...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.
Lula are you now resorting to using fringe groups to try to peddle your wares now then?
A question I would like answered though is horses, chimps, dolphins and sea horses can be gay. One species of sea horse even has a much larger % of gay males than humans. Are you going to claim they are going to bring seahorse society crashing down to?
What "fringe groups" are you talking about?
Then Yes, I guess I am.
We here in the USA know the repeal of DADT means a huge sexual, moral and cultural shift and one that will have negative consequences for the military and in American life as well. One area is the threat to religious liberty of those who serve as chaplains as well as those who are enlisted who in conscience are opposed to the normalization of homosexuality.
The British Christian organization makes the point that Britain's military has already seen the negative effects of normalizing homosexuality.....that there has been damage done to morale and discipline.
Mike Judge said,
"But you will not find any senior people within the military who will admit that," he shares, "because they know that if they are going to maintain their careers, they've got to tow the political line." Judge says just as in the U.S., homosexual activists in Britain were instrumental in getting their agenda foisted on the military. "This whole issue is not about equality, it is not about tolerance -- because those who are advocating these things do not want equality for Christians to be able voice their concerns. And they will not tolerate opposition," he adds.
Instead, it is about imposing their lifestyle and silencing any opposition, states Judge.
and I think he is 100% correct.
Despite the hyperbole in the remainder of your post, why can't they if they are not putting anyone in harm and can do the job?eg: Why can't someone paralyzed from the waist down fly a drone in Pakistan from the safety of an air base in the US? The paralysis has nothing to do with their ability to fly said drone.
There are enough fat officers flying desks to question why passing basic training is required for non-physical jobs such as drone flying or logistics management.
I just read your questions to NC and for sure paralysis from the waist down has nothing to do with their ability to fly drones, etc.
But there are other problems that the Armed Forces would have to address in order to make this happen. Like just getting the paralyzed to the plane..then getting that person up into the plane, then down from the plane, etc. So it's accomodating these persons in other areas that would highly complicate matters.
Spoken like someone that has never served. Apparently you are unaware of the fitness standards, or just watch too many movies?
Lula, your feeding the trolls. Drones are "un-manned". The "pilots" are at a remote location. What Lord Orion probably doesn't know is these drones are often piloted by civilian (CIA) and they may have disabilities, although I doubt any are paralyzed below the waist, it is possible. People tend to forget the tens of thousands of civilians that work for the DoD or as contractors. And many of us do have disabilities.
Too bad, but the homophobes brought it on themselves by making an issue of it to begin with--even Gen Powell of all people.
In WWII we knew nuttin, didn't want to know and there were no garish episodes.
"Homophobes"? So we are back to the beginning of this discussion and the silly name calling? Your calling those who oppose open homosexuality in the Military "homophobes" is parroting the homosexual movement's sophistry.
Beside that, your assertion is wrong.
From the very beginning of the military's existence, homosexuality was rightfully considered an immoral sexual perversion and therefore banned. And this is just discrimination. Because of its fighting purpose, the military is necessarily a discriminating organization that revokes membership on the basis of age, height, physical infirmity and many other causes.
Who are the ones who want to change the moral structure of our nation and our Military?
For decades now, lifting the ban on homosexuality in the military has been a major goal of the homosexualist's agenda who strive to uproot the very foundations of our morality by blurring the distinction between virtue and vice, truth and error, good and evil. Thus the significance of overthrowing the Military's prohibition on homosexuality. Obama and his regime are following their lead insisting on effecting this transformation within our Military.
I'm not a Powell fan because he's pro-abortion. I think he's a RINO.
But on this issue, I think he had it right.
Powell came into the fray when the sophists who supported the repeal of the ban claimed that homosexuals have a "right" to serve in our Military. This is when discrimination was brought into the debate. They tried to make a comparison with Truman's 1948 desegregation of the military and lifting the ban on homosexuals.
Of this, Powell said "skin color is a benign non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behaviorial characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument."
Current military law is NOT based on who homosexuals claim to be but on what they do.
Ya, well, those were the days before the sexual revolution when homosexuality was considered a perversion and there were no garish episodes because homosexuals kept their behavior to themselves.
Open homosexuality in the Armed Services is a whole new can of worms.
There are reasons for things. Over 4 million of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion are against the repeal of the ban. Homosexuals are promiscuous and the CDC forbids blood donations. The military life calls for close quarters, especially in combat.
During wartime, (of which sadly, there seems to be no end in sight), our troops are in continual contact with each other's blood. The well documented increased disease rates of homosexuals would cause them to be a risk rather than an asset. Homosexuals account for 2% of the population, yet account for 80% of the most serious sexually transmitted diseases. Knowing this, Generals Schwarzkopf and Peter Pace are opposed to the repeal of the ban.
