Posted on 02/27/2010 9:46:30 AM PST by Maelstorm
If homosexuals are allowed to serve in the military, they will be recruiting in the showers, having sex in the barracks, and straights will undergo sensitivity training. Before long, the U.S. may be defended by the sex-obsessed and those who can tolerate kowtowing to them.
These are the truths that no one will speak.
Forget about ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ (DADT). The issue is NOT about whether those engaging in homosexual sex are, or are not, asked about their ‘sexual preferences.’ The real issue is whether the federal law against sodomy in the armed forces will be abolished either by statute or practice. If the law is abolished, not only will there be open homosexual sex in the barracks, but regulations against hostility to it will be enforced with vigor.
Of course, almost no one else is saying these things. So how can FRI be sure they are true?
It is the ‘nature’ of most homosexuals to ‘do their thing’ — and the more public the better. This characteristic has been noted throughout history. Sex, to the homosexually addicted, is close to the be-all and end-all of life. Why else have 300,000 male homosexuals died of AIDS, even though the mechanism — penile-anal sex — has been known since 1983? Why else do so many homosexuals engage in public sex? Why are there ‘gay pride’ parades?
How else to explain Adam Lambert? Instead of becoming just another rich ‘star,’ on November 22, he performed at the American Music Awards, broadcast on ABC. During his number, he proceeded to grind one of his dancer’s faces into his pelvis, grab the crotch of another, and passionately kiss his male keyboardist1. That “performance is something I’m extremely proud of and I wouldn’t change a thing. I am glad it facilitated a conversation about what kind of double standards there are out there.”
The risks homosexuals pose for the military are evident in an interview we recently conducted with a woman in basic training. Homosexuals are sensing that whining and complaining about their lack of rights, along with sheer persistence, are about to win them the prize. Homosexuals may care about protecting the country, but that care is almost always trumped by their homosexual compulsions. See if you can identify the compulsive behavior in the following interview recorded February 1-2, 2010. The female enlistee we spoke with was recalling her 2009 experiences in Basic Training:
Woman: “My experiences in BCT and AIT with homosexuals was and is awkward! Of course at first I didn’t know who was lesbian and who wasn’t, so I didn’t think much of who I was showering with. Then, noticing that they were looking at me a little too much made things clear as to their preferences.
“It was uncomfortable in so many ways. When your only choice is to shower in very close quarters with 60 other females, it is already embarrassing enough. Add that over half of them are lesbians, and you end up with very difficult feelings. It is like I was showering with 40 males staring at me and making comments. That isn’t acceptable for males to do to females in the military, so it shouldn’t be for females to do to each other!
“Living with them and changing clothes near them made me self conscious and uncomfortable. The ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy is practically void because everyone tells. You don’t even have to ask. What made it worse was when males talked about our bodies — things that the homosexual females had told them…. having a female whistle at you is not appreciated!”
Comment: If young men and women showered together, dressed together, etc. — how much ‘serious business’ could be accomplished? The answer is the same as to why single-sex schools generally produce better learning. When you are on ‘sexual alert’ you spend energy avoiding or seeking sexual attention. The military is focused on smashing and killing enemies. Given the age of most soldiers, sexual interest is necessarily ‘along for the ride,’ but getting trained and doing your job are both compromised by the easy availability of sex (e.g., STDs in WWI disabled almost as many as were wounded).
Dr. Cameron: How many of the women in your group have been discharged or processed for discharge because of homosexuality?
Woman: “Well there were 60 females that I stayed in the same barracks with, and 60 more down the hall. Out of the total 120 females, I know that at least 50 were found to be homosexuals. Many more we weren’t sure about.
“It really depended on what they did openly that determined their punishments. Some that actually got caught in sexual action were chaptered out of the army. A chapter 11 I believe. Others that were caught kissing or hand holding were given company grade article 15’s which gave them 14 days extra duty. The ones that were chaptered ended up even more openly homosexual because they had nothing to lose at that point. The ones that had article 15’s had two different outcomes. The ones that didn’t want to be in [the armed forces] just continued to misbehave so they could get chapter packets. Others really wanted to be in the military so they kept their preferences to themselves. All in all, I would guess that about 20 got chaptered out and 30 had article 15’s. The main problem was that the chapters had to remain in basic training until their packets went through and were approved. So some stayed in for all 12 weeks and caused trouble the entire time.”
Comment: The rates of lesbianism implied by this enlistee are much higher than polls suggesting that about 8% of servicewomen engage in homosexuality. Perhaps this is an anomaly or an unusual unit or training discharges are not counted. Or perhaps this enlistee was speculating without knowing the hard numbers.
Dr. Cameron: Was there any instance or instances of officer (NCO) or otherwise having sex with one or more of these recruits?
Woman: “No one in my company had sexual relations with their NCOs or chain of command. My whole battalion was really squared away. I’m not sure about any of the others.”
Dr. Cameron: Was there any hanky-panky between any of the recruits and officers?
Woman: “No, there was no fraternization between privates and NCOs [non-commissioned officers] in my company but I heard rumors about it in another company. That wasn’t homosexual, though. The private was given UCMJ action for her conduct and did not graduate. The drill sergeant did not accept her offers.”
Dr. Cameron: Were you approached to participate in lesbian activities?
Woman: “I was approached several times by lesbians who wanted me to participate in their nonsense. Of course, I immediately reported that back to my drill sergeant. I do think you need to know that the cadre at basic training did everything they could do to stop the homosexuals and they gave us frequent briefings on harassment and homosexuality and how it was not acceptable. My platoon’s drill sergeant was our company’s EO and she was always doing all she could to help those of us that were being pressured.”
Comment: Right and left lesbians were being warned, disciplined, and discharged. Yet they almost all persisted. Homosexual sex overwhelms rationality, overwhelms the desire to serve, and pushes aside a sense of propriety and scale. Other Testimony
The Washington Post2, ‘campaigning’ as it were for homosexuality, led a recent story with the tale of a 26-year-old male homosexual. He admitted ‘dating’ another soldier in the combat arms battalion — that is, he was breaking military law against sodomy. Yet this homosexual bragged that he “won hearts and minds among my brothers in arms because I did my job well and went above and beyond. I was respected.” The Post story did not suggest his mates knew he was sodomizing another soldier — who knows what they would have thought if they knew? But the Post rhapsodized that:
“Underground gay communities have emerged at bases across the United States and even in war zones. In Iraq, one e-mail group maintained by gay troops includes a database where soldiers post their instant-messaging screen names and the base where they’re stationed. Dozens have profiles on gay dating sites, some posing in uniform.”
What are these ‘communities’ for other than illegal homosexual sex? Why would the Washington Post — self-proclaimed guardian of Washington — praise disruptive lawlessness?
Randy Shilts, acclaimed historian of the gay movement (he died of AIDS at 42), lauded similar single-minded lawlessness.3 But in one incident he placed the ‘fun and games’ at the Pentagon:
“In the bathroom on corridor 6, just inside the five-acre central courtyard, men literally stood in line outside the stalls during the lunch hour, waiting their turn to engage in some hanky-panky.” (p. 184)
Assuming Shilts was reporting accurately, these homosexuals were apparently on the job. Yet they were so consumed with sex that they stood in line waiting their turn to engage in sodomy. Do heterosexuals do this? Not many in FRI’s experience. If homosexuals can’t control themselves at the Pentagon, what happens when the bullets fly, or during the many hours of ‘down time’ in training, traveling, waiting for orders, etc? [Re-read the interview with the female enlistee above.]
President Obama is pushing for a change that no ‘third party’ reports would be permitted to lead to dismissal of homosexual service personnel — effectively repealing the current federal law against sodomy in the armed forces. Thus, if two homosexuals have sex in the shower — as long as one of them doesn’t complain (and that is unlikely) — it will be considered ‘OK.’ The woman we interviewed could still report being ‘hit on,’ but she would not be able to object if three gals had sex next to her in their bunk. Would she have the right to complain if they also engaged in the grunts and groans homosexuals like to make in their parades, or would she merely put herself in line for more sensitivity training?
