Dubble standard: gay polical agenda

Dubble standard: gay polical agenda August 13, 2012

The Stars and Stripes posted a story about Brig. Gen. Tammy Smith, the first openly gay general officer in the US Military. Though she downplayed the ‘first gay’ angle, the importance was simply unavoidable. CNN picked up the story, and OutServe provided some great pictures from the ceremony.

The article at S&S generated some heated comments. Most of them were spelled wrong, or were simply stupid.

The military will be 90% gay, 10% closet straight

I am glad my military career is behind me because no way would I join today. I fear today’s  straights aren’t  going to re-enlist and those who once considered joining will aviod it completely.  In 20 years the military will be well over 90% gay and the remaining 10% must hide they are straight. It will become what San Francisco’s homosexual image is today. The military got is right for well over 200 years until Clinton, a draft dodger ruined it.

I have nothing against gays whatsoever. Just would not want to be in a foxhole, sleeping or taking a shower next to one. No way should one be mistreated. I believe in civil unions but marriage is between a man and a woman. Civilian liberals have now ruined our military – so goes it, so goes our country.

Then commenter, airgunner started typing.

Gays will cause nuclear war

Folks, This is an FYI …if the US military is or will become broken ,and your military then is unuseable and your nation needs a strong force then, your only  force then would be NUCLEAR that would then require a nuclear counter force  ….its called the LAW OF UNENTENDED CONSEQUCES….. spelling is wrong but you get the meaning there are no do overs in total war……10s of millions of people will be killed needlessly if you must use nuclear weapons because a polical system failed to protect america……thats the simple truth ….GOD BLESS AMERICA…. and those that serve her ……

I contributed this comment, and it generated a few nasty replies. This one is my favorite:

Dubble standard for my polical agenda

Sir after reading your comment that pentacostals  and evangelicals  are “vocal bigots” ,where does STARS AND STRIPS draw the line on HATE SPEECH, you were flaged by myself and yet your posting is still up, It appears there is a dubble standard, if one supports the polical agenda then the posting stands and well you get the point…. It appears S&S is selling the current polical agenda … Not fair to the taxpayer that pays for this site … COPY TO MY CONGRESS PERSON IN EAST TN.   God bless America

So I used my Facebook page to invite others to join in the ‘fun’. About ten comments hit the page, and then Stars and Stripes closed the comments section. I think we’ll be correcting future similar comment threads in the future too.

Unfortunately, I’m out of room for new friends now, but feel free to subscribe to me. (Subscribing is the same thing really, because when you have 5,000 ‘friends’, Facebook doesn’t even work the same way.)

"Here I'd thought my friend had gone off the deep end. I am very much ..."

Dawkins is Worse than ISIS But ..."
"Go "back" to FB?You're talking about alternate futures."

Dawkins is Worse than ISIS But ..."
"JT is trolling today too. Was there a behind the scenes note to play knifey-spooney?"

Dawkins is Worse than ISIS But ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Leslie

    You developing quite a reputation in the military as a troll and attention seeker. Why else would you try to use Gen. Smith’s accomplishments to further your agenda by attacking Christianity and then gloating that you got your facebook friends to do the same? Honestly, SGT Griffith, do you have a life outside the internet?

    • asonge

      Your comment is problematic for a few reasons here. First you say that he’s making fun of Christians (instead of just generic “bigots”). In this particular article I haven’t seen Sgt Griffith say that all Christians are bigots or that Christianity is bigoted. I did see him attack Pentecostals and evangelicals (though I’m sure Pentecostals are a subset of “evangelicals” which include a wide range of mostly theologically conservative traditions) in his comment that he linked to. The nuance here wasn’t exactly accurate, but it’s obvious that he’s not calling out Christians on the whole on this topic and in this instance.

      The conservative, evangelical traditions are often very literal with the text which contains dehumanizing and bigoted passages that combine to promote bigoted beliefs. I don’t think you’re going to find many open gays in an SBC church any time soon. For example, they recently expelled out a couple churches that did openly welcome gays.

      Also, I’m pretty sure his agenda is to be a public face for atheists in the military. That pretty much requires him to be an “attention seeker”. The world could use more people with unpopular beliefs and opinions expressing themselves more in the public square. Silence breeds ignorance.

    • I suspect he does it because Christianity is ridiculous and dangerous. It consistently tries to undermine the freedoms of Americans. I think Sgt Griffiths’ actions in support of religious freedom in the military is perfectly in keeping with the Constitution he has sworn to defend.

      • asonge

        Just to provide some historical context here, the kinds of Christianity that are most problematic in the bigotry regard are the ones from the US religious movements (Great Awakening 1 and 2 + Jesus Movement in the 1970’s). Most Christians in the US used to belong to the “Mainline Protestant” group of churches up until the 1970’s…which now mostly supports gay rights (some even marrying gay people and have gay clergy who don’t have to be celibate). The Catholic laity is actually the largest religious preference (numerically) that supports gay marriage, despite the clergy. The churches that are growing the fastest now, though, are charismatic and conservative ones. Only the SBC has roots going back for a while and opposes gay rights vigorously.

        One thing you really shouldn’t do is promote religious essentialism, which is a claim to know what “real Christians” believe (in this instance). Then again, I tend to know what the teachings of most of the Christian traditions are more than their congregants.

    • Nicholas Amann

      “You developing quite a reputation in the military as a troll and attention seeker. Why else would you try to use Gen. Smith’s accomplishments to further your agenda by attacking Christianity”

      I don’t know what’s funnier, you acting like a wounded animal because you flimsy beliefs got hurt or that you took the time to come on this website read it then spew your religious nonsense. Honestly Leslie don’t you have a life outside of the internet?

      I wonder what is it like? What is it like to see your beliefs die right before your eyes. It must be painful to watch.

