BRADLEY MANNING: POSTER BOY FOR 'DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL'

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Give over, Dave

[alienlovechild 75]

Give over, Dave

What's that mean Mr. Freudian Slip?

Give up or bend over?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What's that mean Mr. Freudian Slip?

Give up or bend over?

Do whatever you like, Dave.

None of this changes the fact that you've expressed some extremely odious opinions in this thread that indicate an underlying homophobia and prejudice against gay people.

Sorry mate, I'm not buying any of your BS.

[alienlovechild 75]

Do whatever you like, Dave.

None of this changes the fact that you've expressed some extremely odious opinions in this thread that indicate an underlying homophobia and prejudice against gay people.

Sorry mate, I'm not buying any of your BS.

Does that mean you aren't going to the new Jim Carrey movie? C'mon be a pal and give me your review because I'm too much of a homophobe to see it in the movie theater.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Remember - you read it here first.

Not every gay soldier in the military is a great guy who wants to serve his country. They've got their share of losers and Manning will probably enjoy some aspects of prison life

Your statement only makes sense if a gay guy being raped is as bad as it is for a straight guy. The violent bit could be unpleasant but not as much stigma for gays.

Hopefully, Brad gets the Dahmer treatment so any sex outside of necrophilia will be out of the question.

I'll concede your greater knowledge on the dynamics of prison sex and for once I won't ask how or where you acquired that insight.

You really believe there's no difference in stigma for a straight guy to be raped than a gay guy. You would tell everyone in and out of prison you were raped?

Remember it's only on Ron Burgundy's word that consensual gay sex doesn't exist in prison. Now you're all his "bitches" parroting that line. How appropriate.

It will be for Manning. His cell will be the one with the disco ball.

Might be different in Leavenworth since it's a military prison. As we both know there's no gay sex in the military or prison so why there be any in a military prison?

[Danno 1,228]

Since sexuality will no longer be an issue....Soon the hassle of setting up two segregated shower rooms will over.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Danno

[scandal 951]

What I'm saying is that rape is assault. A vicious, violent, personal assault.

Regardless of whether the victim is male, female, young, old, straight, gay, purple or tangerine - it's a vicious and violent assault. To even think that you can generalize its effects by group and claim that a victim of one group doesn't "mind" it as much as another is as preposterous as to claim that one group doesn't "mind" having their house burned down by an arsonist, or being mugged, or being murdered, or being the victim of any other violent crime.

You really believe there's no difference in stigma for a straight guy to be raped than a gay guy. You would tell everyone in and out of prison you were raped?

Remember it's only on Ron Burgundy's word that consensual gay sex doesn't exist in prison. Now you're all his "bitches" parroting that line. How appropriate.

1. I entirely stand by my post and my views, and remain amazed that you don't see fit to condemn the crime of rape regardless of who the victim is. The law, thankfully, sees it my way, not your way. Sexual assault perpetrated against a woman dressed in revealing clothing is a crime. Sexual assault by a husband against his wife is a crime. Not that long ago, our legal system didn't recognize the concept of a husband raping his wife, and would discount rape when the victim wore a miniskirt to the disco. We've come to realize that crime is crime, and to suggest otherwise is despicable, frankly.

Sexual assault against ANYONE - male/female, straight/gay, young/old, black/white, known to each other/strangers, in conjunction with another crime (robbery, B&E, carjacking, etc.) or not -- all of these things are crimes seen equally under the law. Aggravating circumstances of course will make the penalty more severe, but we don't have a legal concept of "oh he's gay, he likes it, so it's not a big deal". How about you tell me why that is, rather than the other way around?

2. I said nothing about prison, nothing about whether consensual sex does or doesn't exist between anyone in prison. I have no opinion on the subject, and don't see how it has any bearing at all on what I was saying about the crime of sexual assault. I am nobody's "######", do not know this "Ron Burgundy" character you are referring to, and am parroting no one. I'm extending you the courtesy of treating you as an individual, not a follower of the "pack" I see here who hold similar views to yours. Maybe you'd like to do the same?

