Video: Tony Perkins disinvited from military prayer luncheon for criticizing repeal of DADT?

posted at 8:40 pm on February 26, 2010 by Allahpundit

After reading about this for two days, I still can’t find a record of precisely what Perkins said to alienate the base chaplain who canceled the invite. If he really has been disinvited for doing nothing more than opposing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” it’s a disgrace. He’s a Marine, he claims he wasn’t planning to say anything political at the luncheon, and he is, after all, in line with the military’s official policy on gay servicemen. (The Corps’ commandant expressed his own support of DADT two days ago.) Disagreeing with The One shouldn’t make you persona non grata. If, however, he said something more incendiary, then it’s a question of how incendiary was it. Politico cites this recent quote on the Family Research Council website — “Do not let our military be used to advance a radical sexual agenda” — which is essentially boilerplate for a religious leader, but Perkins has had more colorful things to say in the past.

Long story short, this is a test case on how the military’s going to balance creating a comfortable environment for gays in the ranks with the rights of religious servicemen to disapprove vehemently. The chaplain’s statement via the Wash Times:

“The Joint Base Andrews Chaplain’s Office sponsors a voluntary, annual prayer luncheon, focusing this year on deployed personnel, families and prayer. The Chaplain’s Office retracted Mr. Perkins’ invitation after his recent public comments made many who planned to attend the event uncomfortable,” the office said in a statement.

“This was a local decision made by the Chaplain’s Office who wanted the luncheon to be inclusive for the entire base community. The Chaplain’s Office respects and defends Mr. Perkins right to express his opinions, and regrets any inconvenience to him. We thank and respect him for his prior military service.”

And Perkins’s reply, seizing the political moment, via CBN:

I am very concerned, however, that this merely foreshadows the serious threat to religious liberty that would result from repeal of the current military eligibility law. Such legislation would not merely open the military to homosexuals. It would result in a zero-tolerance policy toward those who disapprove of homosexual conduct.

Military chaplains would bear the heaviest burden. Would their sermons be censored to prevent them from preaching on biblical passages which describe homosexual conduct as a sin? Would they remain free to counsel soldiers troubled by same-sex attractions about the spiritual and psychological resources available to overcome those attractions?

Conservative leaders are lining up behind him. The civilian protocol here would be to let Perkins speak and allow protesters outside, but political demonstrations aren’t encouraged on military bases. Why not invite him and balance him with a gay speaker at some later date, then? I don’t get it.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Where’s my flamin’ popcorn?

hillbillyjim on February 26, 2010 at 8:49 PM

Why not invite him and balance him with a gay speaker at some later date, then? I don’t get it.

I don’t like quid pro quo. The problem here is the Perkins is correct. This proves his point, does it not? I do not agree with his position, but he has a right to voice it. The military is a publicly-funded entity, and he should be allowed to speak, just as the gays* should be allowed to openly serve.

*”the gays” is apparently the preffered term of endearment for us sodomites, at least according to my friends.

SouthernGent on February 26, 2010 at 8:50 PM

Your headline is a bit misleading. He criticized the proposed repeal of DADT.

Free Constitution on February 26, 2010 at 8:51 PM

Sorry, Tony. You might have been welcome had you brought your Koran.

MeatHeadinCA on February 26, 2010 at 8:51 PM

Your headline is a bit misleading. He criticized the proposed repeal of DADT.

Oops, right. Fixed.

Allahpundit on February 26, 2010 at 8:52 PM

Long story short, this is a test case on how the military’s going to balance creating a comfortable environment for gays in the ranks with the rights of religious servicemen to disapprove vehemently.

If this is how the military is going to handle it, I can envision the possibility of religious leaders urging members of their congregations to not join the military.

If this is harbinger of things to come, I don’t like the possibilities. Will we repeal the current “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy and then basically reinstate it with respect to religious/moral beliefs against homosexuality rather than homosexuality?

darii on February 26, 2010 at 8:53 PM

Sorry, Tony. You might have been welcome had you brought your Koran.

MeatHeadinCA on February 26, 2010 at 8:51 PM

Ding. Ding. Meat.

Yeah, AP~stop watching whale videos and fix the headline…it’s misleading!

HornetSting on February 26, 2010 at 8:54 PM

It’s definitely one of those speak now, or forever hold your peace moments. I think repealing DADT is a big mistake. It’s not going to making serving a better experience. It can only make it worse, less sacred, and less monastic–monastic when not on leave that is–which is very sad. Duty and Honor, Honor and Duty. And no buggery.

RBMN on February 26, 2010 at 8:55 PM

Disagreeing with The One shouldn’t make you persona non grata.

lol. If they do decide to enforce that policy on the military itself they’ll have to reduce the size of the force by about 90%.

