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 ...
Soldier first, gender or orientation later. These people aren't just bothered, they have problems.
Very good points. How about we outlaw those high-risk lifestyle activities that some gays do? You know, the sleeping around a lot, unprotected sex, etc. Why should we kick out a monogamous homosexual under that reasoning?
Maybe because it wasn't addressed to me and I don't always look through every post in a highly active thread? Duh.
The poster seems very interested in every aspect of homosexual sex, going very into detail, more than I'd really like to be envisioning. I hate him now for that. :)
Anyway, why not kick out anyone exhibiting such dangerous behavior? STDs have always been a big problem with heterosexuals in the military, so this is really nothing new except for one added STD.
Not really. The military can prosecute for lots of things that are legal in the civilian world, such as adultry, talking back to a superior, certain levels of political involvement, etc.
To expand on what I said earlier, in one unit several homosexuals (acted normally though, not the activist types) were known to be so by quite a few straight people, and suspected by most of the rest of the unit. In another, everybody knew one woman was lesbian, and she was also one of our best soldiers (and one hell of a deuce-and-a-half driver). One was an armor unit and the other field artillery.
I must have been among an amazingly high concentration of good solders or above-average well-adjusted adults, because it caused no problems.
I know. That's the argument that was used to keep blacks out or banish them to separate units or menial jobs only. It was bad for unit cohesion, not because blacks were somehow deficient in good soldiering, but because of the perceptions and prejudices of the whites in the unit.
No, but we should give your opinion much more weight than theirs since you've been there.
By whom? Your average Palestinian suicide bomber is well-informed about the West, too, although we can be sure the information was quite biased.
To be precise, with one star he is a Rear Admiral - Lower Half.
Please tell me this guy didn't survive the deployment without serious physical damage or at least a Captain's Mast.
Except that this one kills 100% of the time and only infects those who commit sodomy, IV-drug users, and those exposed to the contaminated blood of either group.
It is simply stupid to expose our troops to this problem at all.
... those who engage in heterosexual sex, receive tainted blood donations, etc.
It's not the act that kills, it's being stupid in performing these acts. For example, and IV drug user can guarantee he'll never get AIDS due to IV use by either using new needles or properly sterilizing the used ones. A homosexual (or heterosexual for that matter) can practically guarantee never getting AIDS as an STD by maintaining a monogamous relationship with an AIDS-free partner.
Simple. That's sexual harassment, and can fall under the current harsh rules, although some modification to specifically include this type of behavior may be necessary. No exceptions, homosexuals have to live under the same good conduct rules as everyone else.
If the motivation for this is not hatred then what it is? It certainly can't be any good. If it is for good, then you've turned it into some bizarro world.
I've engaged you before in long argument. I have no intention of doing it again on this thread. My purpose is to have someone on the thread be on record to indicate that not all of us are zealots or fanatics.
First, you haven't supported your statements. Second, post a reference from me to a 73% study. Third, you never tore anything apart other than your own credibility and your above post continues to demonstrate you lack all credibility in this regard.
Have you ever asked us what our motivation is? You are one of the most disingenuous posters on this forum as we have stated our motivations time and time again. Have you ever really read anything we've posted or do you always respond with how you feel about a matter?
I've engaged you before in long argument. I have no intention of doing it again on this thread.
And not only was your clock was cleaned but you failed to support your statements.
Your purpose appears to be some attempt at denigrating the facts. Yes, facts. You cannot support your statements so you try to denigrate us and what we post.
You appear to hide behind what you apparently believe is some noble cause but you run away everytime you're asked to support your statements.
In post 26 of this thread you said to little jeremiah
Your continued blind hatred of any homosexual... You should enjoy seeing them die for their country. Less of your enemy.That's a whole lot more than what you've posted as your stated purpose. Put up or shut up.
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.