Gingrich Slams Kagen Over Military Recruiters at Harvard

[Hush]

Unbecoming an American’: Gingrich Slams Kagen Over Military Recruiters at Harvard

"She should be disqualified."

http://www.breitbart.tv/unbecoming-an-a ... t-harvard/

[silencertalk]

Not sure about this. I don't think it makes sense to not allow people in the military due to sexual orientation. She was saying 'you can come here when you allow homosexuals.' Not what I would do, but I am not sure I should disqualify her for that.

[MicroGuy]

They should be slamming her for just being an uber liberal.

She does NOT belong in a courtroom.

[BWT]

They should be slamming her for just being an uber liberal.

She does NOT belong in a courtroom.

The Democrats have a 59 to 41 majority in the Senate.

They need something more concrete than she's a liberal to drive the case against her.

I agree, but... that's not going to keep her out of the Supreme Court, it didn't stop them from getting Sotomayor. Now she's offering her female latino perspective was it? on everything.

[YugoRPK]

The army discriminates against people based on their sexual orientation. Thats a fact they do not deny. Harvard does not allow discrimination based on sexual orientation. Harvard did not allow recruiters to use their facilities to recruit for an organization that promotes discrimination based on sexual orientation. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

[silencertalk]

The Boy Scouts are also wrong to consider homosexuality a moral issue. It is not a choice - it is how you are born. Though based on a poll I did on this site most people here think who you are attracted to is a choice. It is the one issue I have seen on this forum where the majority is so obviously incorrect. A homosexual cannot find someone of the opposite sex attractive any more than I can find someone of the same sex attractive. I just don't, period. Same with them for the opposite sex.

[YugoRPK]

The Boy Scouts are also wrong to consider homosexuality a moral issue. It is not a choice - it is how you are born. Though based on a poll I did on this site most people here think who you are attracted to is a choice. It is the one issue I have seen on this forum where the majority is so obviously incorrect. A homosexual cannot find someone of the opposite sex attractive any more than I can find someone of the same sex attractive. I just don't, period. Same with them for the opposite sex.

I'm not so sure its something that happens at birth. I think its partially that but more in environmental factors that occur before the age of 5-7 or so. I'm not talking global warming, flouride or hormones in milk either. Past the age of 5-7 ish your'e pretty much wired to be the person you will always be. What happens around you at an early age forges your personality far more than a sequence of genes does.

[silencertalk]

I think if you look at studies with identical twins you can learn a lot about that. Some things are hard wired and some are learned.

I highly, HIGHLY doubt homosexuality is learned or that someone can be influenced one way or the other.

[YugoRPK]

I think if you look at studies with identical twins you can learn a lot about that. Some things are hard wired and some are learned.

I highly, HIGHLY doubt homosexuality is learned or that someone can be influenced one way or the other.

How many identical twin studies are done with gay twins who are separated at birth and raised in dramatically different environments? I wouldnt guess many. Not one of those things that I would think happens often. Otherwise they are raised in pretty much the same environment which doesnt do much to show that it was a genetic predisposition to do anything.

[Diomed]

The army discriminates against people based on their sexual orientation. Thats a fact they do not deny. Harvard does not allow discrimination based on sexual orientation. Harvard did not allow recruiters to use their facilities to recruit for an organization that promotes discrimination based on sexual orientation. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Harvard takes government money, does it not?

That seems pretty cut and dried to me.

[silencertalk]

The govt is free to try to withold that money as a next step.

[st33ve0]

I don't care whether homosexuality is a choice or not, I don't want gays near my kids. That's my choice and if you don't like it then tough.

The Boy Scouts of America is a fine organization and as an Eagle Scout I firmly support their decision not to allow homosexuals to take young boys into the woods.

BSA is a private organization, the US Military is not.

[silencertalk]

I don't care whether being black is a choice or not, I don't want blacks near my kids. That's my choice and if you don't like it then tough.

The Boy Scouts of America is a fine organization and as an Eagle Scout I firmly support their decision not to allow blacks to take young boys into the woods.

BSA is a private organization, the US Military is not.

I fixed it for you.

[st33ve0]

I don't care whether being black is a choice or not, I don't want blacks near my kids. That's my choice and if you don't like it then tough.

The Boy Scouts of America is a fine organization and as an Eagle Scout I firmly support their decision not to allow blacks to take young boys into the woods.

BSA is a private organization, the US Military is not.

I fixed it for you.

I don't see being black as being more likely to molest my kids or give them the wrong ideas about morality and sexual persuasion.

[silencertalk]

I believe you.

First, no Scout leader goes into the woods with kids without other adults along. How about you ban people who molest kids instead of a group of people who you perceive as having an increased chance of molesting kids? If that is what you want to do, why let your kids near a priest?

There are people who think gun owners are more likely to commit crimes. I would say to them - why not let us have guns and just punish the specific crimes?

[st33ve0]

And I totally believe you don't, but there are people who do believe that black people are more likely to harm their kids.

I'll agree with you there, but I look at it the same way as any men's only organization. As long as they aren't accepting government funding and otherwise aren't promoting anything illegal I don't see where we can fault them. That doesn't mean that I want to join their organization and I'm free to choose not to.

[silencertalk]

I actually agree with freedom of association, and I think you should be able to block anyone. I would not block homosexuals from the military or as Scout leaders.

[st33ve0]

I actually agree with freedom of association, and I think you should be able to block anyone. I would not block homosexuals from the military or as Scout leaders.

With the requirements that BSA has now about "two-deep leadership" meaning that there must always be at least two adult leaders with a group of boys or no adult leaders with a group of boys then I'd say it's safer now than it used to be, I just don't feel comfortable with someday having my kids around a homosexual. I believe BSA requires at least some form of theism [i.e. anything but atheism] to be a member as well, though that may have changed.

ETA: Regardless if what you're attracted to is a choice or not. Your actions are always your choice.

ETA 2: They don't allow girls in Boy Scouts...just in Venturing.

[silencertalk]

Yeah, it took me a log time to figure out the BSA is a religious organization.

[-k-]

Harvard takes government money, does it not?

That seems pretty cut and dried to me.

Win. She knew the government (DOD) discriminated but she felt it was OK to take their money...

She also should have known it was not a policy made up by the military but a directive or EO by Clinton (don't ask..). Being a lawyer she should have known that congress passed the outright ban. So the military had no choice to allow openly gay people from serving even if they wanted to.

Did she ban Clinton from campus? Members of congress? This was a political issue that she turned into an anti military issue.

Does not getting government money because of your actions=violation of free speech? Supreme Court didn't think so, but she did. Because of her personal beliefs.