Posted on 02/02/2010 10:19:37 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
How about: “Touch me and I’ll chop it off.” Works for the straight guys who think the women there are for their amusement too.
This is purely to give the implementors of the new policy, all time to safely retire with thier fat pensions. The unworthy underlings will move up and be left to deal with any real consequences.
You know, there have been gays in the military since before George Washington, before Julius Ceasar, since there has been a military. There is no evidence that gays are less brave or inferior soldiers, that I know of. There were gays in your high school locker room, and not just the gym teacher.
As a libertarian leaning conservative, I don’t care what people think or what they do in private so long as it does not affect me or other third parties. (I oppose gay “marriage” for libertarian reasons that I don’t want to get into here.) Freedom does not grant you or me the freedom not to be offended.
Most of the arguments against gays in the military effectively dissolved when women were integrated into male units, an idea I find idiotic on purely practical grounds. I was in the Army with gays and with some partially integrated female personnel. I can assure you that the gays were less disruptive than females.
IMHO, gays in the military do not present a challenge as long as everyone acts like adults. Including the gays. I do not think the same is true of women in the military.
I also believe they would need to amend the UCMJ because if I'm not mistaken, there is a specific article in their regarding sodomy.
Therefore, it also solve's Mullen's "dilemma" to return to a straight-up ban, like we had prior to Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell." Mullen should then have no crisis of his oh-so-sensitive conscience.
DADT is relatively recent, dating to a compromise in Clinton's early years in office when he could not overturn the ban.
Every American should pressure their congress-critters on this and get an out-and-out total agreement to continue DADT or to return to the ban as a must-have before that congress-person ever gets their vote. They must be on record and in writing.
This will nationalize the 2010 election in the same way as gay-marriage initiatives brought them out in droves in the states across the nation.
Will captains of ships (and other field grade officers and/or chaplains), legal officiants in marriage ceremonies, be required to conduct gay marriages? If gays can serve openly, I don't see how a liberal district judge can avoid declaring gay marriage a federal "rights" issue, and therefore, order gay marriages in the military. It is inevitable.
“Therefore, it also solve’s Mullen’s “dilemma” to return to a straight-up ban, like we had prior to Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Mullen should then have no crisis of his oh-so-sensitive conscience.”
I fully agree. I also agree with this being a priority issue for the 2010 elections.
One more thing....Admiral Mullen should be forced to retire. He has bought into “potitical correctness.” IMO a flag officer that thinks that way is NOT fit to serve.
they have been going after the military because it stands for traditions and morals
This adds nothing positive but only brings problems to the military so here’s a thought,.
lets stop telling homosexuals that they’re normal because they are not. Parents need to tell their kids they need help instead of telling them when growing up how they can be anything and feel pride about it even if they want to have their penis chopped off etc
Homosexuals need to now understand that we have had enough of their sick agenda and that they either need to get mental help or go back into the bedroom where they state they want to be.
They say that don’t ask is wrong but then they state in the next breath that they want their sexual life private
what the hell, make their minds up is it private or is it to be seen and let everyone know.
if this goes ahead then it will be having the chaplain marrying them and then they will say they can fight or die but not marry where as now the fed Govt comes in and says they will overturn DOMA
it’s about time everyone not just conservatives said enough is enough, this is all about a sexual perverted agenda and making us having to accept it.
well not me
this is why it is so important to get as many seats in Nov.
even seats we think we don’t have a chance we have to get someone to run and make the rats defend it.
or
maybe bozo the clown knows that they will lose congress but he has instructed his top brass under the bus and tell them to say they want this. knowing full well it will never happen .
in the end he can tell the homo’s and perverts that he tried but it was not him who failed but the congress
the perverts and sicko’s tell us all the time that IT IS THEIR OWN PRIVATE BUSINESS
ok lets go with that
now don’t ask keeps their sexual lives private so why are they now saying they want all of us to know about their sexual antics.?
hypocrisy at it’s finest and this is yet another example of the homosexuals wanting to infiltrate another institution which has traditions and morals
Your philosophy or bias is getting in the way of your seeing the truth. There have been a half dozen or so articles about this in the last week on FR, with many cogent comments - reasons why allowing homosexuals into the military is a bad thing. The majority of those serving in the military do not want open homosexuals in with them.
That is reason enough. But there are many specfic reasons why homosexuals in the military is a bad thing. BTW, women in the military has drawbacks and IMO there should be separate units or whatever the right term is for women, the way there used to be. Women just plain cannot function exactly the same as men, so standards have to be watered down for them and this is bad for morale.
When George Washington was a General in the military, one man was found to be a homosexual and he was drummed out - literally drummed. Homosexuals were punished and rejected from the military. So don’t lie and imply they were accepted.
I do not use the word “gays” because that is a euphamism and a propaganda word stolen from English - now we can’t say “gay” using the real meaning because it now means “sodomy practitioner”. Homosexuals are more promiscuous, more prone to disease, more prone to substance abuse, domestic violence, child molestation, and more. They have the highest rate of AIDS as well as other STDs and for that fact alone are a risk in the military.
So any so-called argument you present will be entirely dismantled by any one of these threads. If you want to support homosexuals in the military then find a thread with a list of reasons why it is wrong and defeat each reason with facts.
