DADT Repealed but the Left’s War to Politicize the Military Continues
On Tuesday, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) was officially repealed. A new era for our military has been ushered in. The constant refrain has been that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve honorably in the military, just like everyone else does. Of course, gays and lesbians already could serve honorably in the military — they just had to keep their private life private.
Most people don’t have a problem with gays and lesbians actually serving in the military. Honorable service was never an issue; there were plenty of gays and lesbians who did and still do serve their country with honor and courage. It’s the serving openly part. DADT allowed the military to remain neutral on the gay rights question that will inevitably begin to flood the military now that the repeal has taken effect. Gay marriage, benefits for spouses/partners, on-base housing, public displays of affection — these are all issues that the military will have to take a stance on. And while the current status is that gays and lesbians, and their partners, will not be eligible for these benefits, it doesn’t seem likely that they’ll be satisfied with that. How long will it be before they start campaigning for gay marriages to be recognized as well? For their partners to get benefits? To be able to live in base housing? Right now, transgender Americans are still not allowed to serve in the military. How long until they start fighting for that as well?
There’s also, of course, the issue of unit cohesion. Repealing DADT throws a huge wrinkle into that. Now they have to figure out a way to handle it if a straight service member isn’t comfortable sleeping in a foxhole next to a gay service member, or showering next to them. And will we see people using their sexual orientation as an excuse for why they didn’t get promoted, or why they were “unfairly” disciplined?
Repealing DADT opened all of these floodgates. The claim was that gays and lesbians just wanted to be able to serve honorably like everyone else. But is that really true, or is repealing DADT really about advancing the Left’s agenda to politicize every aspect of public life?
Early on, anyone who didn’t agree with repealing DADT was quickly smeared as a bigot and a homophobe. Any suggested possible problems that could arise from the repeal, such as a negative effect on unit cohesion, were brushed off as excuses to justify hate. The advocates for repeal claimed they wanted tolerance for their lifestyles, but where was the tolerance for opposing viewpoints? It’s interesting how that works out — the people who claim to want tolerance the most usually end up as the least tolerant people out there.
Several days before the repeal this attitude was on display, as the Marine Corps Times, a popular newspaper that is sold on and around Marine Corps bases around the world, ran a cover story titled “We’re Gay, Get Over It.” The entire premise of the story revolves around the supposition that Marines are inherently homophobic, and serving alongside gay Marines is something that straight Marines will need to “get over.” I don’t think the gay Left realize that it has never been about the fact that someone is literally gay (believe it or not, most of the time they already know who in their unit is gay). If it was only about honorable service, then why does everyone need to know who is gay and who isn’t? Not only is everyone apparently required to know who is gay, they’re also required to approve of it — and thus, the thought policing begins. So much for tolerance.
HBO filmed a documentary titled The Strange History Of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, claiming to tell the full story about DADT and the journey to repeal.
Of course, that’s not quite the truth. The channel makes no efforts to even pretend to give a balanced perspective on the repeal. On the website, the synopsis made that clear.
A timely and historical look at the legacy of gays and lesbians in the military, THE STRANGE HISTORY OF DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL illustrates the tumultuous evolution of the controversial policy that fostered hate and intolerance within the military – and undermined the very freedoms American forces defend – by forcing many soldiers to lie and live in secrecy.
They mention that, like the Marine Corps Times, they interviewed gay service members to get their opinions on DADT and the repeal. Apparently, the opinions of straight service members who might oppose the repeal were not wanted. So much for getting the full story.
What would a little agenda advancement be without a public display? At midnight on the day the repeal took effect, a gay sailor married his partner in a ceremony planned to coincide with the repeal:
Just as the formal repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy took effect, Navy Lt. Gary Ross and his partner were married before a small group of family and friends.
The two men, who’d been together 11 years, decided to marry in Vermont in part because the state is in the Eastern time zone.
That way, they were able to recite their vows at the stroke of midnight – at the first possible moment after the ban ended.
Lt. Ross wore his dress uniform for the ceremony. The Navy is now considering a proposal to allow chaplains to conduct same-sex civil unions.
Here’s the big elephant in the room. If this is solely about honorable service, and nothing else, then why is all of this needed? The in-your-face attitude, the admonishments to get over it, the slurs and accusations of homophobia, the possibilities of same-sex civil unions — none of these things have anything to do with service in the military. When you join the Marine Corps and go to MCRD Parris Island, for example, there isn’t going to be a line for gay recruits and a line for straight recruits. They all go through the same training and they all have the same job to do. We don’t differentiate between races in the military, so why all of the hoopla around sexual orientation?
There seems to be a kind of obsession among the gay Left to constantly celebrate their sexuality. It’s great for someone to be proud of who they are, but it doesn’t fit in with military service. As a service member, it isn’t all about you — it’s about the team, the unit. It’s about everyone as a whole, and if you are constantly preaching about your lifestyle, and tolerance for your beliefs, it isn’t going to make for a strong team. To be a Marine or a soldier in combat, you cannot constantly be thinking about “I” and “me.” The military is all about discipline and conformance; consistently flaunting your homosexuality and demanding that everyone accept it (while never being tolerant of other views) doesn’t fit in.
This is about much more than just honorable military service. It’s just the tip of the iceberg. The push for recognizing gay marriage, giving gay spouses benefits, allowing gay partners to live together on base — a cans of worms just got cracked wide open. How long will it take for Lt. Ross, for example, to start demanding benefits for his husband?
Race, gender, sexual orientation: none of these things have anything to do with a career in the military. Most service members don’t care who is gay as long as they aren’t disrupting or endangering the unit. DADT is over, yet those who wanted the repeal are not shutting up. They got what they wanted, and instead of just putting their heads down and doing their jobs, they’re carrying on with the squabbling. All this will do is continue to divide service members and pit them against each other.
I thought ending DADT meant that the controversy was supposed to be over. But of course, that’s assuming that the repeal of DADT was all they were after.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jWOamlD9_8
It’s not like we haven’t heard the unit morale and cohesion argument before…last time somehow the military dealt with it successfully, this time I suspect it’ll do the same. Last time, the military was ahead of the civilian population (Jim Crow, etc. were still in effect when Truman desegregated the army); this time the rest of the country’s ahead of the military. I doubt it’ll cause that much trouble; unless, of course, opponents try and make an issue of it. But I seriously doubt that anyone will take them seriously.
P.S. The Left Wing was one of my favorite shows on TV, and John Amos remains one of my favorite character actors. This was one of his best roles, and one of the best in the show, which somehow retained a large number of well-known actors in occasional character roles. Timothy Busfield, for instance, was in the series basically from beginning to end, but only several episodes per year. Ditto Stockard Channing, Amos, and a bunch of others, with everyone from Matt Perry to Gary Cole, Mason Adams, and Karl Malden stepping in for an episode or two. Good show.
Aaron Sorkin is your idea of an “authority” on the effects of having openly-declared homosexuals serving in the military? Aaron Sorkin?
Mr. Nicholas, you just failed the laugh test.
As Kenneth Minogue, Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the London School of Economics has observed: “Armies don’t really need homosexuals, or women, or any particular minority, and to turn them into playgrounds for social justice can only ruin them.”
Mr. Nicholas, the need for unit morale and cohesion is not an argument; it is a fact and a requirement for successful military combat units. That need is simply being ignored contrary to what those in the combat arms have been saying for some time about this issue. You can say that they are behind the country, but it reflects well on them, not the country.
That you spend space in your comment on your favorite show is unfortunately reflective of where you live on this issue — in fiction. Our men (and a few women) in the combat arms live in reality.
And it isn’t as though we haven’t heard “We just want to recognized” before, is it? I am amazed at how few comments purport to recognize the gay agenda for what it is – Destroy the United States military!
David, you’re talking apples and potatoes here, not even oranges. Black people cannot help being black; it’s a genetic thing. Those with sexual dysfunctions have no genetic encoding that makes them so, ergo COULD do something about it IF they wished to do the work involved in recovering from a behavioral disorder; they DON’T; instead they want us all to believe it’s normal. But the real problem here is that you don’t known the UCMJ, the rules under which ALL military personnel function. What’s changed here has given sexually dysfunctional individuals SPECIAL privileges, that all others do NOT have, and denied the very fundamental rights of some even. For example, chaplains whose beliefs include that homosexuality is a sin are denied the right to preach that now; and many are having to choose between their faith and their patriotism, which will then HURT the troops on the front lines, for whom the chaplains are support, and often the first line of help with emotional overloads, and who will NOT be there to do so. And the incidences of same sex rapes INCREASED dramatically once DADT was adopted and homosexuals were permitted to stay in. Now if a person attempts to report such a rape it is the REPORTING party who will be penalized; not the rapist, so the violations and all the consequences of that will go to impair unit cohesiveness greatly. Many heteros are now considering leaving careers in the military ASAP because of these things, along with many in the chaplains’ corps. Do you honestly think this is NOT a problem at such a time in our history? IF they truly simply wanted to serve, DADT gave them EXACTLY the same rights to do so under the UCMJ as all the rest of us! THAT’S not what they want!
Or, as my mother might have said, White people cannot help being White. Genetics notwithstanding.
Everything everyone has said here is true, and yet none of it is a legitimate part of the argument against DADT or banning gays from the military, and Sorkin’s original point (regardless of his politics, when he makes a good point he makes a good point) is that the naysayers back in the day predicted the same doom-and-gloom scenarios when Truman desegregated the army–during the Korean War. First, as far back as the American Civil War, there were protests that Blacks wouldn’t make good soldiers, depsite hundreds of examples to the contrary, from a regiment of Black soldiers who fought during the battle of Monmouth Court House to another regiment that participated in the Battle of New Orleans. Despite *no* evidence that Blacks caused any difficulties in the ranks, or were less brave than their White counterparts, the rumor that they wouldn’t make good soldiers persisted, right up to the Civil War, when it was exploded in battles from Battery Wagner to Nashville. The army spent most of the war justifying underpaying the Blacks (because they felt that if they valued them as highly as White soldiers there would be objections–again without any evidence of this) and working hard to keep Blacks from being officers, so that a white private would never, on a battlefield, ever wind up taking orders from a Black man. They partially succeeded in this last, and after the war when the army shrank, Blacks were retained in the ranks, but there were almost no officers for decades, and of course the legends of how bad Black soldiers fought were repeated regularly. By World War II, the stories were widely believed again, so that those Blacks who enlisted were often assigned to “service” units, where the soldiers wouldn’t encounter combat, hopefully. There still were a few Black regiments, though, and one of them was in Japan, and sent to Korea, at the start of the war there. Its poor performance was emphasized by the army high command (when *all* the troops sent to Korea performed more or less poorly to start) and this was what prompted Truman to order the army to unilaterally desegregate itself. There were a number of army officers who predicted widespread disruptions and unrest as a result, but strangely nothing happened. The army got over it, and now we have Black generals.
