Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Rachel Maddow did an excellent job on Tuesday of documenting John McCain's blatant -- and politically convenient -- flip flop on Don't Ask Don't Tell. In 2006, McCain said:
The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to.
And then when the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff goes to Congress and says exactly that, he wigged out. And that's just the beginning.
And there's one simple reason why McCain is suddenly turning to the right on this issue -- because he's facing a primary challenge from the right by JD Hayworth. Does anyone really believe that John McCain gives a crap about gays in the military? His wife is doing ads in favor of same sex marriage, for crying out loud. He is not a religious righter and he's not an extremist on this. But now he has to pretend to be one to win reelection to the Senate.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | February 3, 2010 9:40 AM
JUST AS LEGALIZING GAY MARRIAGE WILL LEAD TO THE LEGALIZATION OF PEDOPHILIA, POLYGAMY AND BESTIALITY, SO WILL LEGALIZING GAYS IN THE MILITARY LEAD TO THE LEGALIZATION OF TATTOOS, BOOZE, AND NON-MARITAL SEX IN THE MILITARY!!! THE LOGIC OF THE GOOD SENATOR FROM GEORGIA IS INESCAPABLE!!! WE MUST AVOID THIS EVENTUALITY AT ALL COSTS, LEST IT COME TO PASS!!! IF OUR CHASTE, SOBER, UNINKED ARMED FORCES AREN'T WORTH PRESERVING, THEN WHAT IS???!!!
Posted by: FBI Regional Bureau Chief GORDON COLE!!! | February 3, 2010 9:47 AM
Something close to that has already happened. Remember when the President made a video for school kids encouraging them to stay in school and get an education? Right-wingers went ballistic. So, yeah--Republicans would indeed demonize mom and apple pie, if Obama came out in favor it them.
Posted by: gary l. day | February 3, 2010 9:49 AM
I have the impression the Republicans have a standing policy of opposing everything Obama tries to do, so they can turn around and accuse him of not being able to get things done.
ARE YOU NEW HERE???!!! ;-)
Posted by: FBI Regional Bureau Chief GORDON COLE!!! | February 3, 2010 9:50 AM
Motherhood... yeah, right... we all know that this is just a codeword for Obama supporting the Feminazi agenda! Does this suprise you??
As for apple orchard subsidies... well, don't get me started on that one, either!
lol
Posted by: doctorgoo | February 3, 2010 9:51 AM
So, yeah--Republicans would indeed demonize mom and apple pie, if Obama came out in favor it them.
WELL, PROMOTING APPLE PIE ***IS*** THE FIRST STEP DOWN THE ROAD TO MILITANT VEGANISM!!!
Posted by: FBI Regional Bureau Chief GORDON COLE!!! | February 3, 2010 9:53 AM
Listen Herod, we're all for moms and apple pie. We just think they should be a personal choice, not mandated by the government. Besides, who's going to pay for all those sweet apples and golden crusts? We the taxpayers, that's who. I don't want my taxes increased to pay for someone else's pies. Next thing you know the government will be cutting costs. They'll contract the task to the lowest bidder and you know what we'll have then? We'll be stuck with uniform substandard apple pies. Is that what you want, higher taxes for inferior apple pies?
Posted by: Abby Normal | February 3, 2010 9:56 AM
Why should gays in the military be the only people (besides John McCain) that John McCain cares about?
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | February 3, 2010 10:00 AM
While it is annoying that McCain has to resort to this, I'd much rather see him in the senate than his opponent.
Posted by: Jim | February 3, 2010 10:05 AM
"Gays too precious to risk in combat", says general:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/gays_too_precious_to_risk_in?utm_source=onion_rss_daily
Posted by: t_p_hamilton | February 3, 2010 10:07 AM
It would be nice if McCain had stood up for a principle on this. I realize it probably isn't on his top ten list of positions but pandering for the votes this crap will get him is like trying to sail a Hobie Cat with one drain plug out.
Posted by: MikeMa | February 3, 2010 10:09 AM
Please, fuck J.D. Hayworth. All McCain would have to say is that he is "supporting the wishes of the battlefield commanders, who unlike Mr. Hayworth, actually serve out great nation and know what the fuck they're talking about."