I've had interchanges with you on other topics that made me think you can be a respectful person with views worth listening to. Now, I'm not so sure.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's pretty sad that grown men can be so irrationally hateful of homosexuals.

[Danno 1,228]

It's pretty sad that grown men can be so irrationally hateful of homosexuals.

Just one time come up with something original.... this talking points ####### is really getting Old Dude.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You girls can continue your food fight but I will point out that the ONLY reason Gays cannot serve openly in the military is because BARACK OBAMA will not issue an EXECUTIVE ORDER to change it. He can...he doesn't.

I would think that both the people that support Obama and those that oppose him would notice that.

In other words, Obama and Danno agree on this issue.

[scandal 951]

Ah, VJ, the Internet's favorite repository of misinformation, half-truths, obfuscation, and total all out flat bold whoppers.

Just this little matter of US Law, i.e. Legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the sitting President are the law of the land. Unless and until, that is, such legislation is repealed by further acts of Congress, or the US Supreme Court rules that the provisions of the law are unconstitutional. As of now, a lower federal court has ruled DADT unconstitutional, but SCOTUS has not addressed the matter. Hence it is US Law. Here is the history of its passage:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h103-2401

H.R.2401 (103rd Congress) -- National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994,

Passed House Sep 29, 1993

Passed Senate Oct 6, 1993

Differences Resolved Nov 15, 1993

Signed by President Nov 30, 1993

This was omnibus legislation for all Defense related legislation of that fiscal year, of which DADT was a part (Section 574).

I've enclosed the relevant text of the legislation below. I highlighted in bold the portions in which Congress clearly stakes out its constitutional prerogative regarding the composition of the Armed Forces. Given that, and given that this is US Law, how exactly does a President simply wipe it away with a penstroke on an Executive Order? Hmmm? We do have a little thing called the Separation of Powers in this country. Congress is a coequal branch to the Executive.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c103:6:./temp/~c103p3MGI5:e312680:

SEC. 574. POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) CODIFICATION- (1) Chapter 37 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

`(a) FINDINGS- Congress makes the following findings:

`(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

`(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

`(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.

`(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

`(5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.

`(6) Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.

`(7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members.

`(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that--

`(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and

`(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

`(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member's life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.

`(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.

`(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.

`(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.

`(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.

`(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces' high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

`(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

`(b) POLICY- A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:

`(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that--

`(A) such conduct is a departure from the member's usual and customary behavior;

`(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;

`© such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;

`(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member's continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and

`(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

`(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.

`(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

[alienlovechild 75]

1. I entirely stand by my post and my views, and remain amazed that you don't see fit to condemn the crime of rape regardless of who the victim is. The law, thankfully, sees it my way, not your way. Sexual assault perpetrated against a woman dressed in revealing clothing is a crime. Sexual assault by a husband against his wife is a crime. Not that long ago, our legal system didn't recognize the concept of a husband raping his wife, and would discount rape when the victim wore a miniskirt to the disco. We've come to realize that crime is crime, and to suggest otherwise is despicable, frankly.

Sexual assault against ANYONE - male/female, straight/gay, young/old, black/white, known to each other/strangers, in conjunction with another crime (robbery, B&E, carjacking, etc.) or not -- all of these things are crimes seen equally under the law. Aggravating circumstances of course will make the penalty more severe, but we don't have a legal concept of "oh he's gay, he likes it, so it's not a big deal". How about you tell me why that is, rather than the other way around?

2. I said nothing about prison, nothing about whether consensual sex does or doesn't exist between anyone in prison. I have no opinion on the subject, and don't see how it has any bearing at all on what I was saying about the crime of sexual assault. I am nobody's "######", do not know this "Ron Burgundy" character you are referring to, and am parroting no one. I'm extending you the courtesy of treating you as an individual, not a follower of the "pack" I see here who hold similar views to yours. Maybe you'd like to do the same?

I've had interchanges with you on other topics that made me think you can be a respectful person with views worth listening to. Now, I'm not so sure.

