General Wesley Clark is supposedly about to declare candidacy for president.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you could clock with an egg timer how long before he starts getting asked about “Don’t ask, don’t tell” and the entire subject of gays in the military.
PAD
• 
Of course, I’m wondering how many B5 fans are going to have qualms about a potential President Clark…
TWL
Thankfully, he’s already on the record on the issue:
http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/on_the_issues.htm#Gays%20in%20the%20Military
In short: he welcomes soldiers of all persuasions.
Whereupon the first question will be, “General Clark, are you saying that you would officially do away with ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and work to strike all military laws regarding sodomy from the books?”
PAD
If Clark doesn’t win the nomination, the Democratic candidate would do well in having him as their running mate.
As for the gays in the military thing, I really hope he does away with this “don’t ask, don’t tell” garbage and lets them serve openly. Homosexuals are not the problem. The problem is with straight soldiers that are so insecure with their sexuality that they feel threatened by even being near a gay person. So why not teach the soldiers to be more accepting, and severely deal with those who can’t keep their homophobia under wraps?
Sorry, I’m ranting. Not good for a first-time poster to do.
If the straight soldiers are the problem then let’s ban them and let the gays run the military. France did.
PAD said: Whereupon the first question will be, “General Clark, are you saying that you would officially do away with ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and work to strike all military laws regarding sodomy from the books?”
And I hope the answer would be, “yes.” Given the “queering” of America (as evinced by the success of QUEER EYE FOR THE STRAIGHT GUY, for example) and the Supreme Court decision on sodomy laws, there’s no excuse for forcing soldiers into the closet any longer. I think General Clark realizes that.
But of course, we’ll have to wait and see that for sure. Which makes this a valid question to ask him, after all.
If the straight soldiers are the problem then let’s ban them and let the gays run the military. France did.
That’s a pretty big leap, isn’t it? From what I understand from the May 2000 issue of The Advocate, this is the announcement the French made:
The French armed forces will accept openly gay recruits as long as they don’t “proselytize,” a French defense ministry spokesman said Thursday. “We have no intention of introducing recruiting criteria that would take into account the personal [sexual] practices of individuals,” defense ministry spokesman Jean-Francois Bureau told reporters. “What the armed forces want is efficiency, and problems would only arise, as they have in foreign armies, in cases where there are attempts to proselytize.” Bureau was responding to an interview given to the gay magazine Tetu by Brigadier-General Alain Raevel, head of the ground forces public relations branch.
In the interview, Raevel said that as the country’s draft is ended, the armed services needs to recruit both men and women, “and the fact that some may be homosexual is none of our business. We follow the evolution of society, and the recognition of the homosexual phenomenon is one such evolution.”
Doesn’t sound like they’re breaking their backs one way or another. Unless, of course, the very idea of a homosexual being accepted into the army is considered exactly the same as putting them in charge, which seems moronic and ludicrous.
Or I suppose it could be some form of veiled slam against the French for some reason, but that seems moronic and ludicrous too. Especially when the US is currently arguing to rename the fries ‘French’ again as part of our push to beg the French for help. Not that they ever cared one way or the other about that.
I have no problem with anyone asking Clark about “don’t ask, don’t tell”…on one condition, of course.
That the same question is then asked of our Commander-in-Chief.
Compare and contrast, you know…
JSM
“The problem is with straight soldiers that are so insecure with their sexuality that they feel threatened by even being near a gay person.”
I agree wholeheartedly.
If the straight soldiers are the problem then let’s ban them and let the gays run the military. France did.
Really? Go gay people! The French really helped the United States achieve independence from the British. What’s up with Americans slamming France all the time? You wouldn’t have your Statue of Liberty, nevermind.. oh.. YOUR COUNTRY if it wasn’t for France.
I’m a fan of equal treatment for homosexuals. If they can do the job, let ’em do the job.
As for the often-touted fear that straight soldiers wouldn’t be trusting or work well if they knew there was a gay soldier with them, that’s bigotry. Imagine if that argument were made for the ethnic or religious group of your choice. (“We can’t allow XXXXXin the military because other soldiers wouldn’t feel comfortable around a XXXXX in their unit.”)
Just curious: Does any of this debate extend to gay women? It seems that all I’ve heard is how male soldiers fear gay men. Do any women feel threatened by lesbian soldiers? Have there been any “don’t ask, don’t tell” cases involving gay women? (Personally, I’ve always felt women are much less threatened by homosexuality because they (women) know it’s not the sole factor of a person’s personality or character.)
