...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.
You should check out Day By Day! I think you would like it. It is very sarcastic.
http://thehayride.com/2010/09/harrys-office/
Here you go! Harry's Office, I think the second one was funnier.
Doc, do you mean the cartoons drawn by Chris Muir?
Yes! So she has another fan here?
Lula, that's what makes people sick about government, there are always stings attached. If a Bill is a winner it should need to be attached to another. One Bill one issue, this is what is screwing up this country and the politicians don't seem to get that.
Absolutely true. It's a sad state of affairs that's been going on for a long time.
The fix is to get transparency in and corruption out of government.
September 20, 2010The United States Senate will vote tomorrow (Tuesday) on a bill which will overturn the law that currently prohibits open homosexuals from serving in the U.S. military.
If passed, this bill will introduce sexual tension into the intimate living quarters military members share. This will be devastating for military readiness, retention, and recruitment.
It also will likely mean the end of military careers for conservative officers and chaplains who have deeply held moral and religious convictions that homosexual conduct should not be promoted in the armed forces.
The clear and present danger this bill poses to religious liberty is confirmed by this quote from Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Bostick, who is the deputy chief of staff in charge of personnel matters for the U.S. Army (emphasis added):
"Unfortunately, we have a minority of service members who are still racists and bigoted, and you will never be able to get rid of all of them. But these people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program, and if they can't, they need to get out." (Source: Washington Times, 9/17/10)
Over 1,100 retired flag and general officers have signed a letter expressing their resistance to any change in current law, saying it will severely compromise the mission of the United States military and "impact leadership at all levels."
Additionally, 66 retired chaplains have signed a letter expressing their conviction that overturning current law will likely mean the end of conservative chaplains in the U.S. military.
To make matters worse, this bill will also turn every U.S. military hospital in the world into an abortion clinic, and will guarantee amnesty and a path to citizenship for certain illegal aliens.
Take Action
Click Here NOW to find the direct telephone numbers for your two senators along with suggested talking points for your call. It is urgent that you call your senators immediately. We need to burn up the phone lines into Washington, D.C. to say that this must not happen on our watch.
Looks like the Bill was defeated. Now the debate will be was it DADT or the "Dream Act" that killed it. No matter what I believe it was a travesty to include these attachments to a Bill our troops need to continue their job. Harry Reid likes this tactic very much, just not so sure it is going to work for him this time. This boy has cried wolf once too often.
I personally don't have a problem with gays in the military (anybody willing to go out and kill and/or die for the rest of us automatically deserves some respect, in my book, even if, in their spare time, they choose to use their digestive tract in a way nature never intended), but I agree with the above statements completely. If they want to repeal it, send it up by itself. Like you said, if it's a winner, it'll pass. All this attaching unrelated things to bills is absolutely ridiculous--and it's normal. "It's how we do things in Washington."
As far as DADT goes, instead of repealing it, they should extend it to heterosexuals, and then extend it further out into the civilian workplace. At least leave enough of it intact to where it's like, "If I don't ask, please don't tell me."
For all we know the "Dream Act" (back door amnesty for certain illegals) that killed it. It was a political ploy that was it. I would still like to see the DoD's report out first (due in Dec.) to get their opinion, because that's what matters to me, the military position. Why should those that don't have to deal with the issue have a say? If I were still active I wouldn't like it, but if the military wants it then they are the ones that have to deal with it now. I just hate to see people used as pawns in a much larger (if you can believe it) arena than the military. Gay activists are attempting to make their life-style mainstream via military adoption. The thing is the military isn't supposed to be about life-style or sexual preference, they have a defined mission. Serving hetero and homosexuals can keep their private lives private. Does everything have to be political fodder?
Bingo.
Right! The Report does matter--bigtime and even the four military chiefs have asked Congress not to vote for this before the Pentagon relaesed it's position on what repeal would mean.
It's very important to this issue, but Harry who is trying to get re-elected would NOT wait.
