Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Next Step on Gay Rights

The day after President Obama recommitted himself to the cause of gay rights -- albeit at a pace that is too slow for many -- thousands of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered Americans and their straight allies streamed past the White House and headed to the Capitol to demand equality under the law.

And they just kept coming -- for two solid hours. Young and old. Rich and poor. Fabulous and frumpy. And more than a few drag queens marched the route in corn-defying heels. The chants ranged from predictable ones -- "What do we want? Equal rights! When do we want it? Now!" -- to a reminder roared outside the White House gates -- "What does democracy look like? This is what democracy looks like!"

It should also be a reminder for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. They've done a good job of letting Obama take all the heat from the gay community for inaction in Washington. But if the shameful ban on gays serving openly in the military is to end, if gay and lesbian couples are to share in the rights and responsibilities of marriage that would come with the demise of the Defense of Marriage Act, Congress must overturn them, sending bills to Obama. The president has made it clear that he would sign them. It's time for Pelosi and Reid to follow through.

By Jonathan Capehart  | October 11, 2009; 7:08 PM ET
Categories:  Capehart  | Tags:  Jonathan Capehart  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Oslo-Copenhagen Contradiction
Next: No President Hillary

Comments

Jonathan,

How sad all the little boys and girls with Mother problems whining about their lack of rights !!

What about the rights of the 95% of Americans not to be forced to accept their anus as the pleasure zone of their lives ???

America has become so distorted and warped that we have totally lost our moral compass as to what is normal and intimatdated by these screeching activists all supposedly based upon rights !! Pretty soon it will be rights for beastiality, polyagmy, and all kinds or poly relationships....inc babboons and humans next ???

Posted by: pleasingshareman | October 11, 2009 8:18 PM | Report abuse

I went to the March today and was impressed by the great turnout. God is clearly on our side - the weather was perfect.

It's sad to see that there are such hateful people spilling their bile on this site such as the two above. I hope that we can at least convince the majority of Americans that our cause is right.

Posted by: mgt33139 | October 11, 2009 9:07 PM | Report abuse

A pity the Washington Post doesn't moderate its comments like the New York Times does. You have to wade through piles of drivel to find anything substantive.

Posted by: swmuva | October 11, 2009 9:27 PM | Report abuse

It is unfortunate that in this day of greater tolerance to these issues National Communication Powerhouses, The Pew Charitable Trusts & The Annenberg Foundation are promoting The Barnes On The Parkway Project which is an art museum that contains a painting by Chaim Soutine in Gallery 5, called "Woman" that is openly antagonistic toward homosexuality. The Painting shows a man with make-up being engulfed by flames with a bloody red scimitar in the background. Couldn't our Charitiable dollars be better spent than in promoting Museum Projects that contain images promoting retribution against homosexuals? For More on what is being called the Art Heist of The Century see Barnesfriends.org STOP THE PEW TRUSTS' BARNES ON THE PARKWAY PROJECT!

Posted by: BernhardtMonk | October 11, 2009 9:48 PM | Report abuse

pleasingshareman, it is far sadder to read your post and realize that you are only capable of posting stereotypes and profanity which amount to lies and ad hominem attacks. Nobody is threatening your anus. Now take a deep breath, look in the mirror, and see the face of bigotry and hatred. You are not the America I love.

Posted by: coprogirl | October 11, 2009 10:45 PM | Report abuse

I don't remember the details, but didn't Harry Truman oversee the end of racial segregation in the armed services by just telling them to do it. (My apologies if my lack of historical perspective is way off base.)

Why not just do it?

Posted by: annetta3 | October 12, 2009 12:46 AM | Report abuse

This is not about body parts--it is about rights. It is about having the government treat all citizens equally and fairly. But if you must discuss body parts, gay women like the same body parts that you do, pleasingshareman, and gay men did not invent anal or oral sex, nor do they have or want a monopoly on either.

Posted by: jmdiaz10 | October 12, 2009 1:35 AM | Report abuse

They say tens of thousands marched for homosexual rights. The Post, being liberal, blows it all up for their beloved gay constituency.

Let's give them the benifit of the doubt and say there was 50,000 gay marchers.