P.S. my cousin is an Army full bird Col, and he tells me the troops are most decidedly not in favor of this. (and they hate his holiness with fervor)

elduende on February 26, 2010 at 8:55 PM

But allowing a hater like him to attend wouldn’t be politically correct. /s

ROCnPhilly on February 26, 2010 at 8:55 PM

Lights go out on Chavez… priceless

lexhamfox on February 26, 2010 at 8:57 PM

Ding. Ding. Meat.

Yeah, AP~stop watching whale videos and fix the headline…it’s misleading!

HornetSting on February 26, 2010 at 8:54 PM

That tone you take with AP almost sounds like the shrill screams heard from Olympiaann while stalking Beck on twitter.

MeatHeadinCA on February 26, 2010 at 8:58 PM

(and they hate his holiness with fervor)

elduende on February 26, 2010 at 8:55 PM

As a Catholic, that made me do a double take. But funny (esp. with teh One not attending Church regularly for, what has it been, a year and a half?).

darii on February 26, 2010 at 8:58 PM

The intended consequence of repealing DADT are to enforce groupthink on the military that homosexual behavior is normal and you should not speak against it if you want a promotion.
Gay Marriage will be advanced through the benefits claims and sob stories about gay people being transferred to states that don’t have it.
Just saw a ad for Black History Month from Marines. Military ad budget next will be used for homosexual promotion.

PrezHussein on February 26, 2010 at 8:58 PM

Another attack on the 1st amendment. Seems like there are an increasing number as time marches on. Question: who instigated the invitation withdrawal and what did they hope to gain by that action. That this was just a local decision has a certain smell to it.

docdave on February 26, 2010 at 8:59 PM

I wonder how many millions we’ll borrow for sensitivity training for our troops. And I bet gays are under represented in the upper ranks in all branches of the service.

ROCnPhilly on February 26, 2010 at 9:03 PM

What Non Military folks do not understand, is that the entire Military system is coercive.

THEY set what is correct, and if you do not toe that line, you will either be kicked out, or at the very least, never promoted… no matter how good of a job you do.

There is no Freedom of Speech in the military… and this gentleman being UNinvited, is Command Policy.

Thus, the PC police are already out.

Romeo13 on February 26, 2010 at 9:03 PM

Chaplain’s Office? Meaning the Chaplain.
10-1 the local Chaplain is an Episcopalian.
The many offended? His boyfriends.

Rocks on February 26, 2010 at 9:03 PM

Would a Military Chaplin who called on non-Christians to convert get in trouble? If the answer is no, then I don’t see why the same shouldn’t apply to opinions on homosexuality.

darii on February 26, 2010 at 9:03 PM

Lights go out on Chavez… priceless

lexhamfox on February 26, 2010 at 8:57 PM

lol. that is great. the look on his face is precious, especially after someone takes a picture and the only light is the illumination from the flash.

I’m hoping I’m there the day they they string this Marxist scum from a Caracas lamppost.

elduende on February 26, 2010 at 9:04 PM

Tolerance.
Gay conservatives? Where are you? Do you agree with this?

Just wait until this is repealed, if it does get repealed, Christian soldiers are going to be targeted. They will be questioned. They will be watched.

Is that really so paranoid of me? We just had the DHS issue watches on Vets, pro-lifers and libertarians as possible extremists. An actual government agency issued a warning about the extremism of Veterans! Warnings about the extremism of individuals with a “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper sticker on their car. In the case of the DHS warning, they were talking about citizens. What will they do with soldiers in the military who may have unacceptable views about gays?

Hey, silly me, it’s all worth it though. We need to shake up our military for this 2-4% of the population. Heck, marriage too. Lets just turn our entire culture upside down, all of our traditions and everything so this small group of people called gays will feel finally happy about themselves.

JellyToast on February 26, 2010 at 9:05 PM

Thus, the PC police are already out.

Romeo13 on February 26, 2010 at 9:03 PM

Shhhhh… let’s give them some more money to do something not remotely related to defending our country.

MeatHeadinCA on February 26, 2010 at 9:05 PM

10-1 the local Chaplain is an Episcopalian.
The many offended? His boyfriends.

Rocks on February 26, 2010 at 9:03 PM

That’s not fair. Last I recall, the Episcopal doesn’t go in for polygamy. Yet.

darii on February 26, 2010 at 9:05 PM

(esp. with teh One not attending Church regularly for, what has it been, a year and a half?).

darii on February 26, 2010 at 8:58 PM

funny that huh? guess they haven’t found a racist enough “church” to indoctrinate their daughters anywhere in the mid Atlantic states.

elduende on February 26, 2010 at 9:07 PM

elduende on February 26, 2010 at 9:07 PM

Maybe on Sundays he just has them listen to those old Rev. Wright tapes he mentioned in one of his “auto”biographies.

darii on February 26, 2010 at 9:08 PM

Ding. Ding. Meat.

Yeah, AP~stop watching whale videos and fix the headline…it’s misleading!