The French really helped the United States achieve independence from the British. What’s up with Americans slamming France all the time? You wouldn’t have your Statue of Liberty, nevermind.. oh.. YOUR COUNTRY if it wasn’t for France.
That would be the same France that was trying to wipe us out between 1754-1763 in the French Indian War, so they could take over the continent, right? Great Britain put a whipping on France’s butt, so that they ceded ownership of Canada. France was only too happy to help us so they could get back at Great Britain for their humiliating defeat. Hey, I won’t put down France for the help they sent, and they helped win some major defeats, but it was the American Colonials that won the War.
PAD:
You note, above,
Whereupon the first question will be, ‘General Clark, are you saying that you would officially do away with ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and work to strike all military laws regarding sodomy from the books?”
Better legal minds might be able to address this, but didn’t the Supreme Court strike down civilian criminal laws relating to sodomy earlier in the summer? Maybe that doesn’t apply to the military, since military concerns are addressed differently in the Constitution…?
George Guay
Whereupon the first question will be, ‘General Clark, are you saying that you would officially do away with ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and work to strike all military laws regarding sodomy from the books?”
Better legal minds might be able to address this, but didn’t the Supreme Court strike down civilian criminal laws relating to sodomy earlier in the summer? Maybe that doesn’t apply to the military, since military concerns are addressed differently in the Constitution…?
Hi, I’m a Better Legal Mind.
The Supreme Court did gut civilian sodomy laws earlier this year.
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-102.html
The reasoning almost certainly would not apply to the military, though, for two related reasons. The first is that the courts generally allow the military a huge amount of discretion in managing their own affairs. This is true of almost anything that pops up in the military– the courts will be very hesitant to be involved. If the military comes up with any even halfassed argument in its support, even something as vague as “morale,” the courts will run away screaming. The second reason is that this particular issue is based on a privacy right. Privacy is the entire basis for the majority opinion in Lawrence. (O’Connor’s concurring opinion, which in my Better Legal Minds opinion was the right one, would have struck down the law for a completely different reason, that it discriminates against gays for no good reason, but the privacy argument is the one that got five votes.) It is going to be incredibly difficult to persuade an appellate court to uphold a soldier’s privacy interests against the military. Privacy law is premised on when you do or do not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” For a soldier entering the military (a volunteer military, no less) the courts are probably going to find that the reasonable expectation of privacy level is near zero.
If the straight soldiers are the problem then let’s ban them and let the gays run the military. France did.
Or I suppose it could be some form of veiled slam against the French for some reason, but that seems moronic and ludicrous too. Especially when the US is currently arguing to rename the fries ‘French’ again as part of our push to beg the French for help. Not that they ever cared one way or the other about that.
That put-down was veiled? Anyway, I doubt Sheila Jackson Lee, who is the one agitating for the French label on fries, is begging the French for help. As I recall she was against the whole invasion to begin with. Still I don’t think it’s fair to say the French didn’t care one way or the other. They got to stand up to the US in public and pretend they were a major power again. I’m sure they cared a great deal about that.
That would be the same France that was trying to wipe us out between 1754-1763 in the French Indian War, so they could take over the continent, right?
Once again blind patriotism rears its ugly head and ignores the historical facts. It was the British colonies (being more populated and prosperous), who desired the French-held territories of the Mississippi and St. Lawrence Rivers—which included the Great Lakes and the Ohio River valley.
What inevitably led to the French and Indian War was not the French wanting to “take over the continent“, but the Lieutenant Governor of Virginia granting land to citizens of his colony in the French-held Ohio Valley. In fact, the first shots fired in the conflict were those of troops led by George Washington on a French encampment two years before war was declared.
Once again blind patriotism rears its ugly head and ignores the historical facts….
snicker
Travis
This thread has gotten a little serious (not that there’s anything wrong with that), so how’s about a little lightening up by quoting one of my favorite comedians of all time, Eddie Izzard, on the subject of transvestites in the military:
They’re missing a huge opportunity here, cause we all know one of the main elements of attack is the element of surprise. So what could be more surprising than the 1st Battalion Transvestite Brigade? Airborne wing – the airborne wing parachuting into dangerous areas with fantastic makeup! And a fantastic gun. And the opposing forces going, “F–inell, look at these guys. Hey… Suckaaas. They’ve got guns! They’ve got guns! Jesus, wha – they’ve got guns!” Ahhh, bûggër. I was so surprised. Were you surprised? I was surprised. “
\\Hi, I’m a Better Legal Mind.