Thats's less than 0.02% of the U.S. population that were passionate enough to show up.

That's 2 one hundredths of a percent.

You have to multiply that by 50 just to get 1%.

It's pathetic!!

How can such a tiny minority dictate terms to the vast majority of normal human beings??

When will the Democrats learn that the vast majority of Americans do not live in San Fransisco???

They will get a painful reminder in the next few election cycles. Remember 1994!

Posted by: battleground51 | October 12, 2009 6:20 AM | Report abuse

A society that requires everyone to be a certain way is not a free society. a free society allows people to be who they are as long as they don't hurt others. When we oppress people for who they are and these people hurt no one, then we give up the very soul of a free America. Gay people do not go around trying to convert people (although many times Christians have come to my home trying to convert me to their form of Christianity warning me of hellfire if I didn't). There is no reason not to try gay people with the full dignity and respect we would show any straight person. Gay people deserve the same rights as anyone else.

Posted by: adifferentpointofview | October 12, 2009 7:21 AM | Report abuse

Dear Gay Peeps..
You didn't have any choice.. the GOP tells you how they feel.. and you don't like it.. you have to vote for this guy.. so, he's the best you can get right now. He's a politician (consummate).. he loves you, but you are in the way of his reelection.
Friend of Gays

Posted by: newbeeboy | October 12, 2009 7:58 AM | Report abuse

Battleground51 doesn't understand what a FREE SOCIETY is.

"How can such a tiny minority dictate terms to the vast majority of normal human beings??"

Because, in a free society, the majority DOES NOT have the right to impose its views on everyone. If two gay guys move in next door and they get married, nobody is forcing you to like it. But in a free society, they should have the right to do so.

But the truth is, Battleground51 doesn't want America to be a free society. He wants it to be a Christian-extremist dictatorship.

He has the right to his opinion of course -- and I have the right to say it's a bad idea.

Posted by: jamshark70 | October 12, 2009 8:42 AM | Report abuse

I believe all Americans should have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without someone interfearing with their decision. Does that mean their rights means that we now have to change the laws to support what many of us believe to be unGodly behavior. They say that God made them gay, then if He did why didn't he make it so they could express love in a suitable way.

Homosexuals like most sins comes from acting in the natural. Until that cycle is broken we do what come natural for us to do. Sin is easy. We are creatures of habits because habits do not think.

Posted by: dncthm1 | October 12, 2009 9:05 AM | Report abuse

I was there this weekend. It was a positive, friendly and welcoming vibe. It was a giant statement that "This is what 'gay' looks like. Just like you!" There were families with children, there were elderly couples who had been together for decades, there were friends and relatives, there were the young and energized. There were folks from every spectrum of the LGBT movement, as well as a whole lot of straight people like me. I was there with my best friend, because more than anything, I want him to be able to marry the person he loves, just as I can. But it's not just that I want DOMA repealed, I want DADT repealed. The only argument I ever see against homosexuality is that it's against OTHER PEOPLE's religious beliefs. Well, your religion is not my religion, and I don't want it tainting the lives of me and my loved ones because you have problems with something that doesn't affect you.

Some of the best signs I saw:
"If I can't marry my boyfriend, I'll have to marry your daughter."

"I liked it, but I couldn't put a ring on it."

"Liz Taylor got married 8 times. My sister only wants to do it once."

Posted by: jrzwrld | October 12, 2009 9:20 AM | Report abuse

dncthm: You realize your post is self-contradictory, don't you?

"All Americans should have equal rights, but when some people don't have equal rights, we shouldn't change the laws to give them equal rights (because we think they're gross)."

It was a violation of equal rights to enslave Africans; it was a violation of equal rights to deny women the right to vote; and the treatment of gays and lesbians under the law is a violation of equal rights today.

Also, that you think something is approved or disapproved by God is not a convincing legal argument. We have, in this country, a First Amendment by which "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." If a law is based on your religious beliefs, it privileges your beliefs over mine. Government is not supposed to do that. This is not to mention that MY religion DOES marry gays and lesbians, but those marriages have no "teeth" under the law.