Or, shorter, "Mr. Hayworth, are you criticizing our men and women in uniform during a war? "
Posted by: History Punk | February 3, 2010 10:11 AM
What's REALLY pathetic is that none of this pandering is going to do John "get off my lawn(s)!" McCain any good with the far right -- they know their own, they know he's never been one of them, and there's no shortage of REAL and CONSISTENT know-nothing bigoted asshats they can support for any office in the US. Hell, they abandoned McCain even before he lost in 2008, and some of them were openly praying for him to win and then die, in that order. What kind of "war hero" continues to suck up to such evil little shits?
Pandering to the radical right has always been a losing proposition. Remember Steve Forbes? Bush Sr.? The fact that McCain doesn't seem to understand this, after so many years in politics, is, in itself, sufficient to prove him unfit for any Federal office.
Posted by: Raging Bee | February 3, 2010 10:16 AM
McCain's only motive for shooting his mouth off is to attract attention. That is his ONLY motive.
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | February 3, 2010 10:30 AM
I've said before (probably too many times) that if Obama officially announced that he likes puppies and rainbows, some wingnuts would accuse him of being inverse-racist towards kittens and of trying to push the gay agenda. Remember that big stink some people made about Obama's choice of mustard? They worked hard to earn the title "the party of NO".
Posted by: catgirl | February 3, 2010 10:34 AM
Yes, this is why many Republicans rant about "deficits as far as the eye can see" while opposing efforts to actually reduce the deficits. They want Obama to be a complete failure going into both the midterm elections and 2012.
Posted by: Dr X | February 3, 2010 10:50 AM
Ed:
Completely agreed that McCain's motives for this blatant flip-flop on DADT (e.g. election year), but what truly frosted me about his arrogance at yesterday's Senate hearing is how he openly berated Joint Chiefs Head Mike Mullin (a Navy admiral, no less) after repeating a zillion times in 2008 how much he admired those who serve their country.
McCain embarrassed himself badly yesterday, not to mention revealed how selective his personal character is.
What a whore.
Posted by: CHV | February 3, 2010 10:54 AM
Socializing American food production.
Posted by: Dr X | February 3, 2010 10:55 AM
I think this doesn't really matter at all. It's not like the vast majority of politicians separate running for office and governing. They are in a persistent state of campaigning, and so their policies that have a real world effect are still just reflections of what they feel is politically expedient.
Posted by: Jackson | February 3, 2010 11:00 AM
In 2006, McCain did not believe the leadership of the military would change their attitude on this in his lifetime.
Posted by: abb3w | February 3, 2010 11:25 AM
"This just in,,,
McCain is a poll-driven flip-flopper, In other news: water found to be wet!" - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | February 3, 2010 11:29 AM
Didn't Bush the Lesser say he wanted to "make the pie higher"?
Presumably, that was to keep the upper crust out of the reaches of the hard-core pipsqueaks of the Left.
Posted by: Amadan | February 3, 2010 11:53 AM
My favorite political blogger, Ioz (a real live...PRACTICING...homosexual) nails it:
"Gaze
I mean, rather than campaigning for the right to serve in the military, I am going to organize a gang of faggots to extend the right to be ineligible for military service to all of humanity."
:)
Posted by: Brian M | February 3, 2010 11:59 AM
To be fair to McCain, he could intend "leadership of the military" to be the top Military leadership, ie. the Bigwig Generals. However since I don't think a military general exists who wants to under-mind their command by calling for the repeal of DADT, it's a weasel argument.
Posted by: Tamarron | February 3, 2010 12:04 PM
THE LAST THING THAT THE PENTAGON NEEDS NOW IS TO EMULATE WHAT HAS BECOME OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE UNDER PIAPS!!!!
Posted by: AMERICAPHILE MINISTRIES | February 3, 2010 12:26 PM
Re: 24
Speaking for myself, allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do . . . I cannot help being troubled by the fact that we force young men and women to lie about whom they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. -- Admiral Mike Mullen, current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Ok, so the people with boats like to call their generals admirals. Close enough for me. :)
Posted by: Sean | February 3, 2010 12:48 PM
I don't know. Perhaps if there were fewer senators who believed that "comity" was the most important guiding principle of the Senate then it might get the shake up it so badly needs. It might just be worth the pain of having one side -- even the wrong side -- riding rough-shod over the decades of tradition that have so utterly bogged things down in that place.
Posted by: tacitus | February 3, 2010 12:59 PM
Posted by: Dave | February 3, 2010 1:06 PM
I wonder how long DADT would last if the draft was reinstated.
