Posted on 10/15/2010 1:57:56 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan
Less than three percent of Americans are homosexual or bisexual.
Major national surveys of sexual behavior have consistently shown that less than three percent of the American population identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual. This was acknowledged by a coalition of thirty-one leading homosexual rights groups in an amicus brief which they filed in the 2003 U. S. Supreme Court case of Lawrence v. Texas. Their brief declared:
The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Laumann et al., The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994).2
Of course, some people who do not self-identify as homosexual or bisexual may at times nevertheless engage in homosexual acts. On the other hand, some who do identify as homosexual or bisexual may not be sexually active for some period of time. However, if we measure homosexual conduct rather than homosexual or bisexual self-identification, the numbers remain similar. According to the same survey cited in the homosexual groups’ amicus brief, only 2.7% of men and 1.3% of women reported having any same-gender sex partners in the year prior to the survey.3
Therefore, if the propensity of homosexuals to engage in sexual assault is essentially the same as that of heterosexuals, we would expect the total percentage of sexual assaults that are homosexual in nature to be similar to the percentage of the population who engage in homosexual conduct in general. 5
Of course, it is difficult to know the percentage of currently serving military personnel who self-identify as homosexual or bisexual or who engage in homosexual acts, both because surveys of the military are difficult to conduct and because current law would give homosexuals a strong incentive to conceal such conduct. However, given the strong terms of the law against homosexuality in the military (and even the constraints on openness of the much weaker “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy), it seems logical to assume that the percentage of military personnel who are homosexual is likely to be lower than it is in the civilian population. It is hard to come up with even a plausible theory to suggest how it could be higher.
Nevertheless, more than eight percent of sexual assaults in the military are homosexual in nature. This is nearly three times what would be expected.
If the likelihood of homosexual assault is equal to the likelihood of homosexual conduct in the population as a whole, we would expect less than three percent of sexual assault cases in the military to be homosexual in nature (that is, male on male or female on female).
This, however, is not what Department of Defense data reveals. FRC has reviewed the “case synopses” of all 1,643 reports of sexual assault reported by the four branches of the military for Fiscal Year 2009 (October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009). Our startling finding was that over eight percent of all military sexual assault cases were homosexual in nature.4 This suggests that homosexuals in the military are about three times as likely to commit sexual assaults than heterosexuals are, relative to their numbers.5
A similar figure was reported by the New York Times in a news article on the release of the Pentagon’s sexual assault report in March—but was virtually ignored in the debate over the law on homosexuality in the military. Citing a telephone interview with Kaye Whitley, the director of the Pentagon’s sexual assault prevention and response office, the Times reported, “Of all the assaults, . . . 7 percent were male on male.”6 (FRC’s analysis showed that 7.55% of all cases were male on male, and an additional 0.61% were female-on-female, adding up to a total (with rounding) of 8.2% which were homosexual in nature.)
One could offer a number of hypotheses as to the reasons for the high rates of homosexual assault. If homosexuals were three times as prevalent in the military as in the general population, then this rate of sexual assault would not be disproportionate—but as we have noted, the current law regarding homosexuality in the military makes it likely that the percentage of homosexuals in the military is less than in the general public, not more (in which case, the disproportionate nature of the rate of homosexual assault may be even greater— 6 i.e., four or five times more likely, or more). It would also be theoretically possible that homosexual assaults might be more likely to be reported, while heterosexual assaults are more likely to go unreported. However, it seems more likely that the opposite would be the case—homosexual assault cases are probably less likely to be reported, given the stigma that a heterosexual soldier might feel about having been homosexually assaulted. Again, if homosexual report cases are under-reported, as seems more likely, then the actual rate of homosexual assault may be even more disproportionate.