Posted by: jamshark70 | October 12, 2009 10:56 AM | Report abuse

The chances that pleasingshareman is a self-loathing closeted homosexual: 100 percent.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | October 12, 2009 11:22 AM | Report abuse

All of the legislation in the world will not change the fact that homosexuality is not “normal”. If homosexuality is genetic ( which seems likely in most cases) then it may be a relatively benign birth defect which over time with improvements in the biological sciences can be eliminated along with other genetic conditions. If it is a learned behavior,
as is true in some cases, it will fade as the lifestyle fades due to relative obscurity of the
condition. Time will eliminate the issue if we can keep a common sense attitude towards it and not get so worked up about it.

Posted by: Tuerke9 | October 12, 2009 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Tuerke9 - For many of us, religious belief is a mental health issue and one that should be eliminated with a proper education and a desire to actually, you know, live with an understanding of reason. We also hope it will fade into obscurity in time.

Posted by: B-rod | October 12, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/09/AR2009100902570.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Posted by: norriehoyt | October 12, 2009 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Jonathan, for your report. I write as an openly gay man, and a veteran of several of the past (and HUGE) marches on Washington. Yesterday's march was primarily one that came from the grass roots, and was not as heavily organized around a solid, common theme and purpose as marches in past years. To overturn DADT and DOMA, action by Congress MUST take place so that the bills will have strong 'teeth.' I'm in full agreement with you and Barney Frank - Congress holds the ball now, and must take action to bring equality to us all.

Posted by: DRFJR | October 12, 2009 12:54 PM | Report abuse

It is disappointing to read such uninformed and ignorant posts. There is clearly a lack of "Civics 101" understanding of how the U.S. Constitution works and what the separation of religion means to the country. Gay rights is an idea whose time has come. It is destiny and cannot be changed by foolish and bigoted statements.

Posted by: wjfreeman1 | October 12, 2009 1:02 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA is no GEORGE WASHINGTON!

"In general court-martial orders dated March 14, 1778, Washington, through his designs, addressed the disposition of a homosexual soldier “tried for attempting to commit sodomy”:

“[We] do sentence him to be dismiss’d [from] the service with infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return.”

Posted by: Common_Cents1 | October 12, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

I find it ironic that the same "small Govt" right-wingnuts fighting against healthcare reform because of the "public option" are OK with the Govt stepping in telling people who they can or cannot marry?

Getting rid of the DOMA and DADT is the right thing to do. If your church does not want to marry homosexuals, that's fine. But there should be no government law against it. I used to be in favor of "civil unions" but I then realized that two same sex partners being married had no effect on the dynamics of my own marriage. Homosexual couples deserve the same rights as married couples.

A little levity. I had to chuckle at a comedian who was in favor of gay marriage, stating, "they deserve to be as miserable as the rest of us."

Posted by: teamohall | October 12, 2009 1:37 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA is no GEORGE WASHINGTON!

"In general court-martial orders dated March 14, 1778, Washington, through his designs, addressed the disposition of a homosexual soldier “tried for attempting to commit sodomy”:

“[We] do sentence him to be dismiss’d [from] the service with infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return.”

Posted by: Common_Cents1 | October 12, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

------------------------------------

You do realize that was 221 years ago. I think we have grown as a nation since then.

Posted by: teamohall | October 12, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Teamohall, my elderly father is a rabid conservative and he supports gay marriage for the reasons you just stated. He was tickled pink that I was going to DC to protest for something that we BOTH believe in. Thrice-married, he has often made the comment about the concept "Why can't they make the same mistakes I did?"

He is terribly embarrassed that his party has chosen to use this as a wedge issue. For 60 years he also has been haunted by the fact that one of his commanding officers was drummed out of the service when someone outed him - just a year before he would have retired. My father was beyond outraged and has remained so all these years at the blatant unfairness.

Posted by: jrzwrld | October 12, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

The comments of the readers who claim they are "normal", and that gay American citizens aren't, are deserving of our pity. Their whining and name-calling does not change the fact that all citizens deserve equal treatment by the government--not just people they aren't prejudiced against. If they are truly so horrified and frightened of gay people, perhaps they should move to a cabin in the woods where they won't encounter anyone who might be a little different from themselves. The bile they are spilling here is clearly destroying their lives.