HornetSting on February 26, 2010 at 8:54 PM
That tone you take with AP almost sounds like the shrill screams heard from Olympiaann while stalking Beck on twitter.

MeatHeadinCA on February 26, 2010 at 8:58 PM

I have to shake AP from his blubber heaven…..now, about you MEAT. You compared me to OlympiaAnn. Never.

HornetSting on February 26, 2010 at 9:08 PM

Tolerance.
Gay conservatives? Where are you? Do you agree with this?

JellyToast on February 26, 2010 at 9:05 PM

Sometimes you have to turn a blind eye towards intolerance to promote tolerance

Sometimes you need to used Statism to save Capitalism

These things just keep writing themselves.

MeatHeadinCA on February 26, 2010 at 9:08 PM

Why not invite him and balance him with a gay speaker at some later date, then? I don’t get it.

You’re presuming having him speak at the prayer breakfast is a political act, regardless of his subject that day, because of his recent criticism of the President.

If so, the balance is to not have him at all, not to have two opposite political acts by the military.

Sadly I think having a prayer breakfast is probably going to become a political act in itself.

Chris_Balsz on February 26, 2010 at 9:10 PM

now, about you MEAT. You compared me to OlympiaAnn. Never.

HornetSting on February 26, 2010 at 9:08 PM

I just wanted to wake the dragon ;-)

MeatHeadinCA on February 26, 2010 at 9:12 PM

darii on February 26, 2010 at 9:08 PM

lol. I know they used to sell the “sermons” in video and CD for the busy commie organizer in your life.

that way you can listen to your Marxist racist grievance mongering in the comfort of your dacha or tenement.

elduende on February 26, 2010 at 9:12 PM

“This was a local decision made by the Chaplain’s Office who wanted the luncheon to be inclusive for the entire base community.”

Good thing there are no Muslims in the entire base community…

… I hear they are not too keen on Teh Gays.

Seven Percent Solution on February 26, 2010 at 9:12 PM

Of all places, why is the Chaplain’s Office saying no to Perkins? The specific base has something to do with it–Joint Base Andrews Chaplain’s Office, the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.

The interesting tidbit is the cover the senior chaplains are giving themselves, with a collective “chaplains” rather than specific names. Be assured that this decision comes from a senior or flag officer. I’m just wondering who and why? The original invite was religious in nature, but their retraction torpedoed it into a political one.

conservative pilgrim on February 26, 2010 at 9:13 PM

now, about you MEAT. You compared me to OlympiaAnn. Never.

HornetSting on February 26, 2010 at 9:08 PM
I just wanted to wake the dragon ;-)

MeatHeadinCA on February 26, 2010 at 9:12 PM

Uh, this dragon never sleeps.

HornetSting on February 26, 2010 at 9:13 PM

If he really has been disinvited for doing nothing more than opposing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” it’s a disgrace.

Sorry but I 100% disagree and it shows your intolerance with religions.

JeffinSac on February 26, 2010 at 9:13 PM

Uh, this dragon never sleeps.

HornetSting on February 26, 2010 at 9:13 PM

Great! Now bring on the trolls

MeatHeadinCA on February 26, 2010 at 9:15 PM

Oh, come on. He’s tied in with Focus on the Family. It’s a teenaged drama queen response from him.

“I am very concerned, however, that this merely foreshadows the serious threat to religious liberty that would result from repeal of the current military eligibility law. Such legislation would not merely open the military to homosexuals. It would result in a zero-tolerance policy toward those who disapprove of homosexual conduct.”

No one is saying that he can’t express his views. It’s just a matter of when and where. Do you want everyone petitioning the US Government for the right to go onto bases to talk to the troops whenever and however they want?

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 9:16 PM

If this is how the military is going to handle it, I can envision the possibility of religious leaders urging members of their congregations to not join the military.

Why would they do that? Repealing DADT wouldn’t change the current make up of the armed forces. If it’s the mere fact that the military would welcome qualified soldiers into their ranks notwithstanding their sexual preference, then that seems a silly reason not to encourage people not to enlist. I’m pretty sure there are gay people serving in virtually every profession one could think of, and I can think of none with a DADT policy. You’d severely limit your career prospects if you determined the only places worth working at are those where gays are muzzled.

If we have any servicemen/women posting on the blog, I’d be curious to hear their views. Will repealing this policy effect how you do your jobs, do you think? Personally, I feel like if those who are in the military, both leadership and rank and file, are OK with it, then I’m certainly not going to object. My only concern is that the soldiers are competent and willing to serve; the rest is immaterial.

NoLeftTurn on February 26, 2010 at 9:17 PM

I’m old enough to remember that Clinton got um, an appendage caught in an antique machine used to remove excess water from freshly-washed clothes…

There was almost an audible sigh of relief from the nation as a whole when some whiz-bang came up with the brilliant idea of DADT.

