GOP Debate Crowd Boos Gay Soldier

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/with-gop-debate-crowd-it-gets-worse--booing-a-gay-soldier/2011/09/23/gIQAKcN3qK_blog.html

lol. Guess it is okay to die in their wars as long as you don't eff guys while doing it. But the Republican Party is the epitome of justice and the American way!

Republicans have a very strict criteria for what constitutes proper American cannon fodder.

This just goes to show how hateful all right-wingers are

Anarcho-Edge wrote:This just goes to show how hateful all right-wingers are

Sounds as generalized as the revlefters saying everyone here is a racist neo nazi.

In my opinion, Homosexuality and all forms of sexual abnormalities are detrimental to progress and national solidarity (because it prevents, or at least stunts reproduction and the production of healthy nuclear families), and so such behaviours and tendencies ought to be purged. What I am not saying is that such people who feel or practice these things are somehow automatically less capable than the rest of us, who follow nature's dictation. Of course this wouldnt be an issue at all if Uhh-Merka hadnt started so many endless imperialist wars, to the point that it now needs to take the "lesser" folk of society to sacrifice on the battlefields for profit.
Thats what I hate about war. The best, strongest, and most capable people of society are the first to die, and anyone in this society who opposes European ethnic genocide and imperialism is dubbed one of the usual hate words, be it "Commie!", "Hippie!", "Nazi!", or whatever. Oh, how I revile the slanderers and their petty excuse for propaganda! If someone like Goebbels were still around, and on our side, they would all be shamed out of power within a decade.

ChristNatCom wrote:In my opinion, Homosexuality and all forms of sexual abnormalities are detrimental to progress and national solidarity (because it prevents, or at least stunts reproduction and the production of healthy nuclear families), and so such behaviours and tendencies ought to be purged. What I am not saying is that such people who feel or practice these things are somehow automatically less capable than the rest of us, who follow nature's dictation.

I have never been remotely partial to the reproductive argument against homosexuality. Reproduction is simply not an imperative. If there exists a social problem with respect to fertility rates (which are admittedly in global decline), it is that they far exceed capitalism's capacity to adequately sustain the present, let alone future expanding, human population. Homosexuals, as a historically minor segment of the population, effect no discernible impact upon a nation's fertility rate.

It is also difficult to justify the existence of a fixed human "nature" (although humans are clearly not infinitely malleable), and even if an intrinsic "nature" were readily perceptible, it does not follow that we should then unthinkingly succumb to it. Nonetheless, homosexuality, as a minority phenomenon, does seem to possess a historical continuity: it has expressed itself since recorded history allows.

Of course this wouldnt be an issue at all if Uhh-Merka hadnt started so many endless imperialist wars, to the point that it now needs to take the "lesser" folk of society to sacrifice on the battlefields for profit.

The military death toll America has sustained over the decades of its imperialist operations (paling in relation to what it has administered to other countries in the course of such) is a wholly inconsequential factor in determining the present constitution of its legionaries.

Well think that Uhh-Merka cannot still amass the same quality and number of troops as it has been able to do in the past. Why else are so many people squabbling about all these "minorities" being able to join the ranks, but because the usual bunch of loyal white Zioinst "Christian" men are starting to run out? (thanks to mass immigration and the promotion of racial mixing, which is a form of genocide, no matter what race is on the receiving end) As for Homosexuality leading to population reduction, I know that homosexuals have historically existed in such a minute number so as to be more or less factored out in speculation on the cause of ethnic or national populations decreasing, but as of late the promotion of their "lifestyle", or perversion, or whatever we want to call it has resulted in their numbers exploding.
People, and by that I mean lemmings, are nowadays so open about their sexual practices and preferences, and it is being so tolerated, (and in my opinion promoted on the European peoples especially) that it is no doubt becoming a factor in the fertility decline. Of course my immediate concern, as I am a European and still a Christian, is to safeguard my own people from what appears to be a planned effort at genocide. The fact is, from my perspective, that the modern lifestyle of most Europeans is destructive to an otherwise healthy nation and workforce. For instance, if they (Europe and Russia), were all still Orthodox/Catholic/High Church, then they would be marrying and producing healthy nuclear families that then expand by the same process. The Churches never historically allowed divorce, or intercourse outside of marriage, because such things ultimately destroy populations through the spreading of S.T.D's and causing familial tensions. (the family being the most basic form of community, so whatever effects families, will effect nations) But Im sure Im starting to ramble off-topic now...

ChristNatCom wrote:In my opinion, Homosexuality and all forms of sexual abnormalities are detrimental to progress and national solidarity (because it prevents, or at least stunts reproduction and the production of healthy nuclear families), and so such behaviours and tendencies ought to be purged.

Considering you're a Christian, your conception of human nature obviously differs significantly from my own. According to your faith, sexuality is essentially a choice, and the 'righteous path,' as it were, is invariably that of heterosexuality. In my view, sexuality is determined by a complex interaction of ones genes and environment and is most likely immutable by the time one reaches sexual maturity (if not prior to that). As such, homosexuality is no more "detrimental" to healthy families than autistic people are—which is to say, not at all.

It is, of course, your right to hold whatever opinion you wish on the subject of sexuality. But, considering this is a secular society—and I hope it will ever remain as such—you're not free to turn your religiously inspired views into public legislation.

What I am not saying is that such people who feel or practice these things are somehow automatically less capable than the rest of us, who follow nature's dictation.

Homosexuality is exhibited in the animal world, and there is no scientific consensus on whether heterosexuality is actually man's most common sexual orientation. Perhaps Sigmund Freud was correct and we're innately bisexual, and, through a process of socialization, overwhelmingly become heterosexual. There's really no telling at this point. Even if heterosexuality is the norm, that wouldn't suggest that deviations from it are any less natural.

Thats what I hate about war. The best, strongest, and most capable people of society are the first to die

I would be hesitant to claim that those currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance, are any better, stronger, or more capable than the rest of us are. I know quite a few people who have served which lead me to think otherwise.

As for Homosexuality leading to population reduction, I know that homosexuals have historically existed in such a minute number so as to be more or less factored out in speculation on the cause of ethnic or national populations decreasing, but as of late the promotion of their "lifestyle", or perversion, or whatever we want to call it has resulted in their numbers exploding.

That's nonsense. The only reason the statistics recorded on self-identified homosexuality have indicated an increase in the percentage of homosexual individuals in recent years is because homosexuals no longer experience the same degree of ostracism they had for being open about their sexual orientation in the past. Nevertheless, most estimates indicate that homosexuals represent no more than 10% of our population.

Of course my immediate concern, as I am a European and still a Christian, is to safeguard my own people from what appears to be a planned effort at genocide.

You're committing the standard White Nationalist fallacy when observing European sub-replacement fertility and the gradual acceptance of multiculturalism in the global north. Basically, you're confusing by-products of capitalism with some sort of sinister plot. Fertility rates are currently in decline in Western Europe because work has become increasingly precarious—thereby placing undue pressure on families (often leading to divorce) and rendering the notion of raising children financially irresponsible for large segments of the population—and the market has instilled in people a hyper-individualistic mentality. There's nothing "planned" about any of this, it's simply a consequence of the mode of production we live under. As such, it can only be addressed through fundamental changes to the way we organize production and distribution.

The Churches never historically allowed divorce, or intercourse outside of marriage, because such things ultimately destroy populations through the spreading of S.T.D's and causing familial tensions.

The obstacles religions have historically placed in the way of divorce were unjust, and abstinence only leads to people marrying younger (and, therefore, more irresponsibly) or unhealthy and unnecessary sexual repression. And, again, the decline in fertility rates has far more to do with the economic situation than it does with the emergence of secularism.

Then I can see from your response your much more a Marxian than I am, but at least we can agree that there is a problem with Europe dying and all that, as to whether its some grand Jew conspiracy or not, that really is of no consequence, but I am of the mindset that there are people out there plotting to kill us off. (perhaps still some residue from my right-wing days, I admit)
Of course I see secularism as a religion itself which has imposed been imposed on us as a form of oppression, or at least those forms of secularism which would put up some demigod, like the state, or nature, or what have you. I am trying to analyse the homosexual question from a naturalistic perspective and as such I notice that, although it does indeed occur in other creatures, it cannot be allowed to expand into the general population, for if that would happen the species could not perpetuate itself, ultimately. I do see it as a choice that one makes, but regardless of whether it is a choice or not, I believe that ever-expanding power of technology and mental programming can and should teach all homosexuals to be heterosexuals. As for Freud, the man makes me sick. He was obsessed with explaining all human social behaviour by sex. Ahh, I dont want to go on this much longer, for fear that I might slip up and revert to my past reactionary ways, if I have not already done so. Forgive me, comrade!

ChristNatCom wrote:Well think that Uhh-Merka cannot still amass the same quality and number of troops as it has been able to do in the past. Why else are so many people squabbling about all these "minorities" being able to join the ranks, but because the usual bunch of loyal white Zioinst "Christian" men are starting to run out?

