Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US generals, admiral come out of the closet - flag fag officers
theage.com.au via g2mil.com ^ | December 11, 2003 | John Files

Posted on 01/11/2004 1:30:21 PM PST by Destro

US generals, admiral come out of the closet - flag fag officers

By John Files

Washington

December 11, 2003

Alan Steinman, Keith Kerr, and Virgil Richard. Picture: New York Times

Three retired US military officers - two generals and an admiral - who had been among the most senior officers to criticise the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for homosexuals in the military, have revealed that they are gay.

The three - army Brigadier-Generals Keith Kerr and Virgil Richard, and Rear-Admiral Alan Steinman of the Coast Guard - said the policy had been ineffective and undermined the military's core values - truth, honour, dignity, respect and integrity.

(Excerpt) Read more at g2mil.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dontaskdonttell; ewwwwwthanks4sharing; gays; homosexualagenda; longmarch; prisoners
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-231 next last
To: Cvengr
when they can't even control their own deviant lusts

Where does it say they didn't?
41 posted on 01/11/2004 3:27:06 PM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: big ern
The US Coast Guard is indeed a part of the US Military. It was originally under Treasury, then DOT, now Homeland security. The reason it's under civilian dept is in part for law enforcement reasons. It operates under the Navy in time of war, if SecNav desires it. By the way, RADM Steinman is actually a USPHS officer, who was serving with the CG as a doctor (Coasties don't have their own MD's, we use the PHS).

US Coast Guard

42 posted on 01/11/2004 3:28:45 PM PST by Coastie (Formerly the Fighting Men of the DOT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
By their claim to be homosexuals. Admission of guilt.
43 posted on 01/11/2004 3:29:21 PM PST by Cvengr (;^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
Admitting to be homosexual is equal to not controlling your deviant lusts? Sorry, that doesn't wash. I'm oughtta here.
44 posted on 01/11/2004 3:38:17 PM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Any officer in federal goverment admitting to being a sexual deviant as in pedophile, homosexual, serial rapist, very well disqualifies that person from the office.

The issue now has grown to control the numbers of criminals who have achieved higher office and have not been held accountable for their felonious activities.

It will continue to grow into other abhorant behavior if ignored or condoned.
45 posted on 01/11/2004 3:43:48 PM PST by Cvengr (;^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Anyone know the policies on sexuality in other militaries?
46 posted on 01/11/2004 3:46:03 PM PST by claudiustg (Go Sharon! Go Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chief Inspector
One reason is that when an officer makes a decision which likely will result in men being killed, those at risk of being killed would like to know, beyond any doubt, that there was no bias in the selection, based on a sexual favoritism.

For just that same reason, traditionally, the military didn't let women anywhere near a battlefield, either.

47 posted on 01/11/2004 3:48:29 PM PST by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon liberty, it is essential to examine principles - -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan
Exactly right.

I used to be one of those women who felt sorry for homosexuals when they identified themselves as victims of prejudice in jobs and housing. A couple men that I knew from work said that all they wanted was to not be penalized for their choice of lifestyle.

I found out much later that what they were wanting was to force an elderly Catholic woman who owned a duplex to rent to them regardless of her desire not to have an "unmarried" couple residing on her property. I also found out that they wanted to force a Christian book store to hire them to work with teens in the music department!

No more do I believe that all homosexuals want is to be left alone, they want everyone to acknowledge their lifestyle and equal to hetrosexuals.

If the military does not allow men to shower with young female recruits, why in the world would they wish to place a lesbian in the shower?

48 posted on 01/11/2004 3:57:00 PM PST by zerosix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog
"On the contrary, these men apparently did NOT serve honorably "

Only because it's defined as dishonarable to be gay and in the military. Let's make that not dishonarable. It's a dumb rule. Besides, isn't it "don't ask, don't tell"? So they were honorable and not that they're retired they are coming out.
49 posted on 01/11/2004 3:58:56 PM PST by Chief Inspector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: steplock
Lots of hetero couples can't reproduce naturally either. Should we forbid them to be married?

Also, about the not going about bragging about bedding your wife, you're on here putting down gay members of our military. I take that as "bragging" you're straight.

