Mirthless Military

Take a trip into San Francisco’s Castro district – where people are so gay they border on ecstatic – and inquire about homosexuals serving in the United States military. You will get a handful … of predictable responses.

You can tell a contentious and complicated issue by how well the media muddles the story through over simplification. Such was the recent case when America’s armed services released a study on the repeal of Bill “Bang the Fat Broad” Clinton’s “don’t ask and don’t speak with a lisp” policy.

In a rush to defend the right to die in Gawd forsaken hell holes around the globe, the media skimmed the survey section of the report looking for anything that might vindicate equal rights for equal-but-opposite sexual orientations. Such skimming naturally led them to miss important stuff, like combat soldiers not being too fond of having potential paramours in their foxhole … or any other hole for that matter.

... there were divisions between active duty folks who carried rifles and those who pushed paper.

Questions concerning improved moral by having fabulous new uniforms were not asked.

Ignored by the media entirely was that 27% of military personal and families thought that repealing “don’t ask, don’t squeal like a pig” would reduce their willingness to recommend joining. Queer, isn’t it?

For example, the same survey reveals that servicemen/women, who believe that one of their unit’s members is batting for the other team, have fewer doubts about the policy repeal’s impact on unit effectives, cohesion and readiness – though the rate of negative impact from repealing the current policy remains higher than the stuffing in a drag queen’s bra.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/podesta-obama-can-use-armed-forces-to-push-progressive-agenda/

This is what DADT is about. The progressives care nothing about the effectiveness of our military, in fact, they’d like to *decrease* the effectiveness of our military because they know it is full of patriots who have sworn to protect and defend the constitution from enemies foreign and *domestic*.

Passing DADT and the resulting outflow of Christian conservatives from the service plays into their hands. Control of the military and control of the media are the two remaining agenda items on the road to enslave America.

I am very uncomfortable with queers in the military, but I suppose DADT has worked fairly well.

However, I am equally uncomfortable with the idea that queers would get a deferment in a time of war. If we ever need to have another draft, draft dodging would be a breeze. In a bad situation, I wouldn't care what the sexual preference was of the guy in my foxhole firing at the enemy.

Every citizen has a right & responsibility to defend this country in a time of crisis. Sexual preference is gonna be irrelevant when the enemy is coming down Main Street.

Every citizen has a right & responsibility to defend this country in a time of crisis.

You are decidedly incorrect, sir, if your implication is that by a responsibility to defend one's country you are implying that every citizen has a right to be in the armed forces of our country.

No citizen has a right to serve in the armed forces of the country. Every day, thousands are excluded for medical reasons, prison records, insufficient education, etc.

Each service sets its own standards for entry based upon its needs.

Nonetheless, this lack of a right must not to be confused with a responsibility to serve when legally called to do so. A draft is governed by the laws of the land. Every citizen has an obligation to obey the laws properly passed and conforming with our Constitution.

A draft may be appropriate on the occasions where there is an insufficient number of volunteers within the time frame necessary for appropriate military purposes. However, a draft should only be employed to meet the immediate need for military personnel, not to accomplish some social engineering goal.

The military's raison d'etre is to "kill people and break things," i.e., to win wars or prevent them by convincing a potential enemy that the cost of attacking our national interests would be too high.

...Sexual preference is gonna be irrelevant when the enemy is coming down Main Street.

Sexual preference is an abused term that refers to feelings. No one can know the sexual preference of another human being unless that person engages in some behavior that reveals such. All behavior by mentally competent adults, especially in a military setting, is subject to regulation. Currently, lawful regulations exist that prohibit homosexual behavior in these settings.

Such regulations have been in place for hundreds of years with good reason. Homosexual behavior is detrimental to good order and discipline just as is theft, fighting the ranks, ignoring lawful orders and a host of other behaviors.

It matters not whether an enemy is coming down Main Street or across any other battlefield.

Victory against any competent military foe would be more by luck than by design, if that enemy is opposed with anything other than a well trained, well equipped, well lead and cohesive fighting force.

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.