Army Lt. discharged under DADT writes to Obama: ‘I beg you today: Do not fire me.’
Army Lt. discharged under DADT writes to Obama: ‘I beg you today: Do not fire me.’
Last week, the U.S. Army discharged National Guard Lt. Daniel Choi — who served in Iraq and is fluent in Arabic — because he came out of the closet as a gay man. “Why didn’t I just shut up and not say anything?” Choi asked. Because “the Army values teach us, have courage, take personal courage, stand up, don’t lie, be honest about who you are,” he said. Choi said he would fight his dismissal “tooth and nail” and now he has written Congress and President Obama “begging” them not to fire him:
As an infantry officer, I am not accustomed to begging. But I beg you today: Do not fire me. Do not fire me because my soldiers are more than a unit or a fighting force – we are a family and we support each other. We should not learn that honesty and courage leads to punishment and insult. Their professionalism should not be rewarded with losing their leader. I understand if you must fire me, but please do not discredit and insult my soldiers for their professionalism.
When I was commissioned I was told that I serve at the pleasure of the President. I hope I have not displeased anyone by my honesty. I love my job. I want to deploy and continue to serve with the unit I respect and admire. I want to continue to serve our country because of everything it stands for.
Please do not wait to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Please do not fire me.
Army officer Sandy Tsao also wrote to Obama after she told her superiors she was gay and asked him to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Obama personally responded, writing, “I committed to changing our current policy. Although it will take some time to complete. … I intend to fulfill my commitment!” (HT: AmericaBlog)
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
If President Obama is truly committed to repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, then he immediately needs to put a stop to the military expelling soldiers who have come out of the closet. He has the ability to do this as Commander in Chief. I suggest everyone here send him an e-mail suggesting this is what he should do. I have already done this.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
May 12th, 2009 at 12:27 pmSorry, you can serve our country (with honor) but you are not entitled to freedom like straight people.
That’s the way it is, GOD BLESS ORGANIZED RELIGION!
May 12th, 2009 at 12:29 pmthank you…
May 12th, 2009 at 12:32 pmChoi is a DOUBLE hero , with more honor than most people have ever even heard about , let alone get to see……….
May 12th, 2009 at 12:35 pm“Why didn’t I just shut up and not say anything?” Choi asked. Because “the Army values teach us, have courage, take personal courage, stand up, don’t lie, be honest about who you are,” he said.
_________________________________________________________
That looks like a West Point uniform Lt. Choi is wearing in that picture. If he’s a WP grad, then honor probably means everything to him — lying and cheating are grave offenses there.
Why isn’t a deep-seated sense of honor more valued than sexual orientation?
May 12th, 2009 at 12:38 pmHonestly if the military doesn’t want you I wouldn’t beg for your job back. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love it if we kept you but self-sacrifice is better than begging.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:39 pmDear President Obama, Please repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” and let this patriotic soldier, and so many others serve in the military. (They have been serving in the military anyway, clear back to the Revolutionary War.) Thank you.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:40 pmWow. I was all in favor of putting the DADT repeal on the back burner, but this is how the issue needs to be framed.
If the issue is kept personal with the servicemen and women visible, then it’s a lot harder for the mouthbreathers to use it as a wedge issue. More of our soldiers need to follow this man’s lead if they want this policy overturned.
By my math 20 similar letters should do it.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:44 pmAnd McCain thinks that DADT “has been working and [...] it’s been working well.”
Losing men like Lt. Choi is “working well”?
May 12th, 2009 at 12:44 pmI never did like the phrase “at the pleasure of the president.”
ew
May 12th, 2009 at 12:44 pmCue God and the religious right posters who will chew out Lt. Choi for begging for his job in 5…
May 12th, 2009 at 12:45 pmIt won’t work.
The Pentagon is stuffed to the gills with men who will not budge. They do not cotton to being ordered, but to GIVING the orders.
Even to and from a President, especially a Democrat, especially a secret-Muslim terrorist fist-bumping America-hating BLACK Democratic President. The plans for the military industrial complex coup are not only out of the safe, but have been disseminated to all trustworthy generals and admirals.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:46 pmThey don’t want as honest and forthright a guy as this in the military.
He would rat out the torturers and other Geneva Conventions criminals. His honor would demand it.
And that is exactly what I demand of our military–honor, respect for the laws and treaties of our nation, etc–but it ain’t gonna happen.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:47 pmgood eye miss Molly. That is indeed a West Point uniform. More over as a service academy graduate, Lt. Choi has had the some of the best military training in the WORLD. He’s a young guy too, we’ve invested a helluva lot in his education and career.
The taxpayers should get a return on that investment. Let him stay.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:47 pmThat’s the kind of change we do not need. We need to abolish DADT, not merely soften it up.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:49 pmWhy is it, that when I call the white house operator ( 202-456-1111 ) it wont go through?
May 12th, 2009 at 12:50 pmarkohio Says:
Dear President Obama, Please repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” and let this patriotic soldier, and so many others serve in the military. (They have been serving in the military anyway, clear back to the Revolutionary War.) Thank you.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
LT Choi has done nothing that makes him an exception to the the rule, the so-called don’t ask don’t tell policy.
In fact, he probably sealed his military fate when he came out on TV.
He embarrassed the Army, …and that was probably his intent.
Likely he will be dealt with as if his intent was to embarrass the service. Even if he stays in the NG his career is over.
Further, his remarks …
Do not fire me. Do not fire me because my soldiers are more than a unit or a fighting force – we are a family and we support each other. We should not learn that honesty and courage leads to punishment and insult. Their professionalism should not be rewarded with losing their leader. I understand if you must fire me, but please do not discredit and insult my soldiers for their professionalism.…
suggest to bit the the LT thinks it’s about his feelings. This quote seems to be especially telling, at least to bit, “We should not learn that honesty and courage leads to punishment and insult.”
It’s a good line, and bit wants to remember it the next time he gets stopped for speeding, but Choi deliberately went against the policy, and he did it in a very public way. As an officer his superiors would have expected Choi to conform to the policy for the good of the service. Surely he’s heard the phrase, “…for the good of the service.”
For the good of the service Choi will be dismissed, as he should be.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:52 pmI’m sorry. I’m in an awful mood today.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:55 pmSo.
idjit, STFU you homophobic Pharisee twit!
bitblt Says:
It’s a good line, and bit wants to remember it the next time he gets stopped for speeding, but Choi deliberately went against the policy, and he did it in a very public way. As an officer his superiors would have expected Choi to conform to the policy for the good of the service. Surely he’s heard the phrase, “…for the good of the service.”
May 12th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
____________
And Rosa Parks should’ve shut her yap and moved to the back of the bus like a good little Negro.
You know, for the good of the Montgomery Bus system.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:55 pmCFP, lots of questions, but no answers, eh?
I’ll tell you why.
Deep rooted prejudices among conservatives about gays. Gay is the new ‘N’ word for conservatives. It’s basically all they have left to hate ‘legally’.
Sad, isn’t it?
Glad to hear you’re against DADT, by the way.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:56 pmbitblt Says:
——————————————————————————–
May 12th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Oh look ; the little GOP backing religious skid mark who posts in the 3rd person , already posting against Choi.
The only shock is that it took the turdburglar almost 20 posts from others before chiming in with his useless drivel……
May 12th, 2009 at 12:59 pmFor the good of the service Choi will be dismissed, as he should be.
