If there ever was a title that should be on a bad and bloody, 70’s horror film, that is it! But instead, it’s on an article about an NPR interview with (R) Congressman Duncan Hunter discussing repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

When NPR went looking for someone to speak out in favor of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” thy could not have found a better representative of thinking on that side of the aisle than Duncan Hunter. Wait a sec… did I say thinking because that clearly not a problem that afflicts Congressman Hunter.

Duncan Hunter: the military is not civilian life. In think the folks that have been in the military… that have been in these very close situations with each other, there has to be a special bond there. But that bond is broken if you open up the military to transgenders to hermaphrodites to gays and lesbians.

NPR: Trangenders and hermaphrodites?

Duncan Hunter: Yeah, that’s gonna be… uh, uh, uh… part of this whole thing. It’s not just gays and lesbians. It’s the whole gay lesbian transgender bisexual community. If you’re going to let anybody in no matter what sexual preference that they have, that means the military’s going to let everybody in.

I can’t tell what’s stranger: that Duncan Hunter is in a rash about hermaphrodites invading the US military, or that he thinks being a hermaphrodite is a sexual preference.

So, what do you think about Obama’s wanting to change the policy? Should homophobes be considered more of a liability in the military than gays? If you feel gays shouldn’t be in the military, do you feel blacks and women shouldn’t either since they also can’t help how they were born? When you’re being attacked by the enemy, which is more important: the guy next to you can shoot straight or that he’s not gay?




  1. fpp2002 says:

    #99, I guess I should have expected a non-answer out of you. Not a big surprise, given that you have no debating skills. Ah well.

  2. Thomas says:

    #99
    #90 You’re really dense. Sad indeed.

    I’ll accept your inability to form a coherent retort as your defeat.

    #91 When you actually start having a connection inside your brain and stop using misnomers, then maybe one could have something resembling a conversation with you.

    I’ll again accept this inept retort as another one of your defeats.

    #93 From your article “have never been identified.” Thanks for the link.

    The full sentence:

    The evolutionary brain modifications that produce any complex, congenital behavioral *****difference between two species***** have never been identified.

    For the hat trick. Certain congenital behavioral traits must exist for any species to survive: the desire to eat, the desire to drink, the desire to mate. It is simply ignorant to think that no congenital behavioral traits can exist.

  3. Dr Dodd says:

    #101-Howard Beale-Your point of view here is that you want to force beliefs on others by supporting laws like DADT.

    Who ever said I supported DADT? Again you argue a point where you toss a talking point out as if I said it then argue against it.

    >>I’m just moral as you maybe even more moral unless you have a problem with freedom of religion too.

    You may very well be a more moral person than me but you do have a problem of distinguishing the difference between good and evil.

    Since you bring religion into the discussion let be point out that God condemns homosexual behavior. And so there would be no misunderstanding He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah to prove it.

    If God considers homosexual behavior to be evil what else needs to be said?

  4. Dr Dodd says:

    #100-Honeyman-You homophobes are like hysterical little schoolgirls that don’t even know what they’re frightened of.

    Us homophobes know very well what to be concerned about. The military is not a social project to be twisted to fit some homosexual agenda.

    There is something insane about a group who would purposely destroy an institution that not only protects them but the entire nation.

    Not surprising since experience tells us that the “agenda” is all that matters to many homosexuals.

  5. honeyman says:

    #106 Dodd

    Fair enough. You’re still like a hysterical schoolgirl though. Note how many other nations allow out gays in the military. Your ‘destruction of the military institution’ bollocks is just paranoid bigotry with no basis in reality.

    Have a nice day!

  6. Dr Dodd says:

    #-107-Honeyman-Note how many other nations allow out gays in the military.

    You mean the same nations who depend on the US military to come to the rescue in case of any real trouble?

    It’s easy to play progressive when your military is at best a social club.

  7. Thomas says:

    #104
    There is no such thing as a congenital behavior. That is called instinct

    So call it instinct if it helps you. Of course, in doing so, you accept that congenital behavior tendencies do exist in contrast to what you have said earlier and that heterosexuals also have this instinct.

    Again, I come back to the fundamental questions you have not answered:

    1. Do you already support open acceptance of gays in the military?
    2. If no, is the reason you do not support it because you feel that homosexuality is not innate but a conscious choice?

  8. Thomas says:

    #106
    Us homophobes know very well what to be concerned about. The military is not a social project to be twisted to fit some homosexual agenda.

    There is something insane about a group who would purposely destroy an institution that not only protects them but the entire nation.

    That’s what people said before Truman integrated blacks into the rest of the military. Arguments included:

    “The primary mission of an Army and Navy is to fight, not to try and reform or improve social customs of the country which it serves.”

    “There would be decreased fighting potentialities because of the presence in the ranks of a large number of individuals who would strenuously object to being made to live, work, eat and fight with colored “brothers-in-arms.”