The Supreme Court did gut civilian sodomy laws earlier this year.
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-102.html\\
Thanks, counsel (especially for the link)!
George Guay
I wonder if President Clark would ever order Scortched Earth. Hrm…
Anyway, I agree that the problem is that there is bigotry amongst the soldiers that make being around homosexuals uncomfortable; it’s no different than any walk of life. I’m sure that recently, they felt the same way about any soldier of Afgan or Iraqi decent. Catering to this kind of prejudice only feeds it, and should absolutely be stopped; not just in the military, but everywhere.
I’ve served, and my only opinion is that I wouldn’t want to share a shower with a lesiban, just like I wouldn’t want to share one with a male.
I’ve served, and my only opinion is that I wouldn’t want to share a shower with a lesiban, just like I wouldn’t want to share one with a male.
Would that apply to a gay male as well?
I’d just like to add that I have a gay friend who served in the military and he said that it was awful. Not because he was treated unfairly, but because he had trouble not going nuts with so many attractive guys around. So, I’d have no problem with gays serving, but as long as they and the people they serve with don’t have any type of tension, good or bad, between them.
I feel pretty secure about my sexuality, but feel uncomfortable when people I am not attracted to come on to me and I would feel uncomfortable being in close quarters with someone of either sex who I felt was more than just casually looking me over.
So I guess, if you can’t keep your emotions in check you should not serve, otherwise you should not be denied the right, if you want to.
I’d ask him about his feelings after he was fired from his job as NATO commander.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/docs99/990804-kosovo01.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm
EClark1849: If the straight soldiers are the problem then let’s ban them…
Luigi Novi: The bigoted ones who cause trouble, at least. I’m sure there are plenty of non-bigoted ones to populate our military.
Hmm…
*holds hands in “scale weighing” position*
General, doctor… general, doctor… guy who’s ordered folks to kill, guy who’s healed…
Wow, tough choice.
[/sarcasm]
Matt Lauer asked Gen. Clark about his position on gays in the military this morning on “Today.” He gave a very political response, but essentially said that it was something for the military leaders to revist — he didn’t go on record saying that he would issue any executive orders. He did say that homosexuals have always served in the military.
I always considered “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” a reasonable compromise. Any improvement, I suppose, would be in homosexual soldiers not having to deny their sexuality in order to remain in the military. That said, of course, there would probably be strict rules about fraternization among soldiers of the same sex.
Ultimately, though, this isn’t the time for major changes to the military anyway.
**Hmm…
*holds hands in “scale weighing” position*
General, doctor… general, doctor… guy who’s ordered folks to kill, guy who’s healed…
Wow, tough choice.
[/sarcasm]**
Y’know, no one’s heart bleeds more than mine but this kind of attitude is the kind of thing that Rush and Anne Coulter love.
If you can really dismiss the career of a man who’s devoted his life to the service and defense of his country as “guy who’s ordered folks to kill”, you give some trued credibility to all those who say liberals are traitors.
You really should be ashamed of yourself.
1. I think that the question gays in the military will be totally eclipsed firstly by bigger questions about the military in general and secondly by the gay marriage issue. It will be interesting to see where Clark comes down on that, as it is the closest thing to a litmus test among many liberals this time.
2. Arthur C. Clarke wrote a great essay in which he listed a good number of gays (as well men from societies like Sparta) who served as military leaders and warrioirs throughout history, men like Alexander the Great. He concluded that we should ban gays form the military as they are too bloodthirsty!
3. I am OK with gays serving. But I sometimes wonder why a gay would want to voluntarily join a homophobic organization. (I also can ask why women would enlist when sexism is also still a problem.) If anyone has any links to something written on this topic, I’d love to see it.
Simon
You really should be ashamed of yourself.
No she shouldn’t, Not really.
Some of us have opinions that other people don’t agree with. I know, I know, that’s an unbelievable statement, but it is true. And statements like these are less inciteful than naming a book “Treason” or “Slander,” and pointing those words at liberals.
Personally, the doctor is not one whom I would vote for to be our candidate. And I’m not sure about the general.
Though a point to the General’s side if he did become the candidate, it would take away a chunk of the military vote from the Right.