Right. Think about it...they are working their way into all the main institutions. One step at a time is how the homosexual juggernaut operates.
Ya, but you are a common sense person and there doesn't seem to be much common sense out there in the public square anymore.
I believe their goal is to co-opt what blacks went through during the desegregation of the military in the late 40's. The problem there is how can one compare a sexual preference with skin color? The military is there to fight not find a sole mate or discuss sex, race is obvious as is gender.
BTW is was progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson who segregated the military in the first place, setting it back almost 30 years.
In the final analysis, I really do not have a position of gays in the military one way or the other. it is not a right, and therefore is up to politicians.
But I strongly disagree and resent their efforts to make this into a second civil rights issue. As you point out, anyone but a blind man (literally) can see skin color. But no one except Jeanne Dixon can "see" a person's sexual orientation. It is not a Civil Rights issue. it is not even a rights issue. It is one of fairness (but then what is fair?), and legalities. Their efforts to make it Civil Rights II only serves to cheapen and denigrate the sacrifices that were made by people of all color to move America into a color blind society.
That is not surprising. They are the only ones that seem to see race before character. Even today.
Yes it is. By co-opting (or what I call hijacking and exploiting) the civil rights movement, the activists make headway advancing their goal which is to make homosexuality accepted and respected throughout society as a social norm..that is equivalent if not better than heterosexuality.
The strategy is to blur the difference between homosexuality, changeable sexual behavior that a person chooses to act upon or not, and innate characteristics that can not ever be changed. People can't help being born of a particular race or sex and homosexuality does not fall into this category. That's why homosexual sophists have devised the "sexual orientation" theory.
The truth is all human beings "sexual orientation" (with the exception of people born with genital deformities) is always heterosexual..that is they are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual by nature.
..........................
We are talking about a well-healed, powerful, politically protected movement that is hell-bent on redefining homosexuality as a normal and immutable condition equivalent to heterosexuality, a state of being completely independent of conduct.
For acceptance, equivalency and normalcy, homosexuals go after social groups (the Boy Scouts) and institutions working off just laws passed through truly discriminated against people. Now they are going after the military where instead of the norm "I do not want to know what the person does in the privacy of his own bedroom" being continued; it will be the flaunting of abnormal behavior for everyone to see, a case of, "Look at me, I can do anything I want and you can't stop me."
WE know that, but since the 80's homosexuality has been presented as a normal way of life, equal to heterosexuality in academia, the media, Hollywood, and government, and so many don't even know they have been duped into believing it.
It can be as normal as a PB&J, but that still does not make it a rights issue. Gays have the EXACT same rights as non-gays. Period. But having the same rights does not mean "doing whatever you want" which is their cause (and I will not debate them on that as I do not have a horse in that race).
If we are ever to defeat the "gay rights" arguments and the goals of the agenda, then we must assert the plain truth about homosexuality...and that is homosexuality is an objectively disordered condition deserving of social disapproval becasue it spreads disease and dysfunction.
DrG,
The fact is that we are being forced to accept homosexuality as a social norm and fundamental right through "special rights" legislation. This is most clearly seen in anti-discrimination policies, laws and ordinances that include "sexual orientation". I cherish my First AMendment right to think and speak freely as well as freedom of conscience, but I cannot do so becasue the practical effect of including "sexual orientation" is to legitimize and protect homosexuality as a normal way of life.
By Kathleen Gilbert
TACOMA, Washington, September 27, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Gay rights proponents are celebrating after a district court judge ordered that a lesbian be reinstated to her position in the U.S. Air Force, years after she was dismissed for being a practicing homosexual.
The case of Margaret Witt, a former U.S. Air Force flight nurse, appears to be the first in which a judge has ordered a service member dismissed under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) policy on homosexuality to return.
"The evidence produced at trial overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the suspension and discharge of Margaret Witt did not significantly further the important government interest in advancing unit morale and cohesion," concluded U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton in a 15-page opinion issued Friday.