    Sound familiar?

  9. Dr Dodd says:

    #110-Thomas-“There would be decreased fighting potentialities because of the presence in the ranks of a large number of individuals who would strenuously object to being made to live, work, eat and fight with colored “brothers-in-arms.”

    So you’re comparing dark skin pigmentation with deviant homosexual behavior?

    That’s absurd on the face of it.

  10. Thomas says:

    #111
    I’m comparing bigoted opinions about homosexuality to bigoted opinions about skin pigmentation.

    I’ll ask the same question to you as to pedro: If you were given sufficient evidence such that, by some miracle, you were convinced that homosexuality was innate and not a choice, would that change your opinion about whether they should be allowed in the military?

  11. Dr Dodd says:

    #111-Thomas

    Your premise if flawed making the rest of your hypothetical unrealistic.

    But let’s have some fun anyway.

    It’s like me saying I was born with the innate need to rob banks. I’m black and since puberty I’ve had this strange need to rob banks.

    Understanding I was born with this problem does the bank manager hold a bigoted opinion by not giving me a job at his bank?

  12. fpp2002 says:

    #104, pedro. I asked you a simple question. You did not answer it, and instead tried to point the finger at me. Didn’t work. FAIL!

  13. Thomas says:

    #113
    The premise is not only realistic, current science supports the notion that homosexual preference is innate.

    However, that is actually irrelevant to the question you dodged. Specifically and solely with respect to homosexuality, if you were given sufficient evidence to convince YOU that homosexuality was innate behavior, would you still oppose gays being permitted in the military?

    It seems clear that you would, so whether homosexuality is innate or not is entirely orthogonal to your opposition to their entry. In other words, whether homosexuality is, as you called it, a “deviant behavior”, or not has absolutely nothing to do with your opposition. You personally have issue with homosexuals and you are using the dismissive of “deviant behavior” as an excuse.

  14. Mikey Twit says:

    #115 Thomas

    Your wasting your time with Dr Dodd. The Bible says homosexuality is wrong so, instead of thinking and reasoning for himself, he believes what in his lazy mind, his god says. Why think for yourself, when religion spells it all out for you!

    Reasonable debate is wasted on people like him/her

  15. Howard Beale says:

    If God considers homosexual behavior to be evil what else needs to be said?

    #105 Dodd
    as i thought you need help from what many would consider an imaginary friend to justify your own thoughts.

    Your biblical ignorance makes me sad and i’m not even a believer but if i were i’d be sure you would not be getting into your heaven.

    You are simply finding a few texts out of thousands that seem to support your prejudice.

    According to the gospels Jesus says nothing about homosexuals. If you want to go Old Testament on me you had better be doing every thing the Old Testament says to (lots of it is illegal in the US so I hope you live elsewhere).

    To discriminate against minorities is un-American
    To pick and choose what you want out of your Bible to support your prejudice will land you in what you that hell you have heard about.
    If turns out we have souls I fear for yours.

  16. Dr Dodd says:

    #117-Howard Beale-You are simply finding a few texts out of thousands that seem to support your prejudice.

    No, I would say in this particular instance the meaning behind it is extremely clear. No room for mistake even for you.

    >>if i were i’d be sure you would not be getting into your heaven.

    Good thing you aren’t the one who decides such things. But your statement does say a lot about you.

    Yes, quite a lot about you.

  17. Howard Beale says:

    So all the women in your family who were not virgins at the time of there marriages have been taken to the door of her fathers house and stoned to death?
    You’re still ok with Slavery?
    Killing those who preach or practices a different religion than you?

    If your brother’s wife dies you will certainly marry your sister-in-law?

    Your all for stoning to death stubborn and rebellious sons?

    Good with the nearest relative of accidental death victim killing the one who caused the accident?

    You would advocate rapist only having to pay a virgins father cash the victim and rapist must marry? Sick

    What about food you sure you have been on that old testament diet?

    I wont even go into the O T laws on menstruation and semen being a homophob I doubt you could handle the conversation, lets just say if you live in the west and have been with a woman or just ejaculated you are unclean.

    Ya right you follow all these laws and more ha!

    You just pick and choose what you want out of your Bible to support your prejudice just like radical islamist.

    good day sir

  18. Mikey Twit says:

    #119 Howard Beale

    Well put!

    I’m sorry you wasted all that time typing out that very reasoned explanation of why Dr Dodd is beyond wrong and deluded. But alas, it was a waste because he/she is so deluded.

    If heaven did exist, and he/she were the type they let it, Hell, if it did exist, would look like a cold drink of water!

  19. Howard Beale says:

    Thanks Mikey
    I don’t see it as a waste of time more as a Civic Duty to patiently explain to the Dodds there line of thinking is the same as the radical Islamist might help the world be a better place one day.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 19692 access attempts in the last 7 days.