A point to the Doctor for being able to claim knowledge on Health Care and the like.
But my point on the Doctor is that he’s too liberal. Not that I don’t agree with him, but the democrats have to go after others besides the democrats.
That’s why we need someone liberal, but not too liberal and can speak to the people.
I know who my choice is, and this will be an interesting fight.
Travis
Wesley Clark can’t get the Democratic nomination for President. After all this time of people trying to “Draft Wesley Clark” and him finally accepting (if he is) then it’s too late to do anything effective as it’s too late in the cycle (says the guy who’s taking a class on this entire process, including fund-raising, advertising, and surviving several primaries).
The French really helped the United States achieve independence from the British. What’s up with Americans slamming France all the time? You wouldn’t have your Statue of Liberty, nevermind.. oh.. YOUR COUNTRY if it wasn’t for France.
I remember… the French Revolution. How many governments and political philosophies ruled France between the American Revolution and now?
And what about that point of the French-and-Indian War?
As for the often-touted fear that straight soldiers wouldn’t be trusting or work well if they knew there was a gay soldier with them, that’s bigotry. Imagine if that argument were made for the ethnic or religious group of your choice. (“We can’t allow XXXXXin the military because other soldiers wouldn’t feel comfortable around a XXXXX in their unit.”)
“I’m an uncomfortable around this guy because of a noticeable feature or behavior!” Is it bigotry for behavior? (No, that question is too loaded). If the guy had three eyes and was a visible freak would discomfort still be bigotry? I don’t like drawing this corollary because it leads to really stupid blanket questions by me.
Given the “queering” of America (as evinced by the success of QUEER EYE FOR THE STRAIGHT GUY, for example)
A comparatively wierd TV makeover show on Bravo is evidence that America is changing? (Actually I was turned against that show when Entertainment Weekly had those five on the cover instead of the late Bob Hope. In sixty years I’d bet money that these guys’ legacy would be piddle compare to Hope’s.)
The problem is with straight soldiers that are so insecure with their sexuality that they feel threatened by even being near a gay person.
Because we’re generally mean people who like annoying the crap out of each other a (straight) friend of mine asked me this: “Aren’t you secure about your sexuality?” My response was “I’m perfectly secure with my sexuality, it’s yours that I’m worried about.”
There is no moral to that story.
The point is that it’s a hugely vicious act to cast aspersions on the various emotional securities of guys who have trained to fight and die for us. And frankly I’d rather our fighting men spend more time learning proper procedure and honing their skills and whatnot instead of wasting time learning “tolerance” and “acceptance”. (If you’re not that nice a guy going into the military I have no idea why you should be one going out).
CJA
**You really should be ashamed of yourself.
No she shouldn’t, Not really.
Some of us have opinions that other people don’t agree with. I know, I know, that’s an unbelievable statement, but it is true. And statements like these are less inciteful than naming a book “Treason” or “Slander,” and pointing those words at liberals.**
No she should. Really.
How is a statement that sums up a general’s career as “guy who’s ordered folks to kill” even a little bit less inciteful than tossing around the words “Treason” or “Slander”?
As I said before, I’m as liberal as the next guy but unless I see some evidence that this guy was some kind of bloodthirsty butcher, I’m going to find that incredibly offensive because it does what we claim not to do: Reduces a large number of people to an unkind stereotype to make a point through a cheap shot.
I’ve spoken to a number of veterans including a man who is disfigured to this day from the combat he saw in Germany in WWII. I don’t know that I would have it in me to serve their country in the armed services but there is no doubt in my mind that those who do it well deserve our respect and gratitude.
So unless there’s a better reason than the general’s rank, a person who calls a man a “guy who’s ordered folks to kill” as a way of dismissing him deserves to be ashamed.
“So I guess, if you can’t keep your emotions in check you should not serve, otherwise you should not be denied the right, if you want to.”
Of course; but that goes for straight soldiers as well.
“Wesley Clark can’t get the Democratic nomination for President. After all this time of people trying to “Draft Wesley Clark” and him finally accepting (if he is) then it’s too late to do anything effective as it’s too late in the cycle”
Didn’t Clinton not enter the fray until October?
Here is a mixing of facts and other issues, but….
Does the miliary have an increase in sexual agression than other parts of American society (ex. Tailhook, Air Force Acadmey Rapes, etc…)
If gays are in the military where there is an increase in sexual agression, previous “straight military ment” would the be afraid they would be the targets of strong agressive military gays who would not take no for an answer.
