Nitro is correct on the Civil Rights issue of Gays.  it is an attempt to portray them in the same light as blacks pre-civil rights era when there is no comparison at all.  Gays have never been denied any rights not afforded to anyone else.

Well except for the right to server openly in the US military and get married to life long partners.......

When you have groups of people who are being treated like second class citizens, there's a problem. 

Residents Wingnutistan like Nitro will parade the "ITS NOT CIVIL RIGHTS BECAUSE THE GAYS HIJACKED THE GOOD CIVIL RIGHTS FROM THE 60's" canard out there as soon as they get the chance.  Incidentally, 3 budweisers later, they'll often tell you they weren't fond of that civil rights movement either, 3 budweisers plus that, they'll tell you exactly why.

Most of the time it has to do with having a really really small world view.  That, somehow ---in the mind of the Wingnut---every civil rights movement has to be derived from the black civil rights movement back in the day and any attempt to run a push for civil rights is a 'hijacking' of the civil rights movement of black folks in the 60's.Which would have to ignore the vast civil rights history in the United States to begin with.  Women's Rights?  Did they somehow steal the idea of equal rights from black folks 30 years prior to the black civil rights movement starting in earnest? 

Anybody who tries to liken the black civil rights movement and the gay rights movement at literal value together would be pissing up wind.  Likewise, anybody who thinks that race is the only plain upon which civil rights movements can exist is totally high. 

The other part of it might just be a boomer generational thing.  I don't know.  It seems that often times boomers (which, I assume Nitro is) there's a tendency to view everything through the prism of their youth.  I don't think it's that much of news - consider the 04 election where we spent a lot of time debating who did what and where in vietnam as though it had even a hint of relevance in 2004. 

Of course, it's all just fucking stupid. 

The canards of wingnutistan in this area are many, mostly because they're trying to turn irrational religious/moral/traditional beliefs (whichever of the 3 they'll own up to) into rational public policy.  Everybody knows it's specious crap:    "YEAH WELL I CAN MARRY A PERSON OF THE OPPOSITE SEX AND THEY CAN MARRY A PERSON OF THE OPPOSITE SEX SO I GET WHAT I WANT AND THE HOMO DONT GET WHAT HE WANTS HAHAHAHHAHA I STILL MAINTAIN PERCEIVED SOCIETAL DOMINANCE ", is about what it amounts to, and most people with firing synapses sit back and rightfully call that out as horseshit.  the other giggleworthy one is "BUT THATS SPECIAL RIGHTS!!"  It's about equalizing the the law to account for the rights of others.  It's nothing special.  It's about making sure that the American way applies to everyone. 

Usually, once proven summarily wrong the residents of Wingnutistan will devolve into various degrees of stupid - shit that seems like it came from chain email from your Aunt Bev's @aol.com address.  I think the new one is "YEAH WELL IF YOU LETS SOME DUDE MARRY SOME DUDE, THEN YOU HAVE TO LET SOME GUY MARRY A GOAT".  Which is silly for obvious reasons.

Again, not denied.  That argument is used by pedophiles and zoophilist.  Straight people do not have that right either, since most states deny them the right to marry their siblings or first cousins.  What you are saying is they want extra rights.  Whether those rights are merited or not is another discussion.  however, they have all the rights afforded to every other citizen.  And that is why it is nothing like the Civil Rights struggles of a half century ago.  They are tailgating on the success of that movement trying to pass their own agenda.  It is a smart plan, but it is not accurate.

They are afforded all the protection you and I get.  They are exposed to hate from different sources than you or I, but that is not the government doing it, and therefore beyond legislation (some would say it is education).

Nitro is a veteran who has strong opinions on the subject.  he is not overtly homophobic, nor does he randomly discriminate against homosexuals.  He has expressed a preference not to be ogled/hit on  by them, and for now at least, that is his right.  Just as it is the right of every woman and man not to be ogled by members attracted to them, whether the same sex or not.

No, that is you trying to read between the lines for something that isn't there. I mentioned a symptom of what I know will occur as far as administration goes, there will be a monetary cost. The only thing I'm advocating is for congress to review the military findings due in December. You seem to want legislation with out the complete picture or for political expediency. Well we had that with the heath care bill. Did that make you happy? Whether they kill or keep DADT has no bearing on me personally, I'm unaffected. You just can't grasp that for some reason. It truly is your problem, not mine. But you are right in one respect, this is good. Good that people here will understand your character much better.

Your paranoia over the word "agenda" is your own creation. Can't help you there.

I must admit I've never see a person "wish" someone else to say something they aren't the slightest bit concerned with as I have seen in you. Interesting, if not a bit creepy.

Well, it's not too late. I believe the cut off age now is 38.

