...but first some background.
Disclaimer: I'm really uninterested in another persons sex life (other than my wife that is), that's their business. Also having spent half my life in the military, I fully realize that gays have and are serving their country in that capacity, thank you (and all folks, past and present) for your service. I don't dislike people personally for their lifestyle. I'm sure most serve(d) honorably, and a few were trouble makers, just as their heterosexual counter parts.
What does concern me is the total disregard of the people currently serving in the military today. Not that it was sneaked in on a Friday, prior to a long weekend (again, a reoccurring theme with this administration). Not that it was sandwiched in with other more pressing items and $$$ goodies for the military (it was). The Pentagon was to have its finding (consultation with military members) complete by December. This administration, for political expedience, couldn't wait that long. They have showed their total disregard for our military folks opinion, just as they have for the American peoples opinion on other recent issues. They are willing to force an issue without regard for cost (there always is a cost) or plan to implement.
Why the rush? Were the people that shouted Obama down, at the recent Boxer fundraiser, on the issue anxious to enlist in the military. Hardly. Why is this important to gay activists? Are they that concerned about our military? No. They realize the way to "normalcy" is through the military. Their means to an end, their agenda. It worked for minorities and it worked for women, so it will work for gays, right? Well being a minority or a woman is pretty much an inalienable fact, with little room for interpretation. It doesn't involve personal tastes in lifestyles (I can hear the disagreements now). What will be the next "oppressed" group after this one? Time, and anyone's guess, will tell.
If this passes, this will be the first time in history that a protected "special" group of people will be treated differently in the military. Different how? They will not have their own facilities, so they will cohabitate with the sex they are physically attracted to, with only their own sense of discipline as a guide. The finial vestiges that "helped" people consider their actions (Don't Ask Don't Tell) will be gone. Rest assured, some deviants will be attracted that might not otherwise be. Is it worth even one unwanted incident? What if it is your family member? IMO, to utterly dismiss the sexual aspect of this issue is shortsighted and unrealistic. If someone told me that I would be living in close quarters, uninhibited, with women when I enlisted as a young man at the tender age of 17, I would have thought that was a benefit!
Whoa...hold your horses you say, men and women aren't allowed potential intimate contact on a daily basis in the military. That would be correct, but if that concept bothers you, why the double standard? How would you feel having some guy live in your wife or daughters (or a woman with your husband or son) military dorm room or barracks, shaving his face while she shaves her legs in the shower? I could tell you probably nothing would happen 90% of the time (there is fraternization now, and it is punishable), but there would be problems. Jealous spouses have left their soldiers, sailors, and airman just on suspicion. The opposite is also true. I understand that gays can be afflicted with these emotions, real or perceived, too. I don't foresee men's, women's or other's facilities on the horizon anytime soon.
What else can be exploited? Well let me give an example that many can relate too. When the presidents critics voice their opposition a bit too loud, what is one of the first counter accusations? Racism. And make no bones about it it is effective and used often (read some blogs and see for yourself). So what if a gay person doesn't like his/her evaluation? "My marks are low because you hate gays". Someone harasses you, you're just making the complaint up because you don't like gays. Do I believe this will be the norm? No, but it will happen and when it does it affects the effectiveness of a command. The military is mired heavily in PCness lately the way it is. We can't afford this additional intrigue IMO, especially during two ongoing wars.
For any of its flaws, Don't Ask Don't Tell applied to everyone, straight or gay. IMO it protected both. This is decision is best left up to the personnel serving, not the politicians, not the activists. If this is something the bulk of our service people can adapt and handle effectively, I would humbly concede to them and the issue is done. Would the gay activists do the same? Can the folks asking for tolerance show some as well? If it passes without military input, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"(DADT) will become "Look, But Don't Touch" (LBDT).
Remember, you heard the term coined here first.
UPDATE 05/24/2017
Since this post in now locked for 2 years for whatever reason (most likely due to its longevity). I wanted to add the (sort of) conclusion of the Bradley, now Chelsea, Manning story that erupted in the comments. As you may or may not know Manning was pardoned of his espionage 35 year sentence by departing President Obama. With the current leftest push for clamping down on claimed foreign involvement in US affairs, I find the leniency they provide proven traitors they sympathize with, fascinating. Anyway, now Manning is free to live his/her live with military medical benefits for the rest of his years, on your dime of course. More here.
Dan posts:
Ah no. Homosexual "happenstance interactions" are reality, DAN. Homosexuals do their thing and if they are allowed to serve openly, they will be doing their thing even more and most assuredly the Pentagon numbers will go up.
And fellow service personnel who give them any grief are going to be punished.
There is no denying that there will be a monetary cost. In these times can we afford it? Also male/female violence and accusations of violence, harassment, favoritism, you name it - takes a huge toll on the military today, unfortunately. I'm not sure opening up a new dimension to the inevitable possibilities, especially while engaging in two wars, is the most expedient use of our resources at the moment. It really boils down to privacy needs of a few for the privacy needs of many. Everyone has their own answer to that question, no matter who spins it. I can only assume activists hope to circumvent state marriage laws in the future, since the military is in most every state, with the camels nose in the tent approach. Voting amendments on a state level appear to not be working quickly enough for them.
Also to answer your question about sodomy, it is an article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Article 125, it states:
( a ) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
( b ) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
In the 80's I was aware of two cases of men being raped by other men. I don't have figures or statistics, as it wasn't something that interests me. When something of this magnitude occurs, a command understandably tries to keep these things quiet to protect the victims, and to some measure the attacker. There is obviously a reason this article is in place. It was implemented in 1951, with the last revision in 2005. I suppose the data due out in December will have the details, provided the Senate cares to wait for it, which is the focusing point of this article.
Thanks for your stating opinion.
If it were an issue of privacy, wouldn't the issue of sexuality be rendered irrelevant. Again, I know that you and Nitro aren't exactly hip to issues of human sexuality, but we're talking about non-sexual situations.
The military is a job. College isn't. Like I say though, keep your kid locked in your basement, because if he goes on to college, he will be exposed to LGBT folks. Either in the same dorm or in the same building or in the same gym.
Yes. And yes. And there's nothing wrong with that.
As well these service personnel should be.
Lulsa, I know this is going to come as a shock to you. Sexual Assault - rape of any kind - has exactly nothing to do with sex. It's about power. This is a demonstrable fact. It has been proven a thousand times over. It is undisputed.
That and the FRC is totally incompatible with the real world.
So Nitro, are you saying that even straight folks in the military have to have boring sex lives? I mean, given the definition of Sodomy...
You're an idot... it was obviously a cut and paste from the UCMJ article in referance to another posters question...you know, concerning the laws at the "job". It's not my opinion it is a fact. I did not express an opinion. Thanks for your "insightful" comment LOL.
I know. I'm trying to figure this out: 'Sodomy' is generally defined as digital, oral, or anal sex (amongst other bedroom behavior that---in more victorian eras was viewed as 'unnatural'.)
The text of the UCMJ includes the statement:
Now---pay attention---this is going to be some logic. I'm going to go nice and slow:
So if:
-'Sodomy' is defined as anal, digital, or oral sex
-And the UCMJ says that sodomy between men and women is illegal
-That would mean that straight soldiers can't have oral, anal, or digital sex with their partners, wives, whatever.
So again, back to the question: are you saying that even straight folks in the military have to have boring sex lives? If I'm misinterpreting this, how does the UCMJ define sodomy between a man and a woman?
You're asking me, who is not an author of the UCMJ in any shape or form, a question about why an article is written the way it is? And maybe you could tell me want George Washington was thinking when he cut down the cherry tree. Again, since you already know, I won't repeat it. Contact the Pentagon and find your answer, just tell them you'll have your HR department send a nasty letter if they don't comply. That should shake em up. It is a Federal Agency after all.
Maybe we do need to spend more on education.
Well based on the language of it, it would seem that if you had any carnal interactions with women during your stint in the military, that there are elements of this article that would have applied to you directly. Or, even if you chose some sort of weird celebratory, you would certainly be aware of soldiers who it did apply to. Something as broad as that, I would think would have a very strong effect on servicemen.
It's interesting that there apparently wasn't any effort to inform you of how that particular portion of the bill is interpreted. It's almost as though.....the rule remains a little blue.
That's your take. I've heard of it being applied in two rape cases with men as the victims. I know it was applied in at least two cases dealing with women as the victim. I also have knowledge of one case were the attacker was female.
so this sodomy law applies primarily to issues of sexual assault?
Lula posts:
Agree or not, believe it or not, homosexuality is patently a destructive sexual behavior whether it’s consensual or not. The reason why is the body parts don’t fit and the only life that comes of penal-anal sex is bacteriological. Disease is born and 300,000 males have died of AIDS since 1983. Are you so immersed in moral relativism that you think there is nothing wrong with that Dan?
Last year the Department of Defense reported that male on male assault was up 7 percent. Gotta ask….Is there nothing wrong with that Dan?
Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis (USA-Ret.) was part of the military group that helped craft the 1993 law known as Section 654, Title 10. The law states that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. Maginnis considers the seven-percent figure in male-on-male sexual assaults alarming. "You've got to come to the conclusion that in the military, where we have a ban for that type of service and we're having a fairly significant incidence of assault that's associated with that type of activity, then you actually may have a worse problem than you think," he suggests. Maginnis argues that the DoD report is not going to help those in the Pentagon who are supporting President Obama's call to lift the ban. "They may dismiss it as just an aberration or [say] this is not indicative of gay behavior, but their own statistics are pretty self-evident," he says. "Seven percent is not something to dismiss lightly. If you're going to have that much homosexual assault, that's just the tip of the iceberg."
nitro posts:
Exactly.
