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 ↩
You're probably right. Homosexuals aren't noted for being outdoors type people either. I'm sure just the thought of being a Scout Master and going on overnight campouts with 12 year old boys must be repulsive to them.
hehe I know, it’s just that some anti-Ron Paul people use the names interchangeably.
Before long, the U.S. would be left undefended.
According to Larry Sinclair, yes.
One has to wonder how lpng it would be until the military looked like our prison system, with rapes being accepted as just part of it. It is a disgrace that it happens in prisons, but it would be terror in our military.
Nor did "gay pioneer" (I believe that's what the baby-killing, pro sodomite Marxist that occupies the White House called him) Frank Kameny. Kameny was responsible for having homosexuality removed from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental disorders in 1973. Kameny not long ago was quoted as saying "There is nothing wrong with bestiality, as long as the animal doesn't mind".
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).
For those of you that follow basketball, be it scholastic or professional, you're probably familiar with this policy: " A player with blood on his uniform must remain out of the game until he can change his jersey. This policy aims to prevent transmission of HIV and other blood-borne infectious diseases. Any time there is blood, the athlete must come out of the game until the bleeding stops."
If the sport of basketball is so strict about passing infectious diseases, why would you want to allow homosexuals, a group whose lifestyle is 50 times more likely to contract HIV than other groups; a group that isn't even allowed to donate blood at blood banks, into a military/combat setting where their blood is likely to permeate other soldiers? Perhaps in our new "PC army", soldiers will be issued whistles to notify the enemy: "Stop the war, I need to change my blood soaked uniform!
Isn't it amazing that our country is more concerned about the health of our athletes who supply us with what amounts to "entertainment", then the health and well-being of our soldiers who keep us free?
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.
While acts such as adultery are prosecuted in the military, the act of heterosexuality is not a mental illness or a perversion. While Frank "there's nothing wrong with bestiality as long as the animal doesn't mind" Kameny might have a different opinion on the matter, homosexuality is a lifestyle that every major world religion and thousands of years of history have held to be immoral and destructive from a spiritual and emotional -- and certainly a physical standpoint.
Mark
Very well said!
Good to see your font once again my FRiend!
This account has been suspended or banned.
ha ha ha.
Thank you and I’m always glad to see your comments.
Exactly my point; political correctness, diversity, and other such nonsense has no business in a fighting force....but that's what we've come to.
No. Homosexuals in the military are a yes or no proposition. In otherwords, there is a valid reason for having them or there isn’t.
Your analogy is so inaccurate it’s not worth arguing.
I will say, that you are good at ignoring simple questions to your posts.
Damn, son. You are a rare critter. A Seattle conservative. Have they put you on the endangered species list yet? Stay safe in that liberal pus hole.
Hurly tended to get a little emotional in his defense of homosexuals in the military, didn’t he. Made it look like he had a personal stake in their being allowed.
Amen!
“Hurly tended to get a little emotional in his defense of homosexuals in the military, didn’t he. Made it look like he had a personal stake in their being allowed.”
Hurly went from the den of iniquity, to a den with no equity ;-)
LOL!
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.