Friday, July 25, 2008
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
3:19 PM
A blog post contribution by Faith Ammen who can be reached at FaithsFocus@gmail.com.
 "Just Bonkers" The Washington Post's coverage of Wednesday's Congressional hearing on gays in the military sanitized the liberal bullying and one-sided, pro-gay monologue I saw firsthand. I attended the hearing with the expectation it there would be genuine dialogue with witnesses and committee members engaging in honest debate. Apparently, that was too much to ask. Chairwoman Davis made it clear from her opening remarks that her mind was already made up that "many Americans who happen to be gay or lesbian want to answer our nation's call to service" and they could be the elixir for the current "strain" on our military. From the beginning Elaine Donnelly, one of two witnesses in support of the law's current stance on homosexuals in the military, was silenced by Congressmen and women who repeatedly asked her questions and then immediately "reclaimed" their time to continue their incessant rebukes. Mrs. Donnelly was portrayed by the members of the committee as an intolerant homophobe making exaggerations and "inappropriate" comments. Since when did bringing up the issue of HIV positivity in a discussion about homosexual behavior become "inappropriate"? If 2.8% of American men claim to be homosexual, yet account for 54% of the national AIDS cases, I think HIV positivity is a very relevant concern! (Statistics according to the HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report by the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention; vol.18, published 2008). The Washington Post's Dana Milbank criticized Mrs. Donnelly, the first woman to receive the Adm. John Henry Towers award from the New York Naval Aviation Commandery and NewsMax.com's "America's Most Heroic for 2000" award, using adjectives like "rage", "warned", and "ominously" to describe her comments. The comments Mrs. Donnelly made that did not make it into the article include the fact that President Clinton imposed "Don't Ask Don't Tell", an irrational policy that made it seem legitimate for gays to serve in the military when it currently is and always has been against the law. Milbank also ignored the question, "Why are we training people [homosexuals] who are ineligible according to the law?" and whether or not more military personal would leave than homosexuals would join if the law was revoked. Also overlooked was the fact that the number of people discharged because they are homosexual is the least amount of military discharges overall (discharges for pregnancy or weight are much higher). As a woman, the idea of being forced to share intimate quarters with other women who have openly homosexual desires is appalling. Sexual misconduct in these circumstances would be much less recognizable and reportable because the victim could be immediately be crushed by the banner of equal rights and tolerance. The law is what it is because of homosexual conduct—an unnatural, dead sex act that can never produce life. If Milbank and the committee members do not think the Uniform Code of Military Justice's view of homosexual behavior is legitimate, one needs only study basic anatomy. Overall, the bloated emphasis of emotionalism over facts in the hearing only reaffirmed my fear that if homosexuals are allowed to serve openly in the military, our soldiers will be burdened by endless sensitivity seminars and lectures on tolerance.
Few things in life are as reliable as Kevin's fascination with all things gay. We can always count on him to be the very first one to "come out" with an instant commentary.
Gays in the military? I think we have fatter fish to fry. |
|
In his zeal to "Christianize" America, George W. Bush fired all translators who specialized in Arabic -- because they were gay.
Therefore, on 9/11 there was a backlog of untranslated warning and threats that might have helped to prevent the attacks.
http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/002077.shtml
(Of course, a PDB didn't do too much, did it?) |
|
KMC didn't author this post...
Thought you might want to know this - because your moronic opening comment makes you look really silly... |
|
the CONTENT of what the post actually says. Like usual Goat and ExPat you have the talking points down nicely - but you fail to have any grasp of the actual argument. One - I might add - that you just got schooled on in what - three paragraphs by a lady who argued her position so tightly - your heads are still spinning...
Yes Ms. Faith's stuff is going to be a very nice addition to the MuscleHead blog INDEED! |
|
forward because its opponents will not state the obvious which is:
If everyone in the world chose not to engage in sodomy, the world would be a BETTER place.
If everyone in the world chose not to engage in coitus, the world would cease to exist.
