Bravery is not this

| March 1, 2012

The Washington Times reports that the media has gone apeshit over a gay kiss between two Marines as one returns from his overseas deployment.

“This is TRUE bravery!” reads one [comment on Facebook]. “The most insidious enemy we face in the struggle for equality is internalized homophobia. Kudos to any and every one who comes out for any and all to see!!”

Yeah all of you whiners who’ve been blown-up and shot and carried your friends on your back to get them out of the line of fire, or dragged them from burning vehicles with ammunition zinging around your head, this is what true bravery looks like (content warning – if you don’t want to see two men kissing, don’t click the “More” link. If you don’t want to see an iconic photo ruined by political correctness, don’t click the “More” link);

Yeah, I put it below the fold because I don’t want it on my front page until I write something else – that’s my choice, and in the current climate, who is going to call me brave?

I have nothing against folks being as gay as they want to be in the privacy of their homes, but I’m not having it shoved down my throat with the media telling me what I should think about it. And equating it to the countless truly brave acts that I’ve witnessed and had recounted to me is enough to make me sick.

I’d tell you imbeciles to stick it in your ass, but, well, you know….

Category: Military issues

Comments (138)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Abnmdc says:

    the inquisition was a necessary evil, it drove the damned heathens from Spain back to hell where they came from. It would be nice if it existed today to do the same thing for all of us and send them back to hell.

    Hitler? Stalin? the justifiers, you omitted Mao, Polpot or Idi Amin. People use them to justify a point. If they would had won the war, the justifiers would had been Roosevelt, Truman and Churchill. Or is it that you think it ok to drop a nuclear bomb on civilians the right thing to do?

    Still that does not change the fact that a homosexual is a sick deviant individual that choses to engage in sodomy for pleasure or sexual gratification.

  2. Jacobite says:

    Support the Inquisition do you? You’ve now proven your self guilty of lying (about whether your stance was religious or not), good job. 😉

    By the way, I didn’t intentionally omit anyone, I simply provided enough to support my point, and I did. lol

    As for whether or not I believe we should have nuked civilians, well naturally. It saved American lives, that’s good enough for me.

    Man oh man, you are even further off the mental grid than I originally though. A shame really.

    And your statement that homosexuality is a ‘sick deviant’ behavior? Well thankfully that’s just your opinion, and it’s worth exactly what it cost for you to verbalize it, Exactly nothing. You’ve provided no proof that your opinion has any basis in fact and can therefore be comfortably relegated into the ‘mildly irritating but inconsequential’ bin.

    Gawd I’m glad folks like you are becoming relics.

  3. Ann says:

    @Jacobite I think we’ll have to leave Abnmdc in Crazyland. Hopefully he gets evicted into the real world sometime soon.

  4. Doc Bailey says:

    I would like to point out that we’ve already had a gay president. Its not Abe Lincoln as some seem to suggest. It was the guy before him. James Buchanan. Its ok that he’s regarded as one of the worst presidents in US history. You’ve had a gay president! Have a parade.

    Just something to think about, look at the old Renascence paintings. Notice how. . .chubby some of the women in there are? Today, we’d tell them that they’d better get their ass in the GYM! We’d rip on them for how fat they are. Now while this might seem like a tangent, from left field it undercuts one of the central thesis’ of the Gay “movement” Standards of Beauty, and sexual desire are not set in stone. While you’re born with “leanings”, no one is born that way. It also takes responsibility away from ones actions. You make a choice.

  5. Jacobite says:

    Eviction is satisfactory I suppose, but I’d prefer understanding.

    It irks me when people are unable to grow beyond their own narrow world views. My own myopic problem I suspect, because logic dictates that illogical people are never going to go away, no matter how much we would wish it to be otherwise.

    I’m not ‘gay’ myself, and I used to make fun of the lifestyle in my ignorant youth. But as I’ve grown older, and since I’ve made the decision to be as honest with myself as possible, I’ve been forced to face a bunch of inconsistencies in my world view. Facing those inconsistencies and adjusting my beliefs based on history, logic and cold common sense has been overwhelmingly eye opening and rewarding.

    Everyone has to find their own path I suppose, and many never will.

  6. Jacobite says:

    Doc, I respect you greatly, but there are HUGE problems with you argument. The biggest being some suppositions for which there is no empirical evidence.