We pretty much grabbed on to it like a life preserver…now, some 25 years later, we are experiencing a “Pogo” moment (You youngsters can Google it, if you don’t get it.).

An aweful lot of us were thinking WTF when O’Dumbazz brought up DADT in the STOTU…I get it now. This is a brilliant diversionary tactic: Look! Over there! Queers being persecuted! Unite! Decry this hideous attempt to discriminate!
C’mon people! Focus, please! Think Wizard of Oz: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain…focus on the “horse of a different color!”

Chewy the Lab on February 26, 2010 at 9:17 PM

Did I misunderstand?
Duh One is inviting atheists to the ‘military prayer luncheon’?
I don’t even know where to begin on that one…..

HornetSting on February 26, 2010 at 9:18 PM

Of all places, why is the Chaplain’s Office saying no to Perkins? The specific base has something to do with it–Joint Base Andrews Chaplain’s Office, the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.

conservative pilgrim on February 26, 2010 at 9:13 PM

Oops. My mistake. Andrews is by DC, which makes everything clearer. Any base close to DC has political overtones to every decision.

I was thinking of Peterson in Colorado Springs. Was looking at that today too. *slaps head*

conservative pilgrim on February 26, 2010 at 9:18 PM

Corruption of language is double plus ungood.

Go back through and read all the above and replace “gay” with the correct term “homosexual”.

BowHuntingTexas on February 26, 2010 at 9:19 PM

Like it or not, DADT is federal law and military policy. Have we reached the point where religious leaders are uninvited from religious events for defending federal law?

I suppose he would still be invited if he opposed federal law and military policy? That’s absurd.

amerpundit on February 26, 2010 at 9:21 PM

Duh One is inviting atheists to the ‘military prayer luncheon’?
I don’t even know where to begin on that one…..

HornetSting on February 26, 2010 at 9:18 PM

If that’s the case, wouldn’t that offend atheists?

MeatHeadinCA on February 26, 2010 at 9:21 PM

Did I misunderstand?
Duh One is inviting atheists to the ‘military prayer luncheon’?
I don’t even know where to begin on that one…..

HornetSting on February 26, 2010 at 9:18 PM

My bad…the atheists are going to the WH.
Nevermind. Not surprised.

HornetSting on February 26, 2010 at 9:22 PM

No one is saying that he can’t express his views. It’s just a matter of when and where. Do you want everyone petitioning the US Government for the right to go onto bases to talk to the troops whenever and however they want?

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 9:16 PM

But this decision came from the Chaplain’s office. Perkin’s position on DADT is harmonious with current military policy. Chaplain’s stay out of the political stuff, normally. Unless you have a senior officer who has an agenda…..

conservative pilgrim on February 26, 2010 at 9:22 PM

Why would they do that? Repealing DADT wouldn’t change the current make up of the armed forces. If it’s the mere fact that the military would welcome qualified soldiers into their ranks notwithstanding their sexual preference, then that seems a silly reason not to encourage people not to enlist. I’m pretty sure there are gay people serving in virtually every profession one could think of, and I can think of none with a DADT policy. You’d severely limit your career prospects if you determined the only places worth working at are those where gays are muzzled.

If we have any servicemen/women posting on the blog, I’d be curious to hear their views. Will repealing this policy effect how you do your jobs, do you think? Personally, I feel like if those who are in the military, both leadership and rank and file, are OK with it, then I’m certainly not going to object. My only concern is that the soldiers are competent and willing to serve; the rest is immaterial.

NoLeftTurn on February 26, 2010 at 9:17 PM

As has already been mentioned, officers who want to be promoted have to be on board with army policy and show themselves to be eager to promote it as well. You show how much you support army policy and how you are helping increase ‘tolerance’ in the army and it looks good on a report. If you don’t your chances of being promoted drop considerably.

Christians may well have a problem with that.

sharrukin on February 26, 2010 at 9:24 PM

Unless you have a senior officer who has an agenda…..

conservative pilgrim on February 26, 2010 at 9:22 PM

Nooooooooooo

MeatHeadinCA on February 26, 2010 at 9:25 PM

elduende on February 26, 2010 at 9:07 PM

There is a large Black Liberation Theology Church in the D.C. area. In this case I think his handlers have kept him out of it because of the public backlash that would occur.

chemman on February 26, 2010 at 9:26 PM

As committed Christians see it–which wouldn’t matter if there weren’t so many of them–”celebrating homosexuality” sounds just as preposterous as “celebrating shoplifting.” Which is not to say that most teenagers haven’t shoplifted something, at some point, but they’re embarrassed about it, and and they don’t celebrate it, ever. Nobody obeys all of God’s rules, but why celebrate your disobedience? Like I said, it wouldn’t matter except that America’s norm and culture, after 230 years, is still Judeo-Christian. Sometimes you need to respect the norm because it is the norm.