How about for the good of the country? Doesn’t that count? Is it always us vs. them with you folks? I figure the homophobes are scared they may get a little ‘funny feeling’ down there while in the company of Lt. Choi. The homophobes are frightened they would be distracted by teh gay, not that the gay soldiers are not doing their jobs.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:59 pmLt Choi broke the cardinal rule of republicans: “Closeted Gay, It’s The Republican Way”
May 12th, 2009 at 1:01 pmbitblt Says:
For the good of the service Choi will be dismissed, as he should be.
He likely will be, as defined by the current policy, but not before Lt. Choi did the right thing by bringing light to this policy. Sometime you need to rise up and argue against policy if it does not feel right. Otherwise, laws would never change.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:02 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
And Rosa Parks should’ve shut her yap and moved to the back of the bus like a good little Negro.
You know, for the good of the Montgomery Bus system.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Since bit has been posting on TP he’s seen some really poor analogies, but this one is probably the poorest one yet.
And furthermore…
http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34271
This analogy is so poor it wouldn’t have been improved if race and homosexuality were ontologically equivalent.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:03 pmConservativeForProgress Says
May 12th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Why hasn’t Obama taken care of this problem? His party controls both houses of Congress and he is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. McCain isn’t President, and at his age, never will be. This is Obama’s problem, and repeal of Clinton’s DADT policy is long overdue. Why are soldiers stil being discharged under DADT under Obama’s command?
_____________________________________________________________
Because if DADT is merely “repealed”, it just sets the military’s policy back to what it was in 1993 (with recruits being required to declare their sexual orientation and kicked out if it’s not the right one). Not only does DADT need to go, but so does the ban against gays. And that will require an act of Congress, not an edict from the President.
President Obama has made his wishes known to Congress, and is applying pressure on them to work on it. But he’s applying pressure on them to work on a number of other issues as well, and we may not get all the presents on our Santa list right away — especially with the GOP Grinch obstructing as much as possible.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:05 pmDr. Hussein Matt Says:
It’s hard to believe we are in the 21st Century and gays still have to hide their identities.
=========================================================
In the 21 st century its hard to believe that there are still people who do not know that Arabic people are the biggest homophobes on the planet and they will kill a gay or lesbian the very first chance they get. This guy coming “out of the closet” has put himself and others at great risk in that capacity. GET A CLUE!
May 12th, 2009 at 1:09 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian does not understand how bitblt fails to recognize that Lt.Choi has been serving in the military for the precise purpose of maintaining bitblt’s right to his religious freedom. PatrioticLiberalChristian believes that Lt.Choi deserves the same protection for his affective and sexual freedom. PatrioticLiberalChristian would not want to see President Obama act like a “unitary executive” and change the DADT law by fiat, but he does expect the President to lead Congress to a legislative change.
PatrioticLiberalChristian wishes bitblt would limit himself to teaching and converting those who volunteer rather than trying to force his beliefs, through government, onto others. PatrioticLiberalChristian tires of the oppressively arrogant view of bitblt and others like him who justify their bigotry through the Bible.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:10 pm#19. I could not disagree with you more. The policy should not be a policy at all. Gay people should have equal rights, both in the military and out. This policy is wrong, and it deprives the nation of much needed talents and skills.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:10 pmbitblt Says
May 12th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
This analogy is so poor it wouldn’t have been improved if race and homosexuality were ontologically equivalent.
___________________________________________________________
Actually, I thought toasterhead’s analogy was a pretty good one. Both situations have to do with policies designed to appease bigots, and both situations have to do with brave souls who made a stand against these policies.
Why do you think the analogy is a poor one? And can you answer the question without giving us a link from a homophobic website or giving us a lot of irrelevant information such as the “ontological differences” between race and sexual orientation? What causes blackness and what causes homosexuality is not the issue here.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:11 pmIn the 21 st century its hard to believe that there are still people who do not know that Arabic people are the biggest homophobes on the planet and they will kill a gay or lesbian the very first chance they get.
So you are still comparing the USA to the Arab world? Why on earth would you believe your point has any relevance to this discussion? We are not talking about what another country or people would do – WE ARE ASKING WHAT THE USA SHOULD DO.
You may not think so, but we are supposed to be better than the other countries. Why do you hate Americans?
May 12th, 2009 at 1:12 pmSlappyBastinado, are you expecting that when DADT is repealed, gay soldiers will be forced to wear the pink triangle?
This isn’t Nazi Germany. I doubt people of Arab descent will be able to pick out the homosexuals in uniform.
Lame, lame argument.
PEACE
May 12th, 2009 at 1:12 pmPLCMR, I think you own another troll. Can you teach it the proper use of pronouns?
PEACE
May 12th, 2009 at 1:14 pm#27 – Purple State Says:
———————————————————–
“He likely will be, as defined by the current policy, but not before Lt. Choi did the right thing by bringing light to this policy. Sometime you need to rise up and argue against policy if it does not feel right. Otherwise, laws would never change.”
May 12th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
“The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.”
Just as people in the past have fought against mis-guided and wrong-headed rules, so does Lt. Choi fight for the right to continue to honorably serve his country. I pray that he’s given the chance, and that America fully supports equal rights for all Americans.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:14 pmDr. Hussein Matt Says:
.
.
.
Prove 1) that he embarrassed the Army and 2) that was his intent.
We’ll wait….
May 12th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
TP’S link in the article said LT Choi came out on national TV. bit tends to think that there’s a reason he would have done this, don’t you? However, bit’s remark was his speculation.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:14 pmspencers mom Says:
=============================
Did you miss this…..
Daniel Choi — who served in Iraq and is fluent in Arabic
It is obvious his abilities could serve him well in this capacity……….but now that he is “out” won’t work.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:16 pmbitblt Says:
——————————————————————————–
May 12th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
The purpose of the posted analogy was to point out your ignorance and bigotry , you delusional putz……
May 12th, 2009 at 1:16 pmSlappyBastinado Says:
In the 21 st century its hard to believe that there are still people who do not know that Arabic people are the biggest homophobes on the planet and they will kill a gay or lesbian the very first chance they get. This guy coming “out of the closet” has put himself and others at great risk in that capacity. GET A CLUE!
…so the rest of the American soldiers, the non-gay ones, are pretty much safe from shootings and IEDs?
Face it, being an American gay soldier will get them shot at the same rate as being an American straight soldier.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:17 pmbitblt says “ontological”. PatrioticLiberalChristian says “tautological”.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:20 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
Agreed. Completely. And if Obama really wanted to change things, DADT would be a thing of the past by now. All the Democrat controlled Congress needs to pass is a one liner repealing the 1993 Clinton era statute.
With a promise that no Republican will filibuster against this, Congress would pass it as soon as possible.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:22 pmLuis…….THINK! This guy is a LT., an officer, not a infantry soilder…..and is fluent in Aribic…..his value to the military is great, however when the enemy OR those fighting alongside the US find out his preferences it is dangerous not because I said it was or wish it were not…..it is! And and the military knows it.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:23 pmAll the Democrat controlled Congress needs to pass is a one liner repealing the 1993 Clinton era statute.
By using an incorrect desciption of the DEMOCRATIC controlled Congress, your intentions are clear: you don’t want – and cannot provide – a coherent argument supporting either side of the question. Limbaugh says Democrat Congress, and you dutifuly fall right into line. Please try and let go of the drug addicted child molester. He is doing you no good and he is assisting in the ruination of this country – all for his own wealth.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:23 pmspencers mom Says:
PLCMR, I think you own another troll. Can you teach it the proper use of pronouns?
I’d settle for teaching it to discontinue abusing nouns (i.e homosexuals, the Bible, the government).