Sorry, I didn't realize you don't understand the usage of the word. Here it is just for you (encarta):

agenda

1. A list of things to do. A formal list of things to be done in a specific order, especially a list of things to be discussed at a meeting

2. Matters needing attention. The various matters that somebody needs to deal with at a specific time. Example: What's your agenda for today?

3. Personal motivation.  an underlying personal viewpoint or bias. Example: Of course she's in favor, but then she has her own agenda.

I believe I used the word in its proper context, so don't infer your poor education or lack of understanding to mean something other that exactly what I said. I would assume the gay movement is organized, has meetings, and a stated goal. Are you suggesting they don't? I made no mention of what my thoughts were on it. You just had an orgasm at the mention of a single word. Again your feeble attempt to disparage my character just points to one of your personal flaws as a human being. Nobody mentioned conspiracy but you. I'm quite familiar with the vilification and mock tactics you are poorly attempting to use. It is discussed here on JU regularly.

BTW I like your wing nut photo. There is a well known JU liberal that has used that very photo too. You're in good company. 

No you seem have it down pat and doing a fine job on your own.

Well if your profile is correct, you were born in 1980 (even though by your writing , you appear more juvenile than that), the year after I enlisted, so if 18 is old for you fine, don't project your problem  on me. Besides, for all I know you're still shitting green.

Doc, thanks but he's made up his mind... I'm the wing nut (even though he blathered on about the meaning of a military law I did not author in another article), as if I would believe his opinion of me matters. I'm not one to drag other topics into a fresh one, especially one that we fundamentally agreed on, but since the OP obliged, and seems to crave drama through accusations and mis-characterization, well, why not. The Internet makes people bolder, and foregos (for the most part) getting to know the persons one converses with, before assailing them.

Funny, I know we don't always agree, don't recall it coming to this?

Are there laws that say that straight people can't serve openly in the United States military? 

And of course, that's bunk . Being a child molester is illegal. Entering into a government sanctioned contract with another adult should not be. 

Nitro, that's exactly what you're saying.  You don't have to backpedal away from it. 

I'd rather chew broken glass. 

Ohhhh come on Nitro.  We know what you meant.  You meant this agenda.  Or was it just a choice in words? 

Only on St Patrick's day. 

Well he is advocating that they be discriminated against based on a fear that he'll be hit on by them. That's umm....like the definition of homophobia. 

Yes.  There are many qualifications that bar people from serving.

No, it is not bunk.  At one time sodomy was illegal and enforced.  That was changed.  NAMBLA is working to change the laws on pedophilia as well.  And you do not deny the prohibition on marriage in your first response, but seem to totally ignore it in your second.  Perhaps you should read marriage laws as they are very restrictive and most of the restrictions have nothing to do with homosexuality.

No,  From Dictionary.com:

ho·mo·pho·bi·a
 
–noun
unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

And he is not advocating a revocation of rights as the right to join the military does not exist.  Nor does he appear to have a fear toward them.  And if you google Enlistment Standards, you will see that the military discriminates against a lot of people.  And many of the discrimination factors are not controllable by the person being discriminated against.

Dan posts:

Nitro

Yes, Nitro, your use of the word "agenda" in this case is spot on.

There have been 2 official lists made by homosexual activists that describe their agenda to a "T".

In Chicago, February 1992,  the National Coalition of Gay Organizations revealed the 1972 "Gay Rights Platform"....

1. Elimination of bars to the entry....and naturalization of ["gay"] aliens.

2. Encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by gay men and women, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle as a viable alternative to hetersexuality.

3. Regulations and legislation banning the compiling, maintenance and dissemination, of information on an individual's sexual preferences...

4. [Public] funding of all programs of all gay men's and women's organizations designed to alleviate [discrimination].

5. Immediate release of all gay men and women now incarcerated in ...prisons and mental institutions becasue of sexual offense[s]...

6. Repeal all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons; equalization for homosexuals and heterosexuals for the enforcement of laws.

7. Repeal of all state laws prohibiting solicitation for provate voluntary sexual liasons; and laws [banning] prostitution, both male and female.

8. Enactment of legislation prohibiting insurance companies and other state regulated enterprises from discrimination....

9. Enactment of legislation so that child custody, adoption, visitation rights, foster parenting and the  like shall not be denied becasue of sexual orientation or marital status.

10. Repeal all laws prohibiting transvestitism and cross-dressing.

11. Repeal all laws governing age of sexual consent.

12. Repeal all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.

..................................

Another "formal list of things to be done" was drawn a year later....Demands of the 1993 "gay" March on Washington...

1. We demand passage of a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender civil rights bill and an end to discrimination by state and federal governments including the military; repeal of all sodomy laws and other laws that criminalize private sexual expression between consenting adults.