Well today DADT was officially repealed.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/19/us-usa-gays-military-idUSTRE78I53W20110919
BARF!
It appears as if the Marines are embracing the repeal with the most gusto.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/apr/28/san-diego-marines-start-dadt-training/
Should be interesting to see how this all pans out.
One persons perversion seems to be another's normal. I will never be convinced it is nothing more than a personal choice at least or an abnormality at most. I may feel different when the first anally conceived child or orally inseminated (no spitting) woman makes the front page. Yeah, yeah I know it happens in nature and all, so does small pox, palsy, downs syndrome, and on and on. That doesn't make it a normal human condition. These folks don't bother me, just don't expect me to embrace it as normal and celebrate it as a wonderful thing, I don't with any other abnormalities affecting our species. I actually feel a bit sorry that these folks might never experience the good love of the opposite sex. Good luck to ALL the men and women serving, I appreciate your service. If you were are gay and served without opening your mouth (no pun intended) I give a special thanks to you for your strength and determination. Of course I believed DADT should applied to heterosexuals too, didn't care to hear their stories either. And to the few that will exploit this to advance their agenda, I'm not buying it...at least until you squeeze that baby out your backside.
AH, THE AFTERMATH BEGINS....................................................
A conservative military watchdog is outraged over the Pentagon's announcement on Friday that military chaplains may perform same-sex unions, whether on or off a military installation.
Some members of Congress have objected to military chaplains performing same-sex unions, saying it would violate the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. The Pentagon said today a military chaplain may officiate at any private ceremony, but is not required if it would conflict with his or her religious or personal beliefs.
Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness does not find that caveat reassuring.
“The exception clause that a chaplain would not have to participate in such a union -- if they choose not to -- is really only a fig leaf,” says Donnelly, “because chaplains who assign certain duties [to someone else] that normally would be theirs … will suffer career penalties. We know this has already happened in some other countries that have done this -- so it’s no reassurance at all.” As some members of Congress have stated, Donnelly sees the move is a blatant disregard of the Defense of Marriage Act. “Chaplains are going to be very disturbed by it,” she continues. “I think everyone who cares about our chaplains and people of faith in the military have good reason to be dismayed.” The CMR leader sees legislative challenges ahead for Capitol Hill conservatives on the issues of open homosexuality in the U.S. military. “I think members of Congress are going to see to it that the legislation they have already passed in the House becomes law,” she tells OneNewsNow. “And I think the next president and the next Congress [are] going to have to systematically take back each and every interpretation of what the new law means as the details start to unfold – as they did today.” The Pentagon also stated on Friday that Defense Department property may be used for private functions, including religious and other ceremonies such as same-sex unions, as long as it is not prohibited by state or local laws
BUT NOT CATHOLIC MILITARY CHAPLAINS....
FROM CATHOLIC WORLD NEWS....
Reacting to the Obama administration’s decision to permit military chaplains to conduct same-sex marriages, a spokesman for the Archdiocese for the Military Services emphasized that Catholic military chaplains will never perform such ceremonies.
“Will Catholic military chaplains perform same-sex weddings?” said archdiocese spokesman Taylor Henry. “The answer to that is no. Under no circumstances will a Catholic military chaplain perform same-sex weddings.”
Henry also said that same-sex weddings will not be permitted at the Catholic chapel at West Point.
BY CHRISTINE DHANAGOM
October 11, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - After coming out strongly against the repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) policy during the GOP Fox News/Google Debate, Rick Santorum defended his comments in an interview this past Sunday on Fox News with Chris Wallace.
Confronted at the debate by a homosexual soldier, Santorum had explained that he opposed the repeal of DADT, which had forbidden open homosexuals from serving in the military, because it was like “playing social experimentation with our military.”
“The military’s job is to do one thing and that is to defend our country. We need to give the military, which is all volunteer, the ability to do so in a way that is most effective in protecting our men and women in uniform, and I believe this undermines that ability,” he said, adding that, as president, he would reinstitute DADT, but would allow those who had been admitted under the current administration’s policy to remain.
In Sunday’s interview, Wallace compared Santorum’s position to an argument made by Col. Eugene Householder against racial integration of the military.
“The Army is not a sociological laboratory. Experimenting with Army policy, especially in time of war, would pose a danger to efficiency, discipline and morale and would result in ultimate defeat,” read Householder’s 1941 quote.
Santorum objected to the comparison, pointing out: “[Homosexuality] is a behavioral issue, as opposed to a color of the skin issue, and that makes all the difference when it comes to serving in the military.”
“I know the whole gay community is trying to make this the new Civil Rights Act. It’s not. It’s not the same,” the presidential contender added. “You are black by the color of your skin. You are not homosexual necessarily by - obviously by the color of your skin or anything - it’s by a variety of things.”
Wallace also attacked Santorum’s assertion at the debate that “any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military.”
“Heterosexuals have been openly heterosexual for centuries in the military without any problem,” Wallace argued.
“The problem is that sexual activity with people who you are in close quarters with and who happen to be the same sex is different than having a discussion and being open about your sexual activity where you’re not in that same situation,” Santorum responded.
“You’re talking about the ability for people to be able to have that unit cohesion, to be able to work together in an efficient fighting way,” he added, pointing out that members of the military share barracks and showers with others of the same sex.
Santorum also expressed concern over the effect that the policy’s repeal would have on retention and recruitment since some would feel uncomfortable serving under the current policy.
Lula,
Thought you might be interested. This is something I never really thought about...
I was in the Air Force hospital the other day waiting in the prescription area. There are televisions with military news and public service type announcements. A more jaded person might call it a "propaganda" channel..lol
So a PSA came on that went something like this:
A woman in uniform says something a long the lines of ...don't discriminate against me because I am female, I serve with pride, I am your fellow airman.
Then a single parent, Native American, black person, Asian, a whole mix of races in the uniform saying the same sort of things...don't discriminate....don't allow it to happen.....we're a brotherhood of blue...etc
Then a homosexual came on screen...don't discriminate against me because I am gay, I serve my country proudly. Same as the others.
Since this is a huge retirement base for prior military the prescription area is always really FULL.. I waited over an hour that day.
It looks as though the AF has embraced the repeal of DADT.
But something I never considered...how the repeal affects the community around the active duty members (who must follow policy), the retirees, the families, and others associated with the military.
I sat for an hour and watched the reactions of people. This is not scientific by any stretch of the imagination, but I can say in that day, in that hour, people were pretty pissed off about the repeal. I heard alot of "pffffts." And lots of grumbling from old and young alike...
Maybe it was the blatant manipulation of the video. I don't know. But it was interesting to me because I never considered how say a man in his 70's, a military retiree, would react to an obviously gay medical tech.
Hi Tova,
Thanks. I am interested .....trying to follow the aftermath of the repeal closely.
What you saw was the frog being slowly boiled. The frog being the public and military sector and the boiling being done by those pushing the homosexual agenda forward. It's all about and only about achieving its main goal, that is, complete societal acceptance of homosexuality.
A woman, Native American, Black person, Asian, etc. are all bona fide groups deserving of protection against discrimination because they all fill the requirements of the Civil Rights Laws. They all exhibit a non-changeable trait or innate characteristic. They can't change their genetic code of being a woman, being Black, being Asian, etc.
While,
The homosexual person does not have an innate characteristic which cannot be changed like the others. Homosexuality is a changeable sexual behavior.
The Homosexual Movement has been attempting to co-opt the Civil Rights Movement in the public sector and apparently is now doing so in the military sector.
And mark this...the day will come when anyone in the military who refuses to accept homosexuality as normal, acceptable, equal to married heterosexuality, even good (or better), will be punished.
Already done.
The whole point of the video was letting people know discrimination against homosexuals will not be tolerated. Period. The punishment for discrimination can be pursued under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
I just thought you'd be interested in the reactions of the retired and civilians in my area...
Tova,
You know me, I'm always interested in discussing......
What is the punishment for discrimination?
here's more....
A former Navy chaplain who was forced out of the service for praying publicly in Jesus' name while in uniform says the Obama administration is clearly trying to censor military chaplains who dare to speak out against the pro-abortion and pro-homosexual agenda.
The Obama White House opened a can of worms last week when it issued an edict requiring Catholic-affiliated agencies to provide medical coverage for employees' contraceptives and abortions. The controversy moved to the military when Catholic Army chaplains were ordered not to read a letter telling parishioners that the Catholic Church "cannot and will not comply with this unjust law."Gordon Klingenschmitt, a former Navy chaplain who now runs The Pray In Jesus' Name Project, further details how the mandate is affecting the military."The secretary of the Army said you have to line out some of the language, or else we're going to charge the chaplains with sedition and treason for opposing the Obama administration," he reports. "Can you believe this? They are actually threatening chaplains with court-martial if they dare to preach against sin in their own church."So Klingenschmitt is encouraging people of faith to contact their members of Congress and tell them to support the Military Religious Freedom Act (HR 3828) sponsored by Congressman Tim Huelskamp (R-Kansas), which would protect all members of the armed forces from having to compromise their religious and spiritual beliefs (see earlier story).
Regarding the Catholic Church and contraceptives, President Obama announced on Friday that religious employers will not have to cover birth control for their employees. Instead, he said, insurance companies will be the ones responsible for providing free contraception. That supposed "compromise" on the matter brought harsh criticism from conservatives across denominational and organizational lines.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