RBMN on February 26, 2010 at 9:29 PM

I’d really like to know what Obama is going to do with all the military chaplains out there.
I don’t think there was ever anything like this before. No Chaplain ever had to choose between his faith and the military.
I suppose Obama could use the Chaplains who are willing to renounce their beliefs. I’m sure there will be many who will. There’s always more who go along than there are who refuse to compromise. I suppose Obama could enlist those Chaplains who agree to renounce the Bible to give pro homosexual sermons and sermons about the need to always obey authority.
That would certainly help in his effort to change military culture.

JellyToast on February 26, 2010 at 9:30 PM

No one is saying that he can’t express his views. It’s just a

matter of when and where. Do you want everyone petitioning the US Government for the right to go onto bases to talk to the troops whenever and however they want?

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 9:16 PM
But this decision came from the Chaplain’s office. Perkin’s position on DADT is harmonious with current military policy. Chaplain’s stay out of the political stuff, normally. Unless you have a senior officer who has an agenda…..

conservative pilgrim on February 26, 2010 at 9:22 PM

–The stuff Focus on the Family has said about gays in the past is pretty inflamatory.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 9:30 PM

There is a large Black Liberation Theology Church in the D.C. area. In this case I think his handlers have kept him out of it because of the public backlash that would occur.

chemman on February 26, 2010 at 9:26 PM

i did not know that and I used to live there, although come to think of it, I’m not surprised.

elduende on February 26, 2010 at 9:31 PM

Do you want everyone petitioning the US Government for the right to go onto bases to talk to the troops whenever and however they want?

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 9:16 PM

Of course that is the central focus of this entire thread. Nice straw-man, but it needs a little grooming.

hillbillyjim on February 26, 2010 at 9:32 PM

That would certainly help in his effort to change military culture.

JellyToast on February 26, 2010 at 9:30 PM

he’s not going to change military culture. although i’d like to see him try to pick a fight with the chaplins and see how he handles the imams in the Chaplin force.

elduende on February 26, 2010 at 9:34 PM

As has already been mentioned, officers who want to be promoted have to be on board with army policy and show themselves to be eager to promote it as well. You show how much you support army policy and how you are helping increase ‘tolerance’ in the army and it looks good on a report. If you don’t your chances of being promoted drop considerably.

Christians may well have a problem with that.

sharrukin on February 26, 2010 at 9:24 PM

–So what’s the differnence between the Armed Services and almost every (non-Governmental) for-profit company in the world? There’s always a pecking order.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 9:37 PM

The stuff Focus on the Family has said about gays in the past is pretty inflamatory.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 9:30 PM

Is FOTF now too fringe or something?

MeatHeadinCA on February 26, 2010 at 9:37 PM

–The stuff Focus on the Family has said about gays in the past is pretty inflamatory.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 9:30 PM

So are they censoring FOTF or Perkins? The Family Research Council partners with FOTF, but they are separate entities. Given what the chaplain’s office had to say in their statement:

The Chaplain’s Office respects and defends Mr. Perkins right to express his opinions, and regrets any inconvenience to him.

makes your position, and theirs if you’re right, off-the-charts in hypocrisy.

conservative pilgrim on February 26, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Repealing DADT wouldn’t change the current make up of the armed forces. If it’s the mere fact that the military would welcome qualified soldiers into their ranks notwithstanding their sexual preference,

It’s simplistic to think that all of this is only about repealing DADT. They are not going to just repeal DADT.
This is why I am perplexed by gay conservatives. At least, those who want to change the entire military so that they can serve in uniform while openly telling everyone “Hi, I’m gay!”

Repealing DADT will only be the beginning. With that will come a host of sensitivity trainings, punishments, offenses and other things not even yet thought of! Gays in the military will now become victims of discrimination! And we all know victims need protected.

JellyToast on February 26, 2010 at 9:40 PM

Do you want everyone petitioning the US Government for the right to go onto bases to talk to the troops whenever and however they want?

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 9:16 PM
Of course that is the central focus of this entire thread. Nice straw-man, but it needs a little grooming.

hillbillyjim on February 26, 2010 at 9:32 PM

–I’m going to drink beer and watch a DVD. I’ll leave it in your good hands to elaborate. As you know, here’s the quandry: Do you need to express all viewpoints or do you need to allow everyone in who wants to present his/her slanton those viewpoints? If so, how do you balance that with normal discipline and the desire to have things run normally and smoothly? And if you let everyone in without qualification, aren’t you disrupting the real business of the Armed Services?

It’s no different than the balances that private companies face everyday. It’s the governmental connnection that is causing the difficulties.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 9:42 PM

Jimbo3–

Remember we’re talking about a prayer luncheon, not a symposium on DADT and whether the military should retain or repeal the policy.

conservative pilgrim on February 26, 2010 at 9:42 PM

Friends, perhaps you don’t know that the Family Research Council would like to re-criminalize homosexual behavior, RBMN says the following:

As committed Christians see it–which wouldn’t matter if there weren’t so many of them–”celebrating homosexuality” sounds just as preposterous as “celebrating shoplifting

Excuse me, but most people assume that I am straight. I don’t bother to correct them. And, I don’t celebrate that I am gay.

