Posted on 10/19/2010 12:37:11 PM PDT by pissant
This was never about Rump Rangers rights, this is being done to destroy our military.
Interesting the tone he used. Thanks for posting pissant.
He was incredulous.
Good God. The notion that our warriors are now going to have to sit through “sexual minority” sensitivity training has George Washington, US Grant, RE Lee, TDR, Patton, and Ike spinning violently in their graves.
Thanks for the ping. If DADT gets repealed, then won’t things go back to the way they were before it was forced on the military by Clintoon?
LOL. If only.
In DADT, the case is that you can most certainly be gay and serve, but you should keep the behavior to yourself. The same is true for heterosexuals in the sense that if I were a man in the military, It is against the rules for me to practice sexual behavior with female military personnel.
So what you're saying is this: If a soldier (be it in uniform or out) is caught kissing a member of the same sex, it would be handled the same way as if a soldier (in uniform or out) were caught kissing his girlfriend or wife?
” Good God. The notion that our warriors are now going to have to sit through “sexual minority” sensitivity training has George Washington, US Grant, RE Lee, TDR, Patton, and Ike spinning violently in their graves. “
No kidding
Do you understand the military rules on sexual conduct at all? Adultery, or getting caught while serving in the military is a punishable offense. A high-ranking officer is also not allowed with little exception, to hold his wife’s own hand. Do homosexuals want to live under such rules, because frankly that’s what everyone else lives under thus far.
I would recommend you watch Allen West’s explanation of why DADT works right here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVQ14IgCDE8
God bless this man in full. America needs men like this in the government. Oh yeah!
I live in a military town, and here's what I "understand":
When I see a Major in the United States Army kiss his Captain wife (who obviously have done a bit more than kissing, since they have 3 children together), I know that no one is calling up the military to complain. I do know if two homosexuals were caught holding hands and it was discovered that they were in the military, action WOULD be taken.
Regarding your PC video of Allen West. Poor guy, he was falling all over himself trying not to offend anyone. Here's some background for you on homosexuals in the military, and how our Founding Fathers perceived the behavior:
"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."
Linkd to Wallbuilders.com
Regarding DADT: according to the Center for Military Readiness, DADT was defeated in Congress:
"In 1993 members of Congress gave serious consideration to a proposal known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which was announced by President Clinton on July 19, 1993. The concept suggested that homosexuals could serve in the military as long as they didn’t say they were homosexual. Congress wisely rejected the convoluted “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” concept and did not write it into law. Members recognized an inherent inconsistency that would render that policy unworkable and indefensible in court: If homosexuality is not a disqualifying characteristic, how can the armed forces justify dismissal of a person who merely reveals the presence of such a characteristic? Instead of approving such a convoluted and legally-questionable concept, Congress chose to codify Defense Department regulations that were in place long before Bill Clinton took office."
Link to CMR
I didn’t refer to the code of conduct meaning “ever”. Obviously I have family who are military and who interact normally at home quite often. There are plenty of incidences with which heterosexual individuals commit misconduct and are punished for it, because the military does not want to have to deal with lawsuits.
As I noted from the CMR’s statistics that you linked me to, pregnancy of the personnel or sexual misconduct between personnel were listed at decent portions out of the total disciplinary discharges. There are certainly standards for sexual conduct, and indiscretion, and it certainly is a punishable offense from the discharge statistics, if not, people would not receive the discharges for it.
Allen West wasn’t entirely PC in what he said. He did make the point that discretion and self-control were a standard, and he was also true to say that homosexuality does not forbid someone from being in the military. It certainly is for a great deal of the soldiers who serve, with few exceptions. The conduct, even as he mentioned, was not governing home, it was about combat duty.
You and I probably agree that the people who should be in the military are there because they really are making serious sacrifices and commitments to be there. It’s not the same as civilian society.
The real part that sticks to the argument against repealing DADT, is that discharges specifically for homosexuality alone are rare. Far more often doing drugs, getting pregnant, or obesity are the reasoning behind a disciplinary discharge. Not even 1% out of thousands of disciplinary discharges are for homosexuality. That hardly makes them a super-victimized group.
Being that homosexuals consist of (at best) 4% of the entire adult population, and in the military even less, it's only natural that heterosexuals commit more offenses, which as you pointed out, aren't soley sex related. Also keep in mind that practicing homosexuals are discharged for other reasons as well (drug use is high amongst homosexual and bi-sexual men).
With that in mind, the following doesn't look too good for homosexuals in the military:
Homosexuals in the military are about three times more likely to commit sexual assaults than heterosexuals
Link to AFTAH article
Excuse me, but were you inferring that the only reason heterosexual misconduct is punished is due to fear of some lawsuit by homosexuals? (Too funny).
Allen West wasn’t entirely PC in what he said. He did make the point that discretion and self-control were a standard, and he was also true to say that homosexuality does not forbid someone from being in the military
According to this website, these are grounds for dismissal:
The member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts...; · The member has made a statement that he or she is homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further approved finding that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts...; · The member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex....
Link to GI Rights article
The way I read that, is that you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent beyond a reasonable doubt; meaning that you deny that you have homosexual "behavior" inclinations.
You and I probably agree that the people who should be in the military are there because they really are making serious sacrifices and commitments to be there.
Where you and I obviously disagree is that I don't want someone that either practices a sexual perversion, or has the inclination to practice a sexual perversion, to make those "sacrifices and commitments", as amongst other things, it will have a negative effect on the morale of other (especially Christian) soldiers.
The real part that sticks to the argument against repealing DADT, is that discharges specifically for homosexuality alone are rare. Far more often doing drugs, getting pregnant, or obesity are the reasoning behind a disciplinary discharge. Not even 1% out of thousands of disciplinary discharges are for homosexuality. That hardly makes them a super-victimized group.
DADT was never passed into law. Did you not read the link?
DADT was never passed, but the opposition treats the situation as if it was passed.
Regarding someone that practices a sexual perversion, of course not. There is about no privacy in the military between people who are of the same gender, it would be bad if that person who you were in the same close quarters with was homosexual, or could have erotic tendencies toward you.
The fact I was getting at is that people who are discrete homosexuals tend to get away with it all the time.
The behavior is certainly perverse, you would have to throw common sense about how the most vulnerable parts of the body function out the window to say it wasn’t true.
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.