Posted on 12/16/2003 9:31:19 AM PST by Willie Green
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:35:27 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
It should come as a shock to no one that three retired military officers, two generals and one admiral, revealed last week that they are gay. What should be surprising is that, despite these and other stellar records, the Pentagon adheres to a policy that prevents known homosexuals from staying in the service.
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
Sorry, that's an uninformed opinion. Here's a couple of links with reasonable, researched information. If you read them, and/or check out Scripter's links to hundreds of articles, you can have an informed opinion! Wouldn't that be nice?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/691998/posts
http://www.narth.com/docs/study.html
http://www.pfox.org/
Happy reading!
(Sorry they aren't actually links; when the software changed a little while ago I lost my link-making capability. Working on it.)
Next time anyone has something negative to say about education in America, shall we ask them how many years they have spent teaching in a low-income district before we listen them, too? (If so, there will be precious few on this board... other than me and a few other Freepers I can name... who are "qualified" to have an opinion on educational matters...)
If you don't know, and they didn't tell, then there isn't much problem. Other than HIV+ blood.
The British, Israelis and virtually every other NATO ally has revoked their ban on gays, BTW, all reportedly with little or no adverse consequences.
It would be informative to read non-cheerleader articles about that topic. Also, just because NATO does something, the US should do it?
I didn't flame the guy, I just didn't agree! Should I bow, scrape, and hold my pinkie up?
Just because someone has advanced in the military (or any field of endeavour) doesn't necessarily mean that they are qualified. It doesn't mean they aren't. I certainly am not qualified to judge their merits.
But I have read more than a couple of times that military guys have been advanced under Clintoon for their PC viewpoints, and that highly qualified military guys have not been advanced, due to their non-butt kissing non-PC character and viewpoint.
I am not pretending to have any military experience. I am not an expert on the military. I am quite informed about the homosexual agenda, though.
Those of us here who have served our nation in the military and have no problem with the "don't ask don't tell" policy would like to know why anyone should listen to your opinion on the matter
I am sure that all branches of the military are filled with people with the whole range of opinions on this matter.I certainly am glad that the Department of Defense has some good guys on its staff. And doubly glad that Clintoon is gone, though I'm sure some stench lingers on.
In your opposition to the "agenda" you are letting these people off the hook and denying them one of the fundamental duties of citizenship. Let em fight and die for their country like everyone else who enlists. You should enjoy seeing them die for their country. Less of your enemy.
Whoa there, nellie! Not only you don't agree with me (no problem there) but I am a bad influence on FR! I guess Jim Robinson is a bad influence too, since he has a stated abhorrance of the "homosexual agenda" [his words].
I don't hate homosexuals, I am sorry for them. But I am angry at those who push the "gay" agenda in the schools, courts, universities, professional associations, psychological and medical associations, businesses, charities, legislatures, entertainment, news media and churches. And that's not just homosexuals themselves but their handmaidens on the left.
Serving one's country in the military is a duty, but not everyone is eligible. It isn't a right.
I think it is very odd that you think I would enjoy seeing someone die for this country.
1. Good order and discipline. Sexual relationships among troops cause unforeseen deviations from normal patterns of unit support and cohesions. We don't want our fighting men and supporting women housed with those who sexually desire them.
When sex desire enters the equation, trust is destroyed. When one person wants sexual gratification from another, immediately ulterior motives, duplicity, special favored status, envy, anger, and other very divisive emotions grow. How can a group of fighting men exist with this going on? That also a reason why men and women mixing as they do is not a good idea. Especially in sleeping quarters, showering and so on.
Also, if, for instance, there's some sexual attraction going on between a man and a woman, the man may not reciprocate, but not feel necessarily threatened. But imagine a situation with a homosexual man lusting after a normal man, put that in a frontline or other dangerous situation! Sounds like very bad trouble.
I agree. And thanks for your experiences - it shows that homosexuals in the old days would rather risk death than experience the shame of everyone knowing what they did. That's actually rather honorable. Therefore such homosexuals would naturally be discreet about their attraction.
little jeremiah has shown no hatred towards any homosexual, nor has anybody on the ping list. Your continued attempts to denigrate the facts and those who post them will not go unanswered. As I keep saying to you, support your statements. You say we post propaganda? Prove it.
Your attempt at misdirection with your comment that homosexuals are enemies is beyond ludicrous, and what's worse is you are so far gone, you think lj should enjoy seeing homosexuals die for their country. Apparently you get so emotionally caught up in this discussion that you'll say just about anything.
I'm tired of it. Put up or shut up.
Signing off on homosexuality, accepting it as normal, and promoting it in our military will be the death kiss for our armed forces.
There's a difference between railing against something as you do, or not caring like I do.
Whatever military arguments are given, I do have a feeling that most of the reasoning against homosexuals in the military is based on you just not liking people because of their sexual orientation. I simply don't consider it.
Yes it is okay with me, as long as the homosexuals don't do or say anything inappropriate. If they do, it's the standard three falls down the same stairwell on the way to an Art. 15 and a chapter.
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.