May 12th, 2009 at 1:26 pm#47 – SlappyBastinado Says:
——————————————————–
“Luis…….THINK! This guy is a LT., an officer, not a infantry soilder…..and is fluent in Aribic…..his value to the military is great, however when the enemy OR those fighting alongside the US find out his preferences it is dangerous not because I said it was or wish it were not…..it is! And and the military knows it.”
May 12th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Why didn’t the British Military recuse any of their gay service members from serving in the Gulf due to your perspective?
Why didn’t the US State Dept. recuse any of their gay civilians from serving in the Gulf due to your persepctive?
May 12th, 2009 at 1:27 pmSlappyBastinado Says:
Luis…….THINK! This guy is a LT., an officer, not a infantry soilder…..and is fluent in Aribic…..his value to the military is great, however when the enemy OR those fighting alongside the US find out his preferences it is dangerous not because I said it was or wish it were not…..it is! And and the military knows it.
You make a fair point, debatable, but fair.
However he can still serve far away from the Arabic front, and yet help in the fight against Al-Qaeda. Get him back to the States translating intercepted communications in Arabic, for instance. Or relocate him to a base in Europe or something.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:28 pmMCMetal Says:
bitblt Says:
——————————————————————————–
May 12th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
The purpose of the posted analogy was to point out your ignorance and bigotry , you delusional putz……
May 12th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
bit doesn’t believe he’s a bigot, but then again, he’s not trying to prove he isn’t.
As far as ignorance, bit seems to know one thing that many TPers seem to overlook:
Homosexuality is immoral.
And neither bit’s opinion, which is in agreement with that statement, nor your opinion, which is likely in disagreement with the same statement, is going to change the truth of the statement.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:28 pmSlappyBastinado is dangerous to the United States of America not because I said he was or wish he was not……he is!
May 12th, 2009 at 1:30 pmSlappyBastinado Says:
Luis…….THINK! This guy is a LT., an officer, not a infantry soilder…..and is fluent in Aribic…..his value to the military is great, however when the enemy OR those fighting alongside the US find out his preferences it is dangerous not because I said it was or wish it were not…..it is! And and the military knows it.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
How is it dangerous? Exactly?
May 12th, 2009 at 1:30 pmYes, we don’t make the rules here we just debate them……if I could change the world for Lt. Choi I would.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:31 pmbitblt Says:
This analogy is so poor it wouldn’t have been improved if race and homosexuality were ontologically equivalent.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
__________
So are you trying to say that race is genetically determined? Many geneticists would disagree with this assertion:
May 12th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
As far as ignorance, I seem to know one thing that idjit seems to overlook:
Posting in the third person is immoral (as well as stupid).
And neither my opinion, which is in agreement with that statement, nor your opinion, which is likely in disagreement with the same statement, is going to change the truth of the statement.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:32 pmSo there!
Neener neener neener (idjit’s got a big ol’ butt!)
bitblt Says:
bit doesn’t believe he’s a bigot…
May 12th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
You’d be wrong about that — just like you are about everything else.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:34 pmbitblt is immoral.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:34 pmI have a question… If a service member declares their heterosexuality are they also discharged or does the “Don’t Tell” part only apply to gay and lesbians?
This policy is way over do for repeal.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:35 pmPatrioticLiberalChristianMantisReligiosa Says:
bitblt is immoral.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
That’s worth a repeat — in bold. ;)
May 12th, 2009 at 1:36 pmSlappyBastinado Says:
Luis…….THINK! This guy is a LT., an officer, not a infantry soilder…..and is fluent in Aribic…..his value to the military is great, however when the enemy OR those fighting alongside the US find out his preferences it is dangerous not because I said it was or wish it were not…..it is! And and the military knows it.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
If he’s West Point graduate and if he’s valuable to the military because he’s fluent in Arabic, why is he in the National Guard?
As bit recalls the obligation to the service after graduating from a service academy is five years active duty. (Please correct as needed.) So if he’s a point graduate and he’s served five years active duty, including a least one tour in Iraq, why is he only a LT? bit suspects there’s more to this story than just the part about an Army LT coming out.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:37 pmSlappyBastinado Says:
Arabic people are the biggest homophobes on the planet
May 12th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
___________
Really?
Now, I’m not saying that there isn’t horrific discrimination against homosexuals in many Arab countries. It does exist, and in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia the punishments for homosexuals rounded up in raids can be exremely brutal.
However, this does not mean that Arabs are any more or less intolerant than any other ethnic group.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:40 pmZooey Says:
How is it dangerous? Exactly?
=====================================
Best thing for you to do, son, is join the Army. Your innate, voluntary or genetic skepticism, which is incompatible with common sense can be best enhanced with experience.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:41 pmWhat’s the matter, bitblt? Insulting Lt. Choi for his “immoral” homosexuality isn’t enough? Now you have to try to insult his military service as well?
You continue to display the judgmental, arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude of the Pharisees of Jesus’ time. You cannot lead others to Christ by your loving example, so you try to legislate and otherwise force them there. Christian Pharisees like you do more damage to the faith of others than any non-believer.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:42 pmSlappyBastirdado,
May 12th, 2009 at 1:43 pmBest thing for you to do, son, is to stop posting random words as sentences.
SlappyBastinado Says:
Zooey Says:
How is it dangerous? Exactly?
=====================================
Best thing for you to do, son, is join the Army. Your innate, voluntary or genetic skepticism, which is incompatible with common sense can be best enhanced with experience.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Thanks for your patronizing attitude, honey, but I’d prefer it if you’d answer my question. If you can.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:44 pmchiroptera toasterhead, you are free to believe what you want, don’t let anything I say dissuade you. Go there and test your theory.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:44 pmZooey Says:
bitblt Says:
bit doesn’t believe he’s a bigot…
May 12th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
You’d be wrong about that — just like you are about everything else.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
So why is this label “bigot” such a big deal to you? Is it your way of avoiding any thought when bit makes a post, because you can declare the poster a bigot, and it’s well known that bigots don’t have anything worth saying?
Then why don’t you simply ignore anyone you think is a bigot?
The simple fact is that not every way of living is equal to every other way of living, and not every way of believing is equal to every other way of believing.
Irregardless of whether or not bit, or anyone else receiving your label, is a bigot, bigots get to vote along with every chad challenged individual in the country. Even “bigot labellers” get to vote.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:44 pmSlappyBastinado Says:
Best thing for you to do, son, is join the Army. Your innate, voluntary or genetic skepticism, which is incompatible with common sense can be best enhanced with experience.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
___________
That is not an answer to the question. How, exactly, is it dangerous?
You made the assertion. You back it up.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:45 pmbitblt Says:
So why is this label “bigot” such a big deal to you?
May 12th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Awwww, I think I hurt the bigot’s feelings. Poor wittle bigot…
Why don’t you ignore anyone you think is immoral?
May 12th, 2009 at 1:48 pmbitblt Says
May 12th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
As far as ignorance, bit seems to know one thing that many TPers seem to overlook:
Homosexuality is immoral.
And neither bit’s opinion, which is in agreement with that statement, nor your opinion, which is likely in disagreement with the same statement, is going to change the truth of the statement.
___________________________________________________________
Do you not realize that your pronouncement of “homosexuality is immoral” is your OPINION? And you claim it’s a fact — one which a differing opinion isn’t going to change the “truth” of.
How is this different from people who claim that “black people are inferior to white people” is a true fact and not opinion?
May 12th, 2009 at 1:50 pmbitblt Says:
So why is this label “bigot” such a big deal to you? Is it your way of avoiding any thought when bit makes a post, because you can declare the poster a bigot, and it’s well known that bigots don’t have anything worth saying?
