Why They Want to Homosexualize the Military

We all know that people on the Left are the great destroyers. There is not a single institution in this great land that they do not want to tear down, demolish, devastate, obliterate, and annihilate. There is not a single just and righteous law that they do not seek to subvert and overturn. There is not a single needful tradition that they don't desire to delegitimize and replace with abject nonsense. The object of all this effort on their part is power — pure, unadulterated power. They want to be able to run our lives, they want to be able to dictate to us what we can and can't believe, read, see, think, say, and do. While they may mask their agenda behind warm and fuzzy phrases like "civil rights," the fact of the matter is that those on the Left — or at least those who are the drivers behind the ideology (i.e. not the "useful idiots" who make up the rank-and-file that most folks tend to interact with on a day by day basis) — couldn't care less about anybody's rights, real or imagined. They only care about their own privilege and power.

That's why the American people are currently being subjected to groping and pornographing at the airports when they want to travel by air. I think it can be safely said that nobody who knows anything about it actually thinks that the new TSA rules and requirements (or the old ones, for that matter) do anything to "make us safer." If you actually believe that, then I've got some prime beachfront property near Tucson that I'd like to interest you in purchasing. The TSA is not going to "stop terrorists" by sexually assaulting 90-year old great-grandmothers. We all know that. What's more, the TSA knows that too. You, me, them, we all know that this isn't about safety. It's about power and control. The TSA does it because they can do it — because you can be fined, arrested, and permanently banned from flying if you don't let them do it. This administration has given them that power because it wants to inure the American people to government control. Further, I believe, these new rules are designed to punish the American people for voting the Democrats out last month. The timing seems more than just a little coincidental.

This, however, is just one part of the overarching effort by the Left — by people like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and those like George Soros who back them behind the scenes — to enserf the American people. What we need to understand is that those on the Left, ranging from politicians to "activists" to academics, are personally offended by widespread freedom. The idea that you and I might be able to just live our own lives without the "guidance" of those who know better than we do is something that your average Leftist detests. What? You don't want to use those new, expensive, environmentally-friendly fluorescent bulbs instead of the old-fashioned, cheap, utilitarian incandescent kind? Well too bad, we'll just impose a law that prohibits the manufacture of the old bulbs, requires you to use the new ones, and punishes you if you don't. Don't think it's possible? It's already reality in some places in Europe, and the groundwork has already been laid here.

Or how about this guy, a 72-year old man who is being evicted from his property because he doesn't have power, water, or sewer service to his trailer. But he lives in the middle of 38 acres, is not bothering anybody, and is presenting no sort of "public health" hazard to anybody. But he's "breaking too many rules, laws, and ordinances" — which probably shouldn't even be rules, laws, and ordinances in the first place. He committed the crime of not needing somebody else, of being able to operate independently without having to fork over money to some state-regulated utility and without needing the assistance of the all-powerful state. We can't have that, now can we? It sets a bad example for the rest, don't you know.

Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, property rights, firearms ownership, and all the rest — those are the worst excesses of impudent and insolent serfs who need to be brought to heel.

But the problem for the Left in imposing this agenda on Americans was alluded to in my previous sentence — "firearms ownership." There's an old saying I used to have on a bumper sticker, several vehicles ago. It said, "A man with a gun is a citizen. A man without a gun is a subject." If there is anybody who knows the truth of this statement, it is the Left. Deep down inside, they know that an armed, independent populace is the main thing that prevents them from being able to openly step in and establish their control.

They tried imposing gun control laws on to the people, but this has proven to be only marginally successful. Under the guise of "public safety," most people can't get their hands onto the really powerful sort of personal weapons like fully automatic assault rifles, military-grade machine guns, grenades, and so forth. However, there are still millions of rifles, shotguns, carbines, and pistols that are in private hands. And the courts — to their rare credit — have been most unhelpful in approving the justification for disarming the people of these weapons. Just like with the TSA above, anybody who knows anything knows that gun control is not about "stopping crime." It's about disarming the citizenry so they can be controlled more easily. That hasn't worked, however.

This creates a dilemma for the radical Left. They want — they need — to be able to control us. This is a categorical imperative for them. They simply cannot tolerate impudent wretches who won't get with the program of being eco-friendly, gay-positive, and entirely submissive. But, they can't necessarily use the police powers of the state as they are presently constituted to force us to go along with their program.

Sure, they could begin to try to systematically disarm us through the use of federal, state, and local police agencies engaging in warrantless, no-knock surprise raids on gun owners. But let's face it — there are almost 100 million gun owners in this country, most of whom are gun owners at least in part because they are ideologically committed to the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. There simply are not enough police to grab everybody's guns at once, and once this targeted class of people get tipped off that they're next on the list, we can expect (understandably) that this will generate quite a lot of "civil strife." The police apparatus in this country simply doesn't have the manpower or the firepower to pull it off — and would likely find its manpower diminishing rapidly once the "civil strife" began.

That's where the military comes in. The Army has a lot bigger guns than the police do. While disgruntled gun owners may be able to use hunting rifles and shotguns to fend off the police (who, as experience throughout modern history has shown, are remarkably poor at carrying on sustained military-type activity before their morale breaks), tanks and helicopter gunships are quite another matter.

The problem, however, is that the military generally tends to attract and employ conservative, flag-waving, patriotic good ol' boy types who won't be too keen on allowing themselves to be used to round up their fellow Americans so as to take their guns, and possibly put them in "re-education" camps. Sure, there may be some military personnel who would willingly go along with that, but it's doubtful they'd get too far with it before the military itself fell into internal discord as most of the soldiers refuse to follow illegal, blatantly unconstitutional orders, and perhaps even tried to forcefully stop those who did act upon them.

And how better to do that than by making it a place where all those flag-waving patriotic regressives who just can't get with the program won't want to be?

This, perhaps, is what lies behind the insane drive to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and to homosexualize the U.S. military. The Left has been driving at this for years, under the guise of "civil rights" (note: nobody has the "right" to serve in the military). Their moles in the Pentagon recently released a bogus report that supposedly suggested that military personnel would be just dandy with openly serving gays. Of course, once you start to parse the report and look at some of the internal data (i.e. move beyond the headlines, which is as far as most people seem capable of getting), you find out that actually, the combat arms of the military would be most UNhappy with serving alongside openly gay comrades. It would lower morale. It would reduce unit cohesiveness. In fact, the military personnel who generally said they'd be fine with openly gay soldiers were the people who serve in administrative, logistical, and other "office" type jobs — i.e. the folks who get to go home to their individual base housing after their 9-5 shift is up, and who wouldn't actually have to live, work, sleep, and shower with open homosexuals flaunting their behavior at all hours of the day.

Buried within the report was a most interesting little fact — a little over 12% of personnel currently serving said they would resign or decide not to re-up should gays be allowed to serve openly. Think about that. That means that, if DADT is repealed, fully 1/8 of the U.S. military will leave. That translates into several hundred thousand persons.

Persons who can then be replaced by out-and-out homosexuals. Homosexuals who, typically, have an antipathy towards flag-waving, God-and-country style conservatism. Homosexuals like Bradley Manning, the Wikileaker, who was so emotionally unstable that he let his personal disagreement with official policy become a "reason" for leaking highly classified information that has now put the lives of many at risk. Homosexuals who would have no problem at all with helping to put down "regressive" elements within our society who impede the march to the Leftist utopia of, among other things, the normalization of homosexuality.

And as more gays join, more normal people will leave or will simply not join in the first place, until you have a military that is made up of two types of people — homosexuals and the morally weak who just "go with the flow" and won't stand on any sort of conservative, traditional principles. Exactly the type of military force who will go along with disarming and subjugating the American people.