  7. Abnmdc says:

    You lost my point because you need to justify your lifestyle choices. Yes, I am a dinosaur I am glad I am one, I stand for something. Homosexuals have no room in my world. Maybe you missed the fact that the inquisition served its primary political purpose, through war and religious terror the Muslim vermin were eradicated from Spain. It worked. If we had a tool like that, instead of making excuses, America would rule the world instead we are selling it out to our enemies and making this once great country a cartoon.

    You want to say that being a homosexual is a good thing, I should feel glad for you, but I really dont. Hope that your sphincters still work when you are older, if you make it that far and do not catch some disease in between and die from it which would not make me too sad.
    The argument justifying the use of Atomic weapons, you must catch up on your history. The bombs were dropped to let the Russians know we could blow them away if they had contemplated any idea of an advance in a very vulnerable Europe. The European Theater was over and the only place that justified its use was Japan. Simple politics, bad choice and almost an imposible one, but still it does not make it right by any means. Did it save some American lives? probably, but it is still a scholarly debate. It might have deterred our enemies until the Rossenbergs sold us out to the Russians.

    You question my sanity, but I am not the one attempting against the laws of nature. You have not proven that being a homosexual is a biological imperative. The research is at best flawed, so nothing has been definite proven.
    Is the world a better place since women speak out of place and homosexuals can create all this mess? Not. Your “real” world with all its sick deviant behavior holds no interest for me.

  8. Yat Yas 1833 says:

    @102 Ann, ya know I was starting to like your posts then you do this. You’re doing what everyone else does when they can’t get someone to change their point of view. And I’m talking about folks on both sides. Insults and sarcasm add nothing to a debate.

    Is homosexuality genetics or a life style choice? I don’t know. I saw a thing a while back where they did brain scans and gay and lesbian brains that showed differences from hetero brains. Genetics? My cousin married his Jr High sweetheart, after 20 years of marriage she left him for another guy. Six months later my cousin announced he was gay. Life style choice?

    Personally I think homosexuality is wrong. That’s my opinion. Do i hate gays? Not at all.

    If I might ask one question? Why do you, Jacobite, BD, etc keep coming here? You know you’re in the minority and you’re not going to change anyone’s mind.

  9. Ann says:

    @Doc Bailey I respect your opinion, but I chose my orientation about as much as you’ve chose yours.

    @Abnmdc Again: reciprocal altruism and kin selection. Look them up. And how about actually reading the studies mentioned in the links I provided earlier?

  10. CI says:

    @Abnmdc – “Is the world a better place since women speak out of place….”

    What exactly is their place?

  11. Ann says:

    @Yat The sarcasm was meant to be directed to Abnmdc’s perceived tinfoil hattery, not at everyone who shares a particular viewpoint with him. Saying the tonsil hockey was unprofessional or that you think queerosexuality is wrong is one thing, but frothing rage against ‘deviate sodomites’ is another. To me the absurdity earns a bit of ridicule. Everyone else has been more than reasonable in their disagreements.

    As for why I keep coming back to this post I personally love to talk about science, and the orientation debate is no exception. I also appreciate hearing both sides of an argument, and exchanging views. If you stick with people who completely agree with you then you risk becoming trapped in the MSNBC or Fox News crowds.

  12. Ann says:

    @Doc Bailey I don’t care if there’s been a gay President. So long as they’re not breaking any laws then I don’t really care what they do in their bedrooms. Being forced to hear nonstop clips about Clinton’s escapades was torture enough. I just have an issue with the accusations of it somehow being lewd or shameful simply because it’s two guys. If they were straight would everyone oppose it just as staunchly?

  13. Hondo says:


    OK, here’s the short version of the argument.

    There is full justification for regulation of sexual conduct – either homosexual or heterosexual – while in uniform on grounds of military effectiveness. Military personnel often live in close quarters, with little privacy, and are faced with situations where any hesitation to come to the aid of their comrades can literally be lethal to all. Unit morale, cohesion, and esprit de corps are therefore critical – much more so than even in the closest civilian equivalents, police and firefighting organizations, as police and firefighting organizations don’t live together nonstop for months at a time. The element of sexual tension that having overt homosexuals literally living with members of the group in close quarters brings has foreseeable, adverse effect on morale, esprit, and cohesion. (The same is also true if one has an overt pedophile, over nymphomaniac, or boorish satyr hitting on female unit members.) This can lead to unnecessary mission failure and loss of lives. For what it’s worth: adultery is banned for the same reason – i.e., it’s effect on unit cohesion, esprit, and morale, and thus on the unit’s military effectiveness.

    The situation is far different than racial integration, and comparing the two is an invalid comparison. Race is based on innate, unchangeable, and non-maskable hereditary factors. One simply cannot control one’s race. Therefore, insisting on racial equality is based on the principle of innate equality of all, and is proper – period. In contrast all sexual conduct (either homo- or heterosexual) is a voluntary act. For those in uniform, all sexual conduct – including all overt displays, either homosexual or heterosexual – may thus be regulated in the interest of military effectiveness.

    In fact, unless things have changed radically in the past 4 years sexual conduct of all forms is today still strictly controlled in theater. It’s called “General Order 1” – and until a few years ago, its blanket ban (no pun intended) on sex included not only unmarried personnel/geographical bachelors but also married couples deployed together to Iraq and Afghanistan. (That particular part of GO1 was reinterpreted in either late 2007 or early 2008 to allow married couples stationed together to have sex when appropriate privacy was available.)

    The bottom line is that DADT was a good, workable compromise between individual rights and military necessity. It prohibited only conduct (including overt displays of homosexual orientation) that would have deleterious effect on military effectiveness. One was free to have whatever sexual orientation one liked; one just had to keep it private.

    Fair? Not necessarily. But as JFK put it: “Life is not fair.”

    And by the way: Jacobite, you did effectively equate race and sexual orientation earlier. See your own comment #18 above.

  14. Ann says:

    @Hondo The only problem was the sporadic, and often petty enforcement of DADT. How are straights so much more responsible that they’re allowed to be open about their relationships? This isn’t an issue of orientation, it’s an issue of the maturity and responsibility of the person. Again, randomly making out with your significant other at work is one thing. Some PDA after you haven’t seen each other for 6-18 months is another. So long as it’s quickly reined in I don’t see why it would be an issue.

    I think that everyone would be too busy finding their loved ones to stand there scandalized at the supposed impropriety. I bet that the vast majority of those present had no idea this even happened until the picture was published. Both times I got back from deployment the moment we were dismissed I didn’t so much as look at any of the guys I deployed with. I found my family, and took off so I could ditch the cammies and get some home cooked food.

  15. Yat Yas 1833 says:

    @111 Ann, I agree with you 100% that both sides can fall into the “neener, neener, neener” mentality and it makes me sad. there are some very intelligent people that post here and I love it when a thread gets started and it runs it’s course with good dialog and civility.

    Well keep coming back, as I said, I really appreciate your posts. Hopefully some topic will get posted that we can have at it over!: ) unfortunately this isn’t it. I’ve stated my opinions on this and they’re not going to change. Unless of course the good Lord Himself came down and told me I was wrong.

    Semper Fi

  16. Hondo says:

    Ann: no system or policy is ever enforced perfectly, and no system or policy is impossible to abuse. IDADT was no different in that respect. People enforce systems and policies; people are fallible.

    That said, I’d hazard a guess that the rate of abuse in enforcing DADT was no higher than in enforcing any other aspect of military discipline. An allegation of abuse of subordinates or discrimination will kill a NCO’s or officer’s career if substantiated, and depending on the circumstances could get them in serious legal trouble also.

    That said, DADT was workable without undue adverse impact on either individuals or military effectiveness. I’m not at all certain that the new policy will be – and I’d prefer not to find out the hard way that it isn’t.

  17. cali says:

    To be homosexual is a choice; giving into an urge. If we would give into urges, what would be taboo?
    Homosexuality is a sin and, yes it’s been around for a long time; it still doesn’t make it right.
    Whatever one does behind closed doors or privacy it’s fine by me. What I don’t want is to be forced to accept it as normal.
    There’s a reason that it is a sin; it’s against natural order and, brings diseases such as Aids. A scientist once wrote that homosexual men are the majority contracting or suffering from that disease due to their lifestyle.
    Naturally, this scientist found himself out of a job!

  18. Stacy0311 says:

    yeah Jacobite, if they taught logic in high school, maybe you could learn the fallacy of assumption (ie, my soldiers address me as “Sir” not “Ma’am” common mistake and assumption on your part)

    If they’re born that way, then it is a abnormality and if they’re not born that way it’s a behavior.

    And homophobia (a made up word) is NOT the same as racism.

  19. Athena says:

    Uhm, Jacobite, you might want to research the Nazi’s predilictions for homo-sex before you consider old Adolph one of your enemies.

  20. Jacobite says:

    @ 113


    Not sure why you addressed your response to me? I already generally agree with your points.

    And no, go back and read #18 a little closer, I did not equate race and sexual orientation, I equated racism and bigotry.

