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 ↩
ROFL
“The Spartans were homosexuals and the best soldiers in the ancient world...”
Oh, so that’s why they died out after one generation.
and I will tell you that there are no openly serving homosexuals in the Brit military and if there was then they would have the crap beat out of them.
how do I know , well quite easily I served with them for 8 years recently.
I don’t recognize homosexuality as a mental illness, though apparently it was considered a mental illness in America until 1973 (I learn something new every day.) As such, I’ll respect the right of people to disagree on the root causes of homosexuality. Don’t agree with it even the least little bit, but respect the right.
I don’t care however. I don’t care about the HIV rates of homosexuals (the military tests for that, and the military doesn’t discharge servicemen who come up HIV+, gay or straight). I don’t particularly care about their rates of STDs (in theory, they’d only be infecting each other). What I do care about is this: is it advantageous to the defense of the nation for homosexuals to serve in the military with their sexual orientation known to their command elements? I say it is, other people may disagree for a variety of reasons... some of them quite valid.
As for the issue of sodomy, oral sex between heterosexual partners is also considered sodomy under the UCMJ. There are a lot of straight servicemen and women who ‘choose’ to practice that activity in their heterosexual relationships, and none of them consider themselves mentally ill or perverts.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
This soldiering thing isn't a game, and you are wrong by a wide margin, the submariners do not want women brought into their sub duty.
what utter crap
homosexuals should not be serving openly in the US military at all.
Homosexuals are all about one thing and that is sex and them getting off
getting rid of don’t ask brings nothing , totally nothing positive and brings a lot of problems.
I know of not one person who is serving that wants homosexuals to serve with them let alone openly and if they do then the next step for them os getting the chaplain to marry them, getting housing, saying they can risk their life but not marry
I am sure Jim R banned a bunch of folks last week for pushing this homosexual agenda and telling everyone on here that if one person wants homosexuals to serve the it is not a conservative view and therefore they do not need to be on here
LOL you’re joking right ?
yea that worked out for them didn’t it
and now they’ve gone to the dogs
So after centuries of success, you believe that by introducing open homosexuality into our military that we can improve on our current military readiness and effectiveness and level of support from the enlistment pool of mostly conservative young males, and our prestige among the enemies that we face.
Interesting theory.
Just to clarify something: I’m not ‘pushing’ a homosexual agenda.
I know that overturning DADT could open a lot of closet doors that aren’t in the best interest of the defense of the nation. I also know that DADT isn’t the right answer. The threat of a gay serviceman being blackmailed with being ‘outed’ to his command by the enemy is an unacceptable risk to me, as it should be for everyone who cares about the security of this nation.
Baron von Steuben may have something to say about whether or not homosexuals contributed to America’s military success over the centuries.
The military should go back to “no homosexuals at all”. If homosexuality is allowed in the military, the majority - and the best - of those serving will be demoralized, and the entire “gay” agenda will then create even more havoc. Much has been written on many threads in the last few weeks. I don’t have time to search, copy, paste or re-write. But the basic fact is that homosexuality is a mental illness, and mentally ill people have no right to serve in the military, and to allow them in openly (it’s bad enough with DADT) is one of the very worst things that can happen both to the military and to the country at large.
It will, and is meant to, usher in even more liberties being taken away from citizens in the name of “equality”.
for years homosexuals have been saying that their sexual pleasures and life is their own private business
well don’t ask was a compromise by them to give them a private life and now they are saying they want others to know now.
questions like will they be allowed to kiss or hold hands around base?
here’s another issues and I know this first hand
we come back from a patrol and I saw two of our lot blown up one with his brains blown apart
this is not what I have seen but
I go to the bar on base for a drink and two men in the supply platoon not front line marines are now holding hands and kissing each other .
do you think I or any other marine or soldier wants to see that espcially right after what we have been through.
I can tell you that after a deployment there is always tension and a lot of fights between us.
Now I beat a guy up and he goes to the officer and rats on me .
The officer he went to is also queer and this guy knew that.
Will I now be up on hate crimes and if not then will the homosexual gestapo now be asking those charges against me and saying that queers are still being targetted even though the fight was over spilling my beer etc
Homosexuals have a mental problem and for that they should nto be allowed to have their perverted agenda pushed onto us.
We’re taught to kill and now told that we should accept this, no way
Anal sodomy is what homosexuals are particularly known for, which filthy practice is disease causing all by itself. That’s one thing, but not the main thing.
I could give a rat’s *** about your opinion of whether homosexuality is a mental illness or not. The only reason that psychological and psychiatric associations no longer consider homosexuality a mental illness is because of bullying by “gay” activists and their own cowardice. There is a long story about that but I don’t have the time to find it for you.
Same sex acts are a crime against nature, filthy, and those who practice such acts are mentally ill and normal men and women do not want to be around such people in close quarters. And in the military, the quarters are very close. The military got along just fine without homosexuals before DADT. The few that were there either kept to themselves or got discharged. They did not have the freedom to “be themselves” and that’s the way it should be.
“What I do care about is this: is it advantageous to the defense of the nation for homosexuals to serve in the military with their sexual orientation known to their command elements? I say it is,”
Why do you say it is?
“...other people may disagree for a variety of reasons... some of them quite valid.”
If their reasons are valid that makes you wrong. Can’t have a valid, wrong reason.
Mahvelous!
There's more than one way to cross a river, most of those ways are valid, some of the valid ways are better than others but they're not invalid because one way was chosen first.
So you decided that you won’t respond to post 110.
Legitimizing homosexual behavior—and that’s what allowing them to serve openly amounts to—is never in the best interests of this or any nation. National decay brought on by acceptance of moral decay is never in our best interest.
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.