Lets here this issue out. Put it up for an up or down vote with no strings attached.

Which the politicians don't want to do, as then they would have no safety net for their vote. They will be too accountable.

An adulterous affair involves necessarily involves the betrayal of trust that directly harms a third person. Homosexual conduct does not.
When the issue was segregation in the military, Truman did not fuck around with Congress and its Southern states rights racists. He showed true leadership and issued Executive Order 9981 ending it.

FairwoodKing;492549 wrote:I agree that the Dems botched this. It is still disconcerting that every fucking Repub voted against it.

Quite a few repubs have openly said they would vote for it after the military review AND if it was its own bill. The problem was the dems tried to sneak it on a defense spending bill as an amendment right before the elections as a political tool "see, the repubs hate gays" will be their cry from now until November.

I'm sorry, but even as someone who would like to see it repealed, the democrats completely used the gay community here as a political tool because they KNEW it would never get passed this way.

FairwoodKing;492397 wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gays_military

Our right to be in the military was denied to us yet again. If I could afford it, I would move to Canada.

FairwoodKing;492549 wrote:I agree that the Dems botched this. It is still disconcerting that every fucking Repub voted against it.

FK,

It is your own mindset, and those who share it, that holds you back to the level of anxiety and frustration that you feel. On several different levels. And you purposely do it with the conscious choice to constantly look at the "R" and "D" of things.

Period.

As people have already said: the dems should not have tried to backdoor this vote and there would have still be dems to vote no, even it the vote stood alone.

The politicians in power, especially on this issue, absolutely rely on people like YOU, stuck in the mindset of years ago, to manipulate YOUR emotions and voting patterns.
YOU have displayed this behavior to classroom example in your own words a few times on this board (not just this thread).

Have you ever considered the possibility to demand more from your own political party (dems, obviously) to straighten their asses up?

The answer, I think, is an automatic "no", because the first thing you do in (in post #486) is point the finger at the republicans. You do admit that the dems botched things, but in the same breath you couldn't resist the pull to look at the "R" and "D" of things and blame the republicans.
The reality is, you will always be left wanting with a mindset like that. And you will also never see improvement with the democratic party because you do exactly what they expect from you.

Enabler:

Results
one that enables another to achieve an end especially one who enables another to persist in self-destructive behavior (as substance abuse) by providing excuses or by making it possible to avoid the consequences of such behavior

Dictionary results for "enabler"

Where is the thread on Heterosexual Pride?

Mr. 300;492743 wrote:We'll start up a collection to send your ass up there!! Then you'd be off my dime

I'm not on your dime. I have always paid my own way. I have made a contribution to American society through my work and writings. It seems to me that this country owes me something. I was terrified to come out of the closet until I was 30. This is not the way America should be.

majorspark;493036 wrote:Here is what you don't understand. You have a man yelling in your face preaching honor and loyalty to your country. Sacrifice your own life for your fellow soldiers and countrymen. Then you find out he is having an adulterous affair with the supply clerk. Loyalty? Honor? Kiss my ass.

What? Who is saying that it should be okay for dudes in the military to have sex with each other? Just like you're not allowed to bone the military women gay men won't be allowed to have sex with the men.

Now for the good news:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/us/22legal.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fpolitics%2Findex.jsonp

Yes, we have made great strides over the past 40 years and we will continue to do so. It's too late for me but it's not too late for today's young people. Unless they're Mormon or something like that, today's gay teenages and 20-somethings feel very comfortable about coming out. Most major companies have sexual orientation as part of their non-discrimination policy even if their state laws don't demand it. Many of today's younger gays and lesbians regularly refer to themselves as "queer," something that was unheard of in my day.

Despite yesterday's setback, things are looking brighter for us.

majorspark;493036 wrote:Here is what you don't understand. You have a man yelling in your face preaching honor and loyalty to your country. Sacrifice your own life for your fellow soldiers and countrymen. Then you find out he is having an adulterous affair with the supply clerk. Loyalty? Honor? Kiss my ass.

Lets say that 10% of the armed forces would stumble over openly gay individuals serving in the military. Whether it is wrong or right is not the issue. The issue is does it affect the order an discipline in the ranks. That alone is what matters. That is what the military is struggling to determine. Obama to his credit is not forcing this political issue down the military's throat. He has been advised of the reality of the situation and from what I see is proceeding accordingly.

Once again a slam dunk. Precisely the reason for "don't ask, don't tell."

QuakerOats;493165 wrote:Where is the thread on Heterosexual Pride?

Oh we have it on OC to be sure. Try the less than "serious business" forum under the threads "boobs" http://www.ohiochatter.com/forum/threads/15-boobs and "booty" http://www.ohiochatter.com/forum/threads/16461-Booty.

FairwoodKing;493620 wrote:Now for the good news:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/us/22legal.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fpolitics%2Findex.jsonp

Yes, we have made great strides over the past 40 years and we will continue to do so. It's too late for me but it's not too late for today's young people. Unless they're Mormon or something like that, today's gay teenages and 20-somethings feel very comfortable about coming out. Most major companies have sexual orientation as part of their non-discrimination policy even if their state laws don't demand it. Many of today's younger gays and lesbians regularly refer to themselves as "queer," something that was unheard of in my day.

Despite yesterday's setback, things are looking brighter for us.

So can I call you queer or is this like the "N" word and only black people can say it?

Yes, you can call me queer. I personally don't like the term, but it is in common use among younger gays and lesbians. In fact the acronym LGBT (lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender) now is LGBTQ with the word "queer" added.

Richard Nixon said it the best: Only two type of people can ruin the USA. Communists and Queers.

Art Modell;493927 wrote:Richard Nixon said it the best:

I am not a crook!

FairwoodKing;493593 wrote:It seems to me that this country owes me something.

Oh come on...the liberal mantra...this country owes nobody anything.

Maybe those who served in the military and a few other exceptions, but the country owes you nothing because you worked at one point, did some writings, and felt like you couldn't come out of the closet.

Art Modell;493927 wrote:Richard Nixon said it the best: Only two type of people can ruin the USA. Communists and Queers.

Nixon himself did a pretty good job of ruining the country. I hope he is rotting in hell where he belongs.

Nixon didn't ruin the country. For a country to be ruined there would have to be no ability to return to viability.

You tend to exaggerate things a bit much.

Obama may ruin it but not Nixon.

Art Modell;493927 wrote:Richard Nixon said it the best: Only two type of people can ruin the USA. Communists and Queers.

WhaT about pedophiles?

Figured you would show up when you saw queer.

You were here first so...yeah, good one.

There are still a lot of sick bastards out there that attack us. Here is just another example:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100929/us_yblog_upshot/state-attorney-launches-bizarre-internet-war-on-openly-gay-college-student

How does that dude still have a job?

That dude is stalking, period.

Straight people get harrassed like that too.

Yeah, but not because they're straight.

No pants, people get harrassed and/or stalked everyday for a variety of reasons, not just being gay or straight.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could always pick and choose whatever topic people get harrassed/attacked for?

This guy in the article is (yes) getting attacke for being gay. While somewhere else a woman is getting attacked for breaking up with her b/f. Somebody else is getting attacked for gossip, someone else is getting attacked for being black, while another is getting attacked (and/or harrassed and stalked) for being a republican at a democrat rally.

This stuff happens all the time and all the people attacked are victims of somebody else for a specific reason.

Which group is more victimized? Should there be a winner/loser category?