Posted on 09/23/2011 10:01:23 AM PDT by lbryce
Members of the conservative gay rights group GOProud are demanding an apology from Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum for what they call his disrespectful comments directed at a gay soldier in Thursday night's GOP presidential debate.
"Tonight, Rick Santorum disrespected our brave men and women in uniform, and he owes Stephen Hill, the gay soldier who asked him the question about Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal, an immediate apology," said GOProud's Christopher Barron and Jimmy LaSalvia in a Thursday night press release.
During the Fox News/Google-sponsored debate, which took place in Orlando, Florida, a gay soldier deployed in Iraq asked the candidates if they would take measures to "circumvent" the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," if elected president.
Some audience members audibly booed the soldier -- a moment the GOP candidates on stage chose to ignore.
GOProud also noted that Santorum, who answered the question, declined to thank the soldier for his service, and called the repeal of DADT "social experimentation" - and "tragic."
"I would say any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military," Santorum responded. "And the fact that they're making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to -- and removing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' I think tries to inject social policy into the military. And the military's job is to do one thing, and that is to defend our country."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
I thought that Santorum handled the question very well. I’m shocked that it was asked, but look at how emboldened some groups have become since 2008.
Do you believe that we should scrape the names of the gay Members of our Armed Services from the Vietnam Memorial Wall?
I read that as meaning that for military husbands and wives, only the missionary position is permitted. I wonder how many of my fellow airmen back in the '70s knew this??
They booed an open homosexual engaging in social experimentation in the military. They wouldn’t have booed a soldier that had self-respect.
Hardly.
YOU'RE the one choosing to elevate a secondary moral issue over a primary.
An insult from you is a mark of honor.
I am 100% opposed to gays openly serving in the military.
I am also opposed to women in combat roles.
If that poofer killed jihadists he did a great service to this country and world, and I appreciate his service.
You can think whatever you want about “me and my kind”, whatever that means.
Orientation? I think not!
God states VERY clearly that choosing a homosexual lifestyle is not onlt wrong but an ABOMINATION.
If you disagree, you should have a chat with Him - our perfect Creator.
"You questioned where trisham was coming from on the point they made."
Try again. This makes no sense.
He has served out nation and risked his life so that you and I can have our First Amendment Rights.
He should be able to exercise his First Amendment Rights without being booed.
Only the ones that tried to destroy the military by forcing acceptance of deviancy on everyone else.
Everyone else can stay.
Many a leftist would say that if the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, it would be in contradiction with our contemporary “truth”, and therefore wrong.
He did. And a lot of people are not considering what the consequences are. Would you put a man in the middle of an all woman unit? Or a woman in with all men? Good gravy!
That applies to the troops.
“If that poofer killed jihadists he did a great service to this country and world, and I appreciate his service.”
Exactly.
And interestingly, I have yet to read a post that reads,
“I’m on my way to the local recruiting office to sign up for the Armed Services so I can take Stephen Hills’ place in the military.”
The soldier needs to keep his personal business personal.
And what would that be?
I'm on to your word games. :-) No one at this thread, myself included, have said anything negative, derogatory about being gay and CONSERVATIVE. Being gay and CONSERVATIVE poses no political, moral dilemmas for anyone. No one here on this thread have said gays can't be CONSERVATIVE.
The issue discussed here is about being gay and REPUBLICAN.
What has been said is that gays can not be REPUBLICAN for all the reasons stated throughout this thread. The difference between the two is manifestly worlds apart.
No, he shouldn't. That he got to exercise said rights without legal action is sufficient.
And yes, homosexuals on the Viet Nam Memorial wall should have their names removed.
What of it?
I’ve been to the Vietnam Memorial Wall. Nowhere did I see a name:
PFC Joe Smith (gay)
Now, if I were to see that? I’d scrape it off myself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.