Posted by: jaynashvil | October 12, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Quick! Somebody better check with Gerafalo to find out if the marchers were real! Were they sent by the White House to confuse on-going conversations about critical issues, or were they sent by Hollywood because it was a slow news day, or was this a reminder that only the government can say if each of us is important and necessary? Better check!!

Posted by: creed4275 | October 12, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

You can blame inaction about DOMA on Congress, but when it comes to DADT, it's time for Obama to get off his butt. He is, after all, the commander in chief of the armed forces in this country. The commander is responsible for everything that happens under his command.

Posted by: fzdybel | October 12, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Tuerke9: Lefthanded people are statistically not normal either. Are you proposing in vitro treatments to eliminate this birth defect as well, or suggesting that if the country ignores it, it will go away?

A farfetched analogy? No: Lefthandedness, in medieval times, was considered a sign of witchcraft or demonic influence -- something people of that time would have wanted to eradicate. Over time, instead of the "issue" going away, people learned that being lefthanded is harmless.

So they will with homosexuality. In time, we will look at homosexuality's opponents in the same way we now see the KKK. (Note that the KKK also see themselves as "Christian defenders.")

Homosexuality is not the problem. Hatred, or irrational fear, of it is the issue.

Posted by: jamshark70 | October 12, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse


I refuse to be forced into the bedrooms of homosexuals, and I refuse to allow them into mine, otherwise, what's the difference between us except that?

I'm not for re-forming society to allow this new culture to take over.

What people do with their sex lives ought to be personal and private.
Instead, the homos want to be recognized for the ways they have sex.

It's just yucky. It's none of my business.

I'm not saying for them to do as I do, I'm just saying I don't want to know.


Posted by: lindalovejones | October 12, 2009 6:09 PM | Report abuse

TO: jrzwrld who wrote:
“…It was a giant statement that "This is what 'gay' looks like…”
____________

You just made my point, I don’t want to see what “gay” looks like, and the more some people see what “gay” looks like, the less they like it.

As heterosexuals, we don’t go out of our way to display our sentiments so that others can “see” us, and that’s not genuine affection, that’s “in your face” politics.

If homos wanted to keep it on the down low, and just live in peace, more people might be able to accept what they can ignore.

But this “in your face” homosexuality if just a turn off, and I don’t particularly care to have it waived in my face just because it exists.

Other things exists also that people might not particularly want “in their face”.

By way of example, most of us drink milk, but do we ALWAYS have to have the cow and its tits in our face, dancing and demanding special rights for being a cow?
If we did, maybe fewer people would drink milk.


Posted by: lindalovejones | October 12, 2009 6:21 PM | Report abuse

@lindalovejones: I'm OK with that, as soon as the heteros keep their sex lives private.

No more marriage announcements in the paper. That's a start. It's public recognition of something that should be private!

Then, no more holding hands or kissing in public, or on TV or in movies. It's gross.

Sexuality is yucky, so why should we have to see it anywhere? Gay OR straight.

You see now how ridiculous that sounds?

I have an idea: Why don't you take your double standard and keep IT private?

Posted by: jamshark70 | October 12, 2009 6:23 PM | Report abuse

TO: jamshark70 who wrote:
“lindalovejones: I'm OK with that, as soon as the heteros keep their sex lives private.
No more marriage announcements in the paper. That's a start. It's public recognition of something that should be private!
Then, no more holding hands or kissing in public, or on TV or in movies. It's gross.
Sexuality is yucky, so why should we have to see it anywhere? Gay OR straight.
You see now how ridiculous that sounds?
I have an idea: Why don't you take your double standard and keep IT private?
__________________

That’s exactly why I don’t want to live in a homosexual society.

Our sex lives are private, at least we’re not running signs on Capitol Hill.

And we don’t want to lose the right to be normal, and have homos come in and say crap just like you said “No marriage announcements”.

A man and a woman kissing is normal, two men or two women kissing is not normal.

The only thing ridiculous is homos constant need to be “seen” by non-homos who don’t care to “see” homos make out.