2. We demand massive increase funding for AIDS education, research and patient care; universal access to health care including alternative therapies; and an end to sexism in medical research and health care.

3. We demand legislation to prevent Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgendered people in the areas of family diversity, custody, adoption and foster care and that the definition of family includes the full diversity of all family structures.

4. We demand full and equal inclusion of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered people in the educational system, and inclusion of LGBT studies in multicultural curricula.

5. We demand the right to reproductive freedom and choice, to control our own bodies, and an end to sexist discrimination.

6. We demand an end to racial and ethnic discrimination in all forms.

7. We demand an end to discrimination and violent oppression based on actual or perceived sexual orientation/identification, race, religion, identity, sex and gender expression, disability, age, class, AIDS/HIV infection. 

Doc  posts:

dan posts:

The word "discrimination" has been used in this discussion as though its a dirty word and something not to be done.  In this case we are talking about laws discriminating against certain sexual behaviors.

"Discrimination" comes from the Latin word that means. "knowing where to draw the line". Those who know how and when to draw the line help to protect our society from those who will not rest until no one draws the line at all.

Individuals, families, society, the military, etc. need to distinguish between behaviors that hurt us and behaviors that help us.

There is a difference between just and unjust discrimination. Unjust discrimination is treating people differently because of irrational prejudices and we certainly should not do that. However, if discrimination means choosing between competing rights based upon a legitimate priority, or for some good reason, like to protect the health of children, we should discriminate. 

nitro posts:

Dan posts:

DrG posts:

Agree with Nitro and DrG on this one. 

Yes, the homosexual activists, their advocates and supporters want to have homosexuals included alongside "protected groups" based upon race, gender, ethnicity, and handicap.

Here's how we know they don't qualify to claim this special status. The courts have 3 basic criteria to determine if a group qualifies for protection.

First, the group must have a history of unjust discrimination with a lack of ability to achieve economic mean income, adequate education, or cultural opportunity. If you apply this standard to the homosexual community, you'll find they don't measure up.

The second criteria is that the group must exhibit obvious, immutable or distinguishing characteristics as in race or gender. Homsexuals show none other than sexual behavior.

The third criteria is that the homosexuals must show they are politically powerless.

Homosexuals fail on all three.

What am I thinking now Carnac the Magnificent?

Sounds like some internal issues there. Don't worry, plenty of people that despise the US military would dine on that glass dinner with you.

Feel free to post any statement of mine precluding anyone from serving in the military (I even recommended you...how does that glass taste?). You sir are an outright liar. You had plenty of opportunity to back off your wild accusations, instead you perpetuate your lies in order to continue your witchhunt. You have little credibility. I recommend you stick to the more simplistic topics you've been pumping out. You seem incapable to rationally discuss the more sensitive social topics with any degree of decorum.

Oh god.  I just found this: 

Lulla, you're nuts.  Seriously.  'Just discrimination'?  'harmful behavior'?  Gay agendas?      Absolutely, positively out of your mind bat shit insane.  Please go hang out with that person who thinks the Dallas Police Department chipped her head. I'm just kidding. 

No really.  I'm not.  

Well Nitro, you did say that you believe that gay people serving openly would be problematic, did you not? 

Says who?

Last time with you Dan. Crude, rude comments like these strip dialogue of its usefullness.

Yes Dan, seriously. 

Did you read my post 38? Homosexuals have defined their "gay rights" agenda at least as far back as 1972. The advancement of the homosexual agenda was outlined by Marchal Kirk and Hunter Madsen in their political strategy manual, "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s".  The practice of the sexual behavior (homosexuality) would be downplayed and the issue of "gay rights" reduced to an abstract social question. The rest of the agenda ---partnership benefits, civil unions and "marriage" is to follow. Laws will be passed that will silence and punish people who emit "hate speech" i.e. anyone who expresses disapproval of homosexuality.

In short, homosexual activists goal is to re-order society's views of homosexuality as acceptable, respecatable, and equivalent, if not better, than the Christian view of married heterosexuality.

 ................

As to just discrimination against the harmful behavior of homosexuality do you know that just a few days ago, the federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability (ACBSA) voted 9-6 Friday to maintain current blood-donation rules, which effectively forbid practicing homosexuals from donating blood?

Specifically, the rules defer any prospective blood donor if he is a man who has had sex with another man since 1977, approximately the beginning of the AIDS outbreak.

Hum, lets see "preclude" and "proplematic"...they both start with "pr"... other than that I'm failing to see any correlation between the two. Could we agree that you are again grabbing at straws to make your point?

I for one. Why don't you take a poll if you really want to find out the scope of it?