Posted on 09/23/2011 5:08:35 PM PDT by RetSignman
SUBJECT: Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces
References: (a) DoD Directive 1344.10, “Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces on Active Duty,” August 2, 2004 (hereby canceled)
(b) Sections 973, 888, 101, and Chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code
(c) DoD Instruction 1334.1, “Wearing of the Uniform,” October 26, 2005
(d) Section 441a of title 2, United States Code
(e) through (i), see Enclosure 1
When I served in the military, we knew there were homosexuals in our ranks and you know what happened to them?
Nothing, they went about their jobs and we went about ours.
I believe you.
Your common sense is lying to you.
Homosexuals are mentally ill. Homosexual behavior cannot be compared even to immoral man/woman sex. Why? Because any same sex act by its very nature violates Nature’s laws. It used to be called “the crime against Nature” for good reason. If you research any of the facts about homosexual acts, habits, promiscuity, disease factors, severe mental illness rates and so on, you will see that they are in a class by themselves.
To make the claim that there have been homosexuals in every walk of life etc etc is parroting the “gay” agenda talking points. Do you want a mentally ill teacher? Kindergarten teacher? Priest? Cop?
I don’t. And certainly not in the military.
I’m sorry if I seem a bit brusque. But I have been researching the homosexual agenda since the late 80s due to a friend who promoted marriage and got into big trouble with radical homosexuals, who ruined his business and threatened his family.
The very acts that homosexuals do promoted physical and mental illness. They need help, not tolerance or acceptance. Of course illicit sex between men and women is wrong and destructive but they can easily turn illicit sex into a real family life. But homosexual acts can never do good or even be benign. They are entirely destructive to the individuals and to society.
Think of it like food. If a person over indulges in food, they harm their health, or if they eat junk food that’s bad for them. But they can if they choose eat moderately and choose healthy food. So there is a healthy way of eating and a variety of unhealthy ways of eating. Same with normal sex.
OTOH, there is nothing healthy or normal about homosexuality, ever. It’s like eating poison and distributing it to others. Add to that the undisputable fact that homosexuals have been known throughout recorded history as pederasts because of their attraction to young boys - this is how the next crop of mentally ill sex perverts are created.
That’s not at all in agreement with hundreds of comments I’ve seen on FR from current and former military. They all say that homosexuals create a lot of problems. What to speak of the AIDS problem; since homosexuals have a high rate of AIDS, that alone is enough reason for any rational person to know they don’t belong.
Here’s links that prove that homosexuals do not belong in the military:
Ten Reasons to Oppose an “LGBT Law” or Policy for the Military
The Center for Military Readiness ^
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608259/posts
Senate Testimony: European Militaries Are Not Role Models for U.S.
The Center for Military Readiness ^ | 3/22/2010
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608228/posts
Rates of Homosexual Assault in the Military Are Disproportionately High
FRC ^
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608306/posts
In Support the 1993 Law Stating that Homosexuals are not Eligible to Serve in the Military
CMR ^ | July 23, 2008 | Elaine Donnelly
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608370/posts
“THE REAL PENTAGON POLL: 91% OF SERVICE MEMBERS REJECT HOMOSEXUAL LEADERS - 1 IN 4 WOULD QUIT”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2635458/posts
“MILITARY: Marines lead opposition to repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2635350/posts
“Mullen: Troops Who Balk at Change in Gay Service Policy Can Find Other Work”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2636350/posts
Many Nazis were homosexual, most all the SS. They were sadistic butchers, not girlymen. Many homosexuals are sadistic and violent, not effeminate. This is such a recpie for disaster.
“OTOH, there is nothing healthy or normal about homosexuality, ever.”
I never said there was.
And I have been looking at this longer than since “since the late 80s.” And I am well aware that “its very nature violates Nature’s laws.” But worse is that it violates the laws of Him who created nature, and saw His perfect creation fall and crumble into sin and corruption.
I stand by everything I said. And I don’t think you either comprehended or gave serious thought to what I said. So, to accuse me of “parroting the gay agenda talking points” I find offensive and unthinking. Read what I wrote, then get back to me.
DADT is the proper policy. We are now going to substitute one extreme of policy for the other (i.e. the old, old one), and probably far more demoralizing and destructive, one.
You are saying that the "no homosexuals in the military and yes we can ask" is "extreme" and implying or rather saying that such policy was demoralizing and destructive. So I would say that yes, you are promoting the homosexual agenda, albeit in a stealth manner. Also, on another thread just now you agreed with some guy who said that homosexuals in the military caused no problems.
Oops, on this thread, right above.
Included in the story was the fact that the LGBT faction is now going to go after "rights" for transgenders in the military ...
I can just see it now - the "Klinger Rule" ...
Frank Burns:
"Klinger, How dare you wear that hat while in uniform?"
Klinger:
"Its Spring, Sir !!!"
Excellent book, every conservative should read it. And every liberal, maybe a few would learn something.
“You equated adultery and homosexuality, not me.”
Not exactly true. All homosexuality is adultery. Not all adultery is homosexuality. The fact is that certain kinds of adultery, especially once accepted by society, are more damaging than others. We live in an age when the extremes of adultery are, more and more, being accepted as “normal.” They are not; and they never will be. Period. Clear enough!