Posted by: lindalovejones | October 12, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

I suppose the reason that gays are so affirmative in their quest to be married is that it bestows the ultimate normality; that they now can see themselves as being just like anyone else.

The last time I read it, the Declaration of Independence did not read, "the pursuit of life, liberty and psycho-sexual fulfillment". Government has no duty to permit gay marriage and the failure to do so is not the denial of a civil right.

Posted by: ripvanwinkleincollege | October 12, 2009 7:05 PM | Report abuse


TO: mgt33139 who wrote:
“…It's sad to see that there are such hateful people spilling their bile on this site such as the two above. I hope that we can at least convince the majority of Americans that our cause is right…”
______________

I only saw one comment above yours, which wasn’t “hateful” at all, but merely asked a question. The writer of the piece, Jonathan Capehart, is himself gay, so I know you couldn’t have meant him.

Seems to me, gays consider themselves more “normal” than heteros and are angry with us for being “normal”, and it isn’t a matter of whether or not your “cause is right”, nobody will care so long as you’re peaceful.

But no sooner than homos even start to speak with heteros, THEY attack our rights, I suppose because want they really want is to turn the tables.

I really don’t understand it all, or why homos seem to demand the approval of heteros.

Personally, I think it’s a fad and not likely to last long by the vast majority of people.

Sure there are some genuinely gay people, but for the majority of young people, I think it’s nothing more than experimental, and the ones I know don’t even take homosexual marriage seriously but more like a game.

Those who have married same sex partners who are no longer with them, don’t even bother to divorce because to them it doesn’t really count as a real “marriage”.


Posted by: lindalovejones | October 12, 2009 7:20 PM | Report abuse

lindalovejones, maybe you should cut the "love" out of your username. Or possibly go back to doing your homework. Does your mama know you're online? Because I don't think adults use "it grosses me out" as an argument for depriving someone else of their rights. At that point, might as well start granting civil rights on where someone ranks on "hotornot.com", for god's sake. Go crack open your civics book, and let the adults argue, sweetie.

Posted by: jrzwrld | October 12, 2009 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Incidentally, I love the "I think it's gross" arguments about homosexuality. It's the last desperate argument of the bigot (or the first, depending on their logic sequence). By that standard we should have panels evaluating people to see whether their relationships would offend anyone's sensibilities. It's the argument made by people who won't look handicapped folks in the eye on the street. It's the argument made by people who are offended when someone else cries in public. It's the argument made by people who get freaked out when someone has a facial deformity or other disfigurement. They're not comfortable with themselves when someone doesn't fit into their worldview, so those others must conform to their standards. God forbid their own soul undergo an evolution.

Posted by: jrzwrld | October 12, 2009 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Marriage was designed for a man and a woman. Period. What will a man whose husband dies be called? Not widower, that is a gender specific term by definition. Definitely not widow. This is what is offensive. People want to deconstruct society just to feel good about themselves. Should equal rights and responsibilities be conveyed? Absolutely, but marriage, with all of it's fallacies and troubles is a sacred union between a MAN and a WOMAN. Period.

Posted by: davis_renee | October 12, 2009 8:24 PM | Report abuse

You are free to have that as your religious belief, davis_renee. That's between you and your god/s. But this is what's about between citizens and their government. Personally, I believe government should stay out of marriage entirely. But since there's not a strong lobby for marriage to be replaced by uniform civil unions and moved to the province of the churches, I'm fighting to equalize marriage. It's not to make people feel good about themselves. It's to make sure that couples in formally committed relationships have the same rights as other couples. There are more than 1,100 legal benefits that are conveyed with marriage. To make those rights conditional on the genders of the participants is rather arbitrary. It's not going to deconstruct society. Marriage has always been an evolving institution. At one time, marriage was viewed as almost a master-slave relationship, where a woman was completely under the power of her husband. That's hardly the mainstream view nowadays. And that superior-inferior dynamic is part of what made same-sex marriages an impossible idea until recently. It was not a relationship of equals; SOMEONE had to be the primary person in the household. If it was two men or two women, who would be the head? Yet there are few people who would accept that superior-inferior dynamic in mainstream society today. There are some people, yes, who still hold that idea, but they are the minority. Besides, this sacred union of which you speak was not always a sacred union between a man and a woman. Sometimes it was a man and a woman and another woman and another woman, etc. The Inuit (or one of the Arctic peoples) would even form units with a woman and two men, because that was what fit their environment. There's no "Period", sorry. The concept of "marriage" has always been a moving target, evolving to meet the needs and desires of every society that develops the concept.