    • David

      Yeah, how dare he stand up for the right of others!

      Do you even understand what trolling is? You should, you seem intent on doing it yourself. 🙂

      The only ones who think he has a reputation as you claim are those annoyed that someone dares to peak up for those who are otherwise left without a voice. He isn’t using anything to “attack Christianity”, but you’re another who seems to prefer to play the victim instead of deal with reality.

      Really, how do you get “attacking Christianity” out of his supporting members of the armed forces, and pointing out fallacies brought up by bigoted morons?

    • piegasm

      Because standing up for your beliefs and not allowing bigots to spread their hate without being challenged is totally a bad thing, amirite?

    • I find it odd the notion that one’s attempt to uphold the constitution would be considered “trolling”.

    • You feel that christianity is under attack? That’s so cute. Christianity does nothing but attack and persecute everyone and everything that disagrees with it. Now that we’re putting up resistance to your brand of evil you feel that your being attacked. How about you shut up and go back into your church, close the doors and pray to your god instead of talking to us and preying on others. Your religion is worthless and we don’t care what your superstitions dictate. I’m getting tired of your bigoted brand of “religious freedom” and frankly, I’m ready to advocate physical force to shut your bigoted hate mongers down. That’s what christianity and it’s sister religion islam deserve after all the years they have been dealing it out, but we’ve been trying to treat you like people. You really should start acting like you’re human form suggests you are. Currently you’re incredibly easy to dehumanize, and in doing so you lose the usual moral restraints that hold us back from causing harm to another person.

      • Nathair

        you shut up and go back into your church, close the doors and pray to your god instead of talking to us

        I’m ready to advocate physical force to shut your bigoted hate mongers down

        You know what? If you want to advocate physical violence against other people then how about YOU shut up and go away. Friends like you we can do without.

    • Does it really count as trolling when someone makes a political point they actually mean? Even if you disagree with it?

      On top of the whole “you must not have a life” thing where you insult someone’s social life for writing on the internet while you write on the internet. Love that part.

  • dmf

    I have nothing against gays whatsoever. Just would not want to be in a foxhole, sleeping or taking a shower next to one.

    I have nothing against gays, whatsoever, except for these things i have against gays!

    Ahhhh. I always love this type of reasoning. As if “no offense but…” gives one a free pass to then unload any sort of offensive sentiment. Because there was a disclaimer! I had my fingers crossed! I said to take-backs!

    It’s like when someone *cough*firstcomment*cough* shows up to troll you by calling you a troll.

    I laugh. Because otherwise I would punch…

    • Homosexuality is not contagious. You cannot become one by showering, or sharing a fox hole. You may feel uncomfortable because of latent tendencies toward being gay, and that, for some reason, scares you.

    • “I have nothing against gays whatsoever”…if you just ignore everything that was typed before and after that sentence. o.0

      With all due respect, that poster was a fucking idiot.

      (prefacing any statement with “with all due respect” makes it OK)

  • piegasm

    “I have nothing against gays whatsoever. Just would not want to be in a foxhole, sleeping or taking a shower next to one.”

    So you have nothing against them you just think they should be kept separate from the straight people. Got it. Nobody tell him he likely has shared foxholes and slept and showered next to gay people.

    “spelling is wrong but you get the meaning.”

    So you know you’re spelling it wrong but looking up the correct spelling is too much trouble. We should totally value the opinion of someone who not only can’t spell common English words but can’t be bothered to look them up. But it’s totally gay people we need to worry about and not lazy, ignorant morons.

  • The heck.

  • B-Lar

    I’ve got nothing against bigots whatsoever… I just hate the way they act, talk and type.

  • steve84

    The military.com article also appears to have a very large comment section. I only saw the size of the scrollbar and haven’t read anything. And for my sanity I’m not going to. These types of articles usually only serve to bring out the worst trash humanity and the military have to offer.

  • Franklin


    You act like you’re so hurt that someone comes out to disagree with your opinion. Christians like you wouldn’t have lasted five seconds in pre-Constantine Rome. And frankly, if you can’t even handle opposing opinions, you aren’t tough enough for even any of the non-combat roles in the military.

  • F

    Welcome to Assumption City (no, nothing to do with teh “Virgin Mary”).

    1. Straight people will never work with gay people in the military.

    2. Gay people make for an ineffective military. (This is totally not Sparta!)

    But do go on, bigoted and sloppy-thinking commenters on S&S. Your country (and the S&S comments section) needs you.

  • ottod


    FYI, the comment about polyester (which seems a reasonable fit with the Leviticus list of goofy things god doesn’t like) may be close to Bartoning the argument. The proscription seems to be against fabric woven of two fibers, the most commonly mentioned (depending on the translation) pair being wool and linen. Wool and linen were pretty much the only things available at the time, so that’s a reasonable match. In more recent times, people have suggested(seriously or not) extending the prohibition to cotton/poly blends. If you’re in the military, you might be more concerned with NyCo, or anything that has Spandex or something similar. I’m not aware of a prohibition of a specific fiber used alone. It’s not clear to me what his position would be on the various synthetic fibers, or whether he’d even consider them fibers in the same sense at all. Or, since they’re not natural, and thus unnatural, maybe all synthetics are abominations. It’s too bad he’s not around to update the list.

    • Ned Champlain

      God didn’t think of synthetics? So much for all knowing all seeing, not confined by space and time. Really the bible answers your question, “these are the commandments set down to Moses by our Lord and shall not be changed forever” Repeated in Matthew 5: 17~20.

  • =8)-DX

    “I have nothing against gays whatsoever. Just would not want to be in a foxhole, sleeping or taking a shower next to one. No way should one be mistreated.”

    Replace “gays” with “wild animals” and you get the general gist of his approach.