Don't assume that a homosexualized military would be too wimpy to do it, either. Despite the common stereotypes of homosexuals as limp-wristed pansies, we need to understand that the "gay culture" of interior designers and lisping art museum curators is a modern phenomenon. For most of the history of mankind, those who engaged in homosexual behavior have actually been rather violent and uncontrolled — not unexpected from a lifestyle choice that epitomizes the lack of self-control. Think about it — when we see the Sodomites in the Bible, what were they doing? Trying to violently force themselves onto some men. Among the Greeks, those who engaged in homosexuality were often the most violent. Take the Spartans, for instance. They were the warrior caste par excellence in classical Greece — and they were open practitioners of both adult homosexuality as well as pederasty. Another example would be the Theban "Sacred Band," a group of 150 pairs of homosexual lovers who formed the cream of the crop of the military of Thebes, another Greek polis, known for their fierceness and invincibility in battle. And of course, one need only look at the American prison system to understand the fact that violence and male homosexuality (especially) go hand in hand. So don't think for a minute that a homosexualized U.S. military would be too afraid of breaking a nail to go roughing up the American people.

Call it a conspiracy theory, but I have a strong feeling that this is what lies behind a lot of the agenda of repealing DADT and allowing gays to openly serve in the military. It's a way of getting out of the way the folks who won't participate in the enserfment of the American people, and replacing them with some folks who will, and in fact, who might just be chomping at the bit for a chance to stick it to those conservative Christian patriots who stand for God's laws and for traditional American values. Repealing DADT isn't about "civil rights," nor is it even just about the further mainstreaming of homosexuality in the American social conscience. It might very well be about bending the military to the will of the Leftists, so it can become a tool for breaking the rest of us. I hope I'm wrong about that.

“There is not a single institution in this great land that they do not want to tear down, demolish, devastate, obliterate, and annihilate......The object of all this effort on their part is power — pure, unadulterated power”

That is the left’s reason for existing.

On the one hand they replace our Bill of Rights, which were designed to preserve our freedoms by denying certain powers to the government, with “Positive Rights” (e.g., “Human Rights” or “Civil Rights”), which give abusive powers back to the government. On the other hand, they insist on destroying the distinction between civilian law and military justice. The UCMJ enables our soldiers to defend us against foreign enemies without being prosecuted by leftist lawyers.

Until recent years our legal system has allowed us to enforce laws in civilian courts and defend ourselves without destroying our freedoms. But now our left wing radicals have forced us to try foreign terrorists in civilian courts. This leaves us with the choices of either railroading Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (thereby destroying our basic freedoms), having to reveal secrets that are vital to our national security in order to successfully prosecute him, or letting him go.

Thanks to ending DADT, our military can’t even willfully look the other way to tolerate the presence of homosexuals who are content to just do their jobs without conducting “gay rights” parades.

Our States are denied the right to protect their borders against an onslaught of illegal immigrants and the occupation of border areas by Mexican gangsters in order to comply with the UN’s agenda of phoney “Human Rights”.

That’s the idea. To turn the freest and most creative country in history into just another UN run hell-hole by convincing us that freedom is impractical.

100% wrong in my opinion. Destroying the military is only a bonus. They aren’t concerned with using the military to take over anything. They would disband it if they could.

From a 4 part review I did of the Don’t ask, don’t tell report (Sorry, it came in 4 parts as it was my first posting attempt.) Here is the section on the ‘why’:

“...The first thing to question is whether the report has any validity at all. The underlying assumption for the report is that homosexuality is an identity. Who says? It appears that the President, the Secretary of Defense, Admiral Mullen, the researchers for the report, all believe that homosexuality is an identity and not a behavior and a mental disorder. That determination is no more settled than the demand that global warming is real and manmade. If they are wrong, then the report itself is not only moot, it is destructive to the very core of the military by introducing and promoting emotionally disturbed people into life and death positions.

There is no agreement that sexual orientation is fixed and genetic. There are people who engage in homosexuality that later do not. If someone is in the military and is homosexual, and then isn’t, how can that be an identity when it is a behavior instead? There are plenty of parallels of this in the outside world. There is even therapy for people who engage in homosexuality. If that therapy helps a person become heterosexual, then how can being “gay” or “lesbian” a fixed identity? It can’t. Same sex attraction is neither comparable in numbers, nor equivalent of the normal of heterosexuality for humanity. Same sex attraction is a mental disorder that can be treated.