And a man whose husband dies would still be called a widower, for he would still be a man who had lost his spouse.

Posted by: jrzwrld | October 12, 2009 9:56 PM | Report abuse

@linda: How is it an attack on your rights if the gay couple living next door to you were to get married?

This really is the naked, bottom line of prejudice: The majority has an advantage and will complain bitterly if there is any chance of the playing field being leveled. It happened with civil rights in the 50s and 60s; it happened with feminism in the 70s; and it's still happening today with gays and lesbians.

It's just all so mind-numbingly predictable. You anti-homo bigots have nothing new to say. I came out of the closet 19 years ago and *not one original thought* arguing against homosexuality has been posted here.

Your arguments have been demolished over and over again. You will not prevail by staying stuck in the past.

Posted by: jamshark70 | October 12, 2009 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Jamshark70, didn't you get the Gay Agenda Memo? Dude, you should totally get on that mailing list. As soon as gay marriage goes through, all heterosexual marriages will immediately devolve into chaos! They won't be able to support their own weight. Adultery and divorce will be rampant! Engaged heterosexual couples will suddenly be more focused on their wedding receptions than on the fact that they will be spending the rest of their lives together! They'll spend ridiculous amounts of money on a frivolous party rather than using it to build a strong foundation from which to start their lives! They'll - oops. Never mind.

Truth be told I never had much use for marriage as a heterosexual woman. It wasn't until my gay best friend explained to me just what an important institution it is that I even began to view it in a positive light. He reveres the institution far more than I do. Yet a marriage with the partner of his choice is denied to him. It was never so evident to me how painful that must be for him as when I watched him stand up as a groomsman in the wedding party of one of our buddies. It was strange to be so happy for one good friend while my heart ached for another.

Posted by: jrzwrld | October 12, 2009 10:53 PM | Report abuse

"People want to deconstruct society just to feel good about themselves."

Yeah. Just like when "Mrs." and "Miss" became "Ms." They didn't have any right to do that deconstruction jazz. Now the meaning of "widower" will get all screwed up.

On an intellectual scale, you're a bacterium.

Posted by: fzdybel | October 12, 2009 11:30 PM | Report abuse

Fzdybel, you could just as easily say "People want to maintain the status quo just to feel good about themselves." :D

Posted by: jrzwrld | October 13, 2009 12:07 AM | Report abuse

As for the subject of gays in the Armed FOrces as a openly homosexual veteran, I served alongside many homosexuals and allow to me to tell you that that the true concern of the american warrior is wether or not his or her buddy will hold up there end, the idea of the horrible disfunctions that will result from the open service of homosexuals is a great insult to American Warriors of all orientations. Give us our orders and let us carry them out. The professionalism of the American Warrior is far beyond this bickering. Recall that the Armed Forces of the United States progressed far beyond the civillian population in the case of racial integration. While note wihtout issue, it should be noted we has men of color graduating om USMA in the very arly 1900's. As I was taught in the US Army you are all green

Posted by: 1st72ndAR91W | October 13, 2009 3:53 AM | Report abuse

Allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the American military is just another way for liberals to neutralize American power.

"Band of Brothers" will have a completely different meaning when our military becomes "gay".

Look at what happened to the Catholic priesthood when it turned "gay". Alter boys were running for their lives in that den of sin. It cost the church billions in legal settlements.

Straight men stopped becoming priests. It always happens that way. What normal man would want to serve in a company of homosexuals?? Not many!

Posted by: battleground51 | October 13, 2009 7:22 AM | Report abuse

Whenever there is an organization that is all male or all female, homosexuals and lesbians try to ruin it for normal men and women.

Catholic priesthood. It was meant to be a brotherhood of normal men who wanted to serve God. Homosexuals were attracted to that scenario because it was all men. When the Catholic church removed the barriers to homosexuals, the priesthood became the gayhood. The molestation of boys in the church reached epidemic proportion. It cause untold damage to the church.

Womens softball leagues became dens of lesbians. The Womens Basketball League followed a similar path.

Now they want to homosexualize Amercan military organizations. Purpose being to have a place to meet other homosexual men and party. What a plan!

I guess gay bars and public restrooms are not good enough anymore.

Posted by: battleground51 | October 13, 2009 7:50 AM | Report abuse

I don't hate or fear gays. Aside from the obvious immorality that this lifestyle embraces, it just isn't normal. If it is normal then why, when these "couples" want children do they have to turn the opposite sex in order to get them. The order of nature is 1 female + 1 male = procreation. And please don't spout off about abberant species that procreate via same sex copulation. We aren't an abberant species.
Yet.

Posted by: tjmlrc | October 13, 2009 11:09 AM | Report abuse

"Straight men stopped becoming priests. It always happens that way. What normal man would want to serve in a company of homosexuals?? Not many!"

Actually, most normal men have grown up past their adolescent insecurities about their manhood, and they have no problem being adults and doing their job professionally, whether or not their fellow soldier is gay.

Again: Homosexuality is not the problem. Irrational fear of it is.

Posted by: jamshark70 | October 13, 2009 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Let us know when you're forced to do that, and then you'll have a point. Until then, you're just another irrational bigot.

pleasingshareman wrote:
"What about the rights of the 95% of Americans not to be forced to accept their anus as the pleasure zone of their lives ???"

Posted by: Dadrick | October 13, 2009 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Tjmlrc, procreation of the species not the individual is really the objective, and homosexuality makes perfect sense from an evolutionary standpoint. Groups would have survived better if there were individuals who were unlikely to procreate themselves. These people could better devote their efforts to the welfare of the general group because they were less likely to be responsible for young children(one gay friend speculates this is the basis for the "creative" stereoptype so often applied to homosexuals). Additionally, these individuals would be available to take in orphaned children who were not their own and ensure the survival of the next generation. Too, with a larger proportion of adults to children there would just be more people to protect the young of the group. It's similar to the dynamic in a wolfpack - certain pairs mate, and other wolves that do not themselves reproduce are there to support them in their parenting. So it's not necessarily accurate to claim homosexuality is against nature. There are some clear evolutionary reasons for it.

Posted by: jrzwrld | October 13, 2009 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Battleground51, go take your meds.

Posted by: jrzwrld | October 13, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

jrzwrld,
You are comparing wild animals to people.
All the more reason for rational people to stand up and protest this immoral behavior by these pitiable people.
Sad to see what lengths are necessay to defend this ascribable behavior.

Posted by: tjmlrc | October 13, 2009 12:47 PM | Report abuse

We ARE animals Tjmrlc. I'm assuming I guess that you are not a fan of evolution, so debating you on scientific grounds is pointless. And I hardly see where two people having a relationship is pitiable or immoral - you just can't cope with the idea that it involves a different combination of body parts than you prefer.

Posted by: jrzwrld | October 13, 2009 12:56 PM | Report abuse

And not to nitpick, but I don't think "ascribable" means what you think it means.

Posted by: jrzwrld | October 13, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Mr Capeheart for a great story. According to my "older" participants, they enjoyed the experience of interacting with gay people from accross the US.

This might not have been a huge mob....but its impact is felt on everyone there.

Reminders like this help keep the pressure up on our legislators. Its not about bean counting.

Posted by: akousen | October 13, 2009 1:35 PM | Report abuse

jrzwrld,

If you say that you descended from apes then I agree. You descended from apes. I was created in the image of my God. You see, that is compromise. If you want to practice what I believe to be perverted acts, then do so. I will never accept homosexuality as a norm. I will not knowingly support or associate with someone who practices these acts. You may get it legalized via the government (like they know what is normal) but you will never make those of us with morals accept you or your kind. But have a good life anyway.