Sorkin’s point is that the last time everyone predicted all these bad things, none of them came to pass, and that there’s no reason to think that this time around, things are any different. Just because someone *says* that things will be bad, doesn’t mean they will. I’m just as likely to listen to an old fogey general predicting unrest if gays are allowed to serve in the ranks as I am to listen to Obama or one of these other idiot liberal Democrats predicting riots if the latest stimulus bill–oops, sorry, *jobs* bill, isn’t passed. Predictions of such things don’t carry much weight with me.
A couple of weeks ago, here in California, my old state assemblyman (I just moved from the La Crescenta Valley, which includes La Canada/Flintridge, to Van Nuys) Anthony Portantino, proposed and got passed legislation banning the open carry of unloaded firearms in public, here in California. I’ve never seen this done, myself, but apparently it’s become a big thing. Starbucks was in the middle of the controversy awhile back, because they refused to ban people carrying such guns from their stores, which riled activists who believe the conduct “dangerous.” Portantino’s argument was that since the majority of society finds the behavior of such a person objectionable, disturbing, frightening, whatever, even if there’s no actual instance of such a person harming someone, the behavior ought to be banned. As far as I’m concerned, he’s full of it, and everyone here should know it. The majority of society shouldn’t be allowed to ban behavior, be it homosexual or the carrying of unloaded guns–or loaded ones for that matter–just because it’s objectionable to someone. There ought to be an actual danger to the public at large, not just someone sniffing and turning up their nose. And while the standards for military recruitment ought to be higher than the general public (we can’t have blind fighter pilots, of course) those standards should be based on reality, not fantasies, rumors, or the prejudices of old generals who still think we should be buying fighter jets and main battle tanks and attack helicopters, because those things were what the army was based on when they entered it 30 years ago.
Being in the armed forces is about operating a weapons system, be it a gun or artillery piece or plane or ship or whatever, or about somehow supporting someone else doing the same. It’s not about who you sleep with, or who you want to sleep with, or who you have slept with. Pragmatism demands that we take this attitude. We have a large Arab-speaking population in our country, most of them more-or-less refugees from the Arab/Muslim world, and we would like to recruit as many of them as possible into our armed forces, because linguists are essential when you’re fighting an insurgency. Trick is a high percentage of these guys are gay, largely because of the way the Muslim world treats homosexuality. Now I know a lot of you are going to be upset by the idea of recruiting Arabs into our army, in the wake of Maj. Hassan and so forth, so let me give you a little hint: being suspicious of a *gay* Arab’s loyalty is the functional equivalent of a cop being extra cautious around someone who’s undergone a background check and gotten his CCW. Those are the guys who are likely to be the *most* loyal to us, not the least.
I’ve talked for way too long, but you guys need to rethink your arguments. Old tired superstitions and innuendo doesn’t substitute for anything intelligent. It just doesn’t work.
What does not work, Mr. Nicholas, is your wordy comment. I am tempted to say that it is you who needs to re-think matters, but your lack of experience will prevent a useful re-thinking.
Nevertheless, start with this: skin color is a physical attribute that does not collide with the requirements of military discipline; homosexual behavior is behavior that does collide with the requirements of military discipline.
“Nevertheless, start with this: skin color is a physical attribute that does not collide with the requirements of military discipline”
But it does…if someone already in the unit makes an issue of it. Hell, I’ve seen fistfights over NFL games within the ranks…if you’re the type of person who will cause a disruption of discipline, the reason really doesn’t matter. The types to cause problems will cause problems. I hate to shatter whatever illusions you might have, but skin color can STILL be a disruption depending on who else is involved…or religion or what street you grew up on…if everyone just bucks up and acts like a solider…you know, that whole orders/policy thing…no problem…
Therefore, what? That guys of different religions and skin colors pull together and be one cohesive fighting unit? What you are pointing to is the need for military unit cohesion and morale, which is one of the primary reasons why repeal of DADT was a mistake. Under DADT, a gay kept his sexuality to himself and thus could, in theory, not disrupt unit cohesion and morale.
So what you’re saying is that well-disciplined soldiers can overcome ethnic, religious, or geographic differences to become a cohesive unit?
So what’s the problem? Why can’t those same soldiers overcome a difference in what type of porn they watch?
Yes; and you are not being realistic in trying to suggest otherwise.
For no reason other than future votes, the current administration and blind fools have set the military up for irrevocable long term harm.
The military predominately votes FOR a strong America, which means a military majority vote against the democrat. It was especially evident during the last election when the Marine Corps Times showed the breakdown of military voters for and against obama. Not counting the high number of blacks in the Army who had polled for obama, his prospect of getting military votes wasn’t good.
Repealing DADT was nothing more than trying to finally turn the tide of military votes toward democrats and away from conservatives – read as normally for the republican; which coincidentally is why the military absentee ballot is so often scrutinized for disqualification.
Democrat leadership did this for no other reason than to kill one constituency and grow another. It’ll take a generation but, to liberals, is worth the wait. And stupid career minded politicians like Senator Burr of NC allowed themselves to be suckered in, thinking that they could take advantage of it by being seen as “gay friendly”. However, they will be the first to lose their re-elections. I intend to work to make that a fact the next time Burr’s up for re-election.
Bottom line: The repeal of DADT was an aggressive long term plan to kill a conservative military voting constituency and grow a liberal military voting constituency so democrats had a chance of gaining “the military vote”.
Well said! It’s also a way to destroy morale grounded in the christian faith that the left has systematically destroyed, but the military was still more traditional.
And that is the REAL reason behind the whole matter Cali,to further undermine Christianity’s world predominance.
I hadn’t thought of it that way. With a more liberal military the liberals gain a tool. A conservative military won’t forcibly disarm the American public – a liberal military will. A conservative military won’t fire on the public – a liberal military will. A conservative military won’t fire on an Israeli – a liberal military will. A conservative military won’t invade an ally – a liberal military will.
The bottom line is if you define who you are by how you get off, maybe the military is not the place for you. As in the article, there seems an ever increasing drive/pressure for people to define themselves into ever narrower criterion.
“I thought ending DADT meant that the controversy was supposed to be over. But of course, that’s assuming that the repeal of DADT was all they were after.”
A whole new can of “sexual harrassment” worms about to be opened. This is nothing more than another progressive agenda whose goal is to weaken the American military.
The next crusade will be allowing/forcing females to serve in combat arm units.
Ever since sexual deviants manipulated their removal from the psychotic listing on the ADA, they’ve been forcing their unacceptable behavior in our faces (and our childrens faces/minds) with the clear intent to shock and repulse us bit.ly/f6OD43 They’re desperately trying to claim approval of their behavior which they will not ever realize even from themselves. What’s inherently wrong can’t be made right.
Despite knowing our Founding Fathers specifically warned us against the cost of our society falling into moral decay bit.ly/klHMto and the fact that no nation in history has ever survived two generations past allowing such behavior to be labeled as ‘accepted’, here we are bit.ly/nOFOJQ
DADT was obviously not a policy that worked bit.ly/hv7vX7 and t.co/S7TtnSQ but this insanity will cost us dearly bit.ly/egZ6xl
It’s past time we took back our own country or be recorded in history as the cowards who lost America.
sounds like you are repressing something.
Why? He’s absolutley correct. From the time back in the 70′s when the gay lobby destroyed Anita Bryant to the present day, everything that was warned of back then leading down the slippery slope has happened.
How did teaching 5 year old children about homosexuality and fisting EVER get into schools? How did forcing children to take a test encouraging them to experiment in homosexual behavior EVER become mandatory?
They have been slowley manuevering themselves into a position where they will be able to destroy the church once and for all for having the audacity to read God’s word calls their behavior an abomination. How, you say? Lawsuits! They will either force a church to change their doctrine (thus destroying the church) or they will sue them out of existance.
Finally, those same precious phsycologists have now moved on the pedophilia. Yes – that’s right. Now they want to destigmatize and decriminalize child rape. And it all started with the gays.
I think the real reason the military doesnt want openly gay service-members is too politically incorrect to talk about publicly. A friend of mine, retired from the navy and who did a two year stint as a UN peacekeeper, told me that nobody really cares about strait/gay soldiers sleeping in fox holes together. The real reason is because many ( not all) gays are bitchy. They thrive on drama with themselves at the center of everything. That just doesnt work well in a military setting.
He punctuated his explanation with ” They dont call ‘em ‘queer’ for nothin!”
Another truth about this issue that rarely gets talked about is that the military is chock-full of gays and always has been.
The “bitchy” argument is a non-starter. Proper and appropriate training and discipline prevents those kind of public displays. And it should be noted that the “bitchy” ones generally don’t join the military anyway; they choose other careers.
“Bitchy” is excactly accurate. Don’t point to a guy who has sex with other guys where noone can see him, and claim he’s what we’re talking about. Noone really gives a damn what he does. It’s the flamers and their piss in your face attitude, because Daddy didn’t love them enough, so they want to embarrass him. Find an old psychology book, and look it up.
I wouldn’t want to see Broadway go without their chorus lines, but leave the military alone. I remember when freedom of association was still legal in this country. Why are they allowed gay bars, but I’m not allowed a heterosexual bar?
I come from a big family, and the gay brother and sister are the most narcissistic, self serving, a-holes you ever met. Keep in mind that they are only free to be idiots because some young man that they laugh at all day long, is keeping Omar and Muhammed from eviscerating them.
Ungrateful B tards.
So how much time did you spend in the Military Suthenboy? I served 28 years and would love to know where you came up with the “everybody knows the military is chock full of gays” knowledge? Data from the surveys from combat arms service members was discounted and they used non combat arms SM’s to answer questions. Of course they don’t care…they’re not warriors..the’re Fobbits and desk jockeys.
Fobbits and desk jockeys?