As for the politics of homosexuality in the scientific community, it is as politicized as global warming. Homosexuality is no longer classified by the APA or the WHO as mental disorders. But their decision is entirely political and not based on fact. You can research that one on your own as it is a completely different and complex topic. However, there is ample indication that those who engage in homosexuality have increased risk of mental and emotional problems. From the introduction of “Homosexuality and Health Problems”, by N. E. Whitehead, found on the NARTH web site:
“Summary: Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. This paper highlights some new and significant considerations that reflect on the question of those mental illnesses and on their possible sources.

The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its diagnostic list of mental disorders in 1973, despite substantial protest (see Socarides, 1995). The A.P.A. was strongly motivated by the desire to reduce the effects of social oppression. However, one effect of the A.P.A.’s action was to add psychiatric authority to gay activists’ insistence that homosexuals as a group are as healthy as heterosexuals. This has discouraged publication of research that suggests there may, in fact, be psychiatric problems associated with homosexuality.”
http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html I would encourage all to read the full article at the link.

So, while disputing the very fact that homosexuality is an identity at all and is instead a behavior, even when granting that identity argument, it still shows an increased risk of other associated mental health problems. Why would anyone wish to increase the participation of homosexuals in the military? The repeal isn’t for the existing members of the service who suffer from same sex attraction. They are already serving. If they feel less included, well that’s too bad. They understand the culture in which they operate and have adapted to function. They chose to contribute to the military. They have their disorder under control or at least hidden. By changing the military culture to endorse the disorder, the promoters of gays in the military radically risk chaos in the function of our armed services. The military has a standard of good order and discipline. Their mission involves life and death and war. Anything that degrades that mission is not a positive development, and open service by homosexuals degrades that mission.

So if it isn’t about the military, then why the push by those with the disorder and their supporters for repeal? Why the need to demand that the military allow those with same sex attraction disorder serve openly? It is because there is another agenda operating. This report, and the effort, has nothing to do with the military and everything to do with the promotion of the disorder across society.

The gay lobby has tied their promotion of their disorder to the Civil Rights movement. They are using the military to follow that agenda. The effort is to tie their push for the acceptance and active promotion of homosexuality to the desegregation of the military in 1948. The two cannot be equated as homosexuality is a behavior and being black is an identity. The moral component is also lacking if it can be considered at all in an age when all things moral are discouraged, disparaged, and marginalized.

This tactic is done without any concern as to how the military is affected. They couldn’t care less. This is about normalizing and promotion of homosexuality and the military is a tool to do this. If the military is altered to normalize this disorder, then there is little defense for marriage, religious objection, and individual states complaints. The push is all about the promotion of homosexuality in the greater society and nothing about the military or its mission. If a person wants to serve in the military it is because they wish to join the service and serve. They should want to contribute, not have the military serve them. What selfishness! What a degrading effect on the services!

That’s a pretty strong motive by a group with an agenda to be completely ignored by the press. On any story when a company or government entity puts out a report, shouldn’t the press question whether to take the report at face value? Or is there some reason for the report? Shouldn’t they examine the people writing the report to see if there is an ulterior motive? If the report itself is simply a lever to accomplish an agenda that is destructive, shouldn’t the press look into who is doing the destruction and why?

I mean, the report is touted as something completely positive and accepted by the troops. Then, Admiral Mullen comes out at the Senate Armed Services hearing with the statement that anyone who doesn’t like it can get out. I guess tolerance is only for ‘special’ groups of people. Plus, it is a pretty good indicator that Admiral Mullen knows the report isn’t worth the paper it is printed on, and the positive acceptance of homosexuals in the military is an invention by the people pushing the report.

There are over two million people in uniform that now have to face accepting open homosexuals as their companions in war, or get out of the service. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of consideration of their views. There doesn’t seem any consideration of the mission of the military, good order and discipline, or honor and tradition. So, before Congress forces this wrecking ball of social engineering through the lame duck session, let’s look at the report the press wasn’t interested in examining in any way shape or form.”

Part 1:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2638468/posts

Part 2:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2638470/posts

Part 3:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2638473/posts

Part 4:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2638474/posts

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.