Republican Presidential debate audience members boo gay soldier serving in Iraq for asking question about gays in the military, wildly cheers Santorum's promise to bring back "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Quote:

---

A gay soldier's question about the end of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy elicited boos from the audience at Thursday night's Republican candidate debate, and a promise from Rick Santorum to reinstate the policy if elected.

In a video submission, Stephen Hill told the Republican presidential candidates that he "had to lie about who he was" when he was deployed to Iraq in 2010 because of his sexual orientation, and his fear that he would "lose my job."

"My question is, under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that's been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?" Hill asked.

Loud jeers were heard immediately from the Orlando, Fla., crowd, marking the third straight debate when the audience's reaction overshadowed the candidate's.

---

More here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiXhKJqen-A

So what?

My .02 (personal opinion only): hate has no place, regardless of its direction, in a responsible society. Each of our rights under the Constitution lasts only so long as the legal exercising of those rights do not limit another's ability to do so as well.

I didn't see it as a hate reaction. Many of those in attendance at a debate are actually interested and/or knowlegeable of hot button political issues. This election cycle it is the economy stupid. People were booing an issue that will not effect their daily lives or well being. If someone can do their job in the military, LE ect I can care less what they do in thier bedroom. Trying to make it more of an issue than it is irritates those that were interested in some substance in the following:

Economy
Size and Scope of Federal Government
Spending
Jobs
Foriegn Policy

Again focusing on what happened is not the issue. Understanding why something happed is the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Five-0

I didn't see it as a hate reaction. Many of those in attendance at a debate are actually interested and/or knowlegeable of hot button political issues. This election cycle it is the economy stupid. People were booing an issue that will not effect their daily lives or well being.

---

first of all, Civil Rights are issues that affect ALL of us.

Secondly, are you really saying that you think people booed that HERO because they wanted to hear more questions about the economy? REALLY?!?!? That's the craziest thing I've ever heard in my life. They were booing him because they're fucking homophobic. In about 20-30 years, we're all gonna look back and be absolutely totally ashamed at the way American society has treated GLBT Americans in the late 20th/early 21st century. Kind of like how we think now about how black people were treated in the 50s/60s.

I'll just have to completely disagree with you Bob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Five-0

I'll just have to completely disagree with you Bob.

---

I love you

I can tell you exactly how my thought process that went with that question.

1. Damn that guy has some guns.
2. I don't give a damn about this social issue or any other social issue move along.

I actually put this issue in a special category. Those that really think of it as an important topic get just as mad at me for not giving a damn as they do at people that are actual bigoted homophobes. They tend to have a much harder time coming back at me though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Five-0

I can tell you exactly how my thought process that went with that question.

1. Damn that guy has some guns.
2. I don't give a damn about this social issue or any other social issue move along.

I actually put this issue in a special category. Those that really think of it as an important topic get just as mad at me for not giving a damn as they do at people that are actual bigoted homophobes. They tend to have a much harder time coming back at me though.

---

I'm not saying that a lot of people that watched that didn't see that line of questioning as irrelevant. I'm saying that he got booed because of rampant homophobia, not because people in the audience weren't concerned with social issues. Crazy, crackpot stances on social issues are the only reason why Rick Santorum isn't working in a ladies' shoe store in the mall.

Bad idea to try and say that a whole group of people think a certain way. Actually basing your argument on absolutes is a bad idea.

There are no "T" military members.

As for the issue, DADT was stupid and deserved to die.

In all matters military, ask the people IN the military. Most of them have spoken, and it just does not matter.

1. When I watch a debate or a speech, I really don't care about the audience reaction. It's irrelevant. What I care about is the substance (or lack thereof) of what is being said by the candidate/politician.

2. Call me crazy, but I'm not 100% convinced that some leftist fringe groups aren't going to these Republican conventions and yelling out. Just like they did at the debate with Ron Paul a couple weeks ago.

If you're going to base the position of a party on how people in the audience react, then just watch Bill Maher and see some of the stupid crap liberals applaud. Gun control is a fine example. Because of my liberal friends, I know not all liberals are "Rosie O'Donnell" crazy when it comes to gun control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Loblaw

In about 20-30 years, we're all gonna look back and be absolutely totally ashamed at the way American society has treated GLBT Americans in the late 20th/early 21st century. Kind of like how we think now about how black people were treated in the 50s/60s.

---

I hope you're right. If the Republicans would actually take their party platform back to personal freedom on social issues, I'd gladly call myself one. Then again, they'd have to call themselves Libertarian. ;)

I'm not going to vote for anyone in the audience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhino

1. When I watch a debate or a speech, I really don't care about the audience reaction. It's irrelevant. What I care about is the substance (or lack thereof) of what is being said by the candidate/politician.

2. Call me crazy, but I'm not 100% convinced that some leftist fringe groups aren't going to these Republican conventions and yelling out. Just like they did at the debate with Ron Paul a couple weeks ago.

If you're going to base the position of a party on how people in the audience react, then just watch Bill Maher and see some of the stupid crap liberals applaud. Gun control is a fine example. Because of my liberal friends, I know not all liberals are "Rosie O'Donnell" crazy when it comes to gun control...

---

Agreed.

This may sound a little vulgar but it makes a point. If I am in a foxhole being shot at I could care less if it is a male or female killing the m'fer trying to kill me. I sure as hell do not care who's pipe they are smoking and I doubt most of the people on the battlefield would care either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Five-0

Bad idea to try and say that a whole group of people think a certain way. Actually basing your argument on absolutes is a bad idea.

---

I never said a whole group of people think a certain way

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MacLean

There are no "T" military members.

---

You are probably right, but my answer to that would be, "Yet." The rules made it virtually impossible for a transgender person to be in the military. Until now, a transgender person would have to be so convincing in their new gender that no one would ever suspect they used to be the other sex. And their past gender identity would have to have been hidden somehow. Time will tell how long it takes for there to be transgender military personnel. I do know of transgender police officers and a transgender US air marshall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MacLean

As for the issue, DADT was stupid and deserved to die.

---

Amen, brother!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MacLean

In all matters military, ask the people IN the military. Most of them have spoken, and it just does not matter.

---

The question asked was from a soldier, and it's obviously an issue very close and important to him. Asking the question to a politician who may end up having the authority to make decisions that affect the military is appropriate. And I think you are correct, the general attitude seems to be that most in the armed forces really just don't care about what kind of person is in their unit. Now as some of our military personnel are coming out publicly, accompanying stories are often that many (including command) had already known and didn't care.

The only possible reality of this situation at the debate that wouldn't be upsetting would be if the "boo-ers" were indeed opposition plants for political effect. But then that would be very upsetting in a different way. But either way, one would think that a proper response from the candidates (regardless of party) after the fact would be to say something to the effect of asking their supporters not to boo a soldier like that. If some, for lack of a better term, hippie liberals started boo-ing and degrading our soldiers overseas because it would fit their political agendas...I would think that would be seen as quite appalling and upsetting by those of us that respect our country's military and those brave souls that risk their lives in our defense. I've seen that response to this happening in the past. This current example, to me, seems simply like the reverse example. Again, this is contingent upon the booing not being a manufactured political tool by opponents. Though I would think that when planning a debate, that the party would be very careful and calculating when selecting the audience members. But then again, what do I know?