Posted by: Dr X | February 3, 2010 1:32 PM
As far as I know, the only place where women aren't allowed are submarines. And that policy's going to change in the near future.
Posted by: Brandon | February 3, 2010 1:40 PM
Weirdly enough, I don't know how the Air Force handles it. I should ask about that, it'd only take a minute...
Posted by: Rutee | February 3, 2010 2:33 PM
"As far as I know, the only place where women aren't allowed are submarines." --- Insert joke about seamen here ---
Posted by: Chilidog | February 3, 2010 3:15 PM
To give some context to how crazy this debate has become Barry Goldwater (yes, that Barry Goldwater)expressed support for gays in the military early in the Clinton administration. Barry Goldwater is the voice of sanity.
Posted by: katydid13 | February 3, 2010 4:00 PM
Well, McCain's always been like that. He's so bad he makes Barry Goldwater look like the best senator ever out of Arizona (well, I can't even remember how many senators Az had since Barry held the office for so long).
Let's see, it's not all that long ago that McCain was doing this:
"Oh, torture is horrible, we shouldn't do it. Blah blah blah, I'm a saint. Blah, blah blah, I'm a war hero. Blah blah blah, I have principles. I support Dubbyah 100%, Torture is Good."
Posted by: MadScientist | February 3, 2010 4:20 PM
Brandon@30 -- My understanding is Subs, Special Forces (for the Navy, thats SEALs), Infantry, Armor and Artillery (but thats not Navy) all prohibit the wimmins. And yes, as I mentioned, Adm Mullen supports allowing women to serve on Subs, as the the current CNO, so I would expect that women will get to serve on the boats soon, just like they now can serve on the ships.
As far as Infantry, Armor and Artillery, I suspect that an indirect consequence of our excursions into Messopotamia is an erosion of the idea that women cannot or should not serve in front-line positions, since there is no clear front-line and women are ending up in combat anyway.
Posted by: Dave | February 3, 2010 4:38 PM
If they're worried about unit cohesion, they should stock better lube. There's some really good synthetic stuff on the market now.
Posted by: Uncle Glenny | February 3, 2010 5:09 PM
Right, should have mentioned the SEALs.
The problem with submarines is that radiation can cause infertility in women. And there is no room for gender-specific facilities. And if a woman becomes pregnant, the fetus is screwed. Presumably if this policy is changed, any woman who joins a submarine crew will be made well aware of the risks.
As for the SEALs, well, there's a physical requirement that you just can't grade on a curve. If some exceptionally strong woman wants to join the SEALs, then it might spark a debate in the future.
Posted by: Brandon | February 3, 2010 5:24 PM
Err, just re-read my post @35, that should be, "as does the current CNO."
Posted by: Dave | February 3, 2010 5:32 PM
There's another old quote from McCain going around about how one of the reasons he was for DADT was because Colin Powell told him what a great policy it was.
Er, Powell just came out for scrapping DADT... how about that, John?
Posted by: toby | February 3, 2010 5:42 PM
It would be nice if McCain had stood up for a principle on this.
McCain has never stood up for a principle, why would he start now?
Posted by: QrazyQat | February 3, 2010 6:45 PM
What a maverick!
No, wait... that's not the word I'm looking for.
It rhymes with it though...
Posted by: Twewi | February 3, 2010 7:39 PM
Brandon - "...radiation can cause infertility in women..."
Just lucky US seamen have lead-coated testicles*. - Dingo
-------
* You remember testicles, Brandon. Those things that hang outside the body cavity and are covered by a thin layer of skin and fat, as oppossed to the ovaries than are inside the body cavity are are covered by a thick layer of skin, muscle and fat.
Testes produce sperm all the time, by repeated meiosis and mitosis, so no chance of a stray gamma ray causing a mutation there then!
Posted by: DingoJack | February 3, 2010 11:18 PM
DingoJack, stop making stupid assertions you can't back up. Seriously, you do this all the time and it's starting to get old. It's okay not to know everything, but stop talking about things you don't understand.
The radiation produced by most modern submarines kills sperm and eggs but otherwise does not do significant harm. The difference between men and women is that men can produce sperm after they leave the submarine. Women do not have the luxury of producing more eggs. Men and women are sterile after an extended period on the submarine, but women can be permanently sterilized.