Since the hypotheses above seem implausible, it is hard to escape the conclusion that, in fact, homosexual and bisexual servicemembers are, on average, more likely to engage in sexual assault than are heterosexual servicemembers. This could reflect the well-documented fact that homosexual men have far more sexual partners in general than do heterosexuals.7 It could reflect in some way the higher rates of domestic violence that have been documented among homosexuals.8 Or it could reflect the general higher rates of psychological disorders that have been identified in homosexuals.9 An alternative explanation would be that precisely because of the situations of forced intimacy in the military, and because servicemembers may not be as much on guard against the possibility of same-sex sexual assault, homosexuals simply have greater opportunity to sexually exploit others than heterosexuals do. Regardless of whether the true explanation is one of these or some combination of them, the data clearly indicated that homosexual conduct poses a uniquely elevated risk to good order, morale and discipline in the military. Risk of homosexual assault in sleeping quarters FRC and other supporters of the current law have pointed out the risks involved in having servicemembers share living quarters with persons of the same sex who may be sexually attracted to them. This concern is borne out by many of the case synopses reported by the Pentagon. Consider the following cryptic case descriptions of on-base assaults, quoted directly from the Pentagon’s report:10
“Victim #1 awoke to Subject touching his genitals.”11
“Victim awoke in his rack to a hand moving up and down his leg and touching his groin area.”12
“Asleep in his rack, Victim #1 felt a hand grab his genitals and Subject’s wrist. Subject then fled the room. Victim #2 woke up to Subject grabbing his inner thigh area and he confronted the Subject.”13 7
“Victim awoke in BEQ to Subject kissing his neck and trying to put his hand in his pants to touch his genitals.”14
“Victim reported that Subject touched his crotch on three occasions as he slept.”15
“Subject groped Victim #1’s genitals in their room and groped Victim #2’s genitals when he was asleep.”16
“Victim and Subject were off base at a bar and Victim got highly intoxicated. Subject said he would take Victim back to his barracks room but instead took Victim to his (subject’s) barracks room. Subject orally and a—lly sodomized Victim while he was in and out of consciousness. Subject’s computer was seized and numerous images of child porn were found.”17
“Victim was sleeping and awoke to find Subject performing oral sex on him without his consent.”18
“Victim was asleep at his computer station when Subject videotaped himself (Subject) touching Victim’s head with his (Subject’s) genitals.”19
“Victim claimed Subject (his roommate) slid his hand under Victim’s boxer shorts and caressed his buttocks and attempted to grab his p---s. Victim awoke while the touching was going on and engaged in a physical altercation with Subject.”20
“After a night of heavy drinking, Subject got on top of Victims #1 and #2 as they slept and kissed face, neck, and stomach before being told to stop.”21
“Subject groped Victim’s crotch several times when helping Victim, who was intoxicated, into his bunk.”22
Risk of homosexual assault in bathrooms and showers. FRC and other supporters of the existing law also point out the loss of privacy involved in being forced to share facilities such as bathrooms and showers with homosexuals, and thus appearing partially or fully unclothed before people who may view them as a sexual object. There are also cases in which homosexual assaults in the military have taken place in such contexts. Note these examples (which include one of the female-on-female assaults): 8
“Victim and Subject were drunk at a bar in Dec. 2004. Subject grabbed Victim’s p---s while in the bathroom and kissed him.”23
“[Female] subject grabbed [female] Victim as she was returning from shower, threw her on the bed and fondled her.”24
“Victim reported being pulled from his rack by Subject #1 and #2 and taken to the shower, stripped naked with his feet bound. Subject #1 (naked) waved his genitals in the Victims’s face and told Victim to s—k on it.”25 Many discharges of homosexuals from the military are for sexual assault—not because of arbitrary “discrimination.” Advocates of open homosexuality in the military often lament the fact that several thousand members of the military have been discharged under the 1993 since its enactment. However, what they fail to note is that many of those discharges are actually for sexual assaults.
Below are examples:
“After a night of heavy drinking with the Subject, Victim awoke believing he had been sodomized by Subject while he slept. Subject admitted he had performed oral and a—l sex on sleeping victim. Article 32 Investigating Officer recommended against referral. Subject was administratively separated for homosexual conduct with an Honorable Discharge.”26
“Victim, who was highly intoxicated, had fallen asleep at Subject’s house when Victim awoke to being orally copulated. . . . Command advised Subject will received [sic] general discharge from USN for engaging in homosexual behavior.”27
“Victim was sleeping and awoke to find Subject orally copulating him without Victim’s consent. . . . Subject was awarded a General Discharge from the USN for Homosexual Acts.”28
“Victim was talking to Subject when Subject claimed the two had been ‘messing around’ on a previous evening, while Victim was sleeping after consuming a large amount of alcohol. Subject admitted to Victim he had performed oral sex on him. . . . Per the SJA, an Administrative Separation Board recommended the Subject receive a General Discharge from the USN for homosexual behavior.”29
Do you really want people who are easily blackmailed in the military, in any capacity?
Do you really want the lives of our military in the hands of someone who can be easily blackmailed?
No need, as we all did the dating scene at one time or another.
Although it is fair to point out that dinner out, transport and so forth comes down, in cost any way, to about the same thing.
(That said, I’ve been married, formally or otherwise, for roughly twenty years or so, so I may have forgotten most of the specifics, but not the women involved.)
If I were in combat I would not want the blood of a homosexual being sprayed on me.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Homosexuality is a mental illness and the acts engaged in are crimes against nature, as they were called for hundreds of years. People with this mental illness and serious character and moral flaw do not belong in the military. Other people can learn Urdu.
The fact that they engage in wild promiscuity and sexual violence at a higher rate than the general population is more evidence that they Do Not Belong In The Military.
Pardon the pun, but isn't that just the female homosexuals?
There are two general categories of sexual relations:
1. A shared expression when committed to a lifelong partner in a legal marriage, or
2. An uncommitted person using another (willingly or unwillingly) for self gratification.
Since the 60s, when society decided that #2 is a bedrock entitlement, we are going to have a greater incidence of rape, because rape is essentially an act of dominance and the force of will over a weaker or incapacitated person for self-gratification.
As the cited cases point out, military rapists exploit persons of lower rank with drugs or drunkenness so they can take advantage of them. They think that shame will prevent the victim from reporting the rapes, and also that they can convert them to regular “use” by manipulating guilt and shame.
BTTT and btw my computer is fixed now.
Fact based, sober, truthful - faggots (and female homos) in the military are a grave danger to the normal men and women in the military. Homosexuality is 100% NON-COMPATIBLE with military service.
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.