That is, if you didn’t know that SLDN and other such “gay veteran” organizations are nothing but smokescreens for gay antimilitary bigotry, as so beautifully expressed herein.

Real veterans’ organizations do not tolerate this sort of defamation of veterans. The fact that SLDN does demonstrates that they are not one.

you said ‘You hear that? Gays say that serving in the armed forces and fighting terrorists is not good or heroic; instead, it’s “the destruction of current cultures at the hands of patriarchal, autocratic monsters”.’

Where do you go out on the weekends to get opinions like that? To some PETA meeting in Berkeley? I certainly don’t hear that from Gay people I know. Certainly not here in South Texas. And I know some very liberal people. Me thinks you may be cherry picking. And projecting really heavily.

The people supporting SLDN and their campaign of honesty are patriotic Americans, many of whom have served and continue to serve in our Armed Forces.

While I was certainly moved by the sacrifice that Alva and others have made in the armed forces, I couldn’t help but shake my head in utter bewilderment at this entire memorial. Twelve thousand people had dedicated a good portion of their lives to a homophobic institution that not only asked them to risk life and limb, but also asked them to perpetuate cycles of violence in an already violent world.

When I looked at all those stars-and-stripes planted in the ground, I wondered, “What if all these people had been working for world peace instead? What if every one of these unfairly discharged queer persons was planting gardens, feeding the homeless and saving vanishing habitats?”

And then they spit on those veterans’ service:

I really resonate with this sentiment. I don’t want anyone braving the madness of war to “fight for my freedom,” when that fight surrounds the colossal lie that is the Iraq war. We all know there wasn’t any reason to start this insanity other than the empire-clutching schemes of a tyrant and his equally despotic cohorts, so don’t feed me the line that you’re trying to protect me.

And the denouement of gays believe Eric Alva and other gay veterans should have done:

This is where queer people really needed to be — putting their efforts into changing the culture of tomorrow, not the destruction of current cultures at the hands of patriarchal, autocratic monsters.

You hear that? Gays say that serving in the armed forces and fighting terrorists is not good or heroic; instead, it’s “the destruction of current cultures at the hands of patriarchal, autocratic monsters”.

Now you would think that SLDN and its leftist puppets like Kerr would have something to say about someone who was saying that gay veterans were liars who weren’t protecting freedom, who were wasting their time, and who were nothing but brutal “monsters” destroying helpless peoples’ entire cultures.

That is, if you didn’t know that SLDN and other such “gay veteran” organizations are nothing but smokescreens for gay antimilitary bigotry, as so beautifully expressed herein.

For two simple reasons; the military doesn’t want it and there’s no compelling need to do it.

I figure they do enough for us that they deserve to be able to make their own decisions without being namecalled by gay liberals who don’t want to acknowledge antimilitary bigotry and public sex all being carried out in the name of homosexuality.

You claimed that it was antigay hate and completely wrong to say that the gay population was only in the single digit percent in the population.

Therefore, since you claim it’s not in the single digits and that to say so is antigay hate, you’re saying it’s in the double digits.

As opposed to a Sorocrat slate composed of…

1. A power-crazed senator who refuses to release the records from her White House years, plants questions in her Q&A’s, has hundreds of thousands in donations from busboys and waiters with no valid addresses, employs an impeached bribe-taker and influence peddler as her campaign co-chair and hired as a security advisor a guy who stole classified documents by stuffing them in his underwear

2. An affirmative-action hire who, as a senator who has not finished his first term, would not be taken seriously as a candidate except for the color of his skin and who further advocates sex ed for kindergartens, driver’s licenses for illegals, and military invasions of large, nuclear-armed countries one bullet away from Islamic revolution.

3. An ambulance-chasing metrosexual who was turned out of office after a single term, who rails against “the rich” while living in the largest home East of the Mississippi and who channels dead babies.

4. Two doddering socialist senators, long past their sell-by dates.

5. A clueless southwestern governor.

6. A communist dwarf who communicates with the space people.

To each his own clown car…

You and I will have to disagree. I think our front line soldiers know that they are serving with Gay men and women and can handle it. I still think that Hunter is implying that our troops are sissies that are scared of Gay people.

NDT, do you support a repeal of DADT now?

Little guy Northie replies in 86: “Yes, you do. You claim that it isn’t the numbers I cited, that it is in the double digits, and that you have scientific proof of it. Then you fail to provide it.”

KY: Do you have no honesty at all? “Double digits”? Linky please, or this becomes more proof of your complete dishonesty.

North-from-his-tiny-cube-over-there: “Furthermore, your ignorance of statistics and inability to correctly read or interpret them has been demonstrated quite nicely elsewhere.” Then, Northie links to his own dishonest comments in a different thread. That’s how he plays this game.

Hardly.

What Hunter was pointing out is that our military certainly deserves the right to not be forced to live with those who find them sexually gratifying and give them unwanted sexual attention. We don’t force women to live in the men’s barracks with people who find them sexually gratifying and give them unwanted sexual attention; furthermore, it is considered unfair, wrong, and harassment to place them in situations where they are forced to undress in front of those who might find them sexually attractive. Why, then, should straight men be forced to do it?

I’m more concerned by the fact that no GOP candidate can allow those who put their lives on the line to defend ‘freedom’ to have the basic freedom of honesty.

If they want that, they don’t have to serve. No one is forced to serve in the armed forces and no one is guaranteed the right to serve in the armed forces under their own conditions.

What you are arguing, Tom, is that gays should be exempt from following the rules because they’re gay. Since you argue that gays should be able to express themselves however they want and that anything less isn’t “honest”, then having sex in the showers would be permissible as “free expression of sexuality”.

Serving in the military is not a right.

Furthermore, since it isn’t a right, the military’s need to admit everyone is driven by degree of necessity for their services. In the case of Israel, their need for every available body outweighs everything else; furthermore, unlike liberal American gays, Israeli gays have an imperative to put their country’s needs ahead of their sexual needs, i.e. Palestinian terrorists a stone’s throw away who WILL kill them if they let down their guard or allow themselves to be distracted.

In short, the US armed forces don’t need gays, and there are far too many issues around it to bother.

Yes, you do. You claim that it isn’t the numbers I cited, that it is in the double digits, and that you have scientific proof of it.

Then you fail to provide it.

In your world of statistics, KY, people can present a perfectly logical, referenceable, and valid figure, and you can arbitrarily dismiss it as wrong without being able to present a single fact, proof, or piece of evidence of it.

That’s neither statistically or scientifically correct. Furthermore, your ignorance of statistics and inability to correctly read or interpret them has been demonstrated quite nicely elsewhere.

Tom, in 83 — Romney, yes. Total pandering fool. He’s night and day different from anything we ever knew of him before. Yet, he does provide a wonderful complement to the clown car that is the GOP field for ‘08. No wonder the GPs and other GOP partisans have been going nuts since their debate — they realize they’re stuck with this bunch the rest of the way.

Romney appears to be going with the ‘I’m going to go 100% anti-Gay’ route. I’m glad LCR ran the ad against him. I hope they do it again. He looked like a flip-flopping, pandering fool that didn’t have a basic grasp of the issue in question.

I’m more concerned by the fact that no GOP candidate can allow those who put their lives on the line to defend ‘freedom’ to have the basic freedom of honesty.

LOL