Posted by: Brandon | February 4, 2010 12:00 AM
Shame on you guys, "everyone" knows that Obama and the "tax and spend" Democrats are bankrupting this country. Meanwhile the "cut taxes, borrow, then spend" Republicans are working hard to look out for the poor millionaires of this country. Sure they aren't even billionaires yet, but how will they get there without reduced taxes, reduced regulation, and increased government subsidies?
Posted by: ausador | February 4, 2010 12:16 AM
John McCain = lying fuck bag. What else need we know?
Posted by: democommie | February 4, 2010 1:02 AM
Brandon - Radiation can damage the germ cells too, without these cells no sperm can be produced, leading to infertility.
Also, rediation exposure to the testes can cause testicular cancer, in order to prevent metastases, orchidectomy is the usual solution. This creates hormonal deficiencies and reduces the amount of sperm produced, sometimes leading to infertility.
Your implication that only women are affected by radition doses to the gonads is false.
(Sadly) I know a few dentists, also radiograhphers and those working around nuclear reactors, the males all cover their nuts when there's radiation around. Submariners take a calculated risk for the rest of us (theoretically) - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | February 4, 2010 1:46 AM
The amount of radiation produced by the interior of a submarine is enough to kill individual sperm but not enough to cause testicular cancer. There was a big stink about this like thirty years ago. And yes, the men are protecting their gonads.
Posted by: Brandon | February 4, 2010 9:24 AM
The really sad part about McCain's flip-flop is that his own Congressional Chief of Staff is openly gay, and in a registered domestic partnership (and soon with the option to upgrade to marriage) here in DC. The stench of hypocrisy coming off this guy is pretty overwhelming.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | February 4, 2010 10:39 AM
Brandon - OK, I am in no way doubting the veracity of what you are saying*, but do you have a link**,? I'm interested. - Dingo
----
* I know modern Los Angles Class are certainly not Alfa Class
** concerning radiation levels and the 'big stink thirty years ago' not the testicular coverings :)
Posted by: DingoJack | February 4, 2010 10:56 AM
Brandon -- Im having some trouble reconciling your claims: The amount of radiation inside a submarine is insufficient to cause testicular cancer, but is sufficient to destroy egg cells within the body. I realize that gametes tend to be more susceptable to radiation, but egg cells also have substantially more sheilding. I would suggest that this needs greater explanation or support.
I would also point out two other things: 1 - According to the EPA, submariners are exposed to less radiation while at sea than the general public: http://www.epa.gov/radtown/submarine.html And 2 - If there was a "big stink about this like thrity years ago," (a) we have learned quite a bit about radiation and radiation exposure in the past 30 years and (b) thirty years ago was just at the beginning of production of the Los Angles Class and Ohio Class boats, so the stink probably involved Thresher, Sturgeon, Franklin and/or Madison Class boats, none of which are in service now. I would be very surprised if the newer designs didnt also include better sheilding.
Posted by: Dave | February 4, 2010 11:22 AM
The amount of radiation inside a submarine is insufficient to cause testicular cancer, but is sufficient to destroy egg cells within the body.
Pretty much, yeah. Ask a biologist for more details.
Sorry I don't have much time to talk right now, but you're right about the recent advancements in radiation shielding. It's one of the main reasons that allowing women on submarines is now on the table. I don't actually know off the top of my head how they're going to deal with living arrangements.
Posted by: Brandon | February 4, 2010 1:36 PM
Interesting discussion about nuclear subs. Hope you guys rememberd that all our carriers are nuclear as well and have had women serving on them for years. That's all just a distraction from the fact that John McCain is a vindictive old asshat that squandered any respect he earned as a servicemember years ago. DADT needs to go and McCain needs to go with it.
Posted by: DGKnipfer | February 4, 2010 2:34 PM
DGKnipfer -- Im quite aware that carriers are nuclear as well, but the dimensions of a carrier, and thereby the constraits on the reactor, including sheilding, are vastly different between a carrier and a sub, so Im willing to entertain the idea that there is a greater exposure to radiation on a sub. (And its far more interesting than whether or not John "Get Off My Lawns" McCain is an asshat, the latter question being settled rather definitively during the campaign.)
Brandon -- Sorry, but to support your idea, you need to do better than claim there was a big fap over this "like thirty years ago" and tell me to "talk to a biologist." I know a something about radiation, probably more than most biologists, and so far, its not adding up. Nor can I find much about the fap thirty years ago, the best I can come up with is a 40 year old study showing decreased sex-ratios among offspring of submariners, but which was not replicated in a 6 year old study.
