Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gays in Military = Sex in Barracks
http://www.familyresearchinst.org ^ | Feb 22 2010 | Dr. Paul Cameron Ph. D

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 ↩


TOPICS: Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: 404error; babylonfalling; badlink; bhodod; dadt; dontaskdonttell; gays; homosexualagenda; impeachobama; insanity; military; militaryisruined; militaryreadiness; newworldorder; sodomngomorrah
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-154 next last
To: Maelstorm
Gays in Military = Sex in Barracks

That might necessitate separate barracks for gays.

Females have their own barracks and males have their own barracks. Homosexuality, being different, might require a separation from the straight population.

I remember when in the Marines, a long time ago, how uncomfortable I felt when taking a shower and having a gay Marine in there at the same time. He was very clearly aroused and didn't care that I was looking uncomfortable about it. When I talked to others in the barracks about the situation, they too mentioned how the same guy would always be around for their showers. They felt as uncomfortable as I did but felt that it wasn't our business to do something about it. The gay marine took the longest showers of anybody because he seemed to be around the showers when everybody else needed to shower.

Needless to say, he wasn't very popular outside the showers either. He didn't hide his homosexuality and didn't care that it made others uncomfortable. The period of time I'm talking about was way before it became fashionable to come out of the closet and before people started flaunting their sexually preferences so openly. I don't think I could, if I were young and eligible, join the services nowadays with the openness that is being advocated currently.
41 posted on 02/27/2010 10:37:16 AM PST by adorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nmh

Is Obama gay or something too? This is a sick world.


42 posted on 02/27/2010 10:50:13 AM PST by FreedBird (D)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

This is something that I keep bringing up when Freepers think that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is too harsh and want to know why homosexuals just can’t serve openly. Having been in the Army and knowing how closely one lives in the barracks, I know that I would not have wanted to serve with homosexuals and how good it was to know that the first time someone approached me or anyone else, out they went, usually within a day or so.

When in Korea someone approached a guy in my unit; within 24 hours that joker was on the plane back to the U.S. with a less than honorable discharge.


43 posted on 02/27/2010 10:53:27 AM PST by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
"What does being open about your sexuality have anything to do with doing your job?

I can only address this from the heterosexual side, as a 64- year-old veteran, and father of 4, and grandfather of 6, and two marriages.

In the male-female world, I have read articles where studies show that young men - military age - think about sex every 15 minutes or so.

As young men - where women are concerned - many are victims of "using the wrong head" to think with, and wind up in trouble, or some other stupid mistake because of that trait.

As a manager, I've seen that even pairing young men with women on a work project can be shaky if either of them has designs on the other...the potential quest, or conquest, seems to effect the actual goal of the work assigned.

Now, having said that, it's not that homosexual activities haven't taken place in the military, even before DADT I've heard of such behavior, however then - if caught - they were given "undesirable" discharges and sent home.

But, if obama allows gays to serve openly, what it will do is greatly "empower" the gay military members, and they will become openly bold under obama's protection.

Being typically bold and outspoken anyway, their newfound boldness will - I believe - cause them to make "advances" they would not otherwise make, and any resistance they encountered will be reported as "gay bashing" and it will be the heterosexual, or ones who resist that will be in trouble.

We don't need this within the military; this will be a "mission-changer" from combat ready security for the United States to social experimentation which could lead to barracks becoming bathhouses. On the battlefield, will the gay soldier spend more time protecting his "friend" than the rest of the corps? This goes back to the "nepotism" thing and why most places won't let husbands and wives or boyfriend/girlfriends work together.

Also, so what happens when two gay guys are getting it on in the shower and the Sergeant catches them? If he reprimands or punishes them, is he then charged as a bigot, homophobe? How about if it's a female Sergeant?

There is enough tension in close living quarters without throwing in "sexual tensions".

I can see this new rule being like all liberal ideas, frought with "unintended consequences" and turning into madness that will effect the military to the very core.

It all boils down to esprit de corps and whether you're safe to drop your soap in the shower. You can't build an effective fighting unit when one half of the troops hate or fear the other half.

44 posted on 02/27/2010 10:56:29 AM PST by FrankR (Those of us who love AMERICA far outnumber those who love obama - your choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

>>Before long, the U.S. may be defended by the sex-obsessed and those who can tolerate kowtowing to them.<<

.
Nothing to see here folks — it’s all part of the intentional destruction of the social structure of America as envisaged by the Founders. Diversity will reign.


45 posted on 02/27/2010 10:56:33 AM PST by 353FMG (Save the Planet -- Eliminate Socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
Hmmmmm......

I guess female submariners being allowed into submarine duty will not result in the same activities?