SC.Charlie on February 26, 2010 at 9:42 PM

The stuff Focus on the Family has said about gays in the past is pretty inflamatory.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 9:30 PM

Lets hear some examples! Do you even know anything they’ve ever said or are you just repeating what someone else told you?
If you know they say horrible things about gays, comment on them. Give specifics.

JellyToast on February 26, 2010 at 9:43 PM

So what’s the differnence between the Armed Services and almost every (non-Governmental) for-profit company in the world? There’s always a pecking order.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 9:37 PM

First what does that have to do with Christian not wanting to be forced to promote, or stamp their approval on homosexuality?

Second… a for-profit company doesn’t ask you to risk your life for king and country. The military may do exactly that, and those willing to accept that kind of unlimited liability are few and far between.

sharrukin on February 26, 2010 at 9:44 PM

Such legislation would not merely open the military to homosexuals. It would result in a zero-tolerance policy toward those who disapprove of homosexual conduct.

Just think Boy Scouts. You then have the entire problem in a nutshell.Or, think this.Or, think this

unclesmrgol on February 26, 2010 at 9:44 PM

Just think Boy Scouts. You then have the entire problem in a nutshell.Or, think this.Or, think this

unclesmrgol on February 26, 2010 at 9:44 PM

And e-harmony. Maybe that was one of your links though…

MeatHeadinCA on February 26, 2010 at 9:48 PM

The “Family Resource Council” isn’t exactly ungay I don’t think.

happyfeet on February 26, 2010 at 9:51 PM

Friends, perhaps you don’t know that the Family Research Council would like to re-criminalize homosexual behavior, RBMN says the following:

As committed Christians see it–which wouldn’t matter if there weren’t so many of them–”celebrating homosexuality” sounds just as preposterous as “celebrating shoplifting

Excuse me, but most people assume that I am straight. I don’t bother to correct them. And, I don’t celebrate that I am gay.

SC.Charlie on February 26, 2010 at 9:42 PM

Gosh, it wasn’t until the early 70s that homosexuality was defined as a form of insanity by the psychiatric community.

BowHuntingTexas on February 26, 2010 at 9:53 PM

The stuff Focus on the Family has said about gays in the past is pretty inflamatory.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 9:30 PM

Let me guess, “homosexuality is a sin” or “homosexuality is not natural”? Oooooooooooo, so inflamatory and hateful.

darii on February 26, 2010 at 9:58 PM

So what’s the differnence between the Armed Services and almost every (non-Governmental) for-profit company in the world? There’s always a pecking order.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 9:37 PM
First what does that have to do with Christian not wanting to be forced to promote, or stamp their approval on homosexuality?

Second… a for-profit company doesn’t ask you to risk your life for king and country. The military may do exactly that, and those willing to accept that kind of unlimited liability are few and far between.

sharrukin on February 26, 2010 at 9:44 PM

The stuff Focus on the Family has said about gays in the past is pretty inflamatory.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 9:30 PM
Lets hear some examples! Do you even know anything they’ve ever said or are you just repeating what someone else told you?
If you know they say horrible things about gays, comment on them. Give specifics.

JellyToast on February 26, 2010 at 9:43 PM

Second… a for-profit company doesn’t ask you to risk your life for king and country. The military may do exactly that, and those willing to accept that kind of unlimited liability are few and far between.

sharrukin on February 26, 2010 at 9:44 PM

–Google (or do an Internet search, if you don’t want to get into a copyright issue) the stuff that’s been said by FoF. And you’re right. But the fact that this is a government instituion with a mission should mean that there’s relatively less tolerance about having every Tom, Jane and Harriet on base to present their own slant on positions, so long as all positions are heard or available to be heard.

Good night all (at least until the DVD is done). I’ll leave it in your capable hands.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Gosh, it wasn’t until the early 70s that homosexuality was defined as a form of insanity by the psychiatric community.-BowHuntingTexas on February 26, 2010 at 9:53 PM

True, but Sigmund Freud, the father of psychiatry vehemently disagreed. Slavery was once considered acceptable.

SC.Charlie on February 26, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Such legislation would not merely open the military to homosexuals. It would result in a zero-tolerance policy toward those who disapprove of homosexual conduct.
Just think Boy Scouts. You then have the entire problem in a nutshell.Or, think this.Or, think this

unclesmrgol on February 26, 2010 at 9:44 PM

–Uncle, was that a link to Klinger from MASH?

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 10:02 PM

oh. Research.

Cause of they research the families.

It’s like science.

happyfeet on February 26, 2010 at 10:04 PM

Do you need to express all viewpoints or do you need to allow everyone in who wants to present his/her slanton those viewpoints? If so, how do you balance that with normal discipline and the desire to have things run normally and smoothly? And if you let everyone in without qualification, aren’t you disrupting the real business of the Armed Services?

