Posted on 09/23/2011 10:01:23 AM PDT by lbryce
Members of the conservative gay rights group GOProud are demanding an apology from Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum for what they call his disrespectful comments directed at a gay soldier in Thursday night's GOP presidential debate.
"Tonight, Rick Santorum disrespected our brave men and women in uniform, and he owes Stephen Hill, the gay soldier who asked him the question about Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal, an immediate apology," said GOProud's Christopher Barron and Jimmy LaSalvia in a Thursday night press release.
During the Fox News/Google-sponsored debate, which took place in Orlando, Florida, a gay soldier deployed in Iraq asked the candidates if they would take measures to "circumvent" the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," if elected president.
Some audience members audibly booed the soldier -- a moment the GOP candidates on stage chose to ignore.
GOProud also noted that Santorum, who answered the question, declined to thank the soldier for his service, and called the repeal of DADT "social experimentation" - and "tragic."
"I would say any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military," Santorum responded. "And the fact that they're making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to -- and removing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' I think tries to inject social policy into the military. And the military's job is to do one thing, and that is to defend our country."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Wow. I missed your pro-gay pity party the first time around. But hey. Thanks for brining it up again so I can barf.
Thanks a whole lot.
“Libertarian Conservative”. Might as well cliam to be a pro-islamic Jew. Or maybe a meat eating vegan.
See tagline.
You are talking about fiscal conservatives (can be as socially liberal on issues as Obama!!!) vs social conservatives (not liberal on fiscal or social issues).
Correction:Social Conservatives can also be as fiscally liberal as a Lefty liberal.
Either way a solid conservative will not support lefty liberal pro-regressive spending or “lifestyle” choices.
I did not say that those who are in the brig and all those who at one time served should not be booed.
Homosexuals do not propagate, a society that tolerates and celebrates homosexuality is engaging in self-murder. Moreover EVERY moral code of vibrant cultures that survived more than 100 years either makes public homosexuality the equivalent of murder or is otherwise fierce in outlawing such behavior. Healthy societies need that mortal taboo, so history tells us.
Yet you are yourself a moral scofflaw, a liar for repeating a bold propaganda lie by using the word "gay" to describe homosexuals who demand that the public call their moral failing a virtue!
And a liar again you are, for misstating my post to you. I'm asking YOU where YOUR "moral line in the sand" is.
Right on.
Does it ever occur to anyone that maybe the rest of us couldn't care less about what they do in private and that we wish they would just shut up?
If a female soldier had said,
"I'm really turned on by sex with married men. Always have been. Born that way, I guess! In fact, I can't do it any other way!
But the military's adultery and anti-fraternization policies force me to lie about who I am. I have to pretend that I don't want sex with married men and don't engage in sex with married men. This isn't cool. How am I supposed to hook up with married men if I can't let everyone know I'm available for those type of sex acts?
Are you going to repeal these policies so that I can engage in the kind of sex acts that I prefer, you know, because I prefer them? And otherwise I sort have to go without, you know what I mean? Like, sacrifice my own pleasure for, what, obeying the UCMJ? Get in the 21st century, people!
Oh, and please don't give me some crap about how my behavior impacts unit morale or combat readiness -- I think my sexual needs take priority over the needs of the service, anyway.
So, will you repeal these policies that put a damper on my sex life?"
-- would we be having this discussion?
IIRC, Hill said the canard that he “was forced to lie about who he was.”
That’s the way I saw it, watching it live.
In fact, as I’ve posted elsewhere, I — and perhaps the audience — at first thought the soldier was going to complain about the repeal of DADT and ask if the candidates would reinstate it! I took the booing that began as supporting (what seemed to be at first) the soldier’s critical view of the repeal.
Once it became clear that the soldier was on the other side of the issue, things got quiet.
Anyway. As I’ve said, I don’t think anyone should be booed for asking a question that they’ve been invited by the mods to ask in these debates. Just let the questions and answers roll out.
Under DADT he should have never been asked questions regarding his sexual orientation.
I don’t thank gays.
Gays aren’t there to serve, they are there to be gay.
I thank women for their service, but I’d be more appreciative if they served in all female commands and units.
We had 21 of 29 females aboard a cutter medievac off for pregnancy during an Antarctic cruise when they went coed.
Why should military wives have to worry about the morale gear on board a Navy ship?
CO gets left high and dry with an unfilled billet. Woman takes a shore billet some guy might have otherwise filled.
Makes no sense to me.
Female pilots? Sure, let’s train them at several million a copy and then have her get pregnant. Good plan.
This should be tattoo’d on congress people: “The military isn’t a social experiment. It’s there to protect the national security interests of the US.”