How many ‘straights’ want to serve under conditions where homosexual sex — in public or semi-private — is protected, but heterosexual sex is not? Some, perhaps. But many would simply not sign up or would leave. When the dust settles, who will end up defending the U.S.? How many will be left besides homosexuals and those who can tolerate being around them? Conclusion
Given the foregoing testimony, does it make sense to let homosexuals serve openly or otherwise in the armed forces?
To homosexuals, it makes plenty of sense. Sex would be highly efficient and they would be quartered with any number of potential partners. They would be allowed to ply their compulsion in a veritable ‘candy store.’ And fellow service personnel who gave them grief for their ‘need to be who they are’ would be punished.
For the rest of us? No way. A sex-saturated military would have a hard time getting out of bed, exiting bathrooms and showers, maintaining discipline, etc. No nation can expect to survive that trusts its protection to the sex-obsessed.
1. Macleans.ca, 2/8/10 ↩ 2. Washington Post, 2/10/10 ↩ 3. Shilts R (1993) Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the U.S. military. NY: St. Martin’s ↩
The illusion that the homosexual lifestyle is a normal way of living has been successfully propagated by promoting a “victim” image for homosexual persons, and by the pseudo-science alleging a ‘gay” gene.
Of the reports alleging, or promising soon down the road, a “gay” gene, not a single one has survived scientific peer review. There is no “gay” gene.
On the other hand, the evidence does show that homosexual persons are indeed victims — but overwhelmingly of their own behavior, not that of others.
Typical homosexual behavior includes regular contact with fecal matter from oneself and from sexual partners, tragically reversing several centuries of learning about cleanliness, and thus several centuries of growing lifespan. Homosexual behavior makes no more sense than playing in the toilet.
All available evidence indicates that the lifespan of practicing homosexual persons is drastically shortened by their behavior. No reliable study indicates otherwise. The lifespan topic is taboo among homosexual advocates because the evidence is so damaging to their case.
You are talking homosexual males, and you are stereotyping. There are a bunch of them that are on the “downlow,” too. I think the problem for women is way worse. The lesbians will make it through bootcamp and bully the heck out of the straight women the whole time.
Yeah and no one is listening. I wish they’d speak out on the cases of sexual abuse they know about. I wish those in the military who have faced sexual harassment and abuse would come forward.
Have you ever seen them play sports??? They aren’t very coordinated.
Their pretty good at pole vaulting. Good as ball players.
True I did not think about the lesbians...they would probably make it easily through boot camp. Well there you have it. No lesbians for sure...lol. This is just a mess and being that the train is going full speed ahead, humor is a must.
The dykes bully everyone, not just the straight women.
My concern is homosexual officers who could misuse their authority to intimidate subordinates.
I'm raising the BS flag on that one. The interviewee has paranoia issues. Over 40% of her female Basic Training barracksmates were "found to be" lesbians and many more were likely? If her statement were true and her class is anything other than a remarkable channeling of lesbian trainees into a single BCT class, more than half of all female Soldiers are gay. That implication is an insult to every female Soldier and undermines the pro-DADT (or pro-don't be gay in the army at all) argument.
Personally, I've always viewed DADT as an escape clause more than a punishment for homosexual troops. Overturning it may force straights to serve with homosexuals, but it will also force homosexuals to serve out their contracts. As for the 'gay sex in the barracks', well sexual harrassment and e.o. works both ways. If it's a problem for good order and discipline, it will get fixed. I'm amazed at how little faith some people put in the abilities of the military to handle its own business.
Another thing to consider is in combat zones will heteros expose themselves to fire to drag fallen homos and will they be exposed to HIV if they do.
You are right there is no such thing as a gay gene. I do know of a few studies which found women who took certain drugs during pregnancy were more likely to have children that were sexually confused on undifferentiated. Twin studies have shown that genetics plays a very minor role. People aren’t dogs we don’t find ourselves unable to resist copulating in the streets however the sexual activists would have us believe otherwise and they frequently do behave like animals in the streets.