Add male/male to this list and we come to the crux of the matter. This law is about the full homosexualization of the Armed Forces.
Sex to the homosexually addicted is the "be-all" and "end-all" of life. It's fact that homosexuals engage in sex in public places. I've already posted about sexual situations in military bathrooms, barracks, and in the showers.
nitro posts
Yes, of course there was/is reason for this article in the uniform code. The Armed Services is about ORDER...order in everything and when this order is maintained things go as planned...things go as they should in military life. Homosexuality is disordered and that's why Section 654 states that homosexuality is incompatible with military service.
And this should matter to Congress that wants to do the right thing, but the repeal and everything about it is political; it's payback for homosexual activists support and vote. If this becomes law, we'll rightly be able to say the Armed Forces was about order.
lula posts:
Any and all assault is about power Dan. Now that we have that understood, let’s move on.
Knock, knock, Dan. It goes to the main topic....the possible repeal of DADT....that would homosexualize the Armed Forces...which will most certainly only add to the number of homosexual assaults that the Pentagon's report states was already up in 2009 when DADT was in place.
lula posts
Here is a hypothetical. If I, a married lady, join the armed services, am in basic training and showering with a bunch of other women (which is already uncomfortable) and one who practices lesbianism wants me to participate in that...I decline and she starts harrassing me...
I report that to the officer and Dan you’re saying for this I should be punished?
Oh yeah? How? let's hear it.
Look, I can tell that sexuality isn't your strong suit. Rape is not about sex. It's about power.
OH NO!!! Well if Lt. Col. Bob Magannis says so! Wait. Who is Bob Maginnis?
You're kidding, right? Seriously? You have to be. There's no way you could possibly really believe that, right?
Um. So do straight people. Ever been to a 3am bar?
Oh yeah? How? Share.
What exactly does that mean? "homosexualize" the armed forces? What are you even talking about?
No. But if you start giving gay folks 'grief' about being gay, you should be punished. Declining a sexual advance does not really constitute 'giving grief', near as I can tell.
As I've personally seen it applied. There are many cases I'm unaware of. The same could be said of many things in military or civil law. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there does it make a sound? I posted the Article (125) in its entirety, and there is no mention of assault. So I would guess "witnessing" the act would suffice in addition to assault. One could say in addition to DADT would be don't advertise.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/printerfriendly.html?articleid=10091002
Well, turns out we don't have to wait for Congress to repeal it. A California Judge, Virginia A. Phillips, has demonstrated judicial activism ruling DADT is unconstitutional!
Her ruling comes 3 months before the results of the Pentagon study evaluating the detriments of having open homosexuals in the military.
Who needs Congress when all we "really need" is activist judges.
The funny thing in what Cikomyr is saying is that if it was true then why are people making such a big issue over dadt?
If I go to any interview and tell the hiring manager that my wife and just did the hippity dippity or that I sleep around with a lot of people I probably won't get hired. If I am constantly talking about my sex life at work eventually someone will complain and I will get reprimanded. This can be also take as sexual harassment, so I could get fired.
There is no need for anyone to know anyone else's sexual orientation at work or in the Military.
I know that several of those people that are for gay marriage have posted here. When a person brings up the slippery slope they just laugh at it.
Well, TLC is running a program about polygamy and how it should be acceptable. No slippery slope, no, of course not.
This is true. I may suspect that someone is homosexual, but since I do not solicit the information, I do not KNOW it. Nor do I care to know it. As you stated, not many people go around the office cooler bragging about their conquests - male or female.
In the few cases I've experienced with guys forever talking about either their numerous girlfriends or wives, I can tell you that got old too, and people didn't want to hear about it either. It's like when someone shows you a picture of their kid and you have to (well a decent person would) be nice and tell them he/she's cute, just to be PC or keep good moral. I'd prefer everyone kept their personal lives private and just did their job. The primary purpose of the military does not include being a social club. Everyone already has a clue whose gay or straight (except the very few that strive to maintain their privacy, both gay and straight) it doesn't take a rocket scientist. The only activists I cared for in the military were the ones "active" in completing the mission or task at hand.
I thought this article would be dead, by now. Funny how issue linger on that way. I'm sure we'll hear more about this case with the CA judge.
Ha, this issue isn't going away. Evidently "Lady" Gaga has called on Harry Reid. I put the word Lady in quotes because she's no lady to me.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/09/14/lady-gaga-involved-fight-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell/
Camille Paglia (no conservative) has crucified Gaga. Even going so far as to praise Madonna for at least being original and talented!
Madonna was the one who originally made underwear "outerwear". Ugh!
They're both leptons! Harry Reid is a ninnyhammer. There are cartoons that mock Reid its called 'Harry's Office' or something like that and these cartoons are HIGHLARIOUS!
I would link them here but would have to find them. Maybe some other time.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