However, I have lived long enough to know that there are quite a few people with very, very perverse sexual inclinations. As I said before, some fight them and some give in to them and try to justify them. The ones who give in and try to justify must be resisted, because what they do is to train others by their example to accept the abnormal as normal, when it is not. DADT, if rightly applied, would simply mean that one is to do one’s duty irrespective of their inclination. If they cannot, then they should be removed from the armed forces of the United States. Clearly, there are those presently in the armed forces who haven’t accepted this, and so have remained in the armed forces under false pretenses, and they have been used by certain politicians to gain political advantage even though it clearly is harming the country. This is wrong. And I hope that the whole issue will be re-examined and changed.
But to be homosexually inclined is one thing. To be homosexually active and encouraging of others to do similarly is something else. Homosexuality will never be moral, no matter how large a percentage of people say it is. In the same way to be a serial adulterer with the opposite sex will never be moral, no matter how many say otherwise. But unless we are going to become mind police, we can do nothing other than go by behavior and not inclination. As I understand it DADT means don’t ask if you think someone may be so inclined. It doesn’t mean don’t say anything if someone is acting out his inclinations. If I am wrong in this, I will take correction from someone who knows better, someone serving or having recently served in the armed forces who grasps what it is that I am saying.
You see, I am actually trying to keep this subject within the bounds of its proper application and not widen it so that we are no longer talking about the subject that has been raised in this thread. Do you understand that?
I am in favor of homosexuality? No. Do I think that homosexuality is somehow no worse in its damage to society than pedestrian varieties of adultery? No. Do I recognize the deep, ingrained problem of sin and corruption in all people? Yes. Do I also recognize the difference between God’s insight, understanding and authority to deal with all human failings and sins and man’s rather limited ability? Yes. Therein lies the problem.
As far as promoting the homosexual agenda in a stealth manner goes, you are beneath contempt to have suggested such a thing when no such evidence was present. Also, I don’t think I “agreed with some guy who said that homosexuality in the military caused no problems.” I don’t think he said that. I think he said that those who did their duty and followed the rules were left alone, even though everyone knew of their inclinations. If I am wrong in this understanding, let him correct me, not you.
In the same way, I knew at work years ago who was homosexual and who was not. As long as it didn’t interfere with their job performance or that of others, I left it alone. When that line was crossed, it was another thing entirely.
this is why we need full control for the next 4 years to overturn this pathetic piece of mental sickness law which was forced on to the majority normal marines and soldiers.
this is why we need full control for the next 4 years to overturn this pathetic piece of mental sickness law which was forced on to the majority normal marines and soldiers.
you can guarantee that Romney and Perry will not do anything
you know 15 years ago I had no problem with these kind of people as they said they wanted to keep private etc,then it started with them having sex in public, parades, now in the schools, tried boy scouts and now the military
Now I find myself not just thinking they need help but I hate their agenda.
I couldn’t write down here what I really think of their agenda
your work and the military are different.
I served and I know of not one person who wants these kind of mentally sick people but now if you think it is normal to start stabbing another man up his crap hole or a woman to wear a strap on and pretend she is a man then
[I don’t think he said that. I think he said that those who did their duty and followed the rules were left alone, even though everyone knew of their inclinations. If I am wrong in this understanding, let him correct me, not you.]
If that is in reference to my previous post...[When I served in the military, we knew there were homosexuals in our ranks and you know what happened to them?
Nothing, they went about their jobs and we went about ours.]
There is no correction needed. Comradeship in the military is essential for many reasons but paramount is to be able operate effectively as a unit. If ‘active’ homosexual activity is condoned, the unit will be shattered.
The militant homosexual agenda within the ranks of our military has gained a foothold sanctioned and inspired from the very top of its structure.
From this point on, it’s totally in the hands of our top MILITARY officers to enforce the existing Department of Defense regulations without fear or intimidation.
All of them raised their hands and swore allegiance to protect our Republic against foreign AND domestic enemies.
If they choose to side step the enforcement of UCMJ Regulations and Code of Conduct out of fear of retribution, they should remove their uniforms they have dishonored and pursue a life free obligations and responsibility.
Any man who will pass up the finest thing God made in favor of another man’s ass is bound to be wrong about other things as well.
Give them their demands at playing they are men and make them live with the consequence.”
This idea has come up a lot on this thread. The problem with it is that we already have gays in the military in Iraq and Afghanistan. One stationed in Iraq even asked a question at the GOP debate the other night.
The idea that gays will simply turn sissy and run away from the rigors of the military is not one we should hang all our hope on. There are better hopes than that.
RetSignman, yes, it was a reference to your post. And from what you just wrote it appears that I did not misunderstand you ... nor do I disagree with a single thing you just wrote. You write understandably and sensibly.
It would truly be a shame to see a leftist and indulgent agenda, imposed from the top, ruin what is the finest fighting force in the world and one dedicated to defending its nation and the principles on which it was founded and must continue to stand. Thank you for your service, sir, and your continued involvement.
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.