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 ↩
Yes, quite - uhn, defensive, one may say....
Actually Sparta survived for more than a thousand years even under the Roman Empire. Interestingly, the Romans made Sparta a stop in any gentleman’s tour of Greece, as they admired the military virtues of the Spartans. The last recorded military action of the Spartans were against the Goth barbarians in 376 A.D. in which they kicked butt and took names.
Why didn’t the Spartans die out after one generation? The males were required to marry at age 30...Of course, the young teenage bride was introduced to the groom in total darkness with her hair cut short.
At any rate, Sparta proved that homosexuals could form very effective military units, but I’m not saying this should be the model for the U.S. military, which has as its model, the Christian Knight of the Middle Ages who fights for his Lady Fair.
I served in the Army back in the Cold War days (82-86), and I can unequivocally say that if a homosexual tried to sodomize me, I would kill them, and damn the consequences.
I daresay that a vast majority of my barracks mates would agree with me.
I believe no military member should EVER have to have the fear of an attack by a FDRQ in the back of their minds...and ESPECIALLY if they are in a combat situation. In my day, if a combat situation arose and one was found to be a fruit, they would likely receive a round in the head and be listed as a combat casualty. Case closed.
Yep...I have STRONG feelings about this, and I have good reason to.
Homosexuals in the military is a yes, it's not a proposition. There are homosexuals in the military, they may not be asking or telling right now, but they're there, just like there are illegals aliens in the country right now. The question is what to do with them. I say you have to keep them because it's just not possible to root out every last one of them to have an all-straight force.
Homosexuality, unlike legal residency status, isn't a trait that can be tested for or proven through a priori knowledge (it's not like you can play some showtunes at the smoke pit and arrest anyone who starts singing along). Other than who they find sexually attractive, homosexuals are often indistinguishable from heterosexuals physically and mentally. Not every gay man is a twink, not every short-haired woman who never wears makeup a lesbian.
Homosexuality can only be observed through actions and despite the opinion of some posters on this thread, homosexuals are capable of 'keeping it in their pants' just like heterosexual men are able to work around women without constantly raping them.
My position is that if you can't test for it, you can't discriminate upon it. Prior to DADT, there was a question on the military entrance paperwork, essentially an sworn statement that one was not a homosexual. DADT didn't move the bar much, it only removed the entrance question and discriminated against gay servicemen upon the commander's knowledge of homosexual acts, which is testable but widens the blackmailing and contract escape loopholes.
Permitting homosexuals to serve with their command's knowledge of their orientation doesn't mean in any way that gay men would be allowed to show up to formation in nail polish and eye shadow and give limp-wristed salutes. Rape and sexual harassment laws don't just magically go away when its a same-sex incident. It does mean that the kids who claim that they're gay to get out their contracts (a good portion of DADT cases volunteer themselves to leave service) will be held to their contracts instead of getting very expensive training and then leaving without the military getting its money's worth out of them.
It also means that a gay serviceman with a security clearance would no longer be such a juicy target for espionage by our nation's enemies. This, more than anything, is my reasoning for allowing gays to serve openly. I agree that it's not in the military's interest to allow gays to serve openly as a social experiment, nor as a way to shoehorn marriage rights to homosexual couples, but it certainly is in the military's interest to keep our nation's secrets safe. If there's a way to keep gays out of any job that would risk national security (a no security clearances for gays policy), it would make sense. I don't think it's possible, since a lot of families have no clue their child is gay until after they leave the home, or if they do, hope that a stint in the military will straighten him out, asking "is Johnny gay" during a background check isn't going to work. It would be a witch hunt (or queen hunt) at best. Out of a lack of reasonable alternatives, I find myself on the 'yes' side of the should homosexuals serve question.
I’ll use your example.
“...but they’re there, just like there are illegals aliens in the country right now. The question is what to do with them. I say you have to keep them because it’s just not possible to root out every last one of them to have an all-straight force.”
So we also legalize all illegal aliens following your line of reasonong to it’s logical conclusion. Real good.
“It does mean that the kids who claim that they’re gay to get out their contracts (a good portion of DADT cases volunteer themselves to leave service) will be held to their contracts instead of getting very expensive training and then leaving without the military getting its money’s worth out of them.”
The army figured out a long time ago it is easier, better and cheaper to get rid of trouble makers rather than keep them in. If some guy wants out he’s going to get out.
“I agree that it’s not in the military’s interest to allow gays to serve openly as a social experiment, nor as a way to shoehorn marriage rights to homosexual couples...”
Your way ensures both of those happening.
“If there’s a way to keep gays out of any job that would risk national security (a no security clearances for gays policy), it would make sense. I don’t think it’s possible...”
If it’s that serious a matter than a simple lie detector test can be used.
“Out of a lack of reasonable alternatives, I find myself on the ‘yes’ side of the should homosexuals serve question.”
I wonder how the heck the military managed to survive for two hundred years operating with a “lack of reasonable alternatives”?
If it isn’t broken don’t fix it. Your way will break it for sure.
“Actually Sparta survived for more than a thousand years even...”
Yeah, I know.
My goodneth, you are a savagth beasth.
But, if obama allows gays to serve openly, what it will do is greatly "empower" the gay military members, and they will become openly bold under obama's protection.
Being typically bold and outspoken anyway, their newfound boldness will - I believe - cause them to make "advances" they would not otherwise make, and any resistance they encountered will be reported as "gay bashing" and it will be the heterosexual, or ones who resist that will be in trouble.
I believe you are absolutely correct...
As to someone who is already in the military, I would guess they would have to dress and act like the man or woman they were expected to be when they first joined all the while they are in the military. If they could not continue to do so, they would then have to seek help from I would guess by either telling the Chaplin and/or seeing a medical doctor / psychiatrist who would then be able to tell whether they are truly transgender / transsexual or someone who is just trying to b.s. that they are.
Since it requires a medical diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria or Gender Identity Disorder for a doctor to write a prescription for cross-gender hormone therapy, it would mean that the person gets a medical discharge.
Kind of an interesting question (though I suspect you asked tounge-in-cheek) so I looked around online and found this:
http://focus.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/3/4/534
A transgender / transsexual person who is applying to join the military who is clearly a gender that they were not originally born into would not pass the physical.
https://www.hrc.org/issues/4553.htm
"...the military considers transsexuality to be a disqualifying psychiatric condition..."
And they ought to know, as the Human Rights Campaign (http://www.hrc.org) is the largest and most well-funded LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender) group pushing for the repeal of DADT (Don't Ask Don't Tell).
LOL, there are a few of us around here. I must admit though, sometimes I feel like "a pearl in a 'full' toilet bowl" (I just hope that I'm not here when God decides to flush).
Stay safe in that liberal pus hole.
Being that I'm not a defenseless unborn baby developing in a "progressive" woman's womb, I have no worries.
They will have to carry a supply of latex gloves like the police do in urban areas.
IATWDZ
(In after the well-deserved zot.)
There’s another that should be but hasn’t been.
Not all trolls receive equal treatment...
Thanks for the funnies - always need a good laugh.
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.