[Impy]

Anyone even poll the soldiers and see what they think?

[ZULU]

The God upon Whom America so long relied is assuredly distressed again by legitimization of the lifestyle of Sodomists. Its not enough that the libs have banned Him from public life, they insist on poking Him in the eye.

I'm sure Washington, wherever he is, is shaking his head at the nation he helped found for being unable to distinguish freedom from licentiousness.

[loboinok]

What would George Washington think?

"General Washington held a clear understanding of the rules for order and discipline, and as the original Commander-in-Chief, he was the first not only to forbid, but even to punish, homosexuals in the military.

An edict issued by the Continental Congress communicates the moral tone which lay at the base of Washington's actions:

The Commanders of . . . the thirteen United Colonies are strictly required to show in themselves a good example of honor and virtue to their officers and men and to be very vigilant in inspecting the behavior of all such as are under them, and to discountenance and suppress all dissolute, immoral, and disorderly practices, and also such as are contrary to the rules of discipline and obedience, and to correct those who are guilty of the same." 2

2. Journals of the American Congress (Washington: Way and Gideon, 1823), Vol. I, p. 185, on November 28, 1775.

Homosexuals in the Military

[ChocChipCookie]

I’d be very interested in learning about the affects on military morale and effectiveness in countries that openly allow gays to serve. However, I don’t expect unbiased info to be readily available.

[bushfamfan]

You don’t even have to ask what George Washington would think! And this is just an extension of the moral ambiguity of this country that is really setting our country up for its downfall.

[wolfcreek]

Well, ‘ol George DID have a set of wooden teeth.

[xc1427]

Pardon me for what I am about to do, but it must be said...

George Washington would not be very gay (happy) concerning this military development.

[Gritty]

If this were seriously being considered, George Washington would likely have offered his service to the British as a Tory. He knew grossly immoral, reprobate, and destructive behavior when he saw it. He would never align himself with the side that aligned itself with the Devil.

Permitting this sort of thing would likely end by the destruction of our military as a cohesive entity. It would be split into factions and militant homosexuality and politically correct demands would completely destroy it's moral and interpersonal bonds. People with a moral compass would flee the organization in droves. We would be left with a military which would eventually be more than willing to force it's own twisted views on the American people.

[Lucky Dog]

Every time this topic shows up, the apparently willful ignorance of some and outright disinformation campaign by others causes my blood pressure to spike. Therefore, whenever possible, I try to put the facts out for all to see:

The legal reality:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION Preamble. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [emphasis added]

In the very first paragraph of the foundational document of our country, the purpose of the military is defined. The military exists to provide for the common defense not to provide a specific “right” to serve in the military. As military service is not a “right,” all kinds of people are excluded for very good reasons, e.g., those physically, mentally or emotionally incapable of performing required tasks, as well as certain categories of law breakers such as felons, etc.,

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, Article. I., Section. 8., [Congress shall have the power ] Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

As enacted by the United States Congress:

Uniform Code of Military Justice

925. ART. 125. SODOMY

(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.

The following excerpt (passed in 1993) is from Public Law 103-160, Section 654, Title 10—"Homosexuality is incompatible with military service." (See Senate and House Reports, pages 293 and 287, respectively.)

Constitutional challenges to former and current military policies concerning homosexuals followed in the wake of the 1993 laws and regulations. Based on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) that there is no fundamental right to engage in consensual homosexual sodomy, the courts have uniformly held that the military may discharge a service member for overt homosexual behavior.

The logic reality:

Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (Contrary to popular opinion, the term sexual orientation does not define one as a homosexual any more than the term, “lust” defines one as a rapist or the term “anger” defines one as a murderer or the term “greed” defines one as a thief.)

Any human behavior (not driven by autonomic or instinctual responses) that is not voluntary is, by definition, a psychosis.

Therefore, homosexual behavior is either a voluntary choice or a psychosis.

If homosexual behavior is a psychosis, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure. Nonetheless, treated or not, like other psychoses, it is grounds for exclusion from military service.

If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal and/or military behavioral regulations as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc.

Homosexual behavior, in general, like theft, assault, drug abuse, etc., is counter to good order and discipline within any organization, especially a military one.

This fact, just as with excluding convicted felons or drug abusers, is sufficient reason to exclude homosexual behavior practitioners.

The fiscal reality:

Homosexual behavior practitioners are statistically subject to a much higher rate of HIV/AIDS and other deadly diseases than the general population.

This fact alone increases the cost of providing medical care for the services. Increased costs in the medical care arena means reduced financial capability to purchase military hardware and pay other military personnel benefits. In short, it decreases the capability of the country fiscally, to provide for the common defense.

However, there is another, even more compelling, reason for exclusion associated with the disease rate among homosexual behavior practitioners.

The combat asset risk reality:

Because HIV/AIDS and other diseases prevalent among homosexual practitioners qualify as blood-borne pathogens, the presence of homosexual behavior practitioners creates statistically increased, and completely unnecessary risk for the loss of combat resources. The long and short of this fact is that these diseases can be spread, among other ways, through contact with the blood of the diseased individual. The military is its own, largest source of material for blood transfusions. Additionally, in a battlefield setting there is never a shortage of blood to create exposure risks to those who are not homosexual practitioners.

Summary:

Homosexual behavior is illegal in the military for very good, legal, logical, fiscal and combat asset risk reasons. Those who have ignored these strictures, either, willfully, or inadvertently, under the so-called Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy have caused a tremendous waste of taxpayer resources as well as lowered morale within the military. These costs were entirely driven by individual homosexual practitioners’ hedonistic, selfish motives and behavior and resulted in unnecessary detriment to the mission capability of the US defense establishment.

[stevie_d_64]

Like I said back in the 80’s when all of this was begining to surface as an “issue”...

I commented that the people asking the questions were getting thae answers from the WRONG people in the service...

Instead of Congress asking the Admirals and Generals what they “thought” about this issue and coming up with the lamest campaign slogan ever...”Don’t ask, Don’t tell.”

They (American people) should have been asking the NCO’s and other “senior enlisted” service members what they thought about it...

We were the one’s that actually had to “deal” with the issue, not the flag officers!!!

[Citizen Blade]

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” works. It allows patriotic gays (and there are a number in the military) to serve in the military, but protects military cohesion and prevents the armed forces from being used for political purposes by gay activists.

The only people opposed to the current policy are fanatics on both sides of the political spectrum. The current policy works for the military and it works for gays who want to quietly serve their country.