First of all, one should take into account the fact that the U.S. military is currently comprised of all volunteer forces. Therefore the relative quality of the personnel involved cannot possibly be compared to contexts in which a draft was/is utilized by a given state. Notwithstanding the individuals compelled to serve for financial purposes, I would submit to you that the sorts of individuals who generally gravitate towards military service in imperialist states are those who do not demonstrate a meaningful level of critical thought.

Furthermore, I would hesitate to jump to the conclusion that the West's imperial ventures have eliminated its "best, strongest, and most capable" elements. Such a notion may have been applicable to past wars, but surely not in the present context — in which less than 8,000 coalition troops have actually perished. I also take exception to the suggestion that minority servicemen and servicewomen are somehow less competent than their White counterparts. This is an inherently racist position to assume and one which lacks any objective basis. I would like to know how you have arrived at such a conclusion.

As for Homosexuality leading to population reduction, I know that homosexuals have historically existed in such a minute number so as to be more or less factored out in speculation on the cause of ethnic or national populations decreasing, but as of late the promotion of their "lifestyle", or perversion, or whatever we want to call it has resulted in their numbers exploding.

That's nonsense. The ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals can easily be misinterpreted for a number of reasons; the most obvious being the unparalleled level of social emphasis that has been placed on the homosexual community in recent years. (Said emphasis has correspondingly resulted in a rise of homosexuals who have come out of the proverbial closet.)

The bottom line is that homosexuals constitute an insignificant portion of any given national population and will eternally remain as such, due to the fact that homosexuality is not a simple lifestyle choice.

People, and by that I mean lemmings, are nowadays so open about their sexual practices and preferences, and it is being so tolerated, (and in my opinion promoted on the European peoples especially) that it is no doubt becoming a factor in the fertility decline.

Western cultures are certainly becoming increasingly sexualized, but I would argue that population decline has far more to do with the economic trends that 'Celtiberian' addressed in his post.

Of course my immediate concern, as I am a European and still a Christian, is to safeguard my own people from what appears to be a planned effort at genocide. The fact is, from my perspective, that the modern lifestyle of most Europeans is destructive to an otherwise healthy nation and workforce. For instance, if they (Europe and Russia), were all still Orthodox/Catholic/High Church, then they would be marrying and producing healthy nuclear families that then expand by the same process. The Churches never historically allowed divorce, or intercourse outside of marriage, because such things ultimately destroy populations through the spreading of S.T.D's and causing familial tensions. (the family being the most basic form of community, so whatever effects families, will effect nations) But Im sure Im starting to ramble off-topic now...

All this talk of "planned genocide" stinks of conspiratorial hyperbole. Immigration is a structural component of bourgeois systems because of the leverage it affords capital in terms of its relationship with labor. With respect to the alleged promotion of miscegenation, such is the invariable result of a combination of social pluralism and market forces.

Incidentally, the church's position on divorce precedes any known outbreaks of sexually transmitted diseases in Europe. I would further add that the notion that an institution which promoted celibacy and other expressions of sexual repression had any significant regard for population growth is rather dubious.

Gosh, its been a long day for me. When my mind is better gathered Ill gladly clarify my points and offer counter-arguments, but for now I need some sleep...

ChristNatCom wrote:Well think that Uhh-Merka cannot still amass the same quality and number of troops as it has been able to do in the past.

The American military is more powerful now than at any point in history. The quality of individual soldiers aside, modern warfare, much like industry, is capital intensive. This translates into capital (in this case, all non-human inputs in military operations) having gained, and continuing to do so, an increasingly disproportional role in military enterprises (think of high-technology weapons, systems, and equipment).

Why else are so many people squabbling about all these "minorities" being able to join the ranks,

In terms of non-ideological issues (e.g., civil rights, etc.), the military exploits the disadvantaged poor in like manner as the capitalist system as a whole. Cheap labor made available for the military endeavors of the empire is obviously desirable for the ruling class; furthermore, the aforementioned capital intensive nature of modern militaries greatly reduces the dependence upon skilled (or "quality") personnel, apart from a relative minority of specialists necessary for guidance and maintenance.

but because the usual bunch of loyal white Zioinst "Christian" men are starting to run out?

There are more white, Christian males today than at any prior period of time in the United States (and the world).

(thanks to mass immigration and the promotion of racial mixing, which is a form of genocide, no matter what race is on the receiving end)

I do not believe that race mixing is actually promoted in society; if it is, the "plan" has thus far failed miserably, as statistics regarding interracial relationships clearly demonstrate. Miscegenation simply does not meet any standard definition of genocide.