It’s no different than the balances that private companies face everyday. It’s the governmental connnection that is causing the difficulties.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 9:42 PM

….He’s a Marine, he claims he wasn’t planning to say anything political at the luncheon, and he is, after all, in line with the military’s official policy on gay servicemen….

posted at 8:40 pm on February 26, 2010 by Allahpundit

hillbillyjim on February 26, 2010 at 10:08 PM

oh. Research.

Cause of they research the families.

It’s like science. – happyfeet on February 26, 2010 at 10:04 PM

No, they research nothing. They just promote the idea that homosexuals are just like shoplifters……….criminals.

SC.Charlie on February 26, 2010 at 10:10 PM

oh. Research.

Cause of they research the families.

It’s like science.

happyfeet on February 26, 2010 at 10:04 PM

What? Not going to blame it on Sarah Palin? I am shocked!

sharrukin on February 26, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Slavery was once considered acceptable.

SC.Charlie on February 26, 2010 at 10:00 PM

So disapproval of homosexual behavior is aking to supporting slavery? Why not just extend the comparison and go full Godwin while you’re at it?

darii on February 26, 2010 at 10:11 PM

True, but Sigmund Freud, the father of psychiatry vehemently disagreed. Slavery was once considered acceptable.

SC.Charlie on February 26, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Oh well. There are at least 2 strains of HIV / AIDS and about 9 substrains. The substrains appear to pop up in different mutations all the time.

Wait until one becomes communicable … spread like the common cold.

Give me my blood transfusion in a combat zone.

BowHuntingTexas on February 26, 2010 at 10:12 PM

But the fact that this is a government instituion with a mission should mean that there’s relatively less tolerance about having every Tom, Jane and Harriet on base to present their own slant on positions

Here’s your sign. There’s your strawman.

hillbillyjim on February 26, 2010 at 10:13 PM

Slavery was the worst but that was a lot cause there was no council what could research the families probably.

With the Family Research Council researching the families, there’s a brighter tomorrow for everyone. But mostly families.

happyfeet on February 26, 2010 at 10:17 PM

No, they research nothing. They just promote the idea that homosexuals are just like shoplifters……….criminals.

SC.Charlie on February 26, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Not crime. Sin. I was referencing a different kind of law book. And if you don’t believe in it, you needn’t give the book a second thought.

RBMN on February 26, 2010 at 10:17 PM

happyfeet on February 26, 2010 at 10:17 PM

Sarcasm fail.

darii on February 26, 2010 at 10:19 PM

SC.Charlie on February 26, 2010 at 10:00 PM

47% of AIDS cases still among 2% of the US population – the homosexual, male community.

Government stats on AIDS.

Just wait until a substrain becomes communicable.

Let’s all jump on this ship or submarine after shore leave !!! Hope nobody spent the whole weekend in a bathhouse !!!

BowHuntingTexas on February 26, 2010 at 10:21 PM

The research suggests that no sarcasm was in evidence. Do you have studies what say otherwise?

Peer-reviewed, of course.

happyfeet on February 26, 2010 at 10:21 PM

BowHuntingTexas on February 26, 2010 at 10:21 PM

Was Perkins’s argument based on HIV/AIDS?

darii on February 26, 2010 at 10:22 PM

Peer-reviewed, of course.

happyfeet on February 26, 2010 at 10:21 PM

Magic words.

darii on February 26, 2010 at 10:23 PM

Homosexual behavior is a sin. Theft is a Sin. Behavior does not equal identity.
Thief or Homosexual does not make someone a different type of human.

PrezHussein on February 26, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Was Perkins’s argument based on HIV/AIDS?

darii on February 26, 2010 at 10:22 PM

No idea.

BowHuntingTexas on February 26, 2010 at 10:25 PM

Not crime. Sin. I was referencing a different kind of law book. And if you don’t believe in it, you needn’t give the book a second thought.- RBMN on February 26, 2010 at 10:17 PM

No, they want to re-criminalize “homosexual behavior”. Google it. Goodnight. I have to get up tomorrow and go to work. Google, Uganda Gays Family Research Council. I rest my case.

SC.Charlie on February 26, 2010 at 10:25 PM

–Google (or do an Internet search, if you don’t want to get into a copyright issue) the stuff that’s been said by FoF. And you’re right. But the fact that this is a government instituion with a mission should mean that there’s relatively less tolerance about having every Tom, Jane and Harriet on base to present their own slant on positions, so long as all positions are heard or available to be heard.

Good night all (at least until the DVD is done). I’ll leave it in your capable hands.