It is unclear whether the Obama administration, which has vowed opposition to DADT and is pushing a repeal, will appeal the decision.
Although Leighton had dismissed the suit in 2007, he was ordered to reconsider it after the U.S. Court of Appeals held that DADT could only be enforced in cases of clear negative impact on military readiness.
Witt was dismissed from the military on a tip from her lover's jilted husband that she was a homosexual. Leighton refused to sustain her dismissal on grounds of adultery.
Senate Democrats attempted to push through a repeal of the policy last week, but were blocked by a GOP filibuster.
URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10092710.html
I know most people that support gay rights will mockingly say that it'll lead to us accepting people having sex with goats. They'll use that analogy for marriage as well that eventually we go down that slippery slope people will praying goats and dogs. In reality there is truth behind that if we just look at NAMBLA (North America Man Boy Love Association). Doing the same thing that gay rights are doing. Once the non-sense of gay rights goes through whether people like it or not it is going through they will be demanding their equal rights. They'll say that they are being discriminated against. They'll already trying to do that and trying to show that historically its alright to have sex with minors and that this has been the case in many other civilizations.
I couldn't believe that group existed so I wikipedia it sometime ago. I didn't want to go to their website and all of a sudden be on the FBI watched list If you go to their wikipedia page you can see that they're doing the same thing that homosexuals are doing. I feel if eventually if this world last long enough they will be able to legitimize their case.
I think that group is disgusting. It has been shown countless times that children being molested has a huge negative impact yet they'll counter that with will it's all consent, I say non-sense. You should be castrated!
I find that statement a bit confusing. Are you saying that the supporters are using the goats and dog arguments? Or the opponents are using it?
FoxNews (or faux news as the idiots like to call it), just did an expose that revealed even though facebook has a policy against NAMBLA, it is very highly integrated in that site and very easy to find both users and groups in there. it is indeed a real group.
TPP I find it odd, yet clever, at the approach some homosexual activists are taking. Before I go further, let me define my thoughts on pedophiles (my reasoning to come later). IMO there are two types, both equally reprehensible in my eyes. One type targets the opposite sex and the other the same sex as the victimizer. Many might disagree, but IMO the later type is a off-shoot of homosexuality, just as the first is off heterosexuality, some added deviant "quirk" (for lack of a better word).
I mention this to parallel the way gay activists treat two entirely different groups or hurdles, the military and the church. One would fairly believe the activists have a huge beef with the church, as the church stands in the way of their goals. Yet, IMO gays have infiltrated the church for years (the reason for my conclusion above) as, some would say, a haven for homosexual pedophilia. An odd predicament in my view. Of course many will not break down pedophilia as I have, or insist that it is unrelated. Perhaps there is data out there that pertains to whether the victims are usually the same sex as the perpetrator or not, in the church related cases. If a man has sexual desire for a boy, does that not make him a homosexual? I feel this correlation is being buried, for the sake of political correctness, and to bolster support for the gay agenda.
Now with the military, it's a little different animal. Gays serve (one could use the term "infiltrate" here as well, but others generally know, with a few exceptions) now under the DADT and even prior to that. Of course there are no children in the military, so while pedophilia does occur (usually in ones own family or while stationed abroad) it isn't as exposed to military or civilian scrutiny (domestic cases are treated as crimes and the military is typically kept out of it). Because of the military structure, there is both a strength and a weakness that confront gay activists. The strength being plain old military discipline. One must conform to the rules. This makes it difficult to cause disruption from within. The weakness is that the military has an Achilles heal, outside political and involvement, some would say meddling. This is something the church doesn't have to contend with (yet anyway) in a large way. It would be bad form to protest the troops, but it is fine to protest the church, with a little help from the inside.
Check this out from FOX News who reported that NAMBLA is networking on Facebook.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/28/pedophiles-find-home-social-networking-facebook/
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
