http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901026.html
UGH!
i hate it when the bush administration continues a policy developed under the previous administration.
oooh, Papa! You started the But but but Clinton on this one!
The question at hand is whether or not a document listed homosexuality as a disorder or not. We already know that damn DADT law practically says it.
it's a 2003 re-certification of a 1996 document signed by the then undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. gee if the bushies nix it, does it make them more progressive than the clinton administration?
http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/PressCenter/press_rel_2006_0619.htm
well, on this one issue, yes. Then again, Clinton never gave a weekly address and umpteen news conferences on why defending marriage from the evil faggies was the right thing to do.
So it might just be a wash.
Nothing to see here, folks...nothing to see...
i admit, bway, hearing him use the phrase "evil faggies" was a low point.
It ranks up there with Turd Blossom, donnit?
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/10/05
This is just such utter, insulting, f*cking bulls&!t. Unbelievable.
Well, if it's a disorder, are there any drugs to help you sickos become just like we admirable normies?
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/16/05
When I saw this listed on AOL news, is it bad that my first thought was that when I got around to going on here today that the topic would be at the top of the off-topic board?
As a card carrying evil faggie, I am not surprised by this at all...but am very glad that it has come to light.
Wait, he actually said "evil faggies"?
No, Shubert, it was my over exagerration.
It amounts to the same thing, constantly reiterating what a threat we are to the sanctity of marriage.
In fact, if pressed, I think Bush has not actually said homosexual or mentioned the "homosexual agenda" at any of this. The inference, though, is implicit.
no, but he did say "cornholing preverts."
Has Bush ever said the word "gay" or "homosexual" publicly as President?
*cough*
I beat you to that, Calvin.
I meant in any context or setting...even during debates where the question of gay marriage was directly raised.
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/31/69
I dont understand whats so wrong with differences in people- People are suppose to be diverse and different and respected for that- as says our Constitution that claims we can pretty much do anything (within in legal limits and rules) that we want. Why can't someone be gay, Its not a disorder, its a way of expression. I'm straight, true sometimes, I wonder if I am or arent. But the point is, I feel that the goverment should layoff our world is already ****ed up- don't mess with the gays, they'll kick you're ass, Bush.
Wow. That's lame.
Featured Actor Joined: 9/9/04
Gotta agree with the lame sentiment. Maybe all the homosexuals should go on disability under the whole “mental disorder” label and live off government money. That would be ironic.
I feel like my plan has a few kinks, but a good think tank could tweek it and make it work.
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/16/05
What. The. F*ck.
Broadway Legend Joined: 11/2/05
"Maybe all the homosexuals should go on disability under the whole “mental disorder” label and live off government money."
If all the gays in the Navy did that, the Navy would sink.
Featured Actor Joined: 9/9/04
That'll show 'em.
DG That made me laugh, I'm in a rather loopy state of mind though so I don't know if that really means anything, but thanks.
so now that the pentagon's changed their stance i guess like i said, they're more progressive than the prior administration who put this classification in place.
gays no longer sick according to the dod
And the conclusion of the article you cited:
===
Legislation in the House of Representatives to lift the restrictions on homosexuals in the military appears to have little chance of passage in the Republican-controlled Congress. There is no similar Senate bill.
===
"But...but...but..CLINNNNNNNNNTON!"
Videos