Jimbo3 on February 26, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Well, I just did a google search and didn’t find much from FOF. I did find a bunch of pro gay sites and other sites making outrageous clams about FoF.
It’s a Christian group. What do you expect them to believe?
Look, you conservative gays, you’re going to have to get over this thing about Christians believing you’re going to go to hell. Guess, what, Christians believe a lot of people are going to hell, so what of it? In fact, they even believed they were going to hell before Jesus saved them. You gay conservatives have probably told a few people to go to hell yourselves.

Hey, I did go to FOF’s site and found this horribly outrageous text about gays. Horribly inflammatory stuff.
I don’t dare post more than a few excerpts:

“Likewise, two men, or women, may be in love. Their love may run very deep, they may pledge fidelity to each other and live as happily as any married heterosexual couple. Again, that will not, of itself, justify a homosexual relationship. Scripture places boundaries on human relationships, offering no compromise, even if love is present and desires to cross those boundaries. If a form of sexual relating is wrong, it remains wrong no matter what degree of love goes along with it.

We would rather be nice. Indeed, today we see a strange tendency creeping into the church: “niceness” is taking precedence over truth. Immorality — even among Christian leaders — is going unconfronted, and many churches seem more concerned with making people comfortable than arousing in them a sense of their need for God.

In such an environment, it is no wonder erroneous teachings like the pro-gay theology are flourishing. Evangelist and Pastor Greg Laurie summed up the problem well: “What is being depicted to individuals is a ‘user-friendly’ God who will smile benignly down upon their lifestyles of choice, as they continue to live as they like.”11

While the general religious arguments of the pro-gay theology may compel us towards “niceness,” the God we represent places a higher premium on truth than accommodation. May we, by His grace, never shun the two-fold mandate to speak the truth, in love.”

http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/homosexuality/A000001554.cfm

Here’s another equally inflammatory article from their main site.

http://www2.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/a000000264.cfm

JellyToast on February 26, 2010 at 10:37 PM

If you were to make people aware of the health risks of Sodomy would you be uninvited.

PrezHussein on February 26, 2010 at 10:38 PM

FoF is a lot like Scientology how they pretend there’s all this science that props up their creepy perverted ideology I think.

Nasty little cult.

happyfeet on February 26, 2010 at 10:43 PM

Look, you conservative gays, you’re going to have to get over this thing about Christians believing you’re going to go to hell. Guess, what, Christians believe a lot of people are going to hell, so what of it? In fact, they even believed they were going to hell before Jesus saved them. You gay conservatives have probably told a few people to go to hell yourselves.
JellyToast on February 26, 2010 at 10:37 PM

Good point.

darii on February 26, 2010 at 10:43 PM

Will the military then be encouraged to torture captured jihadis who are homicidally [sic] anti-homosexual if DADT is overturned?

How dare they disagree with Obama’s decree!

profitsbeard on February 26, 2010 at 10:44 PM

FoF is a lot like Scientology how they pretend there’s all this science that props up their creepy perverted ideology I think.

Nasty little cult.

happyfeet on February 26, 2010 at 10:43 PM

Links to peer-reviewed studies about homosexuality being genetic please? And even if you should happen to cough some up, it doesn’t change the fact that moral arguments (on either side) are not the domain of empirical science.

That’s all the attention I will give your trolling for tonight.

darii on February 26, 2010 at 10:46 PM

Lets just turn our entire culture upside down, all of our traditions and everything so this small group of people called gays will feel finally happy about themselves.

JellyToast on February 26, 2010 at 9:05 PM

It’s not just so they can feel good about themselves. It’s to make sure that you are made to feel good about them too, whether you like it or not. Don’t protest else you’re a bigot; against gay marriage? Why you’re a cave man and you have no place in this party. Sad.

austinnelly on February 26, 2010 at 10:56 PM

Gays should not be allowed to openly serve in the military for the unremediable logistical requirements for housing, personal facilities and for the fact that they are instantly a minority status group the date they are acknowledged. The military is no place for a social experiment. Leave DADT the way it is.

hawkdriver on February 26, 2010 at 11:01 PM

I don’t see how repealing DADT makes the military any better for homosexuals; nobody has asked me if I’m HETEROSEXUAL, and I don’t care if they do. Sexual behavior/displays of affection of all sorts in public are strongly discouraged in the military.

This has nothing to do with providing equality; it is about advancing an agenda.

q2600 on February 26, 2010 at 11:02 PM

I would also point out that comparing the policies of the U. S. military regarding sexual behavior and gender orientation to any other profession is ridiculous, since (among other reasons) no other professions requires you bunk with your co-workers.

q2600 on February 26, 2010 at 11:04 PM

the answer to whether homosexuality is genetic or not is who cares

I have links.

happyfeet on February 26, 2010 at 11:04 PM

Hey, you can be gay and still join the military. You just have to keep your sex life to yourself. It’s a better situation than me wanting to be a professional jockey. I’d like to keep the fact that I weigh north of 250 lbs to myself, but it won’t work.

RBMN on February 26, 2010 at 11:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2