Way to discount 60% of military manpower…God love and save you combat arms guys, but it’s time you get over yourselves…
Yes, God bless and save the combat arms guys; they are the best; and thus it is you, “A Soldier,” who needs to get over yourself. No real soldier writes that way about the combat arms guys.
By the way, the Pentagon knew that the combat arms guys were overwhelmingly against repeal of DADT; and that is why the questionaire was set up the way it was and why many combat units never got it.
What I mean to say is that they need to get over this archaic notion that they’re the only ones that go fight…there are no more lines, no more perimeters…I spent just as much time as a signal NCO getting shot at, mortared and car-bombed as most of the 11B’s on my FOB…and quite often was in the convoy with them as it rolled into red country…
In this new war, a rifle company is a vital asset, but a useless asset without the information and support the rest of us provide…
Such REMF illusions. No, you didn’t see as much kinetic activity as the combat arms guys.
“Such REMF illusions. No, you didn’t see as much kinetic activity as the combat arms guys.”
Funny…I don’t recall seeing you in any of my convoys…
Tell me, when was your service, and what was the nature of it?
3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, OIF II 2004-2005…Haifa Street, Sadr City, Iraqi National Election period…
Funny that if you replace “gay” with “black” all the arguments look like 1947.
Sad that you people won’t let fellow human beings – who aren’t hurting you or otherwise affecting your lives – live freely. Cassy Fiano throws “honorable” around every other sentence and yet doesn’t seem to understand that DADT was everything but honorable. It required people – both straight and gay – to lie. How is that honorable?
Face it, people who are US citizens, who pay taxes and vote have the same rights as you or I. The fact is that none of you have a logical, rational reason to deny those rights; every one of your arguments is emotional. Kinda like a liberal. Irony is not dead after all, it seems.
In my 24 years of military service I served alongside people of all colors, religions, and sexual orientations. We knew who the gay people in the unit were and we didn’t care.
Yeah, there are problems with gays serving openly. Most of the problems seem to be rather overblown. Public display of affection and grooming are already regulated by the military services, so your nightmare of seeing a gay guy kissing another guy in uniform in public isn’t an issue. And having pink hair and pierced eyebrows is another non-issue.
Its really sad how many people who are supposed to be all about freedom are all for suppressing it. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Ragnar, you are expressing your personal beliefs in civilian life and apparently have not a thought about what the needs of the military are. Service for your country in the military is not a right, but a duty some shoulder who are fit enough mentally and physically to shoulder the duty. It is not about yourself; it is not about the “freedom” of self-expression. What is sad is that you are so judgmental about something that you really do not understand.
Gee, Phil, you must have missed reading comprehension 101 in school.
“In my 24 years of military service I served alongside people of all colors, religions, and sexual orientations. We knew who the gay people in the unit were and we didn’t care. ”
I’ve been there. I’ve got the t-shirt. What about you?
Anonymous, you don’t fool me. The contents of your post establishes that you are a leftist troll making things up in order to advance a left wing political strategy with respect to the military.
I’ve got a dd214. Where’s yours?
And you’ve yet to articluate a reason why US citizens who vote and pay taxes don’t deserve the same rights you enjoy. Or is the Constitution only for people who think just like you?
They already HAD the same rights as everybody else. They just want extra special rights now.
Ragnar, military service is not a right, and no true veteran would describe it as a right like voting.
“Funny that if you replace “gay” with “black” all the arguments look like 1947.”
You really think the two are equivalent?
When the arguments include such drivel as
“Now they have to figure out a way to handle it if a straight service member isn’t comfortable sleeping in a foxhole next to a gay service member, or showering next to them.”
then yes, they sound just like the same arguments made when the military integrated blacks into the service.
There’s a big difference between something genetic and something behavioral; the human genome has been mapped, pushed by the homosexual lobbies; and there is NO gene or cluster of gene that causes their disorder, so it’s back to a learned behavior; and since learning begins in the 5th month of gestation, we don’t know when it was learned, but what is learned can be UNLEARNED, if the person seeks to do so. However, as long as they choose to not do so, would you want to sleep and shower with a potential rapist? Someone who views you as a sexual object openly? I sure wouldn’t, but then I’ve been raped, so I know how it feels and the damage it does. Further, when they DO rape someone in the unit, and that has increased over the time since DADT went into effect allowing them to remain in, it’s the VICTIM who will be penalized for trying to report the attack, now; and that’s an even more serious problem. This is NOTHING like the racial integration. That’s not something people of color can change, and doesn’t affect their performance in the unit.
“…That’s not something people of color can change…”
And why would they want to?
BTW, when my father was drafted back in 1942 the Army knew that he was black. The didn’t have a problem with that. There was no exemption from the draft for being black. You’re black? That’s okay. No problem. The problem was segregation; asking men to accept the same obligations and burdens while being treated unequally. Segregation was wrong. As well as being very expensive and very impracticable. Abolishing it back in 1948 was both logical and just.
There are many reasons why I do not see a parallel between the abolition of DADT and the abolition of segregation back in 48. The Draft is just one of them. Today we have an all-volunteer force. One thing that hasn’t changed from then until now is that duty always comes first, and your personal and private affairs always come last. That didn’t change with the abolition of segregation. Don’t know how much longer we’ll be able to say that for now.
“However, as long as they choose to not do so, would you want to sleep and shower with a potential rapist? Someone who views you as a sexual object openly?”
Actually, if you ask a gay man if he finds straight men attractive he’ll make a face and tell you no.
“I sure wouldn’t, but then I’ve been raped, so I know how it feels and the damage it does. Further, when they DO rape someone in the unit, and that has increased over the time since DADT went into effect allowing them to remain in, it’s the VICTIM who will be penalized for trying to report the attack, now; and that’s an even more serious problem.”
Might be nice if you actually presented some facts to go with that.
@Ragnar – OMG – you’re a total pig. Your response to SAndra was f-ing vile. You’re one of those activist pukes, aren’t you? No tolerance and all ego. Sick.
When the arguments presented in this very article include such drivel as
“Now they have to figure out a way to handle it if a straight service member isn’t comfortable sleeping in a foxhole next to a gay service member, or showering next to them.”
then yes, they are comparable. They sound very similar to those that were used when the military integrated in 1947.
Horse pucky. You give up most of your so-called “freedoms” when you swear that oath for the military. The military has always been one of the best equalizers in the world – it treated everybody like crap.
I’m so sick of the super-citizen status of all these special interest groups. I’m so sick of the victocrats. Would you PLEASE get over yourselves!
DADT required people to lie? Are you serious? No, it didn’t!! That’s the very point of this entire argument. When you enter the U.S. Military-any branch-no one asks you your sexual orientation; They sure as hell didn’t when I enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1943, and I have serious doubts they do so today. I’m reasonably certain we had gays in the Corps, Navy, Army, Air Corps and Coast Guard; Everyone kept their sexual orientation to themselves – as they should. I shall always remember the first Gay Pride parade in Atlanta, Ga, during the term of Atlanta’s first Black mayor, Maynard Jackson; Their primary theme seemed to be “We’re Queer – We’re here, and We are in your face”.
The DADT policy result was that everyone involved had to lie. Commanders, supervisors, co-workers, gay people, everyone had to lie to make it work. Commanders, who are sworn to uphold the regulations, had to turn a blind eye to people they knew were gay simply because they weren’t supposed to ask or pursue under the policy. That’s the lie. If a commander thought you were gay they couldn’t pursue without very strict evidence. But if the same commander thought you were high on drugs, he could have you tested with the slimmest of evidence. This sets up Command for failure, and thats wrong. For the gay service member they had to lie as well. Under the policy they had to deny they were gay. Thats the lie. If your supervisor knew you were gay, he had to ignore it because the policy required very strict evidence to proceed. Here again is the lie; they are required to enforce regulations but the policy essentially forced you to ignore things. You can’t run an organization when some regulations are essentially required to be ignored while others aren’t.
DADT was just about the stupidest policy ever. It was written with the full knowledge that everyone involved would end up lying. If they had simply said no gay people it would have worked better. But they had to include lots of outs and ways to ignore things, and this made it stupid from the enforcement end of things.
Yes, lots of people got discharged for being gay, but it took a lot of work and “I think he’s gay” wasn’t enough in the evidentiary sense to make it happen. It usually came down to the gay servicemember doing something like getting caught in public or some similar occurence.
You should download the DADT policy briefings we used to get, then you would know that DADT was never as easy or as clear cut as you want it to be.
Ragnar, the theory of DADT was to allow gays to serve and keep their sexuality to themselves; that is not stupid. If you think DADT is unworkable, then fine, the workable alternative is to go back to the rule that was in effect going back to George Washimgton’s Continental Army and not to allow homosexuals to serve. Military service is not a right. It is a responsibilty borne by those mentally and physically fit enough to handle the responsiblity.
Ragnar, I guess you missed the photo Yahoo ran with a week or so ago of 2 Navy officers kissing IN UNIFORM, both men. When I served even holding hands was NOT allowed for anyone in uniform, and so it should STILL be! If they want to do those things, the MILITARY is NOT the place for them!
Sandra, PDA in uniform is against DoD regulations. A picture in a civilian newspaper doesn’t change the regulations.
First, there is no “right” to serve in the military. Many are denied for reasons that have nothing to do with homosexuality. Are they being deprived of the “rights” you insist all taxpayers have?
You then proceed to throw out (or throw up) some nonsense about pink hair and guys in uniform kissing fellow soldiers– all of that is crappola. It is the straw man arguments that the intellectually weak engage in.
The truth, which you cannot address, is that gays were serving under DADT– so nobody was being denied rights (except those “rights” which you have invented).
You even state that when you served, “We knew who the gay people in the unit were and we didn’t care.” So, DADT was the unofficial policy, and it worked. Gays did not announce their sexual preference, you didn’t care and the gays served their country. That’s DADT. So, what is the problem, other than you wanting to feel morally superior?
There is no need, as you have unwittingly pointed out, for anybody to announce their sexual preferences.