This is flimsy logic along with being an apple to oranges comparision, but just an idea.
I hope he would reverse the ridiculous ban.
I read an article last year where the military relieved two men from duty because they were openly gay.
Oh, and they were fluent ARABIC linguists. WTF?
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
Shawn
**Hmm…
*holds hands in “scale weighing” position*
General, doctor… general, doctor… guy who’s ordered folks to kill, guy who’s healed…
Wow, tough choice.
[/sarcasm]**
Well, this is just what we needed, another display of the generalized political stupidity of the American electorate.
This guy is automatically bad because of what his job was. This other guy is automatically good because his job was something else.
Being a doctor qualifies you as a leader… how, exactly?
But really, why bother learning about issues, or even thinking at all, when you can reduce everything to “him bad” and “him good” with one simplistic stroke?
Even if you want to reduce it down to the dumbest common denominator, though, who would you rather have in the Oval Office – a general who actually has experience as a leader, or an internist?
But, oh, wait, the guy who served his country for 34 years ordered men to kill. He MUST be bad. Like that Washington guy. He was a general too. But, wait, isn’t part of the president’s job to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces? Doesn’t that involve ordering people to kill? What a terrible moral conundrum…
Ah, screw moral conundrums, we’ve got political and intellectual reductionism to get us through that! He’s a general. Him bad. Whew. Good thing I don’t have to expend any mental energy actually thinking about that one.
Or, to wit:
Politician, Rhodes Scholar… politician, Rhodes Scholar… guy who’s worked in politics, guy who hasn’t…
Wow, tough choice.
JLK
Yes, the straight male soldiers should all be more secure. Heck, the females too. I don’t even know why they bother to put up separate showers and bathrooms for them–they should all just use one, and if they’re insecure about that, they should just get over it.
**
Didn’t Clinton not enter the fray until October?
I don’t know. Do you know how much preperation he had by October?
You have to have layers upon layers of plans and you need to have your resources fairly well set out before you start. Wesley Clark having been only now convinced, has no engine set up. Before you start the engine must be up and set to run.
None of it is done by random.
I don’t know how prepared Clinton was that October. I do know that if Clark doesn’t get his act together he’s going to be rather inconsequential going up against seven other highly-reputed Democrats. (I can’t remember who Clinton went up against in his original primary and/or how many of them there were).
they should all just use one
How many would join this military?
Sure, boot camp is purgatory and war is hëll. But with your paycheck you get complimentary looky-loos.
(I wouldn’t join that military. I hated gym class. I’m boot camp won’t be any more fun).
\\*holds hands in “scale weighing” position*
General, doctor… general, doctor… guy who’s ordered folks to kill, guy who’s healed…
\\
That seems rather fallacious reasoning, as it presupposes that the actions of a doctor could not cost a life nor the actions of a general save them, both of which propositions are patently false…
Gore was one of Clinton’s competitors…naturally…I believe Jesse Jackson would have been too. Can’t remember the others.
Clark has for his campaign advisors several of Clinton’s and Gore’s advisors. So they have experience. What Clark needs to do is make his domestic positions clear to all the voters in the months preceeding Iowa and NH. (And he doesn’t have that many.) Few people will be asking him questions about his Foreign Policy positions and experience.
I believe Paul Tsongas, Bill Clinton, Bob Kerrey, Tom Harkin, and Jerry Brown were the five main candidates in the Dem Primary in 1992 (It appears neither Gore nor Jackson ran, at least they’re not listed as getting any votes in the NH primary.)
Jerry Brown was a former governor of California, but considered rather flaky by many. He had the nickname of Governor Moonbeam. Harkin, Tsongas, and Kerrey were all Senators. (Bob Kerrey, of course, is not John Kerry)
I don’t know how prepared Clinton was that October. I do know that if Clark doesn’t get his act together he’s going to be rather inconsequential going up against seven other highly-reputed Democrats. (I can’t remember who Clinton went up against in his original primary and/or how many of them there were).
I’m not sure how highly-reputed one can claim the overflowing multitudes of Democratic candidates to be, since it was recently revealed that something on the order of 2/3 of Americans couldn’t name or identify a single one of them.
Even stretching the meaning of “highly-reputed” I would think the only ones who would likely qualify would be Dean, Kerry, and MAYBE Gephardt, with Edwards possibly running far behind. The rest are essentially all vanity candidates, if anything at all. Well, excepting Lieberman, who is a closet Republican shill anyway.
Clark at least has the advantage of being someone people have seen on TV somewhat regularly, and in an already-muddled field that should make up for his late entry into the game.
If I remember correctly Clinton did not enter the race until relatively late in the game, although I’m not sure it was as late as October.
JLK
If I remember correctly Clinton did not enter the race until relatively late in the game, although I’m not sure it was as late as October.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Clinton entered on Oct. 3, 1991
David
The Blue Spider wrote:
You have to have layers upon layers of plans and you need to have your resources fairly well set out before you start. Wesley Clark having been only now convinced, has no engine set up. Before you start the engine must be up and set to run.
He’s building on the “Draft Clark” movement that’s been building for close to a year and that has raised a ton of money.
http://www.draftwesleyclark.com
As others have mentioned, he’s also working with some of the cream of the Clinton/Gore crop.
The Blue Spider also wrote:
I don’t know how prepared Clinton was that October. I do know that if Clark doesn’t get his act together he’s going to be rather inconsequential going up against seven other highly-reputed Democrats.
There are nine other declared candidates. Which two are you excluding as “highly-reputed”? The other nine are former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, Senator Bob Graham, Senator John Edwards, Senator John Kerry, former Senator and Ambassador Carol Mosley-Braun, Representative Dennis Kucinich, Senator Joe Lieberman, Rev. Al Sharpton, and Former House Democratic Leader Ðìçk Gephardt.
I can understand (possibly) excluding Sharpton, but which of these others do you consider to be of ill repute?
Hmm…
*holds hands in “scale weighing” position*
General, doctor… general, doctor… guy who’s ordered folks to kill, guy who’s healed…
Wow, tough choice.
[/sarcasm]
Thank heaven for snap judgements, where we can make decisions about someone’s entire character, based solely upon their career choice.
Actually, I think Clark may have the best chance to beat Bush. As a registered Democrat, I’m going to seriously consider him.
It’s difficult to call a four-star general, the Supreme Commander of NATO, and the man behind the Kosovo war “unpatriotic” or “soft.” Which is exactly what they would call Dean.
Of course the Republicans did do that to a senator who had lost three limbs in Vietnam, but still…
Oh, and Chris Matthews asked him about gays in the military and Clark said he supported them, but it was up to military brass, not the president.
According to BBC Wesley Clark has a minimum of fundraising behind him and his base is…. of limited contruction. He has a small base and almost no money, verbatim.
His base is small.
What I mean by reputed? Lieberman…. Dean… Edwards…. Gephardt. These guys, none of whom I’ll vote for, have appeared on TV and have been running for awhile. If he wants to catch up, he has to get money fast and get off his ášš. Could he beat his newly-declared rivals? I won’t say based on his credentials because I don’t vote that way anyway. Will he generate the neccessary cred at the apropriate time in the apropriate places? That’s the only thing that matters. It’s not how good you are but when people realize it. If our state election was one week later we might have a different governor in Michigan.
But we didn’t and I’m dámņëd by her sentimentality.
I don’t know enough about Clark to have an opinion about him.
The point of my post is that Wednesday evening, CNN Headline News had a “report” that really bothered me. They “reported” some things about Clark that sounded very biased, like they were trying to smear him before his campaign even got started. The “report” tried very hard to make it sound as if Clark were mentally unsound, quick to anger, or downright stupid. In this day, how can a general be stupid? Does anybody know what his education level is? If he were mentally unsound, how could he have been a commentator without this being obvious to the viewing public?
Question for those who like the “bigot” word for those people who disapprove of homosexuality:
Am I a bigot?
I believe that homosexual sex is morally wrong.
I believe that homosexuals are sinners like everyone else and that homosexual activity is an expression of that sin.
I do NOT believe that gay people should be held back from any kind of work (except working for a church which believes as I do). They can be teachers, soldiers, doctors, whatever… as long as they can do the job well.
I will NOT share my opinion with a gay person UNLESS they ask, and even then it will not be in the context of the single issue but their standing before God.
I do NOT believe the government should have a position in any marriages, let alone gay relationships. PERHAPS something for people with kids. Civil Unions should be for anyone who wants one regardless of sexual activity.
I have friendships with people of every stripe, including gay people.
But I do believe it is wrong.
Am I a bigot?