But you won’t be able to do it, you support your side with emotion and fact free statements such as “they should act like adults”. Well, homosexuals act like uncontrolled worse than animals so that argument won’t fly.
The homosexual agenda must be stopped, curtailed, turned around, and shoved back into the closet. Absolutely. It has to be.
JAG is about to be very busy prosecuting military “hate crimes”.
...And they thought they had their hands full prosecuting Navy SEALS and Marines for daring to fire their weapons in self-defense on the battlefield, and for giving a murdering terrorist a fat lip.
Mullen also believes that the military should begin to construct “G clubs” on bases worldwide for gay service persons, to go along with the typical E clubs and O clubs which already exist on most bases. No word yet on whether Mullen’s proposed “G clubs” would include hot tubs and/or bathhouses.
What's worse is that male personnel have to carry water for them. A unit with 90% males and 10% females is about 85% as effective as one with 100% males. IMHO.
I never said that homosexuals were historically accepted in the military, simply that they were there. The broad general argument against homosexuals in the military is that their presence is prejudicial to good order and discipline. An openly homosexual officer or non-com might show preference to certain subordinates or be suspected of doing so. (You see why integrating females in male units has a similar effect.)
The other problem is discomfort on the part of many straight men about being in close quarters with homosexuals, which I can certainly understand and sympathize with. As I said, as long as everyone behaves like adults, the situation should be tolerable.
Commanders like to avoid problems and conflicts and the easiest way is not accept gays into the services, I agree. But they are there now. When I was in the Army there were two incidents involving homosexuality that I was aware of. In one case, during my time in missile school, a former service member and a recruit in our training platoon told the battery commander that they were homosexuals in order to be discharged. They got their wish, but the Army tried to keep the story under wraps because they didn't want a bunch of guys who wanted out coming forward and claiming to be gay.
The other incident was at my TO&E unit in Germany, one black guy who had guard duty asked permission to return to the barracks to get some gear and was granted it. When he was not back in time for his round, they found him in his room (which he shared with about seven other guys, who were not present at the time) nekkid and asleep in the same bed with another guy, in the soixante-neuf position. According to the reporting officer, "the air was thick with the smell of sex". (Tell me, lieutenant, how do you know what sex smells like?) I lived on the same floor and never suspected anything. Both guys were discharged for "participation in lewd, indecent and immoral acts".
Somehow the Army survived these incidents. Again, I am only opposed to behavior, not inclinations.
I agree so much and for those lefty pro homo trolls trolling on here then hear this.
you can name call, bigot etc but that has now become boring and pathetic. It shows that you have no argument and you do not believe in free speech.
A person of the same sex is not what nature intend and of you actually took a step back then you would understand that.
men and women are built differently no matter how many times you tell yourselves we are not.
You need to think how a mans body is built and how it is partnered to be with a woman and be able to reproduce to keep our species alive.
Two of the same sex is all about their sexual pleasure, and fine then it should stay in the bedroom but to come out with they should be encouraged to flaunt their sexual agenda and they should be acting in such a way in public is not helping that person nor is it helping anyone.
The public have had enough and if you opened your eyes and you got out of your elitist inner circle then you will understand how people have voted and said no to this agenda.
It’s nothing to do with hate it is about folks who are fed up of hearing how two of the same sex having sex is supposed to be natural or normal.
If you are looking to say tolerant then I suggest you look at the homosexuals and how they act when the folks say no we like traditional normal families, you know mother and a father, husband and wife, boyfriend and girlfriend, boy likes girl, girl likes boy
you are correct
they are notn gays they are homosexuals
the left finds positive words and then twists them to suit their agenda
Like progressive in the 20’s but it became a dirty word so they used liberal and now that is becoming a dirty word they look to use populist or back to progressive
same as gay
gay means to be happy, gay is a positive word
homosexual they thought as a negative so they take the word gay thinking it will bring more of a positive view.
well it doesn’t. Dress a wolf as a sheep it’s still a wolf.
Dress a man as a woman it still is a man even if he has it chopped off.
homosexual not gay, I won’t play the lefts game will you???
every day we heard in the military homo jokes in one way or another, is that now classed as a hate crime?
If I get into a fight with a homo and I beat him then does he state I beat him because he’s a homo and I get charged with hate crimes ?
If a Chaplain says he will not marry two men will he be charged for hate crimes?
all of this brings nothing but trouble and there is no positives
we were in the Arctic and it was when they were thinking of letting women on the front lines.
Now the weather there was minus 70 with wind chill and we slept in snow holes
what a disaster having her with us.
She went on her period, she held up our patrols, we had to wait for her to move out from the snow holes, we had to carry her much of her weight she was supposed to carry, then we had guys who were on her like crap on a shovel.
After our deployment we were all asked how it went and we all said terrible and did the top brass listen to us.
hell no
Do not get me wrong but women do and should have a place in the military but not on the front lines or even in a marine /infantry patrol/deployment etc
Flying planes etc I agree with
having homosexuals brings all other problems into the military now, what’s next homo pride parades on base, homo parties etc.
there’s just too many problems
The best plan is: don’t let them in, in the first place.
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.