It’s not about announcing anything! It’s not about soldiers wlaking around screaming “I’m gay! I’m gay!” at the top of their lungs…like I said below, it’s about being able to go on a date in a public place and not have to worry about being discharged if the CO happens to be there…
And while it’s great that his unit didn’t judge, harrass or prosceute their gay soldiers, do you really think that ALL commanders and NCO’s in the miltary and ALL units operated that way? In case you haven’t noticed, just like any other large community, the military has its share of bigots, racists, and plain old bullies…
Your last comment about “us” supressing freedom is the laughable basis of all liberal progressive platform. “You” -read lefty- take any issue where “we” -read the rest of America – hold a “norm” in the majoraty that you don’t like. You “cry” foul and opression and the courts bow to your “norm” making all the rest of us the bad guys for believing what we always have. “But you were wrong” – you say. The entire thrust of liberal progressive politics is to use the courts to overthrow ANYTHING they – read you – don’t agree with. You my friend are the opressor – history will bear this out when we are but dust. In every facet of life: sex, school, medicine, religion, recreation, work and speech there’s some liberal trying to sue everyone else to get his way – not because he’s right but, because the courts support him – not to mention the lawyers guild.
As Pat Buchanan said it is now the time that homosexual America will do to the American military what it did to the Roman Catholic Church. It is evident that destroying the military had to be one of the primary objectives of our current Marxist government.
The Catholic Church has been destroyed? News to me.
“Gay marriage, benefits for spouses/partners, on-base housing, public displays of affection — these are all issues that the military will have to take a stance on. And while the current status is that gays and lesbians, and their partners, will not be eligible for these benefits, it doesn’t seem likely that they’ll be satisfied with that. How long will it be before they start campaigning for gay marriages to be recognized as well? For their partners to get benefits? To be able to live in base housing? Right now, transgender Americans are still not allowed to serve in the military. How long until they start fighting for that as well?”
Ah yes, the unintended consequences of doing something stupid. Nope, DODT wasn’t good enough for the gays. Nope, they stamped their little feet and yelled and screamed like small children and now we’re all going to have to pay for it. Instead of just keeping your sex life private (which is what it should be), now an entire set of rules and regulations are going to have to be created for these people.
And I can’t wait for all of the sexual harrassment charges to start flooding in. Won’t that be special? And how are you going to prove that the person living with this gay person is really qualified for on-base housing and benefits? Maybe it’s just a lover, or just a person trying to scam the system by saying that they’re gay to get the benefits? Oh, and can’t you just wait until you have all those court martials of gay officers sleeping with gay enlisted personnel? Won’t that be a treat?
DADT should never have been repealed. What’s next, polygamists’ rights?
“Instead of just keeping your sex life private (which is what it should be), now an entire set of rules and regulations are going to have to be created for these people.”
So I take it you support taking away the same benefits from straight people too?
The heterosexual family has been around ever since there have been people. It’s necessary and we can deal with it.
Gay marriage – not so much.
I’m wondering what will happen when a chaplain is asked (or ordered) to perform a same-sex civil union, and this is against the chaplain’s religious beliefs.
This will not end well.
“I’m wondering what will happen when a chaplain is asked (or ordered) to perform a same-sex civil union, and this is against the chaplain’s religious beliefs.”
Depends on the religion the chaplain practices.
Islam? No problem…
Christianity? Burnt at the stake…
You think an Islamic chaplain would have no problem with any sort of same sex union? You do realize that Islam proscribes the death penalty for homosexuality.
>”Islam, no problem”
Are you really enough of a f*cking moron to believe that?! You don’t remember Aquadinnerjacket at a speech in front of a university a couple years ago asked about gays in Iran? “We do not have this thing in Iran”. Yeah, because the F*CKING KILL THEM! Islam is about as tolerant of homosexuality as a pit bull is of a kitten. I honestly didn’t think the average prog was this capable of blind ignorance of truth, but watching how libs and progs turn a blind eye towards the intolerant hatred, abuse, and outright murder of their own domestic allies by this 12th century barbaric religion of Islam in other countries just stuns me speechless. You are a real piece of work.
Falconsword, (and you too, James S.), I’m pretty sure that what Mr. Crawford meant was that, given the state of PC that currently reigns in the military, there would be “no problem” for the Islamic chaplain when he objected to performing such a ceremony. But the Christian chaplain would be (metaphorically, I guess it’s necessary to point out), “burnt at the stake”.
As we used to be allowed to say in the Army, “Get yer heads out”, men.
You got that seriously backwards, dude! Christians may make gays FEEL bad, but a muslim will KILL you!
I see no reason to believe that just because DADT has been repealed that the military will suddenly have to abandon well-established rules that have been in place for the entirety of its existence (officers not allowed to cavort with the enlisted, open PDA, uniforms, short hair cuts, etc.).
Yours is just another case of blowing this whole thing up into something that will never see the light of day.
This could easily lead to the creation of all-homosexual units, specifically to avert the potential problems cited above. Indeed, it might even lead to sex-segregated all-homosexual units. I wonder how homosexual activists would view that development — or the differential frequency with which such units are ordered into harm’s way?
In the Army the watchword was always “Improvise!”, and this might be a good way to salvage something out of a decidedly rum situation. Good lateral thinking, Mr. Porretto.
I remember when they first started pumping women into the military in serious numbers, and the pressure started to allow them into the combat arms. I suggested at the time that if we absolutely had to have women in combat, the only reasonable way to do it would be to have all-female fighting units — kind of neo-Amazon Battalions.
If nothing else, it would be worth it just to see the reaction of the Jihadis as they faced angry phalanxes of angry estrogen-fueled armed screaming mimis.
I wish I could claim credit for the idea, but it’s not originally mine. Have a gander at my friend Tom Kratman’s recent SF novel, The Amazon Legion, and note how he imagined the problem might be handled. (Tom retired from the Army as a Lt. Colonel, and writes some of the best military fiction around.)
Especially if they’ve all got PMS and loaded guns; you know those guys’d just NATURALLY p*$$ off such a unit!
I think when certain sexual behaviors become openly acceptable or championed by a society then it is certain that those who entertain that behavior will have to be considered normal and therefore it would be acceptable for a society’s young to emulate the adults around them as they do with all other adult behaviors they see.
That is one of the reasons I think that homosexual, bisexual and transsexual peoples argue that it is inborn to desire these sexual behaviors so that societies will not become anxious that what they might consider deviant behavior will wear on the fabric of that society.
When we look around at human life, it is certain that we have grown and prospered by the joining of a man and woman to the point where citizens take this fact for granted if they even think about it at all. In fact many homosexual people emulate this family unit and even copy the male female behavior imitating feminine and masculine traits in their relationships. Some even long to become the father/mother and raise children.
Well, whatever the reason we in this country has managed to function under certain Judeo/Christian principles for an amount of time and now I think we are beginning to revert to our behaviors before the time of the awakening. It was bound to happen and unfortunately our generation is seeing an acceleration of this phenomena. It may take many years but it is certainly happening now. We are reverting not progressing, in my opinion.
Yes,we should abolish all but the missionary position. Additionally, copulation should only be allowed with the intent of fertilization. When will people open their eyes.
Shut it, troll. He’s talking about the moral decay of our society. He’s right. We are all Romans now.
For those still serving, remember that you can prefer Article 125 charges against any homosexual who bothers you. Also remember that under Article 134, misprison of a serious offense, you are required to report homosexuals to your chain of command to avoid being charged yourself.
so, what are drill sergeants allowed to do now
one of their main techniques is to isolate and break down the individual then rebuild a cohesive group
is there going to be a bureaucratic p.c. attache with a ipad interrupting every 30 seconds to inform the di of politically incorrect/”illegal” training methods
the problem with the removal of dadt is the inference of “it’s ok to be me” rubbish
if there is anything the military strives to instill is that it is damn well not ok to be yourself– you need to be like everyone else or everyone suffers together
does the military need to form separate units, aka the theban sacred band, comprised of only homosexual couples where competitive bonds between lovers spurred them to great feats
or do we go all in, as the comedian eddie izzard suggests, and have paratroopers drop in on the enemy dressed in drag, heavy make-up, s&m attire, et al
It is a basic objective of the left to destroy the middle-class in America by destroying the core beliefs of the middle-class first. They have used homosexuality to accomplish that, first, by having homosexuality destroy most religions and, then, destroy/weaken marriage.
Next, it is the US military. It is not a question of one or two homosexuals in the military or, even, a percentage roughly equal to their representation in the general population. When the US military is the government sponsored career for homosexuals, they will flock to the military. Now that the priesthood (it attracted homosexuals some of whom preferred children) is no longer a good place to duck, the US military will be.
Remember, the true objective is not to provide a meaningful career for a bunch of deviants, perverts and societal misfits, but to weaken and destroy the US military!
P.S. – How long before we have government imposed targets/quotas mandating the number of tranny officers?
The left lie – people die.
The foolishness of accepting the gay agenda as normal in our culture is like handing down the death sentence to it.
Consider, when a society no longer ‘builds’ it will do only one thing…destroy itself.
This acceptance is a very great loss of discernment. It is the slippery slopes that turn peoples upside down. Wake up and understand.
No good and no blessings come from abject foolishness. The people have nothing to win and absolutely everything to lose. That’s a fact.
In what way does the gay agenda affect a society’s ability to “build”? In what way is the gay agenda (which appears to boil down to the case of asking for parity with straight people) destructive? If one were to draw some sort of a conclusion from your brand of logic here, what is the ultimate fate of the gay community supposed to be?
Everything will go full circle. Whores and gays and deviants will be driven underground again. As they should be. Immoral behavior is frowned on because there is a physical consequence to the behavior – disease. That’s why the rules were given to us in the first place.
The physical consequence of disease does not just apply to some in the gay community who pursue a promiscuous lifestyle; this also applies to straight people who are promiscuous. There is certainly a very large number of them running around. So, that premise is rather flawed. If you want to tackle promiscuity as the issue here, then you have a leg to stand on.
You have a reading and comprehension problem. Homosexuality AND promiscuity are morally reprehensible. The behavior of BOTH causes disease in the body which is why both were deemed unaacceptible eons ago.
You are purposly LOOKING for something to be offended about. Offended people offend me! Where is MY victim check?
Do the world a favor and declare war on that bastardized word, “homophobe.” It is a twisted concept that means ‘fear of the same,’ which is nonsensical.
Trying to untwist it into homosexual thinking means that it is a form of illegal bigotry in that heterosexuals by some politically incorrect impulse fear and discriminate against someone else’s politics of sexual preference. This allows political opinion by sexual preference: more chaos; wait until they have that convention. The word ‘Homophobe” does not allow for opinion as to how straights may react to alternatives. Homorepulso, conveys opinion beyond phile and phobe, yet still is messy.