For years blacks walked to the back of the bus while whites sat in the front. They were used to it. Nobody bragged or complained about anything. Think of these guys as being fed up, the gay version of Rosa Parks.
50 posted on 01/11/2004 4:02:10 PM PST by Chief Inspector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru
People choose favorites on many basis, not just sexual attraction. Come on.
51 posted on 01/11/2004 4:04:14 PM PST by Chief Inspector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes
As I said in an earlier post: “Any sexual activity, except rape, is purely voluntary. Consequently, the inescapable conclusion from their own words, is that these officers violated the UCMJ by engaging in sodomy.”

Nobody is, anymore, a homosexual for tendencies (orientation) from which no actions result than someone is a rapist for lust that produces no rape. In other words, absent some homosexual behavior, no one is a “homosexual.” These officers implied through their own words that they had engaged in homosexual activities.

As to the activities you cited, to wit: “homosexual kissing or mutual masturbation,” a “kiss” is not, in, and of itself, “homosexual” nor does “mutual masturbation” involve “penetration.” Nonetheless, both of the activities, especially “mutual masturbation” may be judged to “conduct unbecoming” and still a violation of the UCMJ although not specifically Article 125.

The fact remains that these officers swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Admitting that they violated the UCMJ is a violation of that oath and thus their “false swearing” is dishonorable and that is also a violation of the UCMJ.
52 posted on 01/11/2004 4:04:18 PM PST by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan
Think Rosa Parks.
53 posted on 01/11/2004 4:05:42 PM PST by Chief Inspector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Chief Inspector
Military officers do not have the option of declaring portions of the UCMJ to be “dumb rules.” Whether you think a particular article is “dumb,” or not, only Congress is empowered under the Constitution to change it.

You either “honorably” follow your oath, or you “dishonorably” do not. Your personal preferences are either “honorably” subjugated to the discipline required or you leave the service.
54 posted on 01/11/2004 4:10:44 PM PST by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog
All this debate and point/counter-point. The actual point here is that what these people do "in their closets" is so nasty, gross and repulsive. We're not talking about a group of people who "choose an alternate lifestyle". What we're talking about is folks who_______ and _____ when they _____, etc. Fill in the blanks and then realize how absurd it is that they would want to flaunt it. All beside the fact that God doesn't like it!
55 posted on 01/11/2004 4:18:36 PM PST by cowdog77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: cowdog77
Your opinion of how "nasty, gross and repulsive" the activity in question is not the point. Nor is what God thinks of it (as far as the homosexuals are concerned).

The point is that these officers apparently violated their commissioning oath and seem to think that because they have retired, that they can now flaunt it. Some others (Chief Inspector, for one) seem to think that such behavior constitutes "honorable" behavior. Such behavior is far from "honorable," in fact it is illegal in the military.
56 posted on 01/11/2004 4:24:11 PM PST by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog
In other words, absent some homosexual behavior, no one is a ?homosexual.?

I'm not sure what you are basing that on. Most folks consider themselves heterosexual because they are attracted to the opposite sex, not because they regularly participate in sexual activities. Is a virgin teenage boy with pinups on his walls not a heterosexual because he hasn't had sex yet?

Same goes for gay guys, from what I understand of the world. They're gay because they are attracted to men, not because they've done anything about it. They'd still be gay even if they had a wife and thought about guys while having sex with her.

57 posted on 01/11/2004 4:46:04 PM PST by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Chief Inspector
"Think Rosa Parks."

Why? Do you think being a faggot is the same thing as being a black person? I noticed from your other posts (since you signed up last week) that you are also an advocate of "Gay" marriage. Are you Pro-Abortion as well?

58 posted on 01/11/2004 4:48:12 PM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog
Okay, let's have all gays in the military request discharge tomorrow. Oh, sh*t. We'd be in a situation 1000 times worse than when we canned the dozen or so gay translators who specialized in Arabic and Korean. The point is: the whole thing is just not practical. Military service has nothing to do with being gay. So let's get rid of the weird rules that make them seem related. S'all I'm sayin'.
59 posted on 01/11/2004 4:55:25 PM PST by Chief Inspector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
You'll say "faggot" but you're a good person to then say "black person." A selective bigot.

No, I don't think it's the same, though. I was making the point that the military guys coming out are like Rosa Parks deciding she'd had it and sitting at the front of the bus, despite the differing rules for "differing" people. It's a subtle distinction, but try to get your head around it instead of inciting a whole different kind of argument.

And, no, I abhor abortion. And I'm not even gay. Why do you make all these assumptions about my belief system based on one opinion I have?

I have no patience with that kind of confusion.
60 posted on 01/11/2004 4:59:58 PM PST by Chief Inspector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-231 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson