Senate passes repeal of DADT with 65 votes

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Now you're all just feeding his persecution complex. 'Liberals' laying into him for HATING homosexuality probably makes him feel warm and fuzzy inside. Don't call him a bigot, call him a hypocrite. Hey Reverend, have you spotted any new get-rich-quick schemes? I'm sure that the Lord approves! Considered scamming any vulnerable people to make money? It's what Jesus would have wanted! And how goes the preying on vulnerable women for sexual thrills? And if the persona is not entirely real, then how goes making this sort of thing up for attention on the internet? It's nearly Christmas, should you not be in Church?

[Sam Spade]

Here is my view of DADT

I happen to agree with this repeal. First let me say this, I'm a strong Christian, but I'm also politically-independent. I have a very weird view on this. First off, I HATE homosexuality, it goes against everything the Lord my God teaches. However, I have to agree with Hillary Clinton when she said "You don't have to be straight to shoot straight". I come at it from a defense point of view. We have lost many strategic and key people in our military because of DADT. For example, we have had several soldiers who could translate Arabic, the predominate language of the muslim terrorists, be discharged because of their sexual orientation.  I think this move actually does strengthen our defenses.  If you want to talk about our morality slipping, it flew out the window ages ago.  Plus, I don't think my God wants me to discriminate against anyone.  I am called to love people.  I love the sinner, but hate the sin.  Homosexuality is no more severe of a sin than telling a little white lie.  The consequences may be more severe, but in God's eyes, a sin is a sin is a sin and it doesn't matter whether you miss heaven by a half inch or 100,000 miles. The fact is, you still missed it.  If we banned homosexuality in the military, then to be fair, we'd have to ban everyone who has told a lie, which just about encompasses everybody.  So, that's my view on the situation.

This is not meant to offend anyone, just gives my views.

You go against everything I believe in quite frankly; in how you treat your working life, your family and your relationships. You are a model to the forum in how not to live your life.

Haha, Thanks for sharing!!  I know I do things a heck of a lot differently than most people, and I could stand to learn a few things in a few areas.  I'm not disappointed in myself or anything like that.  In fact, right now, I have a lot of joy in my life.  Joy unspeakable.

Did you even read what I wrote? You think you can stand on a high ground and say you 'HATE' homosexuality (and as it is in uncompromisable part of my being, by extension you are making claims against me as a person) and then throw in a 'haha' to someone calling you out on your own shambolic, ego driven greedy existance.

You are not a model of humanity Bushie; you are a sorry excuse for a man forever in a state of arrested development permanently attached to the tete of anyone around you for support and succour while being captivated by the shiny pennies of scammers and people who want to f-ck up your entire existance. And when things go wrong you fix on your innane grin and raise out your platitudes to an empty sky. And then have the gall to think you have the slighest clue, have the slightest iota of what human relationships in everything from sex to business are all about. You fail at just about everyone you forge or you jeopardise it for a quick path to marriage and sex or for a quick buck.

I don't give a gold plated, cherry flavoured f-ck what you think about anything you open your gullible mouth about.

I just have one question - when you wrote this were you giving or receiving?  Thanks!

[Sam Spade]

Now you're all just feeding his persecution complex. 'Liberals' laying into him for HATING homosexuality probably makes him feel warm and fuzzy inside. Don't call him a bigot, call him a hypocrite. Hey Reverend, have you spotted any new get-rich-quick schemes? I'm sure that the Lord approves! Considered scamming any vulnerable people to make money? It's what Jesus would have wanted! And how goes the preying on vulnerable women for sexual thrills? And if the persona is not entirely real, then how goes making this sort of thing up for attention on the internet? It's nearly Christmas, should you not be in Church?

It has always struck me that complete ignorance of BushOK antics is always the best policy.

[Alcon]

Here is my view of DADT

I happen to agree with this repeal. First let me say this, I'm a strong Christian, but I'm also politically-independent. I have a very weird view on this. First off, I HATE homosexuality, it goes against everything the Lord my God teaches. However, I have to agree with Hillary Clinton when she said "You don't have to be straight to shoot straight". I come at it from a defense point of view. We have lost many strategic and key people in our military because of DADT. For example, we have had several soldiers who could translate Arabic, the predominate language of the muslim terrorists, be discharged because of their sexual orientation.  I think this move actually does strengthen our defenses.  If you want to talk about our morality slipping, it flew out the window ages ago.  Plus, I don't think my God wants me to discriminate against anyone.  I am called to love people.  I love the sinner, but hate the sin.  Homosexuality is no more severe of a sin than telling a little white lie.  The consequences may be more severe, but in God's eyes, a sin is a sin is a sin and it doesn't matter whether you miss heaven by a half inch or 100,000 miles. The fact is, you still missed it.  If we banned homosexuality in the military, then to be fair, we'd have to ban everyone who has told a lie, which just about encompasses everybody.  So, that's my view on the situation.

This is not meant to offend anyone, just gives my views.

You go against everything I believe in quite frankly; in how you treat your working life, your family and your relationships. You are a model to the forum in how not to live your life.

Haha, Thanks for sharing!!  I know I do things a heck of a lot differently than most people, and I could stand to learn a few things in a few areas.  I'm not disappointed in myself or anything like that.  In fact, right now, I have a lot of joy in my life.  Joy unspeakable.

Did you even read what I wrote? You think you can stand on a high ground and say you 'HATE' homosexuality (and as it is in uncompromisable part of my being, by extension you are making claims against me as a person) and then throw in a 'haha' to someone calling you out on your own shambolic, ego driven greedy existance.

You are not a model of humanity Bushie; you are a sorry excuse for a man forever in a state of arrested development permanently attached to the tete of anyone around you for support and succour while being captivated by the shiny pennies of scammers and people who want to f-ck up your entire existance. And when things go wrong you fix on your innane grin and raise out your platitudes to an empty sky. And then have the gall to think you have the slighest clue, have the slightest iota of what human relationships in everything from sex to business are all about. You fail at just about everyone you forge or you jeopardise it for a quick path to marriage and sex or for a quick buck.

I don't give a gold plated, cherry flavoured f-ck what you think about anything you open your gullible mouth about.

I just have one question - when you wrote this were you giving or receiving?  Thanks!

0.5/5

[Holmes]

0.5/5

This is usually the quality of all of Sam's posts.

[Iosif]

0.5/5

This is usually the quality of all of Sam's posts.

A racist homophobe with an obscene sense of self worth. A horrible, loathsome person.

[they don't love you like i love you]

BushOklahoma is just another Fake Christian, just like jmfcst, and the vast majority of the South.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Bushie, I'm on record here saying that you weren't being a hateful person, but also asking why you say you "HATE" homosexuality in one line and then say that a sin is a sin, homosexuality is equivalent to a white lie. I was wondering why, then, you view homosexuality as meriting HATE which you presumably don't feel in your bones about other sins.

I hate every sin there is.  I hate lies, I hate adultery, I hate pornography, I hate gossip.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Bible is full of verses that forbid homosexuality.

Leviticus 18:22
Matthew 19:4-6
Romans 1:26-27
1 Corinthians 6:9
1 Timothy 1:10

I believe the Bible is 100% inerrant, authored by God and penned by 40 writers, and none of it is out of date.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you look at the verses I mentioned above it mentions a whole array of sins, not just homosexuality.

These are not my words, they are God's Words.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I'm going to speak no more of this matter, because I do not want to ruffle any more feathers right before Christmas.  You believe what you believe, and let me believe what I believe.

After I get home, I do not want to revisit this particular issue.  Instead, My forum focus will be my update thread and the 2012 campaign.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

wow

obviously, no one could be that mad at BushOK.  Rather the true target of this outburst is the bible.

[Lief 🗽]

wow

obviously, no one could be that mad at BushOK.  Rather the true target of this outburst is the bible.

Hahah, excellent. This thread is going places.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

wow

obviously, no one could be that mad at BushOK.  Rather the true target of this outburst is the bible.

People usually don't get mad at books (like the Bible or Koran), rather, they get mad at how extremists interpret them.

[Brittain33]

0.5/5

This is usually the quality of all of Sam's posts.

A racist homophobe with an obscene sense of self worth. A horrible, loathsome person.

Sam provides a lot of value for the kind of stuff I come to this site for. His predictions posts take a lot of work and a lot of thought, and I appreciate it. 

[bullmoose88]

wow

obviously, no one could be that mad at BushOK.  Rather the true target of this outburst is the bible.

People usually don't get mad at books (like the Bible or Koran), rather, they get mad at how extremists interpret them.

At times yes, but one doesn't have to be an extremist to get the message from passages like this (Leviticus 18:22 (KJV)):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My view tends to be the passages (whether put there by God or by man) like this are there for a very practical purpose (not so much per se, a moral mandate)...God's chosen people need to multiply etc...sodomy tends not to aid in that effort.  Therefore, since it doesn't...its wrong...

Now that's all well and erm...good? But perhaps...just perhaps...as eras change, as circumstances change, what's practical changes...and perhaps certain rules become...obsolete?  Maybe?  Just maybe?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You do have to be an extremist to place an emphasis on that, though. Not only because hardly any Christians actually follow those laws* (and, indeed, most Churches would argue that Christians do not have to), but also because that particular proscription is not noticeably more severe than that for other sexual transgressions (so to speak).

*That is, the mass of them in that particular part of the OT.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

wow

obviously, no one could be that mad at BushOK.  Rather the true target of this outburst is the bible.

People usually don't get mad at books (like the Bible or Koran), rather, they get mad at how extremists interpret them.

since when is accepting statements at face value considered “extreme”?

Rom 1:26 "God gave them up to shameful passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men."

Regardless what context you wrap around it, it still clearly describes women desiring sex with women and men desiring sex with men.  It condemns desire for homosexual sex and calls both the passion and the acts shameful.  And, of course, the statement meshes with the rest of the bible that defines the proper context of sex to be within a heterosexual marriage.

So, it is the bible itself that you are calling “extreme”, that is why you’ll only those who accept a watered down “interpretation” of it, which is really no interpretation at all.

[bullmoose88]

You do have to be an extremist to place an emphasis on that, though. Not only because hardly any Christians actually follow those laws* (and, indeed, most Churches would argue that Christians do not have to), but also because that particular proscription is not noticeably more severe than that for other sexual transgressions (so to speak).

*That is, the mass of them in that particular part of the OT.

Emphasis sure...to make it a crusade...you'd have to be pretty extreme...but to merely demarcate what's acceptable and not acceptable you don't have to be an extremist.  Do you?

I generally agree with you on the emphasis and place of those laws.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

My view tends to be the passages (whether put there by God or by man) like this are there for a very practical purpose (not so much per se, a moral mandate)...God's chosen people need to multiply etc...sodomy tends not to aid in that effort.  Therefore, since it doesn't...its wrong...

then why doesn't the bible condemn sexual acts between a husband and wife that don't promote conception?  and you're ignoring Rom ch1 which calls homosexual passions and acts as shameful and unnatural for humans.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You do have to be an extremist to place an emphasis on that, though. Not only because hardly any Christians actually follow those laws* (and, indeed, most Churches would argue that Christians do not have to), but also because that particular proscription is not noticeably more severe than that for other sexual transgressions (so to speak).

*That is, the mass of them in that particular part of the OT.

actually, you are mischaracterizing those sections (Lev ch 18 & Lev ch 20) because you’re acting as if those sections include laws that were only put into place at the time of Moses.  But if you read the context, those chapters are describing the PREVIOUS actions of pagan nations and those nations were being thrown out of the land because the nations of their PAST HISTORY  of practicing these things.

So, God explicitly stated the acts described within Lev ch 18 & ch 20 were already judged PRIOR to the Law of Moses.  And none of those actions mentioned within that contextual pagan wrapper are allowed in the New Testament.  So, you are wrong in characterizing “that particular part of the OT” as being first instituted under the Law of Moses, and you are wrong to say “hardly any Christians actually follow those laws” because nowhere in the New Testament are the list of these sexual acts (incest, bestiality, homosexuality) allowed.

[angus]

Nice of you to post it the map.  I actually just learned about this vote, seconds ago, when I read this thread. I've been mostly in the closet the last couple of days, and a few other strange places, so I haven't watched much TV except for some children's movies during prime time. 

Good to know that this is all behind us.

Nice choice of words there. Tee hee

They were the obvious choice.  I was in the closet much of that day.  Big walk-in closet.  I was trying to surreptitiously wrap presents. 

I think I'm in favor of the repeal, but some would say for the wrong reasons.  I think it's the egalitarian, morally correct policy to allow homosexuals serve openly.  That's obviously a naive point of view, but it's my point of view.  I can understand that some more practical minds would base their support or opposition on such considerations as unit cohesion and the possibilities for distraction and such.  I do not think that people who base their support or opposition to this policy on moral considerations have any innate ethical leverage over those who base their support or opposition upon more immediate, pragmatic considerations.  After all, the military is charged with the task of national defense, and it is therefore logical to make military policy decisions based the efficacy of that defense.  In that sense, those who support the repeal based upon egalitarianism are rather like those who oppose repeal based on theological interpretations.  Neither group is focused on the primary goal of the military.  But that's okay.  We all have priorities, and we should state them.  It's the foundation of the democratic process.