What’s messy is the case of bigotry. Period. There simply is no excuse for its practice. Not saying that everyone has to approve of the gay condition or the gay lifestyle; but what cannot be allowed is the practice of discrimination against another due to being gay or exercising the gay lifestyle, just as in the case of race, religion, etc.
The problem is that the practice of homosexuality is forbidden by G-d. It is not justifiable from a moral perspective to force people who believe in G-d to approve of homosexual behavior. Homosexuals that demand others condone their behavior are bigots. They do not have the right impose their beliefs on the religious public. Sexuality is, and should be, a private matter. Modesty in all things is good and it is from the lack of modesty that society suffers regardless of the sexuality of the participants. I find the Gay Pride Parade offensive and I find the bumping and grinding of Jennifer Lopez offensive. I think we would all be better off with a little common sense.
It is also a matter of common sense to be able to discern the difference between the mere embrace of a given set of personal beliefs and the nature of discriminatory practices which infringe on the basic human rights & freedoms which many believe are God given. Regardless, the rights are there & they should be respected & honored.
The celebrations have started. Soon you will see military gay pride parades like the ones in San Francisco. They will have their military hats on but be topless and in thongs. The next thing you will see (it probably has already started) are discrimination lawsuits, lawsuits over ‘partners’ rights’ and so on.
Yup – If the Gay Agenda actions in the civilian world are any example, they’ve already got ACLU lawyers lined up and ready to go after any commanding officer who dares try to enforce uniform military discipline and conduct. They’ll call him a “hater” and do what they can to destroy his career.
A very small and clamant minority is the gay agenda. As soon as the majority caves to one demand, there will be a new demand forthwith.
There is another angle to this. In the civilian world, the Leftists have been using the gay issue to punish and silence Christians and Christian speech. They call it “hate” speech because Christians believe homosexuality is wrong. They ban the boy scouts from using public property calling them a “hate” group for not letting gay scoutmasters take impressionable young boys out for sleepovers. They have no regard for the 1st Amendment principle that we may speak what we believe regardless of whether others are “offended” – unless they use it as a shield for Leftist or Gay “free speech” that is certainly offensive to many Americans.
This is yet another angle for the Left to drive Christianity and traditional American values out of society. They have inserted their spear point into the military and can now start twisting it to draw blood. In standard Communist fashion, they will attack Christians wherever they can.
Why do Leftists try to eliminate Christianity in particular? Let one of them explain it…
“We hate Christians and Christianity. Even the best of them must be considered our worst enemies. They preach love of one’s neighbor and mercy, which is contrary to our principles. Christian love is an obstacle to the development of the Revolution. Down with love of our neighbor! What we want is hate… Only then can we conquer the universe.” – Anatole Lunarcharsky, Russian Commissar of Education
“There seems to be a kind of obsession among the gay Left to constantly celebrate their sexuality.” Absolutely agree with that.
Pushing poop is not Honorable, and those who enjoy it have a reprobate mind. They should never be in a position of leadership, as their moral compass is New Age.
The New Age agenda is all about no morality. It is an attack on G-d’s laws, and placing man above the Creator. Pushing poop is but one part of the full court press by the New Age agenda to destroy morality. Just like during the time of Noah.
I think part of the problem is that too many people involved on all sides of this issue fundamentally misunderstnad how the military works. Fear of men making out in formation, unauthorized hair or makeup (because ALL gays wear makeup and have faaaabulous hair – except the bull dykes, right?)and the oft-cited “shower rape” are things that the miltary strongly prohibits now – straight, gay or celibate. For those of you in or around the military talking about this stuff…shame on you!
I’m an Army NCO well into my second decade of service. I love the Army and all it’s given me. One of the foundational principles of my Army is discipline…it’s what we instill in soldiers from day one. All of the above examples of soldiers rampantly “being gay at you” are discipline issues, not gay ones. PDA? Leaders correct it. Unauthorized wear or appearance of uniform? DA 4856, corrective training. Sexual harrassment/assault? Seems when I went to EO school, it was illegal no matter what gender combination was involved…
Some of you don’t like being around gays…I get it. Some in the military don’t like being around blacks or Hispanics. Do we realign the billets for their sake based solely on that? Do we purposely avoid bunking a Muslim with a Jew in the 2+2′s? No, we assume discipline will take care of it, then react if there is a problem.
Are gay marriage and partner benefits issues that the military will have to deal with? Probably, but most likely in the larger context of sicety dealing with them. Is the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell a stepping stone to rainbow ACU’s? No…it’s about being able to go on a date and not lose your job. That simple…
Well said, Soldier. Albeit I have never been in the military, I have close family members who have. As a result, I have come to understand how the nature of discipline in the military works. NTS, it will take care of any & all problems others have cited above with regard to the issue of gays serving openly.
Yea, I get it, pretend everything is peachy inside your military fence while right outside the world rages ready to take a young persons money and his/her morality. Do you think I’m stupid?
Sorry bub, can’t separate the man/woman from the country they defend.
and…stop trying to pretend that the military isn’t a reflection of the society it serves as if you can separate the two. Discipline when their is nothing left to bring order to such as the difference between right and wrong, healthy behavior both private and public, and good morals, only leaves chaos and confusion. Everyone with common sense knows what is outside the bases ready to pounce. It’s a whole industry that knows the vulnerability of the young which the military depends on needs and uses to their advantage.
It is entirely proper for citizens in this country to comment on momentous decisions made by the military and government that will resound in civilians lives both as adults but more especially the children they raise and hope will become good moral adults. This decision by the military certainly puts into question the moral standing of the military.
You may say that homosexuality is a right choice for your soldiers or that homosexuality is something that a person is and not learned or acquired, but I question this supposition and have learned of many children that are lead into lives of immorality and despair because the adults around them have no compass that points to right and wrong but only spins and spins.
“This decision by the military certainly puts into question the moral standing of the military.”
Ma’am, to be blunt…we have no moral standing. Morals come from your community and your family and a number of soldiers expand or change their morals due to the military community, but as an organization, we have no morals.
We have values – Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage- and ethos – I will never quit, I will never leave a fallen comrade, ect. – and none of them seem to say anything about “I will never fall in love with someone that Lynn wouldn’t like”
Moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
Umm…the military is not involved in the above, interesting and causes me to question whether you are indeed a soldier, or worse involved in training young people to serve this country.
Question away…I don’t rightly care too much..
And to self-correct, the Army value of Integrity is defined as “Do what is right, legally and morally” However…you’re speaking of socio-religious morals…the Army is concerned with operational laws and morality. Don’t commit war crimes, don’t take advantage of your position, don’t steal, stuff like that.
The Army is NOT a place where we teach you that premarital sex is bad or that you shouldn’t go to strip clubs and that sex while standing is sinful as it might lead to dancing…
Bottom line, you’re trying to make God’s law a military policy. It isn’t, it never will be, and it never should be. We’re too busy to figure out which of the 100′s of religious texts out there are the right ones…quit pretending you care about us to justify your prejudices…
If Jesus wants to be in the Army, I’ll put him in touch with my recruiter..but he’ll have to cut that hair…
Above we have the opinions of various men and women.
How about God’s view of the subject?
ICor.6.9-10: Those who perform homosexual acts will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. That only leaves one place for them to go, Rev.21.8, the Lake of Fire; for eternity.
How can we love someone and abandon them to eternal punishment? So, how can we condone their commission of homosexual sins which necessarily commit them to such punishment?
Folks, if we really do love our perverted ones we must do all we can to obstruct and dissuade them from self destruction.
God is neither a member of Congress nor the Joint Chiefs…therefore he doesn’t make policy…
and yet they pray to G-d every session pleading to live under His blessing…funny that…
Show me ANY legal document in this country that makes a religious law the law of the land…
“Founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic” does NOT mean that the letter of the Lord is the letter of the law…and that is as it should be…
Hmm…that must be why military chaplains are really not necessary for a functioning disciplined organizations such as you claim to be in. Perhaps the solemn ceremonies of prayer before and after battles, and to mourn lost souls is offensive to you.
Next you can cement over the figures decorating the outside of the Supreme Court since you think that the laws of man are sufficient to function on this earth. You might also consider removing the words Creator from the Declaration of Independence since a man’s worth is surely safe in the hands of another man.
The more you write the more transparent you are and perhaps not worthy to teach the young what is best for their health and welfare.
Chaplains are needed to look after the spiritual wellness of soldiers…IF those soldiers feel it’s important to them. The fact that we have Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist and Sikh chaplains are clearly indicative of the military endorsing “Lynnianity” as the state religion. I’ve gone to chaplains a few times in my career because they also tend to be first-rate secular counselors and are bound by clergy’s oaths of confidentiality. My favorite chaplain was a Reform Jewish rabbi…
Solemn ceremonies of prayer before battle? Maybe during the Crusades…unfortunately, the battles I’ve been in tend to spring up unannounced, without leaving time for high mass and communion…we generally each just mumbled out some form of “Dear God help me get my guys through this” in our own ways…or some us didn’t, and that’s fine too…
The statuary outside the Supreme Court? The wording of the Declaration of Independence? That is our history, that is where we came from…but it doesn’t mean we must or should stay there. Some of God’s natural law inspired the Deists that lead the revolution to structure our society the way they did…so that the laws of man would be the final word…
I don’t care if you trust me to train young soldiers. The Army does, and has for some time. I don’t know what transparency you’re implying, but I question greatly your understanding of our military…my job as an NCO is to teach soldiers how to improve their marksmanship, properly file a section/platoon workplan, perform the 8 troop leading procedures and install an AN/TSC-185 STT…I don’t teach them about Jaysus or Buddha, I don’t teach them that bj’s are an abomination and I also don’t teach them to eat with a fork or color inside the lines. That is all for them to suss out on their own…in their own way, for their own reasons…
Lynn, I am not sure who “A Soldier” really is, but he is certainly not a Marine.
“Lynn, I am not sure who “A Soldier” really is, but he is certainly not a Marine.”
Well, mentioning that I’m an Army NCO MULTIPLE times is probably a big hint that I’m not a Marine…but what’s your reasoning otherwise, that I DARE disagree with you?
The Founders were not Deists. They were almost all devout Christians. You need to go back and read the original sources. Christian belief was part of the ideological beliefs that drove the American Revolution, which George III once referred to as the Presbyterian Revolution. Read George Washington’s writings on religion. He had the same belief in a living God active in history that Abraham Lincoln had and expressed in the Second Inaugural. And no thank you, I do not care to see America become a secular socialist state.
“A Soldier,” you are better at it than Ragnar and Anonymous. But your posts do show you to be a left wing “progressive.”
I am neither left wing nor progressive, I’m an Enlightenment classical liberal…just like those who inspired our founding fathers…but I’m also not a hidebound God-bothering Old Testament fanatic…
You hide behind a blanket of concern for the monolith know as “the troops” to further your agenda of Biblical law. You amazingly insist that ouyr choesive and well-disciplined troops, who have a track record of DECADES of overcoming differences to work together, can’t overcome one more?
Tell me exactly HOW – in detail, not generalizations – A good, hard-working soldier being in a relationship with someone of the same gender affects military rteadiness? Is the military so fragile and sensitive that something so insignificant to most of them can bring it crashing down? I don’t know when or if you served, but I have a feeling it was a while ago…
Leviticus will never be part of Title 10, United States Code. Jesus can be your rod, your staff, your comfort in dark time, he can your homeboy and your co-pilot…but he can’t be President, so quit trying…
And maybe…just maybe…skip ahead a few chapters in your King James to read the RED words…y’know, the stuff the Jewish carpenter acutally said…lot in there aobut love and gorgiveness and a new covenant…not so much about sodomites and stonings…
People forget that…
1. The rule in the American military going back to George Washington’s Army was to forbid homosexuality as one measure to maintain discipline and unit cohesion. For anyone to argue, self-righteously, that there is no rationale forbidding gays in the military is ignoring, dumbly, what has been the reason for centuries for the rule and substituting civilian libertine values.
2. You will see in the first chapter of Romans in the New Testament, Paul’s denunciation of homosexuality as part of a corrupt mind and corrupt living. In traditional Jewish society homosexuality was harshly condemned. Leviticus treated homosexuality the same as bestiality and incest. Paul was expressing that same traditional morality as part of Christian thought. Jesus did not expressly address homosexuality, but he did not address bestiality and incest either. These things were beyond the pale. Notably, Jesus did teach rather strictly about the sanctity of marriage. So no one can look to the teachings in the New Testament about love, forgiveness and mercy and say that there is a license to homosexuality.
…and there we have it…you are opposed to homosexuality on religious/moral grounds…so it’s not so much your opinion I’m objecting to, it’s the entire premise of your argument. I don’t care what the Bible says, quite honestly. Nor the Torah, the Talmud, the Koran, the Haditha, the Rig Vedas or the damn Norse sagas…I reject UTTERLY the concept of religious law as civil law.
Quit pretending you care about discipline, or the troops. All you care about is getting your way, as told to you by your cult. Yes, America was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic…but ethics are not laws..and George Washington, being a great man, knew that the world would change and move on…and so gave us a government that could adapt with the times.
We don’t know what ewffect it’ll have, and won’t know for years. You seem to think that all-important discipline seems to break down at the mere glimpse of a rainbow…I think our soldiers are professional enough and mature enough to drive on with mission.
America was conceived as a land were all could live in freedom…not cower in fear on some arbitrary religious judgement based on the poorly unerstood words of men long dead…
So…I guess I just reject YOU, and most everything you stand for…
This is not going to end well.
Military personnel, especially combat arms, live in a condition of physical and emotional intimacy that is very different from anything in civilian life. That intimacy underlays the unit cohesion which sustains them in battle or under harsh conditions. But that intimacy, and the cohesion, can be fatally disrupted if sexual attraction gets mixed in.
That’s not possible if units include people who are sexually attractive to each other. The presence of women has often led to such disruption. That damage has been limited by two factors: women are excluded from combat arms (where emotional intimacy is strongest), and men and women do not share living quarters or bathing facilities (which reduces physical intimacy).
With the introduction of overt homosexuals to the services, those factors will go away. Most armed service personnel are in their late teens or early 20s; they have powerful sexual drives, and are still learning to control those drives. Keeping those powerful drives separate from the powerful emotions created by battle comradeship will not be easy when there is no explicit prohibition. And strong sexual drives and forced intimacy is a receipe for sexual impropriety (not continual, but more than occasional).
Also “harassment”, among homosexuals. Homosexuals will, inevitably share living quarters and bathing facilities with one another. This will have the same result as if men and women were so mixed: the most attractive will be subject to continual ogling and sexual approaches.
The impartiality and integrity of officers and sergeants will be compromised by sexual tensions.
All this is alas inevitable, I fear.
When I was in Kuwait getting ready to roll north, I lived in a huge tent with my platoon and most of our HQ platoon…out of 90 joes, about 30 of them were janes. Males and females, living and sleeping right next to each other for almost a month…and we remarkably had no issues. It seems the Army has something called leadership that exists partly to keep young soldiers from doing stupid things.
No matter who you are or what gender you are or who you’re hitting on, the military has pages upon pages of doctrine to deal with unwanted sexual advances…really, we’ve thought of this stuff far in advance…
Two of the more disturbing ideas brought forth in this debate are (1)the “outsiders” assuming that no leader is boinking a subordinate NOW, hetero or homo, cuz let me tell you..we discipline HUNDREDS every year for fraternization and (2) this absurd fear that homosexuals are these ravening sex beasts who can’t control themselves. In your world view, you’d mark a map of the shower “There Be Gays” and never go in there…
Silly!
To say that exposing young people to behavior that can be detrimental to their health both physical and mental is nothing to be concerned about or in fact “silly” is hogwash. You will not be able to separate yourself from what will go on on the other side of the fence especially now that your organization has condoned the behavior as appropriate.
“You will not be able to separate yourself from what will go on on the other side of the fence”
My reaction to a lot of what you’ve written is “What the hell are you talking about”
My reaction to the rest? Where exactly is this fence you keep mentioning?
From: A Soldier
“If Jesus wants to be in the Army, I’ll put him in touch with my recruiter..but he’ll have to cut that hair…”
Interesting, Jesus as a Roman soldier…yet it seems that the Roman soldiers did not want Jesus. Then again what better way to hold onto power then to recruit Jesus for the whole empire, after the fact that is…what better way to earn the title Holy Roman Empire…so…
You’re right it seems, and it may be time that Jesus is discharged from the military with a “General” discharge RE coded as “for the good of the service”. Done. Mission accomplished.
This doesn’t even make sense…
From: A Soldier
“…I don’t teach them about Jaysus”
Jaysus…
you give yourself away…
???
It’s a satyrical spelling of Jesus that I have used for years to mock the Swaggart/Baker/Haggard types that preach one life and live another…
What are you implying, good non-judgemental soldier of God that you are?
As someone who is gay and leans conservative, it’s disheartening to read this article and the replies to it by social conservatives. In early 2009, when the Tea Party movement began, I thought that finally an ideology had been introduced to our country that was truly representative of the American people: progressive/libertarian in it’s inclusiveness but conservative in it’s belief of limited government. 31% of the gay population voted Republican in the 2010 elections, so I wasn’t alone. However, we seem to have been duped. Social conservatives are to the Republican party as the Maoists are to the Democratic party. Fox Cable News and conservative bloggers helped to shine a light on the nefarious intentions of many within the Democratic Party. However, FCN, and many conservative bloggers don’t seem to have the same level of honesty when it comes to policing certain elements on the Right. Both Haley Barbour and Mitch Daniels warned the Republicans against becoming bogged down in social issues. They don’t seem to have heard them. So far, in 2011, just barely gearing up for 2012, Republican presidential candidates were arm wrestled to sign “The Marriage Vow: A declaration of dependence on marriage and family”. One it’s bullet points states that the candidate affirms that he or she believes that homosexuality is a choice. Last year this same group helped to remove three judges from their state supreme court bench for having voted in favor of gay civil unions. This year the majority Republican Congress tried to block the repeal of DADT. At this past Thursday’s Florida Republican debate a gay soldier who had recently served in Iraq was booed when he asked a question of one of the candidates. The candidate’s inappropriate response was cheered by the hostile crowd. The candidate later apologized, but, based on this candidate’s demagoguing of issues, I believe he was insincere. The ire of social conservatives is disproportionated aimed at gays. We’re estimated to be 1.5 to 6% of the population. I can imagine what you are told in your churches to create such hatred of people most of you have never met or worked with. Outside of work and family gays don’t associate much with straight people. Not sure how we could be responsible for heterosexual moral decline. Shouldn’t you look at yourselves. Maybe it’s your pornography that floods the Internet and our email accounts. Or maybe it was your hippy revolution of the late 60s that wasn’t very inclusive of gays btw. Or maybe it’s your letting your daughters go out on dates when they’re teenagers even though you know what how convincing and influential teenage boys are. And you know the latest trends among heterosexual Christian teens who believe they can maintain their sexual purity by instead having oral and anal sex. Maybe that’s why you straight people are in moral decline. And you’re not suspicious of those who demagogue, whether it be your preachers or your politicians, at all. to the author of this article, yes all those benefits of being in the military will eventually have to be hammered out. Why? Because those who are protecting your asses are human beings. And yes, homosexuals are human beings also. Despite what your preacher told you. The kind of men and women who join the military are a different breed of people. That’s the truth. But, especially if you go in for the long term, you still get to have a life. Since many of you don’t view gays as human beings, I’m sure you think it’s ok that we would serve to protect this country and be treated like doormats because a large percentage of the population doesn’t agree that we’re human beings so how dare we ask for benefits so that we can have the same quality of life that our straight counterparts take for granted. No, it’s not a right to join the military. But, if a person physically and mentally qualifies, why, in a modern country, are you ruling gay men out. The only conclusion I come to is that you’re accomadating the prejudices of others. Is that really a basis on which an American institution should apply qualification?!
Ex-leftist, the purpose of DADT was to allow gays to serve, but for the sake of military discipline and unit cohesion, to keep their sexuality to themselves. In your long post, you don’t concern yourself with what the military needs.
Fail whale helped you write this post.
I was an AFROTC finalist, scored a 98% on NAVY testing, volunteered 3 times for the Army National Guard, passed CIA entrance investigation with top marks, and was talking to Congressman Armey’s staff about a rec to the AF Academy.
There was one last question for me before DADT that they all asked. Not, are you gay. Have you had anal intercourse with another man.
Keep private?