Still the defiant same-sex sodomites and their syncophants argue that because the government do not treat same-sex sodomy and coitus the same, the same-sex sodomites are being discriminated against. That is irrational and stupid.
The government has a vested interest in coitus. The government has no interest in sodomy, same-sex or otherwise. |
|
Poor Eddie, another of the idiots who posts on this blog.
You might be surprised to learn that the law defines "sodomy" in a wide variety of ways which I am too polite to mention here, but many of which are practiced by heteros and homos alike in and out of marriage.
The ignorance of some people is just mind boggling.
KMC: are you claiming that my posting about the firing of Arabic-speaking translators by W based soley upon their sexual orientation is incorrect? |
|
You are the one confused. Perhaps your reading comprehension is still at a low level. Practice can help increase your comprehension. Try it.
I distinguished between sodomy and same-sex sodoomy in my post. Perhaps if you re-read it a few times, you will be able to comprehend it.
Now as to my point. Coitus has infinite value to society. Sodomy (same-sex or otherwise) has no value. To equate the two, is either stupid, ignorant or simply a disinformation tactic. Basically, based on behaviors, I vote that most of the supporters of equating coitus and marriage are stupid. |
|
Military personnel take an oath to obey, protect, and uphold the law. The law says it is illegal for homosexuals to serve in the military. Therefore any translators who were gay should not have received training in the first place. It's not the military's job to pander to individual preferences. The law says it is illegal and that's the rule they have to abide by.
And why are you under the impression that the only people who can translate Arabic are gay? I'm Lebanese and I can assure you that there are plenty of Arabic speakers who are not gay. |
|
the last sentence of my 11:20 am post should read:
"Basically, based on behaviors, I vote that most of the supporters of equating coitus and same-sex sodomy are stupid." |
|
"My Pet Goat" - considering what men do with their pet goats in the Middle East, I think that you should recuse yourself from any future postings regarding the topic of sodomy.
"Ex Pat" ("Poor Eddie, another of the idiots who posts on this blog") - I assume that you are including yourself as one of the "idiots" posting here!
Welcome to the family Faith! Thank you for faithfully reporting the truth of what happened at the Congressional hearing - I think this adds credence to why there needs to be an alternative to the MSM. Don't let those Ex-Pats get your Goat: they are only confused when confronted with the facts. Look forward to your future posts!
And KMC: You are a very wise man - with good taste! |
|
The postings just get more and more stupid, yet I can't seem to tear myself away. It is indeed a guilty pleasure!
1. I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I have a feeling that "My Pet Goat" is a slam at Bush, and not a comment about animal husbandry.
You might dare to research what our Failure-in-Chief chose as his reading material on the morning of 9/11 after being told of the attacks.
I think it is a brilliant screen name for an obvious "Bush-ophobe" to use on a web site which is so blatantly for and about "Bush-iphiles".
2. "Sodomy" is an equal opportunity term. Your term "same sex sodomy" is therefore an oxymoron and misses the point I think you are probably trying to make.
I am, however, too much of a gentleman to explain the literal and legal definition. Suffice it to say that my own 21-year happy marriage has benefitted from many diverse forms of sexual expression, some of which were, until Bowers v. Hardwick (2003), a crime in many states. I plan to continue such criminal activity as long as the good Lord and the good Wife see fit. |
|
What the point of the commenter above was...
Sodomy - while it may be a lot of fun to you and your sexual partner - truly does NOT produce anything.
No one said you couldn't engage in it. I personally don't care to know anything of your sexual habits.
Yet at the same time it is the BEHAVIOR of homosexuals that the U.S. Military Code of Conduct outlaws. The reason it does so is because of the adverse effect it projects upon the other troops. It does so because troops often are forced to bunk and shower in very close quarters.
And when George Washington once found a soldier attempting to exploit the close quarters during the American Revolution to attempt to sodomize another soldier, he literally "drummed him" out of service.
The behavior is objectionable to many - for a variety of reasons - some religious, some just personal taste, and some from common conscience. The point is not however why... And it doesn't matter what the why "is." Simply because it WILL have adverse effect on the fighting force alone is reason enough to not make the military the place for sexual experimentation...