Latest Twin Study Confirms
Genetic Contribution To SSA Is Minor
By N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D.
http://www.narth.com/docs/isminor.html
We saw how well it worked for the Catholic church.
A friend of mine related a story from when he was in Vietnam where he came upon such a case where an officer was in the the act of abusing a subordinate. He said he reported it and they discharged the officer. There will quickly be no recourse, already the media fails to cover in any coherent way the rampant sexual abuse in the gay community. They don’t even cover or object to the lewd and vulgar behavior that goes on in their so called “Pride” parades.
I thought the number was a little high but incidental homosexuality has become more common and acceptable among women and that may have been where the recruit was judging. However I wouldn’t be surprised that more “manly” women are attracted to the military. That aside there is no good reason to force or desire homosexuals serve in the military to begin with. They are a distraction. The same goes for women who get pregnant or individuals, who contract AIDs or other such diseases they should be discharged.
Blanket party time.... I saw a few when someone wouldn't shower....
Yes and they covered it up. At least now they are working to fix the problem. Public schools also have a similar problem but it is almost never reported on. The military has far more same sex abuse cases than the Catholic church and it is never reported on.
Uh...just keep the butt bandits out of the military. Does anyone really want people like this in their squad? We want our enemies to fear us, not laugh at us...
Quote of the DAY
There’s a lot of lesbians, and no, it’s not genetic.
If you want to see the lesbian capitol of the universe, then check out Pensacola, Florida. I would say that at least half of the women that I see at anytime here, be it in restaurants, stores, wherever, are visibly gay, and some of them are so manly that it is outright insulting and offensive.
Incidentally, I hear that there is a military base somewhere nearby...
I disagree. Homosexuals usually have as much, or as little, self control as do heterosexuals. However, that being said, individuals identified as homosexuals in the military will be killed.
Everyone should be crystal clear about this. There are far more people in the military willing to kill homosexuals than there are homosexuals willing to join the military. And if the murderer is captured, this means that the military will have lost not one, but two service members.
The purpose of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is *not* justice, but to “preserve good order and discipline in the military.” This should be kept in mind when there is consideration of punishment for military offenses, and explains why some offenses, considered petty in the civilian world, are regarded as very serious in the military world, and vice versa.
In past, homicide may have warranted only a year or two punishment, but sodomy, with extenuating circumstances, could be punished with more than five years in prison. That is, some homicides could be seen as far less detrimental to good order and discipline, than sodomy, depending on circumstances.
Now, this being said, the first inclination of those that would inflict this policy change on the military, is to insist that through indoctrination and lesser punishments, military personnel can be “reprogrammed” to not kill homosexuals, and more, to even treat them as equals.
Not hardly. It would be just as likely as using group therapy, and frequent nattering and whining, to convince people to voluntarily immerse their hand in a deep pot of boiling lead. In many people, there is an instinctual revulsion to homosexuals that is just as strong as their unwillingness to incinerate their own hand.
The next inclination of those that would force this policy change on the military, is their opinion that it is *more* important that homosexuals be integrated into the military, than the retention of tens of thousands of personnel who would kill homosexuals. But in that regard, such people are disinterested in the military mission itself, and see it of far less importance than their social experimentation.
That is, they do not *care* if the military loses its effectiveness, in that they hold it in low esteem in the first place, and would not mind at all were it to be humbled on the battlefield, suffering defeat and destruction. A similar view they hold towards America as a whole.
While the military has become inured to such manipulations, the Pentagon will no doubt eventually embrace having homosexuals sent into its ranks, fully understanding that they will be killed. But that is the penalty in itself, that homosexuals who would dare to accept the invitations of the social theorists, are foolish enough to deserve what they get.
Being relatively wise, the Pentagon will not report the death of these homosexuals as being over their sexuality or actions, but as the result of training accidents, violent crimes, and bad luck. Much as they do right now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.