[ilikeverin]

For God's sake, people, why are you all getting to angry at BushOK?  His statements are completely in line with his OCPD.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actions are either Right (tm) or Wrong (tm) for him, without a middle ground.  You're not going to be able to bargain him out of his position, by trying to get him to acknowledge that there's any sort of fuzziness to his beliefs.  That is, quite simply, impossible to do, at least in the constraints of the Internet.

Instead, the proper approach is to start from his acknowledgement of the idea that open, public discrimination against gays is in the Wrong (tm) category, and move from there.  For example, regardless of what he believes about homosexuality, it shouldn't be that hard, relative to getting him to do a 180 on the issue, to convince him that toning down his rhetoric would be Right (tm).  In saying that he "HATES" homosexuality, he's speaking like someone who would treat gay Americans in a discriminatory way.  I think he'd agree he doesn't want to be perceived that way.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You do have to be an extremist to place an emphasis on that, though. Not only because hardly any Christians actually follow those laws* (and, indeed, most Churches would argue that Christians do not have to), but also because that particular proscription is not noticeably more severe than that for other sexual transgressions (so to speak).

*That is, the mass of them in that particular part of the OT.

actually, you are mischaracterizing those sections (Lev ch 18 & Lev ch 20) because you’re acting as if those sections include laws that were only put into place at the time of Moses.  But if you read the context, those chapters are describing the PREVIOUS actions of pagan nations and those nations were being thrown out of the land because the nations of their PAST HISTORY  of practicing these things.

So, God explicitly stated the acts described within Lev ch 18 & ch 20 were already judged PRIOR to the Law of Moses.  And none of those actions mentioned within that contextual pagan wrapper are allowed in the New Testament.  So, you are wrong in characterizing “that particular part of the OT” as being first instituted under the Law of Moses, and you are wrong to say “hardly any Christians actually follow those laws” because nowhere in the New Testament are the list of these sexual acts (incest, bestiality, homosexuality) allowed.

Learn to read for Christ's sake. Whether it is right that most Christians do not closely follow the mass of laws in the OT (or who came up with them first or whatever) is not the issue, the fact that they clearly don't is.

Wait, why did I take you off ignore? Ah, yes. I remember now. But you never contribute anything meaningful outside election time, so...

Zap.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You do have to be an extremist to place an emphasis on that, though. Not only because hardly any Christians actually follow those laws* (and, indeed, most Churches would argue that Christians do not have to), but also because that particular proscription is not noticeably more severe than that for other sexual transgressions (so to speak).

*That is, the mass of them in that particular part of the OT.

actually, you are mischaracterizing those sections (Lev ch 18 & Lev ch 20) because you’re acting as if those sections include laws that were only put into place at the time of Moses.  But if you read the context, those chapters are describing the PREVIOUS actions of pagan nations and those nations were being thrown out of the land because the nations of their PAST HISTORY  of practicing these things.

So, God explicitly stated the acts described within Lev ch 18 & ch 20 were already judged PRIOR to the Law of Moses.  And none of those actions mentioned within that contextual pagan wrapper are allowed in the New Testament.  So, you are wrong in characterizing “that particular part of the OT” as being first instituted under the Law of Moses, and you are wrong to say “hardly any Christians actually follow those laws” because nowhere in the New Testament are the list of these sexual acts (incest, bestiality, homosexuality) allowed.

Learn to read for Christ's sake. Whether it is right that most Christians do not closely follow the mass of laws in the OT (or who came up with them first or whatever) is not the issue, the fact that they clearly don't is.

Wait, why did I take you off ignore? Ah, yes. I remember now. But you never contribute anything meaningful outside election time, so...

Zap.

you said, "that particular part of the OT", which to me means Lev ch 18 and ch 20.  and within the context of the actions of the pagan nations as described in Lev ch18 and ch 20, are dozens of laws defining incest, bestiality, and homosexuality....all of which are not allowed in the context of the New Testament.

if you meant "follow the mass of laws in the OT' instead of "that particular part of the OT", then simply get your story straight to begin with.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Indeed, indeed. Carry on.

[Smash255]

So you believe in this then....


"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."