  21. Ann says:

    @Cali HIV was a zoonotic disease that jumped to humans from chimpanzees. There’s evidence it’s been doing this for some time, but the massive urbanization is what allowed it to escape small villages and spread. It arrived in the west courtesy of infected Congolese, infected Hatians, and was able to morph into a pandemic when it found it’s way into the gay and IV drug user community. It’s also a pretty crappy disease for punishing those evil gay people since lesbians have some of the lowest infection rates for any demographic.

    It isn’t a gay disease, it merely exploited a niche courtesy of some really stupid attitudes about sex. SARS wasn’t called an Asian disease despite it gaining a foothold, and transmitting from there.

  22. Ann says:

    @Athena Nobody is trying to say that all gay people are awesome (to be fair I think Hitler was more of a sadist than a homosexual.) That’s just like inferring gay people are somehow attracted to every single person of their gender in the whole world. Jeffrey Dahmer became an Evangelical Christian in prison, but you’d still never call him a nice guy or condemn every other Christian because he was nuts.

    I always used to tell my guys that if a gay guy is ‘checking you out’ they’re probably thinking ‘Oh my God, why are you wearing those shoes with that belt?!’ instead of ‘Must… rape… straights…’

  23. Athena says:

    Ann, HIV exploited gay males propensity for lots and lots of anal sex. You must know nature didn’t design the anus for sex, right Ann?

  24. Athena says:

    Ann, I wasn’t saying that at all, I was referring to Jacobite inferred idea that Hitler hated homosexuals.

  25. Ann says:

    @Athena tuberculosis exploits poor urbanites who have a propensity for overcrowding in small spaces, and malaria exploits Equatorial inhabitants who don’t use bugnets. Nature also didn’t design ears for piercing, skin for tattooing, or double jointedness to entertain grade schoolers.

  26. triple B says:

    well there goes the neighborhood

  27. Ann says:

    @Athena Sorry, I misread the comment. Studying for midterms is making me crazy…

  28. Hondo says:

    Jacobite: I was responding to your request in comment 99 above. My answer was aimed at justifying why open homosexuality in a military context can be prohibited. I didn’t intend to argue the merits of homosexuality per se. If that was the intent of your question, then I missed it.

    I didn’t read your comment 18 the way you now claim. The example you used – e.g., the “back of the bus” reference – was a clear example of racial prejudice vice bigotry. And IMO, your statement slotting it right next to prejudice against homosexuals clearly equated bias against homosexuality with racial prejudice.

    In any case, bigotry and racism are not the same. Bigotry is based on belief, and is defined as “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own”. Racism is based on distain for a particular race simply because of what they are, not what they belive. So equating the two is not correct.

  29. Jacobite says:

    Bigotry is based on belief, and is defined as “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own”. Racism is based on distain for a particular race simply because of what they are, not what they belive.

    A distinction without a real difference. You can say all racists are bigots, but not all bigots are racist it’s true, but that wasn’t the point. The point was that the Abnmdc’s comments deserve the same disdain one would show Archie Bunker’s rants. They’re narrow minded, uneducated and willfully hateful. I had already identified what I was dealing with in him and was right on target in comment 18 as his eventual rants against women and further statements have proven.

  30. Jacobite says:


    My apologies “Sir”. I would imagine it can be irritating having your name misinterpreted. I apologize for making that mistake, however, that doesn’t lessen the correctness of my assertions.

    “If they’re born that way, then it is a abnormality”

    Really? How so? Facts please, not feelings.


    “You lost my point because you need to justify your lifestyle choices.”

    Really? I don’t feel the need to justify my lifestyle at all. Not that it matters but I’m a straight hetero male, retired soldier, and father of two. I don’t see that I’ve done anything to justify my choices in this thread.

    ”You want to say that being a homosexual is a good thing”

    Really? Where did I say that?

    ”The bombs were dropped to let the Russians know we could blow them away”

    Ya, so? Truman himself stated his reasons for deciding to go ahead with the attack. The full decision tree, and the people involved, can be found here . All I said was, it saved lives.


    “If I might ask one question? Why do you, Jacobite, BD, etc keep coming here? You know you’re in the minority and you’re not going to change anyone’s mind.”
    I’ve been coming here for years because I love the open debate Jonn’s site encourages. And I argue my points in the face of adversity because I like to test them against people whose opinions I respect and because I feel they need to be argued. I also believe people like Abnmdc need to be publically challenged so their bigotry is never given the dark space of privacy in which to grow and pollute.
    I love a good debate. 🙂


    To be homosexual is a choice

    Really? You base that on what?
    As for it being a sin, well sin is a Judeo Christian concept and I fully support your right to that opinion, but it is just that in the greater scheme of things, your opinion. I don’t share your faith, and am not bound by your prejudices.


    I did not infer anything about Hitler’s position on homosexuals, I pointed out that Hitler was a man who was convinced he was right, about everything, not just homosexuality. You read into my statements something that wasn’t even there, and took them entirely out of context.

    Man, hope I got all that straight, lol.

  31. Hondo says:

    Jacobite: No. There is indeed a distinction between bigotry and racism. Bigotry is based on objection to a particular belief, while the latter is based on finding an entire group of persons objectionable solely because of their race.

    As you’ve pointed out above, beliefs can change over time – and often do to some extent as people age. Race is invariant and permanent.

  32. ParatrooperJJ says:

    Looks like probable cause for NCIS to investigate for Art. 125 violations…..

  33. Jacobite says:


    Again, all racists are bigots, but not all bigots are racist.

    Definition of BIGOT from Merriam-Webster.

    : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

    Definition of RACISM from Merriam-Webster.

    : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

    And again, my main point was that both are despicable and deserve the same treatment. I can’t figure out why your splitting hairs over this?

  34. Athena says:

    Uh, no, Jacobite, YOU inferred that Hitler’s ideas on homosex were what led to the suppression of homosexuals in Germany. Nice try though.

  35. Jacobite says:

    I did eh?

    Please point out for me where I did that, and please don’t be upset if I don’t hold my breath while waiting for you to find it. 🙂

  36. Athena says:

    @135 Ahhh, denial.

  37. Cedo Alteram says:

    #104 Doc, James Buchanan was not gay or at the very least there is no evidence to assume so. Just because he was a bachelor, unusual at the time, and boarded with another man when he served in the Senate(I believe), doesn’t in itself prove homosexuality.

    #105 “It irks me when people are unable to grow beyond their own narrow world views.” This one statement alone Jacobite, reveals who is approaching this from a limited perspective. It alludes to your world views being the correct ones, whatever those may be, all others being null. The moral argument is no less compelling, despite your constant attempts to dismiss it.

    First, because there were gays in the past is irrelevent, we had criminals then as we do now, so?
    Gays are a tiny minority amongst the general population, who’s very identity is defined by an unnatural behaviour. A behaviour, the cultural tradition opposes and has for about 1500 years.

    Even the preChristian Greco-Roman world was far from uniform on. Most of our ancient sources were writers from a very narrow band of said society. Who’s demographic bias were over represented in literature not just on gays but also on the certain historical figures(like emperors) or events. Just because same-sex sexual acts were tolerated(defined mostly upon who was doing the penetrating) and not criminal, in no way quantifies its commonality amongst the general male population. Outside the Senatorial/Equetrian classes, the shamed persons of entertainers and prostitutes, and some religious cults it is hard to know how much of this was engaged in.

    #113 “The element of sexual tension that having overt homosexuals literally living with members of the group in close quarters brings has foreseeable, adverse effect on morale, esprit, and cohesion.” Bull’s eye!

    This has always been my primary objection and worry. Much of the sexualization of the force has been with the entrance of a large number of women over the last generation. Practical topics like pregnancy and honest assesments of truthful sexual predation are now purposely obfusicated. At all male units(like combat arms battalions) have had little of this to deal with. Either out of sincerity, vindicativeness, or misunderstanding this will be an issue. This is another distraction which will do nothing but add stress and distraction on the military. Why bother? This serves us how?

  38. Jacobite says:

    @136, still waiting. 🙂

    @ 137,

    “It alludes to your world views being the correct ones”

    No, you are narrowly defining my statements, and taking them out of context to boot. My comment actually alludes to a willingness to examine my world view on a regular basis, admitting by default that I may be incorrect or too narrow minded either in basis, or in light of new information or changing societal norms. And no, the moral argument is less compelling since morals are a human construct based on intangibles. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have morals, but you can bet they will never be consistantly uniform or applied.

    “The element of sexual tension that having overt homosexuals literally living with members of the group in close quarters brings has foreseeable, adverse effect on morale, esprit, and cohesion.” Bull’s eye”

    I don’t recall arguing against this specific topic in this thread, but I’m willing to touch on it. Frankly, though our unit had 2 known gay men in it for between 2 and 5 years and we <didn't experience those problems, for the force as a whole I actually agree. 🙂