Now we are going to put them on subs. Gays are going to be there too. With all the berthing and head accommodations, where are you going to put the weapon systems? We can have Orions air drop canisters of cheeseburgers in hollowed out MK48’s for food. You can repurpose the galley to make extra room.
Makes no sense. At all. Ever.
William F. Buckley succinctly summarized the problem with most homosexuals. In reference to Gore Vidal, he said, “The man who in his essays proclaims the normalcy of his affliction, and in his art the desirability of it, is not to be confused with the man who bears his sorrow quietly. The addict is to be pitied and even respected, not the pusher.”
Today, homosexuals demand their behavior be regarded as normal when it clearly lies outside the bounds of natural human behavior. We should pity the troubled soul who bears his homosexual affliction with shame and sorrow. We should scorn those who impose on us and our children the dangerous lie that homosexuality is normal.
Of the bunch, I think he’s the most conservative on the basis of heartfelt, deeply held personal convictions. I’m starting to think Rick Perry and Mitt are the same person except Perry drops his g’s. In fact, I just sent him a few bucks. I’d like to see him make it interesting.
People, including some here on FR, are so clueless about how the homosexualist agenda is going to use the military to impose its agenda on ALL society.
CLUE! Let's talk about the decades-long litigation against the Boy Scouts of America, for example, where homosexualists are suing for the right to be openly gay scout masters.
Now let's say the homosexualist lawyers can go into court and say, Your Honor, how can this possibly be a problem when our own government has said it "makes the military STRONGER" [Adm. Mullen's despicable words] to have gays in foxholes and showers and hot racking with straights"?
Or let's say, as is going to happen very soon, homosexualists within the military militate for "married" benefits, joint travel orders, adoption assistance grants and, because this is all happening within the bowels of the bureaucracy controlled by Obama, these policy changes get approved.
Now homosexualist lawyers challenging state adoption laws, for example, go into court and argue, "Really, what's the problem - our own government is gladly supporting adoption by homosexual military members, and even subsidizing it?"
They will get their agenda imposed through the Left-controlled bureaucracy, then use it to try to change policy everywhere else, starting first in schools, private organizations and churches.
A worldview that puts “me, me, me” first — that everything in the world has to be changed to accomodate “me, me, me” — is simply logically inconsistent with conservatism.
It’s not going to go the distance together.
Answer what?
I said that I opposed the repeal of DADT.
And the reality of the situation is that there are gays who have served, do serve and will serve and there never was and never will be a procedure to keep all gays from serving.
However, I am not willing to boo the gay who served in Iraq or Afghanistan, I would not advocate scrapping the names of gays off the Vietnam Wall nor would I exhume the bodies of gays who are buried in our Veterans Cemeteries.
You may wish to do otherwise.
I won’t look it up, but if IIRC you said you would “never boo an American soldier.”
I knew what you meant, I think, and was simply pointing out that you probably didn’t mean “never.” And I certainly don’t say I would “never” boo an American soldier.
Who says he was?
All I am telling you is he said the canard that he “was forced to lie about who he was.”
He could have meant he didn’t feel free to wear a pink tutu to the NCO Club for all we know — whatever it was, he said he was “forced to lie.”
Also, I find it particularly immature and, yes, concerning that a grown man who has served in a war zone finds it so very difficult to just keep his private life to himself. Everyone knows the military already looks the other way so long as homosexuals are not causing too much trouble with their behavior. But acting as though it’s the worst burden in the world — just intolerable! — to not be able to parade your chosen sex acts to the world is just embarrassing.
I really started noticing Santorum for the first time last night.
I think that Perry is going to fade. Looking at that stage, it seems to me that then Santorum will be the guy best-positioned to KO Romney.
In every case I have a problem with homosexuals, it is where they insist their way of life is normal or desirable. As W.F. Buckley said, “The man who procalaims the normalcy of his affliction, and in his art the desirability of it, is not to be confused with the man who bears his sorrow quietly. The addict is to be pitied and even respected, not the pusher.”
Gay activists and gay-priders are “pushers”.
Answer what?
I said that I opposed the repeal of DADT.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Answer what??? You know very well what. The question was this:
Do you support gays serving openly in the military?
So. Let me re-phrase the question. Why - I don’t know. Because I do know you wont answer it - but here goes:
Do you support gays serving SECRETLY in the military?
In other words, should we ask - should they tell?
And please - no more Vietnam Wall analogies. Just answer the dam question.
Pretense isn’t a lie? Cheating isn’t lying? You don’t have to be under oath to lie. Hill’s sole protection is that U. S. law decriminalized his pretense, his absence of candor, his absence of honor, and—not to put too fine a point on it—his absence of any concept of “Nature’s Laws.”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.