My two Marine brothers, my sister (NCO of the year for the 7th Army)?
Me? Gay as all hell and proud of it. I didn’t volunteer any information about my sex life. I was asked specifically and directly to explain how many times. Whether it was passive or active anal sex with a man.
Now. I’m running for President of the United States, helping coordinate the freedom movements around the globe, tracking satellites, finding criminals, fighting a nasty Hollywood cult all caught up in drugs and infiltrating the government. There have been attempts on my life multiple times.
But, because of your post’s descriptive deception, I am doing this as a private citizen.
I would just rather you write a post with the headline “to the gayest conservative republican, Jeff Barea” and the body simply say “Thank you.”
Oh, and TL%DR. Expect us.
One final, fascinating observation about all of this. When Clinton enacted DADT 20 years ago, we were all told it was the end of the military as we knew it, because the army would now be overrun with gays, they’d undermine morale, and destroy the organization. Why is it now that DADT is *defended* by those same people as the only salvation of the military? If gays being allowed to serve in the military is so bad, then why aren’t you guys arguing for a return to the total ban on homosexuality in a military environment? The answer, of course, is that what’s going on now is a mere rear-guard action, the last screeches of despair of a group who’s already lost the argument, and been proven wrong to boot. The army isn’t going to disintegrate when homosexuals serve openly; on the contrary, it’ll probably be stronger, because it’ll be more focused on fighting and less concerned with extraneous perceptions of reality. Really, do you think this ever mattered that much?
Mr. Nicholas, the concern back when DADT was promulgated during the Clinton years was that the push by gay activists would not stop with accepting DADT, but go on to demands that gays be allowed to serve openly. That concern has now materialized during the Obama years. Gone are the restrictions that still existed in DADT.
Because you, Mr. Nicholas, have not a clue about the needs for military unit morale and cohesion and for military discipline, particularly in combat units, you are not in a position to say that allowing gays to serve openly in the military will work.
Those of us who opposed repeal of DADT did not lose the argument. What we have said has been ignored; political correctness has reigned.
I’m not quite sure you understand discipline as well as you claim…
As soldiers, we follow policy whether we like it or not. No matter what you THINK about the repeal, it has happened, and it will be followed. Discipline is what lets you run into fire to rescue someone you may not even like. Discipline is what lets you fight effectively next to someone you’d wouldn’t give the time of day to in the civillian worlds. Discipline is what takes over when cohesion is strained.
I do understand discipline, and you have described discipline adequately in your last post. But what we have been debating is whether repeal of DADT was wise or not. I think not, and one reason is the long term effects on maintenance of discipline. For right now, DADT is repealed, and discipline does require dealing with acceptance of gays who are openly gay in the military ranks. Marine General Amos, who testified persusively against repeal of DADT, has said that the military will obey. But what will be the effects of that new policy? If the consequences are adverse, as predicted by those who opposed repeal of DADT, then your discussion about discipline is non-responsive.
So a group of soldiers are sitting around a keg of Icehouse (privates are perennially broke and drink cheap beer) One lets slip into the conversation his Jewish upbringing…PVT Snuffy jumps up in disgust and says “I can’t work with Hebes” Who is the discipline problem and who will get counseled?
Same group…soldier lets slip that he went on a date with another man over the weekend…PVT Snuffy jumps up in disgust and says “I can’t work with f–s” and you’re telling me that the gay soldier is the one disrupting discipline and cohesion?
It’s NOT about gay pride parades on post, or the showers or any of that…it’s about a good soldier not getting discharged because his squad leader saw him out with his same-sex partner…why can’t you get that?
What I get is that you, A Soldier, are mistaken in thinking that allowing for gays to be open about it will not have adverse effects on discipline and unit cohesion. You want to ignore the reason for a rule that had gone back to George Washington’s Army. DADT was an effort to allow gays to serve consistent with military needs. You want to focus on a hypothetical individual case, but without consideration of the real overall effects of repealing DADT in terms of how that will impact military practices and personnel and without consideration of the point that under DADT a “good” gay soldier, knowing the rule, will abide by it.
Phil Byler. Before I posted I had several years experience of knowing members of the military personally. My father retired from the Air Force when I was 13 and then worked in military civilian jobs. I worked with members of the military as well before I left Panama in 1995. I knew gay members of the military and dated a master sargent in the Air Force. We went to get togethers with some of his straight coworkers/friends. When you’re around people in the military you grow to understand why they can, in 2011, assimilate the repeal of DADT. I work closely with an ex-Army man (straight). A non-sexual bond can form between gay and straight men as well. My nephew just got back from Afghanistan in April of this year. He has said, without me bringing it up, that the repeal of DADT is a non-issue for him and his co-workers. You go after gay men because you can. You must remain silent about other minority groups who cause far more damage.
Ex-Leftist, when I challenged you about dealing with military needs, such as for unit cohesion and discipline, you instead “respond” by referring to people in the military you have known and on that basis, you say you understand why assimilating DADT won’t be a problem. Sorry, but I think that you are not being truly responsive and that you do not really understand.
Marine General James Amos had it right when he testified before Congress last December against repeal of DADT.
If hacking off qualifies me as a gay soldier, sign me up and give me my benefits.
Do you know how many times I was in a fox hole and wanted my pp played with while I was on guard duty?
If I wasn’t so old I’d re-enlist just for that.
What a way to go! (Yea; I know. That’s what they all are saying now).
Reading through the many comments several themes are evident:
1) Military veterans know their UCMJ; armchair liberals do not.
2) Those same armchair liberals rely on a meager handful of cliches and, as always, reach for the B word – bigot – when their arguments are inevitably shot full of holes (to use a military metaphor) and they run the risk of having to defend their position (to use another metaphor). They seem unable to comprehend that the military is not civilian society and vice versa.
The armed forces have the most serious and important job imaginable. If they wanted only right-handed members (genetics) or members who spoke a second language (behavior) I wouldn’t think of contradicting them. But, as usual, the ‘enlightened ones’ who tell us how to think, eat, act, work, recreate, worsip etc. are suddenly experts on military operations!
In case you forgot. This is not Rome nor is it Sparta. This is these United States of America.
No matter what you think, the military is under CIVILIAN control. Not the other way around.
If a Marine General disagrees with the civilian President. Guess who wins? Don’t like it then run for President like my gay ass is doing. Or you can be an armchair liberal who just likes to be thought of as conservative cuz it’s where the cool kids hang out.
Para 1: straw man
Para 2: another straw man (I sense a pattern)
Para 3: A self-referential non sequitur
Don’t quit now – you’re halfway to hitting for the cycle in terms of nonsense.
Mr. Byler. You’ve sat back for over 40 years and allowed everything to be corrupted by race. There has been more than one violent incident of Muslim Jihad WITHIN OUR RANKS since 2003! And your big concern is that cohesion would be negatively impacted by gays serving openly in the military. The general you referenced failed to stand up, even after Ft. Hood, and share his views on “the wisdom” of allowing Muslims to serve in the military. That would seem to invalidate his professional opinion since it has been corrupted by political correctness. We’ve enlisted the enemy and promoted the unqualified within our ranks. It has proven to be deadly. Islam allows for its practitioners to deceive their sworn enemy. That’s us. The Kafirs. Their religion doesn’t allow for them to serve our government. Yet, your general, in his “wisdom”, believes it’s ok for them, to serve alongside our troops. A bad idea in peace time. Suicide during war time. Harvard has told you you can’t say anything against the religion of peace and you’ve kicked your heels and saluted. Your general is too far removed from the average soldier/marine to understand what they can deal with or not. He seems to be beholden to other concerns. Not with enlisting the best qualified to serve.
Ex-leftist: the political correctness that shuns recognition of the threat of radical Islam and that shies away from pointing to the radical Islamic beliefs of the Fort Hood shooter is idiotic. The politically correct general to whom you refer, however, was not Marine General Amos. It was Army General Casey.
The reason for the political correctness, however, is not because the military is voluntarily adopting it. The political correctness stems from the political environment. The Obama Administration and the Democratic Party left wing are the source.
But having established the lack of wisdom in the political correctness concerning radical Islam, what does that have to do with the unwisdom in repealing DADT?
Part of the point, at least to me, is this: if Maj Nidal Hassan were gay, he almost certainly wouldn’t be the Ft Hood shooter, and he’d probably still be an Army officer. As I said earlier, gay Arabs are an untapped resource here; getting them into uniform and serving as linguists is a very very good idea. Catering to your prejudices and caving into your fears isn’t. Just because you *fear* something will happen (with no evidence to back up your assertion) isn’t any reason for the rest of us, for the whole damn country, to change the rules. No, there is no “right” to serve in the military; it’s a duty, like jury service. It’s part of the cost of being a citizen. As far as I’m concerned, our gay population, through the attitude of you and your friends, has kept the country from utilizing this portion of the population. Any other ways you’d like to hamstring us?
I think you are using terms you don’t understand fully.
Political Correctness.
Politically Correct.
Correct Politically.
Sure, me and my GOP magic message buddies made that seem like a dirty librul word, but it’s just sad to see someone who thinks he’s conservative fall for the marketing games we played. Shows me how involved in researching and understanding sound bites.
Well, Political Correctness doesn’t mean everything being called that is politically correct. Let me be proactive and explain that the Moon is up in the sky and Mooning is what you do with your naked butt.
Try looking for the truth before you pull down your pants and show what you think out of.
Sorry, I garbled the last sentence. I need to proofread what I write before I post it. You and your friends have kept us from utilizing part of our society completely. It’s not just about the gay population, it’s about the rest of the army; having them serve in the ranks will probably make them *more* efficient rather than less.
Mr. Nicholas, the problem with your argument was not typos but coherence.
The rule against gays serving in the military goes back to George Washington’s Army. Homosexuality has been viewed as undermining unit cohesion and morale and and as counterproductive to maintenance of discipline. Homosexuality has also been viewed as immoral, sinful behavior condemned by traditional Judean-Christian morality.
You now come with your 21st century libertine civilian “values” and say what’s the problem, you are just being afraid, that gays are an untapped resource. Baloney. You could have served under DADT. But the facts that you do not want to conform your behavior to military needs, that you show no appreciation whatsoever for the needs for military unit cohesion, morale and discipline and that you just must be open about being gay and require the military to conform to your lifestyle establish that you are not concerned about the American military — the greatest military in the world and in world history. Rather, you are concerned with furthering a left wing “progressive” political agenda aimed at undermining specifically the American military as a reservoir of traditional values, undermining generally traditional Judean-Christian moral values in society and mainstreaming what has traditionally been considered a deviant life style.