May 12th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
_____________
It’s already well-known that you dont have anything worth saying, and nothing you post is remotely thought-provoking. We label you “bigot” because it is exactly what you are.
You are in fact the worst kind of bigot – one who wraps his hatred in a veneer of religious righteousness. You pretend to be a messenger of love and salvation, but are in reality the exact opposite. I can only pray that you will repent before it’s too late.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:50 pmHey, Con4Progress, you sed:
“Thus, it is a Demcorat controlled Congress. Get it?”
No, it’s a Democratically-controlled Congress.
I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on your mistaken use of the word ‘Democrat’. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant no insult by using the now-infamous misuse of the adjective ‘Democratic’. I agree with you that Obama has yet to actually lead us out of just about anything.
I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt until you prove otherwise to me, which you verge upon in this last post, arguing incorrect grammatical usage instead of holding up genuine ideas critical of Obama.
Don’t let me down.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:50 pmImmoral?
May 12th, 2009 at 2:00 pmIMMORAL?
My definition is completely different than yours, idjit.
I feel lying about an imminent danger to lead our country into an “occupation” that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands innocent Iraqis, as well as over 3000 of our brave men and women, is IMMORAL!
You just keep getting those heebie jeebies (or hard-ons) for same gender sex, and justifying your confused emotions as “immoral”.
And heck, maybe some day, you can boldly step out of your closet, and experiment with your so called demons. Hell, who knows, maybe you’ll “cum” to enjoy it, and would stop the ever loving third person posts that are just so fcking lame!
misscoleopteramolly Says:
bitblt Says
May 12th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
As far as ignorance, bit seems to know one thing that many TPers seem to overlook:
Homosexuality is immoral.
And neither bit’s opinion, which is in agreement with that statement, nor your opinion, which is likely in disagreement with the same statement, is going to change the truth of the statement.
___________________________________________________________
Do you not realize that your pronouncement of “homosexuality is immoral” is your OPINION? And you claim it’s a fact — one which a differing opinion isn’t going to change the “truth” of.
How is this different from people who claim that “black people are inferior to white people” is a true fact and not opinion?
May 12th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
bit wasn’t aware that being a black was a behavior from which one could refrain.
That seem to be a difference, at least to bit.
Homosexuality is hardly the only immoral behavior, and it’s not even the only immoral sexual behavior.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:00 pmAnd the bit-bigot sidesteps Miss Molly’s comment COMPLETELY.
Surprised?
May 12th, 2009 at 2:03 pmWhen the issued of integrating women into the military became serious, 25% of West Point graduates said the would resign. Not even close. Talk, talk, talk. That’s one of the big differences I noticed between men and women in the military. When it came to heavy lifting jobs, men spent a lot of time arguing, beating their chests, and slapping each other on the back. Women tended to work more quietly and steadily.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:04 pmSlappyBastinado Says
May 12th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
=====================================
Zooey Says:
How is it dangerous? Exactly?
=====================================
Best thing for you to do, son, is join the Army. Your innate, voluntary or genetic skepticism, which is incompatible with common sense can be best enhanced with experience.
____________________________________________________________
I don’t know if Zooey has served in the armed forces or not, but I certainly have. I was a Navy Photograper’s Mate, and I had more to fear in darkrooms from heterosexual males than I ever did from gay females. I have never been bothered by the sexual orientation of people working alongside me, whether it was in the Navy or civilian life.
Your condescending response to Zooey didn’t answer her question. So maybe you’ll answer mine without suggesting that I am lacking either common sense or experience.
How is it dangerous? Exactly?
May 12th, 2009 at 2:04 pmI see that all you care about is semantics and not the underlying issue. Sad. But with regard to the semantics, it is the Democratic party. The Democratic party is made up of Democrats. Thus, it is a Demcorat controlled Congress. Get it? Now, do you have anything to say about the actual issue at hand, or do you only want to argue semantics?
If your asking me about the issue at hand, I would prefer you die. How is that for specific semantics, you frightened little shit.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:04 pmHey Slappy, I’m still waiting on your answer to my question at 1:30 pm.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:05 pmAnd so is Miss Molly! :-D
May 12th, 2009 at 2:08 pmbitblt Says
May 12th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
bit wasn’t aware that being a black was a behavior from which one could refrain.
That seem to be a difference, at least to bit.
Homosexuality is hardly the only immoral behavior, and it’s not even the only immoral sexual behavior.
___________________________________________________________
So you’re saying that if heterosexuality was considered to be immoral by a particular religion, you’d be willing to refrain from it? And you’d support policies banning it? And you’d insist that heterosexuals keep their orientation a secret? After all, it’s “a behavior from which one could refrain.”
Sexual orientation is something you ARE. Asking a gay person to pretend to be straight is as ridiculous as asking a black person to don white Dermablend every time he went out in public.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:12 pmWell gee, bitbit, maybe he’s a first lietenant (so he’s already had one promotion) and even on active duty, officers in the National Guard are not eligible for promotion for two years.
That was really sleazy, bitbit. OOOOH. Wonder why bitbit wonders instead of using a search engine. I think there’s something going on here.(Has he been drinking?)
May 12th, 2009 at 2:15 pmbitblt Says:
bit wasn’t aware that being a black was a behavior from which one could refrain.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
______________
Actually, it is. In a manner of speaking. I’ll repeat a bit of what I posted earlier:
In other words, race is not a genetic characteristic of a human being. There is no Black gene, no White gene, no Asian gene. Most of us carry genetic markers from a great many different races. The race we self-identify with is a product of nurture, not nature.
So black is indeed a behavior from which we can refrain. However, to non-geneticists it is, for all intents and purposes, an inborn characteristic. So it’s really not all that different from sexuality.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:20 pmmisscoleopteramolly Says:
bitblt Says
May 12th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
bit wasn’t aware that being a black was a behavior from which one could refrain.
That seem to be a difference, at least to bit.
Homosexuality is hardly the only immoral behavior, and it’s not even the only immoral sexual behavior.
___________________________________________________________
So you’re saying that if heterosexuality was considered to be immoral by a particular religion, you’d be willing to refrain from it? And you’d support policies banning it? And you’d insist that heterosexuals keep their orientation a secret? After all, it’s “a behavior from which one could refrain.”
Sexual orientation is something you ARE. Asking a gay person to pretend to be straight is as ridiculous as asking a black person to don white Dermablend every time he went out in public.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
…interesting…and your posts are usually so well written…guess every one is off from time to time…
So you’re saying that if heterosexuality was considered to be immoral by a particular religion, you’d be willing to refrain from it?
This makes no sense in bit’s way of thinking. bit believes in the God that created sex, and this question seems to be asking bit to believe in a God that is “sex abhorrent.”
OTOH, this same God seems to have a major problem with adultery and fornication, which are both immoral sexual behaviors and against which scripture teaches.
And you’d support policies banning it?
Creating sex was a invitation by the Creator to participate in creation. Why would the Creator ban it?
And you’d insist that heterosexuals keep their orientation a secret?
bit would insist that any U.S. Army officer follow the policies of the Army, or be prepared to suffer the consequences.
After all, it’s “a behavior from which one could refrain.” Adultery is a behavior from which one can refrain, isn’t it?
Sexual orientation is something you ARE. Asking a gay person to pretend to be straight is as ridiculous as asking a black person to don white Dermablend every time he went out in public.
Is it ridiculous to ask a man to be faithful to his wife?
Sexual orientation is something you ARE.
This certainly seem to be the case with LT Choi.