1. The law runs the prisons and they aren't very pleasant places. For a variety of reasons, we tolerate or simply cannot stop violent acts in prisons (or outside prisons for that matter). If we must have violence in prisons, let it fall on Manning. I could care less what happens to that guy. The rape part wasn't my main point anyway. That was RBs extrapolation. Ok, to be graphic is there a difference between a woman shoving forcing a ####### up your azz and a man inserting his ####### your butt? None, except I might to the admit the former happened but I'd be less willing to admit the latter happened. The difference is called a social stimga but perhaps it's all the same to you but not me. The law treats it the same but I'd have a different reaction.

2. That was my main point and if you didn't understand it by now you'll never figure it out so if you had no opinion you should have stopped right there. I don't have the ability answer all so I lumped all posters of the same camp into one for expediency since you had no differences and still haven't expressed any. If you want to lump my views with someone else's I have no problem distinguishing myself where needed. I may agree with parts and differ on others.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

1. The law runs the prisons and they aren't very pleasant places. For a variety of reasons, we tolerate or simply cannot stop violent acts in prisons (or outside prisons for that matter). If we must have violence in prisons, let it fall on Manning. I could care less what happens to that guy. The rape part wasn't my main point anyway. That was RBs extrapolation. Ok, to be graphic is there a difference between a woman shoving forcing a ####### up your azz and a man inserting his ####### your butt? None, except I might to the admit the former happened but I'd be less willing to admit the latter happened. The difference is called a social stimga but perhaps it's all the same to you but not me. The law treats it the same but I'd have a different reaction.

2. That was my main point and if you didn't understand it by now you'll never figure it out so if you had no opinion you should have stopped right there. I don't have the ability answer all so I lumped all posters of the same camp into one for expediency since you had no differences and still haven't expressed any. If you want to lump my views with someone else's I have no problem distinguishing myself where needed. I may agree with parts and differ on others.

Dave, unless you seriously believe that prison is some sort of gay holiday camp - you had no point except that you feel a gay man being #######-raped in jail is somehow poetic justice.

Some pretty ugly sentiments there. What did gays ever do to you to deserve such vitriol?

Edited December 13, 2010 by Ron Burgundy

[Simmy 3]

Homophobes are insecure about their own sexuality. Often they can't get their own woman, are insecure about their body size, looks, ####### size, etc. Not always, but often, as we know, homophobes are actually gay but deeply in the closet because they are surrounded by machoism. These are all varied. But always, homophobia comes down to insecurity with one's own sexuality. It is usually so deep that the homophobe is unaware of the root of their hatred and will deny these points vehemently.

It is not uncommon to see homophobia aligned with a misinformed patriotism in this way. It's a 50s mentality.

The use of ridicule is also very symptomatic of the homophobe.

Especially now as public opinion has shifted on homosexuality in general, the people that hold on to homophobic beliefs feel evermore isolated and are liable to lash out with false logic. In this case the poor logic is embedded in unintelligent witticisms, as if to lend credence to the logic.

In other words, there's nothing really unusual here. Just sad.

Simmy

ps. email overload. unsubscribing.

[alienlovechild 75]

Homophobes are insecure about their own sexuality. Often they can't get their own woman, are insecure about their body size, looks, ####### size, etc. Not always, but often, as we know, homophobes are actually gay but deeply in the closet because they are surrounded by machoism. These are all varied. But always, homophobia comes down to insecurity with one's own sexuality. It is usually so deep that the homophobe is unaware of the root of their hatred and will deny these points vehemently.

It is not uncommon to see homophobia aligned with a misinformed patriotism in this way. It's a 50s mentality.

The use of ridicule is also very symptomatic of the homophobe.

Especially now as public opinion has shifted on homosexuality in general, the people that hold on to homophobic beliefs feel evermore isolated and are liable to lash out with false logic. In this case the poor logic is embedded in unintelligent witticisms, as if to lend credence to the logic.

In other words, there's nothing really unusual here. Just sad.

Simmy

ps. email overload. unsubscribing.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.