Posted by: Dave | February 4, 2010 5:54 PM
NO, the really sad fact is that homosexuals and their friends are allowed to switch the topic over (as they always must do) to irrelevant issues, which most often results everyone just shrugging their shoulders and saying, (homosexuals aren't hurting me, I don't care what they do) and DOING exactly what Marshall Kirk predicted they would do in his instructions to homosexuals in 1987.
In other words, instead of addressing what is really at stake here, you "ONE, or TWO" homosexuals have taken over the entire discussion and made sure the truth is ignored by burying it with your rhetoric.
So let's get it straight! Better yet, let's pose the question that homosexuals hate.
Just what does an "openly serving homosexual" look like?
And when you give the standard (lie) answer, "Just like everyone else," it demands an answer to the real and original question then. WHY?
WHY should even a 'gay' care if their "behavior" is allowed to be known? Because the fact is; in and among otherwise "normal people's" lives, specifically those in the military, they DO NOT WANT AND DO NOT GO AROUND ADVERTISING what behaviors they do or prefer - SEXUALLY?
And THAT is why, anyone with a BRAIN knows, this is about literally PERVERTING and DESTROYING OUR MILITARY!
Truth be known, the military has had, for otherwise "normal" people, their own form of DADT, it's called, shut up, keep your sexual garbage to yourself, and do an honorable service or take a hike!
And finally, let's be clear on something else. The vast majority of 'gays' who were supposedly "thrown out" of the military, did so, only and not coincidentally, just before being summoned to go to war. In other words, they were thankful the policy was there, as their escape module to get them out of harms way. They are simply using the military to get all the cushy bonuses and educational benefits.
And yes, it's worth pointing out about the "Marine-Vet" above who claims he (maybe a she) is a former-vet? NO VET makes that error. EVER! That's a civilian phrase, a TRUE VET NEVER FORGETS THEY ARE, AND ALWAYS WILL BE, AN AMERICAN MILITARY SOLDIER.
Posted by: BILLBO | October 4, 2010 8:21 AM
YOU NAILED IT BILLBO ON ALL POINTS.
And let's add one more. This homosexual woman playing "news" anchor is much a part of then entire destruction of our military. These people would have all FAILED the tests of American patriotism, and no doubt would have been deduced to heretics, eventually ignored and being removed from their positions - IF, this nation was still under the ideology of Hebert Hoovers FBI!
But since liberals (who fill the roles of communist in every way) and their counterparts in our media have numbed people's minds, and taught our children to be brain-dead to understanding how much the world HATES the American Values, (for a reason) mainly to destroy us, because of that, we no longer care or even understand that. And that, will prove to be our demise of our unique ideology of FREEDOM for people. Which by the way, DOES NOT equate to, being free to be a pervert, because in so doing, you directly destroy any honorableness America may have had.
THANK YOU LIBERAL IDIOTS for this successful destruction of our nation. I only hope I survive long enough to witness what happens when that communist ideal starts giving back to you. You'll then understand why, America once believed so strongly in PERSONAL CHARACTER AND MORAL INTEGRITY!
Because at that point, they will return us back to rounding up all you in your pink panties making fools of yourself and dealing with you in ways much worse then not giving you all your housing, psychiatric and medical care, condemns (that you refuse to use) FREE AIDS survival drugs, clean needles, and your sick works you call art.
Further, McCain, said, "WHEN THE MILITARY recommended removing the policy, NOT when a perverted president's "APPOINTEES" said so. Military men are not allowed to engage in political issues. If they were, we'd have the vast majority of people, from privates and sergeants to generals and captains deploring the idea of removing this policy!
Posted by: Dr. Marroh Arjibid | October 4, 2010 8:50 AM
Umm is it because currently they get kicked out if their "behaviour" is known even if they made every effort to keep it secret?
Do they go around hiding the identity of their partners just in case someone else might imagine them having sex?
Let's make up a concrete example. Fred is soldier, he goes on leave and when he returns his commanding officer asks where he went. He responds "I went with my boyfriend to visit his parents", do you really class that as advertising what he does sexually?
Posted by: Matty | October 4, 2010 8:52 AM
I can't find anything on President Hoover's relationship with the FBI. Do you mean FBI Director J Edgar Hoover?
Posted by: Matty | October 4, 2010 8:59 AM
Matty - If I said to you: 'a pair of rather inept sock-puppet poes', would that enlighten you? - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | October 4, 2010 9:04 AM
I think I have too much time on my hands
Posted by: Matty | October 4, 2010 9:06 AM
Matty - OJ then. Take it easy and enjoy! - Dingo
----
Hee, hee, hee. John Edgar Hoover - that cross-dressing old queen - as a paragon of 'American Values'? It is to laugh.
Posted by: DingoJack | October 4, 2010 9:14 AM
OJ? Perhaps the spell checker thinks you're gonna lead the world's slowest car-chase (either that or it really needs some impure citric/ascorbic acid)?
What I meant was: "OK then..." - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | October 4, 2010 9:18 AM
which most often results everyone just shrugging their shoulders and saying, (homosexuals aren't hurting me, I don't care what they do)
Sounds like a damn good argument to me (minus the unnecessary punctuation).
Posted by: Taz | October 4, 2010 9:22 AM
Pardon me sirs, I am writing a book on Al Capone. In another window I was reading about President Hebert's role(s) in leading up to the prosecution of Capone, when I was directed by a colleague to this post.
I have no doubt, not being in your country as long as you may have been, makes me also susceptible to what should be; "forgivable" errors as well?
Nonetheless, it was not ignorance of J. Edgar Hoover's running of the FBI for some 48 years that I displayed, but rather proof I am very busy and have several issues on my mind. If that is not forgivable in your rantings, then so be it, have a wonderful day nonetheless.
Now about your "concrete example?" Is this the best you propose? More significantly; why didn't you simply answer the question?
What does "an openly serving homosexual" look like? I was not trying to be unreasonable, I seriously am not aware of what they are forbidden to do, except that which most normal wouldn't or shouldn't do in the military either? Which is to, in any way, display anything sexually motivated (ing) before another troop? That is not extreme policy, that is military excellence of ethical behavior.
I'll add, when I look over a broad section of any given platoon of men and women, I cannot tell what they do sexually, nor do I care?
If, in your "concrete example" that were to happen to anyone, might I remind you, the very discussion itself, is "militarily" unprofessional. And if a higher up, were present, the lower ranking leader would never ask such personal issue of anyone, for fear they themselves are at risk of censure. I realize, this sets many liberal minded people at odds, as they really don't appreciate a tightly run strict code of ethics and personal conduct, regardless, our military is not required to adhere to politicized moral issues. It is their duty to protect, and if they choose to stay with their historically proven strict ethical guidelines to manage their duties, then no one outside the military has any business demanding they change it.
Not many people engage in the business of telling their platoon leaders who they were with, and all the personal specifics? Indeed, it is none of their business. However, if it be that they were already "close confidants" then the leader would already know and would not care, as we have heard many leaders already confess.
But more importantly is the fact you, as a supposed defender of dropping DADT, has given this totally insignificant response as to why this supposedly "detrimental" policy must go? To hear a homosexual tell it, you'd think they were hung on a rope and electrocuted, if they so much as looked at another man?
Can you "help" them any better then this?
Posted by: Dr. Marroh Arjibid | October 5, 2010 7:56 AM
"Umm is it because currently they get kicked out if their "behaviour" is known even if they made every effort to keep it secret?"
Well that's pretty redundant wouldn't you say? But I'm glad you see it proper to identify it as a "behavior."
Well, I think it's more then sane to say, if their behavior became known, then they obviously didn't do "EVERY THING" possible to avoid it. And that, is part in part the reason this policy, (and perhaps an even stronger one) needs to remain in effect. Because this simply proves, rather admits, how difficult it is for many of them to "control themselves" and their behaviors.
Oh I know, "every one knows a 'gay' and they've never seen them act out repulsively or strangely?" What do you think, they're going to attempt to force this down our throats and befriend normal people by engaging in their behaviors in front of you? They do dumb things, but they aren't that dumb. The next time you feel the need to spew out that you know a nice gay person, and that's why you defend them, try walking down the streets and in the allies during the next pride event? Or go down to Nancy Pelosi's district during the state sponsored southern decadence days? I think it's safe to say; you'll be questioning your standing? In the very least, you'll think twice about flapping your jaw about how normal they are.
By the way, if you can't find the time, I can email you some pictures of "gays serving openly" as citizens on the streets of our nation. Maybe that's what answers the yet, unanswered question. "What does an "OPENLY SERVING GAY" look like? Still waiting.....
Posted by: BILLBO | October 6, 2010 4:50 AM