Posted by: tjmlrc | October 13, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

See but that's the thing tjmlrc, that's exactly it. You just made my point. My relationships don't affect yours. Yours don't affect mine. They don't impede on the rights that we share. Which is why gay marriage should be legal. You're free to teach your children that gay people will burn in hell for their immoral lifestyle, and I'm free to teach mine that people like you are misguided fantasists. You can avoid gay people all you want (good luck with that, btw), and I'm free to embrace all kinds of folk. As long as we don't trample each other's rights we have a right to live how we want. Which is why gay marriage should be legal in a country where the sexes are treated equally and where everyone has the right to live their life as they please as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Posted by: jrzwrld | October 13, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

jrzwrld, You said;
"You're free to teach your children that gay people will burn in hell for their immoral lifestyle, and I'm free to teach mine that people like you are misguided fantasists."
1st rule; No name calling as you did referring to me as a misguided fantasist. I didn't call you a pervert that spreads aids. That's nasty. I call you homosexual. No fancy names like gay. Or Rainbow, etc.
I avoid you and you avoid me. We stay out of each others space. You live your life and I live mine. You stay away from my children and I stay away from yours. I don't want my children thinking that this is normal and your don't want your children thinking that people are against their parent because they don't agree with their lifestyle. And when your child looks at you one day and calls you and wants to know why you have two of the same sex people parenting when suzies or jimmies parents are 1 man and 1 woman, I hope you will tell them how it used to be back in the day.

Posted by: tjmlrc | October 13, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

I do not believe what happens in a bedroom of consenting adults is anyone elses's business. I may not understand the gay lifestyle, but I do understand love for another human being. If there was a law preventing my marriage to my husband,I would be outraged over the inhumane treatment. Gay people are human and have a right to be who they are without any discrimination what so ever. Happiness is a right for everyone.

Posted by: Carolyn207 | October 14, 2009 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Ah, but tjmlrc, I'm not gay - you merely assumed I was. I'm a straight woman. I have gay friends whom I passionately believe deserve to have the same right to marry and make a life with their partner as I do. In fact, when I was protesting in the city, half of my group consisted of straight men who had come with us to support a mutual friend.

Did I call you a name? I'm an agnostic who thinks most of the Bible is simply myths and legends, though I read the gospels of the New Testament frequently for the philosophical message, which was very revolutionary for its time. But I view much of the Bible as fantasy. And I think people who believe being gay means you spread AIDS is misguided to say the least. So I don't know if that was name calling. You can certainly feel free to call me a pervert - lots of latitude in that word's meaning. You can call me a homosexual, too - though it wouldn't be factual truth by most people's definition of the word. I do find though that any time I defend gay rights online, people who think homosexuality is wrong end up assuming I'm gay. Funny how that works.

Posted by: jrzwrld | October 14, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Ah, but tjmlrc, I'm not gay - you merely assumed I was. I'm a straight woman. I have gay friends whom I passionately believe deserve to have the same right to marry and make a life with their partner as I do. In fact, when I was protesting in the city, half of my group consisted of straight men who had come with us to support a mutual friend.

Did I call you a name? I'm an agnostic who thinks most of the Bible is simply myths and legends, though I read the gospels of the New Testament frequently for the philosophical message, which was very revolutionary for its time. But I view much of the Bible as fantasy. And I think people who believe being gay means you spread AIDS is misguided to say the least. So I don't know if that was name calling. You can certainly feel free to call me a pervert - lots of latitude in that word's meaning. You can call me a homosexual, too - though it wouldn't be factual truth by most people's definition of the word. I do find though that any time I defend gay rights online, people who think homosexuality is wrong end up assuming I'm gay. Funny how that works.
===========================================
Possibly assumed guilt by association. Interestingly though, for such an unhappy bunch of people, I wonder why they chose gay as the collective name. Seems the lifestyle is mostly about being miserable. At any rate, you called me a mis-guided fantasist which is a put down. You don't believe. I do. Who is right? We'll find out in due time. Till then, I believe that homosexuality is wrong and I will not accept it as "right" in spite of the foot stamping by those who believe that "this is what will truly make them happy." I've found that if you don't stand for something you will fall for anything, in any guise.
In the meantime though, the world will keep on turning.
Till it stops.

Posted by: tjmlrc | October 15, 2009 10:39 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company