[JudyM]

First of all, Toby Keith left the Democrat party after seeing Obama in action and is now a registered independent. I am a conservative. I believe the government should stay out of people’s bedrooms. It takes a certain arrogance to get on one’s high horse and play God, determining the right and wrong of a person’s sexual behavior. Do not break the law, do not engage any unwilling person, do not ask others to pay for your behavior, and keep what should be personal and private to yourself We have wasted too much time on ‘bedroom’ issues in this country while bankrupting the treasury. This is a sure-fire way for Republicans to lose any election. It shows them to be sanctimonious and pompous and they always fall on their face when the next Republican strays whether it is Newt Gingrich or Larry Craig. The Democrats make hay with each failing.
Welfare has done more to destroy the nuclear family than any gay rights issues. BTW, I am a straight married female.
I thank all members of our armed forces for their service and could care less who they are sleeping with. I also love Toby Keith’s voice.

[ScubieNuc]

I believe the government should stay out of people’s bedrooms.

So if someone is having sex with a 12 year old in their bedroom, it's OK?

It takes a certain arrogance to get on one’s high horse and play God, determining the right and wrong of a person’s sexual behavior.

God has determined what is the right and wrong sexual behavior and it's pretty clearly spelled out in His Word. Now, I understand if you don't believe in God or His Word as a standard, but many of us do, and we have as much right to want to see those standards supported by our laws as you have the right to have your standards supported by laws. ALL laws are a form of man "playing God". ALL laws are imposing someones beliefs onto others.

I thank all members of our armed forces for their service and could care less who they are sleeping with.

Thanks great, and Toby Keith should have kept his comments to the simple "Thank you for all the servicemen and women" and "DADT is beyond my understanding, afterall, I'm just an entertainer." The bottom line for Toby is that his only way to get paid is to be an entertainer, so he is just trying to maximize his audience and his paycheck, but I think he miscalculated. For all of the people who don't care about the homosexual issues that he might gain, I think he will lose twice as many people who disagree with him.

By the way, I served 6 years in the Navy, on a submarine, and I guarentee you dropping DADT will make our forces weaker and more divided. I also have a son in the infantry in the Army, and he says that most are not happy with dropping this either.

What is going to happen is NCO's are going to either take it upon themselves to make life a living hell for those who "come out of the closet" or they will turn their back and let the troops deal with it on their own. Either way, this is causing a break down in unity and the rule and respect of the military higher authority. The ONLY things that should be done with the military, speicifically during a time of war, is things which make the military stronger and better. Dropping DADT is NOT doing that.

[tjd1454]

Your post is illogical to the point of incoherency. Why do you take pains to identify yourself as a "straight married female" (as opposed to, say, a progressive lesbian)? Because it gives your argument more "legitimacy," as in: straight married people are more upright and have better character and thus more believable, so I will make my argument in favor of homosexuals as a "straight married female." By doing so you are denigrating the very people you are trying to support.

I am a conservative. I believe the government should stay out of people’s bedrooms. It takes a certain arrogance to get on one’s high horse and play God, determining the right and wrong of a person’s sexual behavior.

I submit that many would disagree with your re-definition of what it means to be "conservative." Most people see right through this tired, hackneyed "stay out of people's bedrooms" argument. Few people WANT to know the details about what homosexuals do in their bedrooms: rather, they are sick and tired of "in your face" homosexual activism that insists that homosexuality be presented as equal - nay, superior to - heterosexuality.

It isn't a matter of anyone "playing God": God has spoken rather clearly concerning this issue. We do not have the right to "judge" people: God alone is Judge. However, that is not the same as pretending that He has not spoken regarding what is right and wrong.

do not ask others to pay for your behavior, and keep what should be personal and private to yourself...

But of course this contradicts your main point, which is that open homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military, and should have their relationships celebrated and honored by the state. They are demanding that YOUR children (as a "straight married female") be taught to celebrate homosexuality in school as early as kindergarten. A far cry from keeping their behavior "personal and private." Are you really "Ok" with that?

Many would agree that homosexuals should "keep what should be personal and private to (themselves)," but gay activists rage against any attempts to "keep them in the closet." Despite your contradictory disclaimers, you are actually siding with such extreme activists.

We have wasted too much time on ‘bedroom’ issues in this country while bankrupting the treasury.

You set up a false dichotomy typically championed by so-called "economic conservatives/social liberals", as if it is impossible to argue for BOTH the preservation of the fundamental moral values which have made this country great, and for reigning in the current tax & spend Federal Government. The two are not mutually exclusive, and most true conservatives see absolutely no contradiction in holding both conservative economic AND social issues.

Welfare has done more to destroy the nuclear family than any gay rights issues.

You are to be commended for your concern about the demise of the "nuclear family," while seemingly unaware of what the phrase means. Even gay activists concede that the "nuclear family" refers to a married man and woman & their children. They in fact go to great lengths to deride this foundation for civilization, realizing that their sterile relationships cannot provide the basis for any society. So on the one hand you are lamenting the breakdown of the "nuclear family," while on the other arguing for the acceptance of the enemy of the "nuclear family" as traditionally understood.

I thank all members of our armed forces for their service and could care less who they are sleeping with.

You display a willing ignorance of the grave problems that will soon become apparent with putting men who are OPENLY sexually attracted to other men in close, intimate living conditions with other men. I daresay that you have no idea of the damaging effect on morale that will follow from introducing complicating factors such as sexual attraction into military life and service. There are good and sound reasons why the military does not allow men and women to share private living quarters, to sleep, dress, and shower together - reasons which any clear-thinking individual understands. Introducing OPEN homosexuals into the military introduces similar corrosive sexual tensions.

In short, you would do well to limit your comments to the admonition to homosexuals: "keep what should be personal and private to yourselves."