They have enough on their minds defending our freedoms and thwarting terrorists from coming to kill us again... |
|
"Sodomy - while it may be a lot of fun to you and your sexual partner - truly does NOT produce anything."
All I can say is, as a wife who lost two babies prematurely, married people (men and women I mean), are no less in love, or married by God's standards than those who have one or a million.
That logic would make Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, for all their fertile-myrtle, married by default. (And we know they are famously, and flagrantly, unwed..)
While I -generally-agree with many or most of KMC's opinions, I diverge form a crowd that suggests marriage alone is for progeny.
It can happen..and so many times Spouses hope it would, but if it does not this is just the result of life, and humans in circumstance.
Husbands and Wives are a God thing, whether or not they are able to have kids.
The sad part is, not so much that loving couples can't have bigger families, but that some think they are shunning God in experiencing this.
I understand this author was not saying that.
Homosexuals looking to hijack marriage are even more insulting.
They seem to think that buying and opting for a 'guest' egg or sperm somehow makes them fit for club family and all is cool.
It is one in along line of insults which pridefully stray further and further from God's plan for humanity.
There is SO much that my holy union with my mate has produced, aside from babies in Heaven with God, I reduce the beauty by trying to put it into words.
And we never align ourselves with couples of varied persuasions who want to say they are 'married', just because they want a right to.
I can pine away for the right to be the Queen of France, but someone ensuring me that "right" won't make me queen. It will only make the one bestowing such rights confused and misguided for doing it.
|
|
Marriage is not exclusively for the creation of children...
BUT because children are a potential by-product OF marriage, society has legally recognized it as a relationship that has special importance to the future of society. |
|
I shared I understood the author, (you), was/were not saying this. My point was not with just the wording parse, I understand your context was about men and women, and a possible part of God's plan for marriage. I also understand that God's plan for marriage can mean children don't come, or parents outlive.
My point was about our experience, no one else.
I cannot speak for others here, or you.
Just recently in fact, I heard a local Christian radio station, not yours, air a group of pastors talking about rearing kids and progeny. The talk was between three men who had, maybe 12 kids between them. The inference in the show was that
child-rearing is the goal of marriage, and/or if Spouses don't seek this, they are off base with God's plan for living. (They implied this, I didn't)
To me it seemed kooky, and sad, really.
While I respect that the ideal hope, and not parse a goal, for many, or even most Christian, or for that matter non-Christian families, is to have kids, not everyone can do this. And my comment was a sharing of how unfortunate that fact is, that some define a family as parents, with kids, even if it is not possible for some people.
An added insult, besides the fact that most who have lost babies often have other children at home, so they really don't truly comprehend the concept of childless, is the group of fringe 'couples' who want to legitimize their couple-hood by suggesting they are like longtime married folks, (heterosexuals), who don't have offspring or have lost children.
No one who has at least one child living can truly comprehend the experience of a loving, devoted couple who remains childless in a world which prides itself on being able to spawn for the sake of spawning kin. ( Those concepts are legion, check out news stands to see what I mean.) Let alone the lawless and bedraggled way some raise them once they've got them birthed-in.
-continued next post :^) |
|
-And, my point was, the suggestion that -and some do really bring up long-wed heterosexual couples as their 'proof'-married mates without children are even remotely close to homosexual 'couples' is insulting the married couple, and doing a disservice to them, just by the example. Because nothing could be further from the truth.
Anyway, I can't say we are technically childless, as we had ours for a brief and fleeting season. But in the eyes of others, in a statistic, things that might not count the nuances of God, we are childless people. Though no one can ever realize how untrue this is, because we know they were real, and hope someday, once more, to see them.
I recognize what you were saying, about children often being a product 'OF" marriage, and I agree.
My distinction was about our own personal experience with hearing other stories, and-
They are just entirely different things..
*shwew*
Wow, I am leaving and actually had much more to say about that on here..
lol
Sorry that was long..:^)
cu
|
|
|