|
Posted: 26 Sep 2011 06:20 AM PDT
 The most provocative moment from last Thursday night's Republican presidential primary debate came when a few members of the crowd booed an openly gay soldier for asking whether he would have to hide his sexuality under a future, Republican administration.
Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), to whom the question was addressed, responded that he would reinstate "don't ask, don't tell," the federal policy that prohibited LGBT individuals from serving openly in the military. And when pressed on the matter after the debate ended, the Pennsylvania Republican argued that repeal of the policy had been harmful for those gay soldiers as well.
"We executed a policy that I think was detrimental to everyone, including them, in my opinion because sex and sexual preference should not be an issue in the military, period," he said. "And it should not be something that is demonstrated in any shape or form in the military. And it shows how much our culture has changed that this is even a subject to be debated within the military."
Santorum didn't elaborate on how allowing open service was detrimental for gay soldiers. He did, however, say that he "would grandfather in people who, because of the [DADT repeal] policy, came out." "It's not their fault," he said. Source: http://huff.to/pvegYX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Monday, September 26, 2011
More From "Rick Santorum"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
When will Sanctimonious Santorum and his raucus caucus realize how cheap they sound?
Eunuchs??? Only eunuchs in the military.
Which century did you come into being? Castration and tubal chop off create a eunuch!
Gary, remember, removal of appenages doesn't really change sexuality or sexual orientation. An amputated gay man does not become asexual because of the amputations.
Sexuality is between the ears. . .the ears. . .not the legs and fat tummy. . .lol
According to your suggestion, you'd have an army of hetero soldiers and gay soldiers who'd limp for a while. . . maybe quite a while. ;(
Maybe the elimination of sex in the military would have kept my sister and her now husband from getting together and marrying. I know that the country is in a much worse state because of that tragic day that they met....... She's now a Pentecostal Preacher in Alabama!
As an existentialist psychologist I take exception, Coopsta Duude, with your choice of the words "define what I am".
Why? WHAT designates a thing, an object. WHO, on the other hand shows a person.
There is far too much de-personalization, therefore de-humanizing in our society for our general mental and emotional health.
When we objectify a person we USE that person. Person-to-person is about relationship: the inter-active dynamic in human growth and living. "We use things; we love persons." . . .unfortunately it is often the other way round.
Thus growth is stunted, emotional fulfillment is crippled. One of the things I object to in the game wars online. Here the characters are objects, things. The greater the cruel, destructive carnage too often rates the 'success' of the so called 'game'. Hours spent daily in this kind of activity cannot but influence, shape a kid's mind and concepts of the meanings of life and the crown of life - loving relationships. What goes on in his cyber-world cannot but influence and even shape his M.O.. . .his ways of coping with reality.
So my dear Coopsta, NorthShore soul mate, you are never ever a WHAT. You are most always and eminently a WHO. hehee "We use WHATS and we love WHOS."
End of Tuesday's Psych 101 class.
Justin o' the Dunes
Isn't that the whole point?! Sexuality shouldn't have ANYTHING to do with the type of soldier one could be......whether gay or straight. It's nobody's business whatsoever. But the religious RIGHT are making it THEIR business. Ever see the movie Dumb and Dumber?
Maybe I missed something in this discussion?
Post a Comment