“as a reservoir of traditional values”
Is not, and never has been…the military is an institution of war, not a Sunday school. We concern ourselves with the defense of this nation and her interests, and that’s about it…
Plus, we tend to be hell-raisers until we reach our mid-20′s…just the way it is…
Baloney. No one is talking about Sunday school. We are talking basic beliefs. Even the hell raisers are holders of traditional values.
Yep…the traditional values of getting hammered to the bejeezus and chasing women…or men…soldiers living their “traditional values” are what make Safety Breifing Friday such a laugh…
I can’t believe I’m having to say this. My wife is going to do a spit-take when she hears about it. I’m not gay, you —- (I shouldn’t argue when I’m angry, it leads to bad things), I’m straight. I’m also not pushing a left wing or progressive agenda. I happen to be pretty conservative on a lot of things (like the size of government and the tax rate, not to mention abortion). While you keep arguing your Judeo-Christian argument as if it were clearly correct, and only us Commie-Pinko bastards believed it outdated, you haven’t answered my question yet. Why the hell would we want to keep Muslims or Arabs who are *gay* out of the military? It’s the functional equivalent of not enlisting German Jews in World War II, because we were anti-Semitic. Yes, I know that Judaism is a genetic thing, while being gay is perhaps more subjective, but *SO WHAT*????? That doesn’t change my main point, which is that linguists who are valuable to the military shouldn’t be rejected for service because of things that are *COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT* to the central issue of whether they can serve in the military.
I just deleted a bunch of name-calling I wrote here a minute ago. You guys need to get lives, and start worrying about important things, instead of who’s sleeping with whom, down the block or in the local army base. It’s none of your business, and we’ve got actual crises, important things to worry about. Seriously, the country’s on economic fire, and the President’s hoping and praying you idio—people make this an issue. It distracts from important stuff like whether we take out multi-trillion-dollar loans we can’t repay from the Chinese, whom we don’t trust. Don’t try and tell me this is part of the meltdown–this is the dog-and-pony show to keep you guys occupied (and looking stupid, which isn’t very hard frankly) while the President gets reelected and digs us deeper into the financial hole he seems to feel we should be in. Sheesh…the old line about trying to reason with cats comes to mind.
Mr. Nicholas, if you would set aside your self-righteous preaching and read my posts in repsonse to you, you will see that despite my urging, you do not address the military needs of unit cohesion, morale and discipline and the history of why gays were banned going back to George Washington’s Army. I suppose you really can’t because you don’t know the military. You are under the illusion that you can preach your theoretical points based on your civilian values and that decides the matter.
News flash: gay activists are now pushing the military to allow for transsexuals and cross-dressers to serve openly. Please, you are kdding yourself if you don’t understand that this is all about an assault on the military from left wing activists.
Mr Byler, answer two simple questions…two tiny little answers that you’ve been dodging…
1. WHEN DID YOU SERVE??
2. Should a good soldier be discharged just because he was seen in his off-duty hours on a date with someone of the same gender?
Time to man up, buckaroo…
The Gay Seduction of 10 Year Olds
Some things are better left unsaid and unelucidated. Among them are details on which Hollywood starlet is sleeping with which director, why Ashton Kutcher married Demi Moore–and sensationalized tripe on the sex lives of 10 year old girls.
The Gay Lobby, however, wants everything elucidated and out there when it comes to what segment of the population it is in process of seducing lately in hopes that more kids will do it, try it, because, as per the newest homosexual catchphrase, “It gets better.”
(See http://bit.ly/oOGDIl for further information on the import of how life allegedly “gets better” for youngsters who are hit on by gay adult predators– as told from the vantage point of degenerate homosexual activist, Dan Savage.)
Now 10 year old tomboyish girls come to the realization, at least in the unhinged perceptions of some film writers and producers, that “it gets better.” And thus we have the multi-award-winning “Tomboys,” a French film by Parisian Celine Sciamma.
Dispense with the antiquated idea that tomboys are only young girls who reject dolls and frilly dresses in favor of footballs and dirt encrusted Levis which, nowadays, isn’t all that unusual anyway. Based on the trailers, Sciamma’s movie incorporates scenes of similar, innocuous gender-blending but merely as background for more salacious content.
Sciamma also features in her seamy yet critically-acclaimed cinematic excursion into predatory child exploitation is the story of a confused, re-located child who finds comfort and sexual release in lesbianism and a self-constructed Play-Doh dildo.
A convicted serial deviate couldn’t make this stuff up! . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5579.)
“. . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”
– Benjamin Franklin
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.”
– James Madison
“The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.”
– John Adams
“I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.”
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law.”
“No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever.”
– Thomas Jefferson
“What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith.”
– Thomas Paine
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,…”
– Treaty of Tripoli, Article XI, 1791
Ain’t history a mofo?
Stringing a few quotations is not history.
Benjamin Fanklin may have been a deist among the Founders, but he was an exception among the 50+ signers of the Declaration of Independence who were almost all traditional Christians.
The quotation by James Madison is not a disavowal of traditional Christianity to which he in fact subscribed. He with Jefferson supported dis-establishment to protect freedom of religious belief, not as an attack on religious belief. The objection was to state forced support of religious belief.
The quotation ascribed to John Adams is questionable, although his religious views were framed by the Congregational Church. Adams was a Christian of the New Englander type who didn’t like mysticism.
Thomas Jefferson’s belief in taxpayers not being forced to support a religious establishment was not Deism; he viewed Christianity as a spendid moral code, although his personal religious views were among the more unorthodox among the Founders.
Thomas Paine was a non-believer, but he was not an American Founder and his non-belief was an exception in the time.
The quoted treaty language was a sop to the Muslims (which did not work) and did not reflect the essential nature of the country. One can go through a long list of contrary statements which caused the U.S. Supreme Court in the 19th century to declare that America was indeed a Christian nation.
George Washington’s writings reflected very much a traditional Christianity and a belief in a living God of history whjo had made the success of the American Revolution possible. In terms of mainstream American belief, Washington expressed it.
“Thomas Paine was a non-believer, but he was not an American Founder”
Nope, not a founder at all…had nothing to do with the poilitical fabric of a new nation…
I do think, sir, that it is time to tell you to take your Bible and shove it…well, somewhere that would violate Leviticus. How it’ll fit with your head already in there is not for me to say…
No, Thomas Paine was not a Founder — an important person in the American Revolution, yes, but not a Founder. He did not participate at either the Congress that issued the Declaration of Independence or the convention that resulted in the U.S. Constitution.
“A Soldier,” you have atypical views if you are what you say you are — a veteran of the Iraq War. I was not in the Iraq War or Afghan War, but my two inantry platoon commander sons were. Bible believing Christians both, but you could not have kept up with them weither in a bar or in the field.
Just can’t bring yourself to admit you’ve never been in the military, can you counselor? Talk about being non-responsive! Tell me, did you submit your draft exemption paperwork for educational deferment up at Hahvahd, or did you just check the box marked “sunshine soldier/summer patriot?”
You’ve questioned my service and the service of another veteran during this conversation while holding yourself up as someone knowledgeable about the social and professional dynamics of a military unit when in fact you’ve never spent a day of your life in the service of this great nation, and then justify your opinions by riding the coattails of your sons, who are far better and braver men than you will ever be…
Tell me, is your arch-conservative an overresponse to your draft dodger guilt?
And as for your sons…never met ‘em, don’t know ‘em, but I damn sure know that their careers COMBINED don’t equal my time in service…I don’t have to keep up with them, I’m a non-commissioned officer…they had BETTER keep up with me…
You, quite frankly, disgust me and I’m done with you. You have no place at this table, counselor. You may be a demon in the courtroom, but you’re just a goat here, building a flimsy argument on a tenuous connection to the military and a load of oogie boogie that you read in a book that you don’t even know was translated properly. You have nothing to contribute of substance, in the terms of this debate you ARE nothing but a petulant child trying to get your own way…
School Gays Are Bustin’ Out All Over!
I bet you thought June was “Gay Pride Month.” Well, it is, as declared by President Barack Hussein Obama originally in 2009 and re-dedicated as such in 2010 and 2011. But June is hardly the only “gay month” and should be distinguished from ”LGBT History Month,” which was first celebrated in 1994.
June was chosen as Gay Pride Month since the homosexual ascendancy in the United States began in June, 1969 with the Stonewall riots. October was selected as LGBT History Month because “National Coming Out Day” falls on October 11th and the first gay march on Washington occurred in October, 1979.
Got all that? If not, try to keep up, okay!
Union High School special ed teacher Vicki Knox couldn’t have forgotten the gay significance of October since school signs posters declaring this month ”Lesbian Gay Bi Transgender History Month” reminded her every day.
Mrs. Knox, a devout Christian, made the mistake of foolishly exercising her First Amendment right of free speech regarding her views on the evils of homosexuality on a very public venue, Facebook, and was suspended by Union High and may lose her job because of alleged homophobia.
Knox’s comments may not have provoked retaliation as much as the growing Facebook comment thread although she apparently did get more strident in expressing her unforgivable beliefs that, as she said, ”Homosexuality is a perverted spirit that has existed from the beginning of creation. I do not pretend to know ALL things. Nor do I pretend not to have biases, failings and faults. But I know sin and it breeds like cancer!”
Apparently, too, in our perverse, diverse, politically-correct society, religiosity and free speech mean nil as contrasted with the rights of homosexuals everywhere to campaign for both acceptance and recruits.
There’s no evidence dozens of students in the audience at Hartford Public High School in Connecticut gave much thought to religion or civil rights but they did react politically incorrectly when they stormed out of “Zanna, Don’t!” a musical sponsored by Greater Hartford’s Quest, an LGBT advocacy group ostensibly concerned about bullying in schools.
The Hartford Courant described the play as depicting “a reverse world in which straight people are outcasts and the most popular boy in school is the flamboyant star of the chess team . . . [and] the lowly football captain turns out to be a closet heterosexual.”
The Courant reporter, Vanessa De La Torre, also characterized the liplock between two male characters that provoked the storm-out as “a peck on the lips.” As pictures reveal, Ms. De La Torre doesn’t seem to know the difference . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5776.)