(I'm sure the male submariners won't be complaining, unless the selection process excludes hotties)

46 posted on 02/27/2010 10:56:43 AM PST by traditional1 ("Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

What catagory will trans-genders fall under?


47 posted on 02/27/2010 10:59:08 AM PST by 353FMG (Save the Planet -- Eliminate Socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: EricT.
The dykes bully everyone, not just the straight women.

Most of the older ones love me. The young ones are mean and scare me. (I am very feminine looking but tough, independent, and masculine acting straight chick.)

48 posted on 02/27/2010 10:59:27 AM PST by conservative cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

“In declining states the leadership intuitively choses the most harmful course of action.”- A Great Historian 1888


49 posted on 02/27/2010 11:01:07 AM PST by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: verity

“I’m getting out before it becomes mandatory!”

Read Joe Haldeman’s “The Forever War” a great military sci-fi story.


50 posted on 02/27/2010 11:14:46 AM PST by Levante
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

There would also be affirmative action in promotions for homos.
“We need a gay squad leader in that platoon, Captain. See to it.”
“Yes, sir Colonel”.


51 posted on 02/27/2010 11:28:13 AM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

Yup.


52 posted on 02/27/2010 11:30:02 AM PST by Neets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 353FMG

“What catagory will trans-genders fall under?”

I think you will be able to shoot them, as if they were a double agent. The troops need at least one stress reducer.


53 posted on 02/27/2010 11:32:34 AM PST by stephenjohnbanker (Support our troops, and vote out the RINOS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: jz638

“I’m raising the BS flag on that one. The interviewee has paranoia issues.”
Maybe so, but a huge percentage, at least half, of the women on my police dept were lesbians.


54 posted on 02/27/2010 11:33:09 AM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm; et al

Are you people brain damaged or just so fogged by your prejudice you can’t think? There is a regulation/law against rape so if you drop you soap you’re as safe as you are now. There are already regulations against sex in the barracks(against good order,conduct unbecoming, etc) There is no proof the average homosexual is any more prone to rape, disorder, unlawful conduct than the average hormone dosed hetereosexual. Homosexuals have served with distinction in all armies and jobs throughout time. You people call yourself conservatives, yet you want more laws/regulation and government interference in the private affairs of our citizens. As a 65 yo veteran with children, grandkids, purple hearts with resulting prosthesis’ all I care about is can the kid in the foxhole beside me/mine shoot straight.


55 posted on 02/27/2010 11:33:48 AM PST by hurly (A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservative cat
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.

It has been that way for decades: My sister joined the Air Force in 1969 and after a year of communications electronics training, high security clearances, they made her a telephone operator because she was female.

Anyway, to relieve the boredom she joined the base volleyball team and was the only straight woman on the team.

Some of the lesbians took pity on her and protected her from the aggressive ones.

I have a horror story about a homo in my career field back in the 70s but It would take a bit of writing and bore too many people.

56 posted on 02/27/2010 11:34:09 AM PST by OldMissileer (Atlas, Titan, Minuteman, PK. Winners of the Cold War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum

No they don’t understand but it is up to exmilitary and military soldiers and families to stand up and tell their stories because sure as he’ll the homosexuals story will be told. It’s the activism that is the problem and it will be front and center if DADT falls and the soldiers who are there to only to serve their country will be forced to deal with it and the old guard will be punished for resisting it.


57 posted on 02/27/2010 11:38:41 AM PST by Maelstorm (We are umbilicaled to a parasitic beast that feeds off one man so to enslave another to dependency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: hurly

“...yet you want more laws/regulation and government interference in the private affairs of our citizens.”
I don’t recall having any “private affairs” whilst being in the army. As a matter of fact there wasn’t any private anything, except the rank. As far as laws and regs and govt interference that pretty much sums up the army.
Further, no one is asking for more rules, just keep the one we’ve got in regards to homosexuals in the military.


58 posted on 02/27/2010 11:45:30 AM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm; 185JHP; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Agitate; Albion Wilde; AliVeritas; Antoninus; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

Dr. Cameron tells it like it is, and if anyone comes on this thread supporting homosexuals in the military, I will personally slam you into the ground and try my very best to get you banned.

59 posted on 02/27/2010 11:50:16 AM PST by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jz638

You’re supporting homosexuals in the military. And what is your evidence? Only that you disagree with the statements in the article.

Paranoia issues? Have you been a female serving in today’s military?

Yes or no.

And why in hell will “forcing” straight (aka “normal”) soldiers to serve with homosexuals (aka “abnormal”) be a good thing, which is what you are implying??

I will wait for your answer.


60 posted on 02/27/2010 11:57:53 AM PST by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gamaya Tamaso Ma Jyotir Gamaya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-154 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson