0 votes

Patriot Ron Paul changes stance on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, votes for Repeal

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/ron_paul_...

Ron Paul: Constituents changed my mind on 'don't ask, don't tell'
So why did Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), after supporting "don't ask, don't tell" since its introduction in 1993, vote to begin the process to repeal it?

"I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual," Paul said Friday. "To me, this seems like an awful waste. Personal behavior that is disruptive should be subject to military discipline regardless of whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. But to discharge an otherwise well-trained, professional, and highly skilled member of the military for these reasons is unfortunate and makes no financial sense."

*This is a man of reason and principle. I'm ready to start building that statue.

==============================================

EDIT:

Fair Warning to Commenters on This Thread

Rather than just pull the plug on this thread, I'm asking once first, that you refrain from any further bashing, and derogatory comments toward those you may disagree with.

Let's not have the few ruin it for the many.

The issue can be discussed without the derogatory idiocy.

There is no reason for the derogatory remarks because you disagree with someone's lifestyle. It is not welcome here in any situation.

Why shoot off your mouth and alienate fellow liberty advocates and potential supporters, etc, that may live a different lifestyle?

What is the sense in that?

We have been fair with a warning.

Your future on DP now lies in your own hands.

Please keep the discussion of this topic fairly respectable and intellectual and lay off the name calling.

Thank you.

bigmikedude

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Michael Nystrom's picture

Thread closed

Due to its devolution into idiocy.

Thanks for participating, now move along.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

Bravo

Dr.Paul, an honest respecter of individual liberty and promoter of freedom. I definitely would feel pretty uncomfortable bathing with a homosexual so having openly gay folks does promote somewhat of a problem in that regard. Regardless, allot the gays a different showering time or have different facilities for them altogether.

What I'm going to find comical is how letting gays (who are already IN the military but nobody knows who they are so are busy showering with them) is going to be blamed for the fall of our military....God's wrath...blah blah blah....rather than realizing that our fiscal situation is totally unsustainable whether or not we let gays say they are gay or not.

Economically


The legal expenses over arguing whether someone was gay or not, and whether they had been wronged, and any burdens and costs of building separate facilities, or scheduling separate usage times, simply to accommodate a very small percentage of those serving in the military would be tremendous waste of money.

Remember, it's not your typical job. Entire military bases, and even vehicles from submarines to aircraft carriers have been built and designed around quartering heterosexuals.

What is the percentage of homosexuals in the military any way?

The best solution is that gays should simply not be qualified due to there being no appropriate facilities for them. This is no different than little people not being qualified because there are no appropriate facilities for them.

"scheduling separate usage

"scheduling separate usage times"
Minimal cost here. No separate facilities required. Dwarfism is an actual physical malady of the body that prevents them from being effective soldiers, being gay is not.

No matter what kind of half baked response you concoct to push your anti-liberty and anti-christian stance on everyone else it's not going to work. Gay people should be allowed to serve as openly gay people. Wouldn't YOU want to know if you are showering with a gay guy??

Defending Privacy is Pro-Liberty.

And so is defending the the rights of heterosexuals to not be forced into living and showering with homosexuals.

It doesn't matter if someone declares themselves as a homosexual, you still should not have to have your privacy invaded by someone of the opposite sex, or someone sexually attracted to you.

Thank You!

Well said.

Worthless cheerleader.

Bringing nothing to the debate.

There is no debate except for

There is no debate except for whether anti-liberty bigots get to keep discriminating against others in the name of being *good christians*, *supportive of our troops*, or whatever other cockamamie idea that sprouts from the well spring of bigotry.

How ironic. You are an anti-liberty bigot.

You believe that heterosexuals should be forced to live with homosexuals. Force is not liberty.

Privacy should be respected for all.

When you join the military

When you join the military you give up your rights...or did you not know this? You become property of the State and should realize that you are going to have to put up with things you don't like. Don't like it? Don't join. Fairly simple.

Absolutely false.

You do not give up your rights in the military. In fact, there is even separate law to protect them, it's called the UCMJ. Further, the military does not void the Constitution. In fact, we all swear an oath to the Constitution in the military.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Therefore your opinions are worthless.

How can you even begin to make the argument for gays in the military, if you have no rights in the military?

The military is run on a tight schedule.


Separate usage time is not as simple as it sounds, nor even plausible in many cases. Plus that doesn't resolve anything regarding living quarters, how do you schedule people different times to live?

"Dwarfism" would not prevent a person from being an effective soldier if they had the appropriate accommodations and gear built for them.

You are defending gays, against all other people that are not qualified to serve in the military.

What is anti-liberty is violating the heterosexual's right to privacy in the name of letting gays serve in a military that was only designed for heterosexuals.

Serving in the military is not a right. Privacy is a right.

You're totally confused. Forcing straights to live with gays is anti-liberty.

""Dwarfism" would not prevent

""Dwarfism" would not prevent a person from being an effective soldier if they had the appropriate accommodations and gear built for them."

You don't need to build any different gear or accommodations for gays. That's the difference sir. A little tweak of the scheduling of the shower facilities is all that is required.

And not real sure what sort of twisted version of liberty it is you follow but restricting gay people from being willing to lay down their life and serve in our military to protect your bigoted @SS is NOT the liberty Ron Paul or any liberty lover or actual Christian advocates.

Living quarters aren't really an issue. That is one thing people will have to get used to. There will potentially be gay people in the barracks. You don't have to shower with them and if they hit on you they can be court martialed.

When you join the military you give up your rights. You become property and part of being someone else's property is potentially being stored with other property you might not like. Don't like it? Don't join.

Wrong. There are no accomodations for gays.

To appropriately quarter gays, the entire infrastructure of the military would need to be changed.

This would be no different than changing the entire infrastructure to accommodate dwarfism.

Forcing straights to live with gays, is no different than forcing women to live with men.

Absolutely wrong.

You do not give up your rights when joining the military. If that's the case, then we could justify not allowing gays based on that alone, and your whole argument is in the trash. If you don't have rights in the military, then you don't have a right to be gay. However, it's not true.

So, foolish.

You have never served in the military have you? So, stop trying to enforce an invasion of privacy on those of us that do.

This maybe the only thing I

This maybe the only thing I disagree with Ron Paul on.. He says that the it was a waste of money that was invested into the soldier.. If the rules had been followed that money would not have been wasted, correct?

I think it's a misunderstanding.


People are misinterpreting Ron Paul's defense of someone not losing their career simply for mentioning their sexuality, as Ron Paul advocating gays serving in the current military structure.

I agree with him that someone should not lose their career simply because of their sexuality.

However, anyone that knows Ron Paul fairly well would probably also agree that Ron Paul would likely not advocate forcing heterosexuals to shower and live with homosexuals. In effect, this is what DADT did, because it let gays into the military as long as they didn't say anything about it. So, that is a good reason to get rid of it.

But I'm sure Ron Paul would also agree that nobody's sexual privacy should be invaded. And therefore, he probably doesn't agree with gays being allowed into the military in the first place.

So for the most part, I think his decision is being twisted into meaning he approves of gays in the military, when he only disapproves of DADT and someone losing their job over sexuality.

"And therefore, he probably

"And therefore, he probably doesn't agree with gays being allowed into the military in the first place."

Nice way to put words into the man's mouth as you promote your anti-liberty stance. Yeah, I'm real sure that Ron Paul, the guy who had a gay campaign manager for his 2008 presidential run is an extreme homophobe that wants all gays to be banned from serving in the military where they are willing to lay down their life for your sorry @ss. Suuuuuuuuuuure.

Joη's picture

this wins the award for

"Least expected headline to be seen in Recent Comments thus far".  Yeesh.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

A bad example exposed for what it is.

Totally inapplicable to gays in the military.

kind of like your dwarf

kind of like your dwarf example being apples to apples with being gay. Argument...fail.

Incorrect

The fact that you don't understand the example, doesn't make it wrong.

We could take any of the people that don't qualify to serve and make the exact same argument - if the appropriate accommodations were specifically built for them, then they could serve.

Duh.

The question is, at what expense?

And neither should straight

And neither should straight soldiers be forced to shower with gays. Allot separate shower times. Simple.

Glad to see you change your first response from STUPID to what it is now. I have a printscreen of it for you if you'd like to deny it :-)

explain

why this one issue of difference means anything? So what if they are gay, it isn't a disease you can catch, or you won't turn to stone if they look at you. What about the big ugly fat woman who has sexual thoughts about you while your at the beach and your junk is hanging out of your shorts were you somehow voliated? I'm just not undertsanding the crime of someone who is in the same vocation.

ummm because gay people want

ummm because gay people want to stick their penis in your rectum and your rectum is there in all it's glory in the shower. It's like forcing women to allow men to shower with them. That's just not right. Alloting seperate shower times isn't that big a deal and solves most of the major issues around this silly red herring of debacle.

very good point.

very good point.

This idea that homosexuals

This idea that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed in the military because it may make other servicemen 'uncomfortable' is a joke. I'm sure there were plenty of people uncomfortable sleeping in the same quarters as blacks initially, so should we tolerate racism for the sake of their 'comfort' level.

I can't see any reason why they should not be allowed in the military.

The idea that men and women

in the military shouldn't be allowed to shower together because it may make some of the other servicemembers "uncomfortable" is a joke. After all, it's only behavior that matters; right?

very good point..

very good point..

Violating privacy is not a matter of uncomfortableness.

It's a violation of your rights. Airport porn scanners make people feel uncomfortable too.

So should we justify them by using your excuse that the uncomfortableness is a joke?

Arguing for gays in the military is no different from arguing that men should be allowed in the women's bathrooms and allowed to shower with them.