As for Homosexuality leading to population reduction, I know that homosexuals have historically existed in such a minute number so as to be more or less factored out in speculation on the cause of ethnic or national populations decreasing, but as of late the promotion of their "lifestyle", or perversion, or whatever we want to call it has resulted in their numbers exploding.

The primary reason for the increased visibility of "open" homosexuals is simply the fact that the practice is more tolerated today. As for a homosexual "lifestyle," I do not believe in any such feature being inherent to homosexuals, but whatever negative properties one may attribute to the homosexual "subculture(s)," if you will, can surely be explained away in large part as a consequence of their historically alienated social status.

People, and by that I mean lemmings, are nowadays so open about their sexual practices and preferences, and it is being so tolerated, (and in my opinion promoted on the European peoples especially) that it is no doubt becoming a factor in the fertility decline.

There are simply no reliable grounds upon which to base such a conclusion. You have already been provided with a sufficient explanation for the general decline in global (particularly Western) fertility rates.

Of course my immediate concern, as I am a European and still a Christian, is to safeguard my own people from what appears to be a planned effort at genocide.

Prove the existence of a comprehensive conspiracy to eradicate "your" people without relying upon arbitrarily selected and disconnected circumstantial "evidence" and generating ad hoc explanations.

The fact is, from my perspective, that the modern lifestyle of most Europeans is destructive to an otherwise healthy nation and workforce.

I agree, and our social institutions are most to blame.

For instance, if they (Europe and Russia), were all still Orthodox/Catholic/High Church, then they would be marrying and producing healthy nuclear families that then expand by the same process.

I disagree, but retaining the structural authority of the church would also have impeded social progress indefinitely. In any case, it is impossible to separate the decline in power and influence of the major religious organizations from its historical context (specifically, from changing material conditions).

The Churches never historically allowed divorce, or intercourse outside of marriage,

None of this speaks in their favor.

because such things ultimately destroy populations through the spreading of S.T.D's and causing familial tensions. (the family being the most basic form of community, so whatever effects families, will effect nations) But Im sure Im starting to ramble off-topic now...

They are hardly even significant, if at all, factors in the calculus. What is more, there are far more efficient and desirable solutions to such issues as the transmission of sexual diseases and familial conflict than Dark Age intervention.

ChristNatCom wrote:Then I can see from your response your much more a Marxian than I am, but at least we can agree that there is a problem with Europe dying and all that, as to whether its some grand Jew conspiracy or not, that really is of no consequence, but I am of the mindset that there are people out there plotting to kill us off. (perhaps still some residue from my right-wing days, I admit)

Perhaps it is. Honestly, there is no compelling evidence indicating that any such plot exist. To address the manifest problems facing Europe and the rest of the world, we need to move beyond conspiracy theories and begin to seriously analyze the institutions responsible for those problems.

Of course I see secularism as a religion itself which has imposed been imposed on us as a form of oppression, or at least those forms of secularism which would put up some demigod, like the state, or nature, or what have you.

Any form of "secularism" which elevates something to god-like status isn't deserving of the title. Genuine secularism, in my opinion, is equally beneficial for the religious and irreligious, and it's the most practical way to ensure interfaith conflicts don't escalate to war or other forms of state-sanctioned violence.

I am trying to analyse the homosexual question from a naturalistic perspective and as such I notice that, although it does indeed occur in other creatures, it cannot be allowed to expand into the general population, for if that would happen the species could not perpetuate itself, ultimately. I do see it as a choice that one makes, but regardless of whether it is a choice or not, I believe that ever-expanding power of technology and mental programming can and should teach all homosexuals to be heterosexuals.

I believe you're taking a scriptural approach to the subject, whereas I'm taking more of a naturalistic one. I realize that I'm going to be incapable of convincing you that sexual orientation is not a choice, so I won't bother attempting to do otherwise. Insofar as there being technology able to "teach" homosexuals to be heterosexual, I've not seen any evidence suggesting that's within the realm of possibility at this time—and I'm skeptical that such a technology could even be developed. (It is, however, possible that forms of gene therapy or genetic engineering may be capable of altering sexuality in the future.)

As for Freud, the man makes me sick. He was obsessed with explaining all human social behaviour by sex.

That has nothing to do with whether or not there this is any validity to his theories.

Ahh, I dont want to go on this much longer, for fear that I might slip up and revert to my past reactionary ways, if I have not already done so. Forgive me, comrade!

There's no need to apologize, we're just having a discussion. I actually don't consider views on sexuality to be 'progressive' or 'reactionary,' anyway. It may interest you to know that the vast preponderance of socialists throughout history actually considered homosexuality to be a 'bourgeois perversion'—leading to the criminalization of the act in the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cuba, and most other state socialist regimes.