But even this comes in degrees, doesn’t it? Some are flaming; some are closeted.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:28 pmFor a god that supposedly doesn’t dig the gay, there sure is a lot of same sex contact in this gods alledged creation. Bighorn sheep, giraffe, dolphins, penquins, macques, bonobo, humans, and on and on.
Faulty creation or intended consequence?
May 12th, 2009 at 2:28 pmbit-bigot sez:
This makes no sense in bit’s way of thinking.
I bet that happens a lot…
May 12th, 2009 at 2:33 pmbitblt Says:
This makes no sense in bit’s way of thinking. bit believes in the God that created sex, and this question seems to be asking bit to believe in a God that is “sex abhorrent.”
————-
Creating sex was a invitation by the Creator to participate in creation. Why would the Creator ban it?
May 12th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
______________
So you believe in the God that created sex, but not the God that created homosexuals? I don’t understand how that works.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:34 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
.
.
.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Thanks for the informative answer, but I believe by responding to bit this way – “Black is a behavior from which one can refrain” – you really ruined you
misscoleopteramolly’spoint that being a homosexual was like being black.
Obviously if one can refrain from being black one can refrain from being a homosexual, don’t you agree?
bit notes that you didn’t say there was “no homosexual gene,” but assumes that it would fit nicely in “..no Black gene, no White gene, no Asian gene”.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:37 pmdbadass Says:
For a god that supposedly doesn’t dig the gay, there sure is a lot of same sex contact in this gods alledged creation. Bighorn sheep, giraffe, dolphins, penquins, macques, bonobo, humans, and on and on.
Faulty creation or intended consequence?
May 12th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
When dbadass starts promoting a system of justice recommended by any one of these critters, then bit will take this as a serious comment.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:39 pmWhen bit can explain logically how a creator would create that which the creator opposed dbadass will take bit’s little stories about ladies being made from ribs, snakes talking, and two of everything fitting on a boat. Till than I will just continue to chuckle…
May 12th, 2009 at 2:42 pmAgain, this seems a simple issue. The Military is made possible by the rules it has. Obeying rules is a huge part of military service. The current rule…(right or wrong).. is DADT. Untill that is changed, the military should follow its own policy, and to what the rules say. If you announce on TV that you’re gay, and in the service, then no need to get shocked by your firing. Rules are rules. Not happy with them, then work on getting them changed. Its not fair to expect the military to drop policy, because it didn’t please you. There are avenues to get policies changed, try those first.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:42 pmWhen dbadass starts promoting a system of justice recommended by any one of these critters, then bit will take this as a serious comment.
—
May 12th, 2009 at 2:43 pmI am fine with the one the humans in that list have gotr going for the most part although it could use a little tweaking here and there. The bonobo one isn’t too bad either. Very egalitarian and lots of sexual freedom…
bitblt Says:
bit notes that you didn’t say there was “no homosexual gene,” but assumes that it would fit nicely in “..no Black gene, no White gene, no Asian gene”.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
__________
True. There’s some research on gene Xq28 as a potential genetic marker for male homosexuality, but these findings have been disputed by subsequent studies.
The current lack of a definitive genetic marker for sexuality or race does not, however, mean that either of these are not inborn characteristics resulting from other developmental factors.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:50 pmNot too awful long ago, the righteous military men stood up and said ‘blacks can’t serve in the military’. History has proven them wrong.
Then it was ‘women can’t serve in combat’. Two strikes.
Now it’s ‘gays can’t serve’. They are such suckers for the low outside pitch.
Don’t the racist, narrow minded bigots realize they get proven wrong every time they come out and say Americans ‘can’t’ do something?
May 12th, 2009 at 2:53 pmdbadass Says:
When bit can explain logically how a creator would create that which the creator opposed dbadass will take bit’s little stories about ladies being made from ribs, snakes talking, and two of everything fitting on a boat. Till than I will just continue to chuckle…
May 12th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
bit understands that it takes a “leap of faith,” one that bit has chosen to make.
However, it also comes with a system of justice – one recommend by the Creator, and one one from which you have benefited.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:55 pmlink
May 12th, 2009 at 2:56 pmWhy are we even discussing whether sexuality is a choice? Choosing a religion is a choice yet, it’s one of the foundational freedoms of our country. Should not choosing a life-partner be protected as rigidly as choosing a religion?
May 12th, 2009 at 2:58 pmNow bit-gulliblebigot is gonna have to go on a tangent about the evils of jacking off… ;)
May 12th, 2009 at 2:59 pmThat’s not a “leap of faith”, bit. It’s a suspension of disbelief also known as a delusion.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:01 pmGenes are not the only player. Development factors like hormonal levels at distince stges of development are also likely a part of this mystery but then again why not just take that leap of faith and act like a dude can live in a cetacean’s stomach…
Hell yeah that makes perfect freakin’ sense…
May 12th, 2009 at 3:02 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
larkohio Says:
——————————————————————————–
#19. I could not disagree with you more. The policy should not be a policy at all. Gay people should have equal rights, both in the military and out. This policy is wrong, and it deprives the nation of much needed talents and skills.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
___________________________________
Agreed. Completely. And if Obama really wanted to change things, DADT would be a thing of the past by now. All the Democrat controlled Congress needs to pass is a one liner repealing the 1993 Clinton era statute. Then Obama can follow immediately with an Executive Order as Commander in Chief simply stating that gays in the military have equal rights and that no soldier shall be disciplined or discriminated against on account of their sexual orientation.
CFP, you are right in calling Obama out on this policy. He should have to be held accountable for one of his promises…Again, unfortunately if he does not keep his promise, I fear that it will just be another betrayal of the GLBT community in the name of political expediency…I’m glad and thankful you’re taking the time to hold him accountable on this issue.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:03 pmAccording to the bitblts of the world humans should ignore the main gift that their god gave to separate humanity from the beasts of the field. Thinking = bad…faith = good.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:04 pmEven if were just a matter of choice, so what? Patriarchal, heterosexual monogamy and the nuclear family is not the standard for our species—it’s more representative of capitalism than the human race.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:04 pmbitblt Says:
Irregardless of whether or not bit
Irregardless is not a word.
It is also clearly your opinion that homosexuality is immoral, albeit a misinformed one.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:06 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
bitblt Says:
bit notes that you didn’t say there was “no homosexual gene,” but assumes that it would fit nicely in “..no Black gene, no White gene, no Asian gene”.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
__________
True. There’s some research on gene Xq28 as a potential genetic marker for male homosexuality, but these findings have been disputed by subsequent studies.
The current lack of a definitive genetic marker for sexuality or race does not, however, mean that either of these are not inborn characteristics resulting from other developmental factors.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
There’s other research including sociological studies.
http://www.narth.com/docs/legalizing.html
The current lack of a definitive genetic marker for sexuality or race does not, however, mean that either of these are not inborn characteristics resulting from other developmental factors.
The referenced article suggests to bit that your remark may require additional…tweaking.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:07 pm“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.”
George Bernard Shaw
Lt. Daniel Choi exemplifies America’s Best and Brightest and sadly, proves just how far we have yet to go in the pursuit of equal justice under law.
The lesson to Progressives serves as a swift kick in our complacency.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:10 pmI guess it’s never occurred to bit-bigot that if society “approves” of teh gay, then those who are in the closet (i.e. already gay) will feel safer and more comfortable in coming out.
The numbers of gay people will not rise, they will simply become more apparent.
God said so…
May 12th, 2009 at 3:13 pmDidn’t bitblt’s god say ‘love thy neighbor as thyself’?
Does this mean your neighbor is always going to be of the opposite sex? /snark
May 12th, 2009 at 3:15 pmbitblt Says:
The referenced article suggests to bit that your remark may require additional…tweaking.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
______________
No. The referenced article is bullshit. All it points out is that when societies become less oppressive of homosexuals, homosexuals are less repressed. None of the studies referenced in the article look at the underlying biology.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:16 pmI’m still waiting for bit to explain why his choice of religion deserves legal protection when one’s choice of a life-partner does not.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:23 pmpete Says: I’m still waiting for bit to explain why his choice of religion deserves legal protection when one’s choice of a life-partner does not.
I’d settle for an explanation why service in the military is dependent on sexual preference. Try denying employment to a person based on it in the private sector and get ready for a lawsuit.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:27 pmpete Says:
I’m still waiting for bit to explain why his choice of religion deserves legal protection when one’s choice of a life-partner does not.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
bit-bigot needs his religion to tamp down his urges to marry his dog.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:29 pmStraight as I am, as a veteran concerned with the lack of discipline in today’s military, this issue really gets to me. The trolls of this issue disgust me. I’m going to repost something I posted on Yglesias.
Our military is in need of a good whipping.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:37 pmHis gay dog, zooey. (kiss)
May 12th, 2009 at 3:45 pmpete Says:
Why are we even discussing whether sexuality is a choice? Choosing a religion is a choice yet, it’s one of the foundational freedoms of our country. Should not choosing a life-partner be protected as rigidly as choosing a religion?
May 12th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
___________
Actually, religion may be less of a choice than previously thought. There’s an increasing body of research pointing to genetic origins of religious and political leanings. So it may indeed be the case that bitblt was born to be a bigot.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:47 pmbitblt probably still considers people with epilepsy as “immoral”, just like Christians in the good old days did. Those people “choose” to be vessels for demons, right bitblt?
May 12th, 2009 at 3:48 pmEven if it were a choice, so what?
May 12th, 2009 at 3:51 pmThe dismissal of Choi, and other honorable LGBT service members is a disgrace.
Are they getting “Less than Honorable” discharges? I hope to God the aren’t. After serving a tour in Iraq, this man deserves full vet/GI benefits.
Well, he deserves to stay in. But barring a miraculous insertion of spine into Obama, I sincerely hope he gets full honors in his discharge.
(And I do get that Obama is dealing with Afghanistan and all that, but really – get a move on! Choi is fluent in Arabic, for cryin’ out loud).
May 12th, 2009 at 3:57 pmbitblt responds to my post with a blatant lack of understanding anything beyond his narrow religious views
May 12th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
___________________________________________________________
I can see intelligent debate is a waste with you, since your only argument comes from your religious views — and those views aren’t seen by all of us as any kind of unimpeachable authority. It would be impossible for you to understand the double-standard here because you can’t possibly imagine being in a world where your sexual orientation is condemned by religious nuts.
Because you see homosexuality as “immoral” and cannot understand the viewpoint of those who see your “morality” as somewhat subjective, you equate homosexuality with adultery, merely because you see that as immoral as well. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are both capable of adultery. Adultery has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
But since you brought up adultery (and fornication, too — for good measure), don’t you find it somewhat hypocritical that gays cannot serve openly in the military (even if they are celibate or in a committed monogamous relationship), but nobody gets kicked out for committing adultery or having extramarital heterosexual sex?
We don’t know anything about Lt. Choi’s actual sex life. He’s getting kicked out of the military for being honest about his sexual orientation. Something straight people take for granted.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:06 pmPatrioticLiberalChristianMantisReligiosa Says
May 12th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
bitblt probably still considers people with epilepsy as “immoral”, just like Christians in the good old days did. Those people “choose” to be vessels for demons, right bitblt?
______________________________________________________________
Not to mention people who are left-handed. They were once thought to be possessed by the devil. Even today, the word “sinister”, meaning “of or on the left side”, is also defined as “bad, wicked, or evil”.
But I suppose left-handed people could just “refrain” from using their left hand, couldn’t they?
May 12th, 2009 at 4:19 pmOkay.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:20 pmI’m willing to fork over at least $50 of my hard earned income and buy idjit a male prostitute (assuming idjit is also male).
Anyone else? The more money, the more outlandishly wild sex idjit can have.
Maybe, just maybe, his pent up frustration will finally be “released”, the prostitute gets paid, which helps the recession, and idjit will finally stop posting in the third person!!!
But I suppose left-handed people could just “refrain” from using their left hand, couldn’t they?
—-
May 12th, 2009 at 4:30 pmWell I suppose I could try my right…
misscoleopteramolly Says:
.
.
.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
bit certainly appreciates the civility of your comments.
bit doesn’t really disagree with your remarks, but he does want to point out that there is one overriding assumption you make. It’s an assumption bit doesn’t make, but he’s willing to listen to any case supporting that assumption.
The assumption you seem to embrace is this: heterosexuality and homosexuality are equal. bit believes there is no authority for this assumption.
From the link bit posted above:
This assumption seems obvious in this remark: Homosexuals and heterosexuals are both capable of adultery. Seems to bit that one can believe this only if one believes that two same-same gender people can be married, and this is married in the same way that a man and a woman are married. There is also no authority for believing this.
You and bit both benefit from the Judeo-Christian roots of the U.S., and it is from those roots that bit takes the authority for his belief.
As to the paragraph with the remark about “hypocritical,” bit doesn’t belief there is any special insight or “extra points” for discovering hypocrisy. Nor is hypocrisy limited to those of a conservative bent. bit confesses that it’s been a long time since ROTC, but he believes he remembers regulations having to do with the appropriate sexual conduct of members of the military.
At one time one of the reasons that military members could not be homosexuals was because this behavior made them more susceptible to blackmail. Of course that’s out the window now, but blackmail was also a reason that the sexual conduct of officers was guided by regulations. bit would wager that these regs, or guidelines, are still in place but are only used at the discretion of the command authority and not very often at that.
Advancement into the upper echelon is probably difficult for those who don’t show much discretion or control in their sex lives. The appearance of impropriety – immorality – makes some easier to select out.
bit just read some remarks by a General Stiner who said that soldiers would not respect a flabby(not fit) commander. What sort of behavior would one expect from soldiers who had an immoral commander?
May 12th, 2009 at 4:38 pmOh come on bit this gay stuff is getting tiring just please explain to me how a dude can live in a whale’s stomach?
May 12th, 2009 at 4:46 pmdbadass Says:
Oh come on bit this gay stuff is getting tiring just please explain to me how a dude can live in a whale’s stomach?
May 12th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
bit can’t explain it. He can only point out that it was report him in the O.T. book of Jonah.
However, bit buys it hook, line, and sinker.
In fairness the report says he was only there three days.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:54 pmHey bit. After you explain how a guy can live in the belly of a fish, or whale, or other generic sea-monster, could you explain why the choice of religion is given special legal consideration? It’s just a choice of lifestyle and, to other religions, it’s an aberrant and unnatural lifestyle at that.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:56 pmThe previous commander of my last squadron was removed from his position after he got caught in an official vehicle with a lot of under-aged Danish girls. The idea that non-gay officers are all John Wayne/Father Knows Best hybrids is laughable. I can’t believe anyone who has actually served would believe such garbage.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:56 pmbitblt Says
May 12th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
At one time one of the reasons that military members could not be homosexuals was because this behavior made them more susceptible to blackmail. Of course that’s out the window now, but blackmail was also a reason that the sexual conduct of officers was guided by regulations.
____________________________________________________________
Thank you for pointing out another excellent reason for doing away with DADT and lifting the gay ban. Only somebody with something to hide can be blackmailed for it. And as long as DADT exists, gay soldiers still have plenty to hide and make excellent blackmail targets. It’s not “out the window” yet — and won’t be until gay military personnel can serve openly.
Personally, I’d like to see EVERYBODY in the military clean up their sexual escapades, but that’s a little like hoping teens practice abstinence until marriage. Nice, but not realistic.
May 12th, 2009 at 5:23 pmbitblt Says:
——————————————————————————–
MCMetal Says:
bitblt Says:
——————————————————————————–
May 12th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
The purpose of the posted analogy was to point out your ignorance and bigotry , you delusional putz……
May 12th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
bit doesn’t believe he’s a bigot, but then again, he’s not trying to prove he isn’t.
As far as ignorance, bit seems to know one thing that many TPers seem to overlook:
Homosexuality is immoral.
And neither bit’s opinion, which is in agreement with that statement, nor your opinion, which is likely in disagreement with the same statement, is going to change the truth of the statement.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
“Immoral” when viewed with your backwards-ass RELIGIOUS BELIEF(s) ; a “belief” is NOT FACT , whereas “truth” IS FACT.
Please stop posting any more useless drivel , bitashit ……..
May 12th, 2009 at 5:26 pmHomosexuality is immoral.
—
May 12th, 2009 at 5:30 pmShow me how you know this. If it is anything like the whale stomach thing, I doubt I will be persuaded…
“Immoral” when viewed with your backwards-ass RELIGIOUS BELIEF(s) ; a “belief” is NOT FACT , whereas “truth” IS FACT.
You weren’t trying to present a counterpoint to “Homosexuality is immoral,” were you? If you were presenting a counterpoint, what is your authority?
If bit recalls correctly, one believes in the truth. One doesn’t believe in a fact.
dbadass Says:
Homosexuality is immoral.
—
Show me how you know this. If it is anything like the whale stomach thing, I doubt I will be persuaded…
May 12th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
bit doesn’t consider himself and expert on the view that, “Homosexuality is immoral.” bit’s authority is the Bible, but bit doesn’t believe that this subject is covered in the book of Jonah.
May 12th, 2009 at 5:37 pmI’ve given up on bit. Bit can’t come up with a single reason why his choice of religion should be legally protected.
May 12th, 2009 at 5:38 pmbitblt Says:
——————————————————————————–
“Immoral” when viewed with your backwards-ass RELIGIOUS BELIEF(s) ; a “belief” is NOT FACT , whereas “truth” IS FACT.
You weren’t trying to present a counterpoint to “Homosexuality is immoral,” were you? If you were presenting a counterpoint, what is your authority?
If bit recalls correctly, one believes in the truth. One doesn’t believe in a fact.
dbadass Says:
Homosexuality is immoral.
—
Show me how you know this. If it is anything like the whale stomach thing, I doubt I will be persuaded…
May 12th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
bit doesn’t consider himself and expert on the view that, “Homosexuality is immoral.” bit’s authority is the Bible, but bit doesn’t believe that this subject is covered in the book of Jonah.
May 12th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
I guess that means we shouldn’t believe in FACTS like gravity , eh bitofadipshit ?
And nitwit , the Bible is viewed as having particular events that occurred , not as anything close to being “truth” , as most of the passages have either been proven to be untrue or are outright contradictory.
Stop trying to wave a fairy tale book around and claiming it as “truth” ; it is merely your (laughably pathetic and warped BELIEF.
Belief is based upon HOPE , not anything factual or truthful ….Get over it , you religious stooge.
May 12th, 2009 at 5:45 pmStop trying to wave a fairy tale book around and claiming it as “truth” ; it is merely your (laughably pathetic and warped BELIEF.
You also enjoy benefits from the Judeo-Christian roots of the U.S. bit hopes you appreciate them. Ingratitude is a huge negative for bit, and it’s somewhat disappointing when someone doesn’t know the source of their freedom.
You weren’t trying to present a counterpoint to “Homosexuality is immoral,” were you? If you were presenting a counterpoint, what is your authority?
May 12th, 2009 at 5:55 pmO.K. bit. I’ll give you one more chance to answer a simple question.
Why does your choice of religion deserve special legal protection?
May 12th, 2009 at 6:01 pmbitblt Says:
——————————————————————————–
Stop trying to wave a fairy tale book around and claiming it as “truth” ; it is merely your (laughably pathetic and warped BELIEF.
You also enjoy benefits from the Judeo-Christian roots of the U.S. bit hopes you appreciate them. Ingratitude is a huge negative for bit, and it’s somewhat disappointing when someone doesn’t know the source of their freedom.
You weren’t trying to present a counterpoint to “Homosexuality is immoral,” were you? If you were presenting a counterpoint, what is your authority?
May 12th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
The basis of our “freedoms” comes from ancient Greece , bitofadipshit , not from Judeo-Christian belief(s) ; stop spewing GOP/Cancervative talking points and rhetoric.
And I don’t need a “counterpoint” ; “morality” isn’t mutually exclusive with regards to any any religion , let alone Christianity.
And you have already revealed your BELIEF , which is nowhere near being in the same galaxy as TRUTH , as being terribly flawed and contradictory in nature.
My condolences that you’re a gullible moronic rube…..
May 12th, 2009 at 6:02 pmbit you are correct that we all have benefitted from the Judeo Christian roots. However, that does not mean that the tree should not be occasionally pruned as we gain better understanding of the world God created. If this wasn’t true, then we would still think the sun rotates around the earth, that epilepsy is caused by demons, and similar things spoken of in the Bible.
YOU have every right to your religious belief system. But, dammit, so do the rest of us! Secular laws, such as DADT, which favor one belief system over another are oppressive and wrong. For faith to be personal, one must have the freedom to choose to accept or reject it. I demand that right from my government, for myself, for you, and for all our citizens.
May 12th, 2009 at 6:04 pmFor me, the authority for my belief is the reason that God gave me. I’ll answer to God, not you, for that.
I thought this administration would change things. This is idiotic. Most Americans are worried about getting the job done and not what sezuality a person might be. We need to stop this charade.
May 12th, 2009 at 6:06 pmI wish I could stay but I have a political meeting to attend. Fight the good fight fellow TP’ers.
May 12th, 2009 at 6:07 pmWell bit? I’ve given you every chance. I can only conclude that you believe a person’s choice of life-partner should be given the same legal protection as choosing one’s religion. Thanks for clearing that up.
May 12th, 2009 at 6:34 pmJust do it. Once it’s done, it can’t be undone. They can’t take it back once the gates are open for gays to serve openly.
May 12th, 2009 at 8:00 pmLt. Choi is a class act and a valuable part of our armed forces. Shame on us for not accepting what he has so freely given us.Tomorrow wouldn’t be soon enough to do the right thing and show him our gratitude instead of showing him the door.It’s only common sense and the morally correct thing to do.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:54 pmThe basis of our “freedoms” comes from ancient Greece , …, not from Judeo-Christian belief(s) ; stop spewing GOP/Cancervative talking points and rhetoric.
Well. Someone forgot to say exactly what that “basis” is. bit will not have any trouble saying from what our ( U.S. citizens) collective freedom arises.
While it is the cases that the form of the U.S. government has had numerous secular influences – Greek thought certainly contributed, all those contributions can be said to the without Life and without Soul. In short, they lack the Spirit to bind the nation together. Those influences are like a list of rules for which no one can find a reason to follow.
This is what has bound the nation together: Human rights are inherent since they come from God.
From one of the panels in the Jefferson Memorial:
May 13th, 2009 at 10:36 am“The God who gave us life gave us liberty…”
O.K., folks. I am rather surprised at the numerous comments asking for President Obama to not discharge this man. You are all apparently under a misconception. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is a policy governing the military that was set by Congress. It is not a creation of either the President or the Joint Chiefs of Staff and neither one has the authority to overrule it any more than they can overrule any other act of Congress. Even the Commander in Chief is constrained by the law. The military must expel this officer. President Obama must follow the law and cannot stop that process.
If this Lieutenant truly wished to place his troops above everything, he would have kept his mouth shut and continued serving them and his country. I sympathize with the position he was in, but he’s made a choice and it was not in favor of his troops, it was in favor of his own desires.
May 13th, 2009 at 3:37 pm#146 – bitblt Says:
———————————————————-
“This is what has bound the nation together: Human rights are inherent since they come from God.”
May 13th, 2009 at 10:36 am
So, what you’re saying is that equal rights for all Americans also comes from God, and that God would support allowing openly gay members to serve in the armed forces.
How very American of you, Bitbit!
May 13th, 2009 at 5:38 pm#147 – RonF Says:
——————————————————–
“”Don’t ask, don’t tell” is a policy governing the military that was set by Congress. It is not a creation of either the President or the Joint Chiefs of Staff and neither one has the authority to overrule it any more than they can overrule any other act of Congress. Even the Commander in Chief is constrained by the law.”
May 13th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
The US Military was de-segregated by executive order when Pres. Truman signed Executive Order #9981. There was no Congressional legislation that integrated the military.
Pres. Obama can, and should, sign an executive order calling on the military to stop excluding people from serving based on a trait that neither reduces the morale or order of the military, nor reduces the individuals ability to serve.
Those who claim that morale will be reduced are simply imposing their “beliefs” on the military. There has been no reduction in the British military when they stopped banning gays from serving, and I personally believe that the US military is better than theirs!
May 13th, 2009 at 5:45 pmDemocrat Soldier Says:
#146 – bitblt Says:
———————————————————-
“This is what has bound the nation together: Human rights are inherent since they come from God.”
May 13th, 2009 at 10:36 am
So, what you’re saying is that equal rights for all Americans also comes from God, and that God would support allowing openly gay members to serve in the armed forces.
How very American of you, Bitbit!
May 13th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Of course this is not what bit is saying.
If DS wants to make the statement – an unveiled statement of course – that the right to be a homosexual comes from God, you’ll need more authority than tangling bit’s words.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:10 am#150 – bitblt Says:
——————————————————-
“Of course this is not what bit is saying.
If DS wants to make the statement – an unveiled statement of course – that the right to be a homosexual comes from God, you’ll need more authority than tangling bit’s words.”
May 14th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Well, then maybe Bitbit can explain how Bitbit’s ignoring some parts of the Bible while focusing Bitbit’s attention on other parts of the Bible somehow provide Bitbit with the authority to proclaim one person is “immoral”?
Seems that Bitbit is practising a “pick and choose” approach to the Bible.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:17 amDemocrat Soldier Says:
.
.
.
Well, then maybe Bitbit can explain how Bitbit’s ignoring some parts of the Bible while focusing Bitbit’s attention on other parts of the Bible somehow provide Bitbit with the authority to proclaim one person is “immoral”?
Seems that Bitbit is practising a “pick and choose” approach to the Bible.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:33 amMay 14th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Democrat Soldier Says:
.
.
.
Well, then maybe Bitbit can explain how Bitbit’s ignoring some parts of the Bible while focusing Bitbit’s attention on other parts of the Bible somehow provide Bitbit with the authority to proclaim one person is “immoral”?
Seems that Bitbit is practising a “pick and choose” approach to the Bible.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Why don’t you just make your point?
Even if bit were “picking and choosing,” it would not change what bit has said about homosexuality.
bit has previously noted that there are other immoral behaviors.
bitblt Says:
.
.
.
Homosexuality is hardly the only immoral behavior, and it’s not even the only immoral sexual behavior.
May 12th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
To the best of bit’s understanding LT Choi is being dismissed from the Army for only one immoral behavior: homosexuality.
He’s not being dismissed because of adultery, polygamy, and a very long list of immoral sexual behaviors which could, or should, disqualify him from being a officer in the U.S. Army.
Is there one of these other immoral behaviors you want to discuss?
May 14th, 2009 at 10:41 am#153 – bitblt Says:
———————————————————
“Why don’t you just make your point?
Even if bit were “picking and choosing,” it would not change what bit has said about homosexuality.
bit has previously noted that there are other immoral behaviors.”
May 14th, 2009 at 10:41 am
I’ve said it before, and apparantly, I have to say it again:
Bitbit is picking and choosing the portions of the Bible that support Bitbit’s prejudices.
Bitbit doesn’t excoriate others for divorce, Bitbit only offers a very lukewarm argument against divorce, but Bitbit refuses to support legislation against divorce.
One can only assume that Bitbit is allowing Bitbit’s prejudice to drive which portions of the Bible Bitbit finds improtant. We still have yet to hear from Bitbit why Bitbit ignores the contradictions in the Bible. We still have yet to hear from Bitbit why Bitbit ignores divorce in Bitbit’s rush to sanction refusing equal rights to all Americans.
Why does Bitbit pick and choose the portions of the Bible that Bitbit supports? Can’t wait to hear Bitbit explain this one.
May 14th, 2009 at 12:56 pmBefore bit responds to someone who seems to be desperate to charge him with picking and choosing from the Bible, bit needs to be convinced that this person actually believes in the Bible. Otherwise, it seems a futile exercise. After all, why would anyone who doesn’t believe in the truth of the Bible care whether or not someone else understands it and communicates it correctly?
bit has made it clear in numerous posts that his opinion is that divorce has created more misery than homosexuality has ever begun to imagine, so to speak. bit has also made his opinion clear that if heterosexuals had been behaving for the last forty years – California instituted no fault divorce around ’66 or ’67 – homosexuals would have simply stayed in the closet.
This theme of heterosexual immorality promoting and encouraging homosexual immorality is very much in line with bit’s theme of immorality begets ( to use a Biblical word ) immorality.
It does seem to be the cases that divorce rarely, if ever, makes TPs posts, while homosexual “rights”, so-called, is a constant theme. You get TP to post on divorce and bit will be well prepared.
May 14th, 2009 at 5:10 pmThis theme of heterosexual immorality promoting and encouraging homosexual immorality is very much in line with bit’s theme of immorality begets ( to use a Biblical word ) immorality.
Immorality is in the eye of the condemner.
May 16th, 2009 at 12:28 pmWayne Ant Schneider Says:
.
.
.
Immorality is in the eye of the condemner.
May 16th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Isn’t this what one would expect a sociopath to use as a defense in court?
May 18th, 2009 at 9:15 ambitblt Says:
Wayne Ant Schneider Says:
.
.
.
Immorality is in the eye of the condemner.
May 16th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Isn’t this what one would expect a sociopath to use as a defense in court?
May 18th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Immorality is in the eye of the condemner.
Is this the case with all immoral behaviors of just the ones you want to promote or endorse?
Test
In the list below, ________ is an immoral act or behavior.
1. Adultery
2. Homosexuality
3. Pedophilia
4. Bestiality
5. Idolatry
6. Abortion
7. Pornography
8. Thievery
9. Child abuse
10. Spousal abuse
11. Slavery, racial kind
12. Slavery, sexual kind
13. Murder
14. Lying, intentionally deceiving
15. All of the above
16. Other, list
bit picks 15. “All of the above.” Encouraging or promoting any one of the first fourteen makes the others harder to discourage.
bit doesn’t consider the list inclusive.
May 18th, 2009 at 12:59 pm