that, so I just know what I observe within the range of my eyeballs and ears. I don't see the things that are reported on this board or by the media by their unruly fascist and racist behavior.

If I have to make a distinction based on media report or my eyeballs, I prefer to go with the judgement of my eyeballs.

Also, I don't consider myself a "member" of the Tea Party or Libertarian movement. I appreciate the mantra of both organizations, but in the end I'm just some dude trying avoid letting the government rape me out of my money and freedom.

pjhawks wrote:

PJ51390 wrote:

Yeah right!!!! How is all that hope and change working out for you now???

The bottom line is we need something better in Washinton than we have now. Call them tea baggers, what ever you want, just know- we willl NEVER be able to spend our way out of what we are in now.

The key to it all is spend less and smaller government. Socialism does NOT work!

'
thanks for proving my point above

Good call, pjhawks! I'm not even sure what that post had do do with the current thread. :crazy: