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

Skip to comments.

Repeal of military gay ban gets mixed review after three months (next: transsexuals)
The Washington Times ^ | Friday, December 23, 2011 | Rowan Scarborough

Posted on 12/23/2011 1:04:47 PM PST by markomalley

Three months after President Obama lifted the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military, Pentagon officials say heterosexual troops are adjusting well to the new policy.

However, critics say they are just following orders, and many are complaining privately.

(snip)

"Uniformed personnel are constrained from commenting on the new policy due to a very real risk of career penalties, but I am hearing about problems in the field that Congress should investigate."

(snip)

Yet the gay-rights movement is not satisfied with simply removing the ban.

OutServe, the once-secretive fraternity of gay and lesbian troops that held its first convention in October in Las Vegas, is urging the Obama administration to provide the same types of benefits for gay partners that straight married couples receive.

The Pentagon said most benefits may not be granted to homosexuals because of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The gay-rights movement also wants the military to admit cross-dressers and transsexuals.

OutServe's magazine set out its goals in an article, "Repeal Watch: What's Next," for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders (LGBT).

"As the interviews for this post-repeal issue commenced, it became clear that while gays and lesbians can serve openly within the military, they have not yet escaped the limelight," the article said.

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-58 next last
And after transsexuals are admitted, then they'll go to pedophiles.

May God have mercy on this once-great country of ours.

1 posted on 12/23/2011 1:04:49 PM PST by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

The Good Lord destroyed Sodom, he did not extend mercy.


2 posted on 12/23/2011 1:16:59 PM PST by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

—”And after transsexuals are admitted, then they’ll go to pedophiles. “

My thoughts exactly. And then, the zoophiles.

Cheers


3 posted on 12/23/2011 1:32:54 PM PST by DoctorBulldog (Obama Sucks!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Max Klinger... a man ahead of his time....


4 posted on 12/23/2011 1:42:55 PM PST by bigdaddy45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorBulldog
And then, the zoophiles.

and we narrowly missed that. for now.

"Defense Bill Will Not Include Provision Legalizing Sodomy, Bestiality in Military" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2820719/posts

5 posted on 12/23/2011 1:50:47 PM PST by WOBBLY BOB (Congress: Looting the future to bribe the present.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
“I’m very pleased with how it has gone,” Gen. James Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps, told reporters on a recent trip to Afghanistan to visit U.S. troops.

I've heard some disturbing stories that basic training in the Marines is no longer what it used to be, but has been seriously undermined by political correctness.

It doesn't take long for politically correct officers at the top to wreck any branch of the service, but once that happens, it can take quite a while to straighten things out again.

I really hope that things haven't gone too far to fix.

6 posted on 12/23/2011 1:58:20 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Does the Marine general really expect some snuffy to tell him what he really thinks about queers in the Marines? Does he really believe that his sergeants and junior officers are going to tell him the policy sucks?
The troops aren’t stupid and they know if they say anything negative about the butt bandits they will get into big trouble.
Speaking of sensitivity training for the troops are the fags going to be taught not to come onto straight troops and swish around, etc as it would be deemed offensive by the majority? Nah? Didn’t think so.


7 posted on 12/23/2011 2:04:19 PM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
filthy disease ridden queers will now drain money from the military with aids and all the others filthy diseases they bring with them...
8 posted on 12/23/2011 2:19:57 PM PST by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
I wonder when the PC brainwashed public will realize they got the whole LGBT package? The logistics of that are stunning. For example:

Where does a crossdressing or transgender male or female fit when it comes to an MOS that excludes women(as defined by law)?

Where does a transsexual use the head. Which side?

Where will transsexuals be housed?

Since homosexuals engage in more dangerous sexual behavior with respect to STDs and AIDs how will medics or buddies address battlefield casualties?

Will military medicine have to foot the costs of sexual reassignment surgery?

Will the military have to create a new decoration for those who are wounded in transaction, a Pink Heart?

9 posted on 12/23/2011 2:27:46 PM PST by pfflier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
"Uniformed personnel are constrained from commenting on the new policy due to a very real risk of career penalties..."

No doubt whatsoever in my mind about this.

10 posted on 12/23/2011 2:35:45 PM PST by Future Snake Eater (Don't stop. Keep moving!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley


11 posted on 12/23/2011 2:41:47 PM PST by Iron Munro ("Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight he'll just kill you." John Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
"Uniformed personnel are constrained from commenting on the new policy due to a very real risk of career penalties, but I am hearing about problems in the field that Congress should investigate."

I live next to Quantico MCB and I meet and talk to new and old Marines every day.

There is a huge problem but since these idiot Generals would rather destroy the Military and our Country than give up their own careers, they will never hear the real truth.

The good vibes the generals are talking about are self-fullfilling because the lower ranks, Officer and Enlisted, would like to keep their jobs and do their duty.

It is the DUTY of the generals to fall on their swords for this one and take it for the betterment of the USA.

12 posted on 12/23/2011 2:50:26 PM PST by OldMissileer (Atlas, Titan, Minuteman, PK. Winners of the Cold War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater; markomalley

Which means they love their jobs more than they love their nation.


13 posted on 12/23/2011 2:50:49 PM PST by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; DoctorBulldog; WOBBLY BOB; pfflier; Cicero

Repealing U.S. Code Section 654 of Title 10, also known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) relied upon deception for approval. The Department of Defense (DOD) poll presented the fraudulent idea that the military supported homosexual behavior.

Politicians supporting repeal of DADT relied for cover on the DOD deceptive proclamation that 70% of service members saw positive or no effect for repealing DADT. The poll was conducted after Congressional Representatives had voted for repeal of DADT. Therefore, only 29% responded by completing half or more of the questions, under the compelling logic that nobody really cared. DOD contacted equal numbers of reserve and active troops and spouses, but only 20% to 30% of those whose family member’s military specialty could place them in harm’s way. Also, nearly one third had never deployed. Supposedly all these responses provided valid information, even though people in base housing, civilian neighborhoods, and CONUS bureaucracies never experience firefights and IED’s.

The entire military exists to serve Marine and Army combat infantrymen and their associates in Special Forces. DOD accomplishes nothing of lasting significance until these people walk the ground formerly held by an enemy, and well over half of those trigger-pullers opposed repeal. Only they understand the unimaginable totalitarian leadership and obedience demanded by their chaotic, barbaric, and brittle environments.

I have heard objections in terms of having to shower with homosexuals, but the problem really begins when showers, hot food, and regular sleep fade into memory to be replaced by brutality, turmoil, and trauma. The leadership and discipline of a sub-culture that enables victory or at least survival in those environments cannot be turned on and off. It must continually penetrate throughout the military services. A mental disorder involving sexuality when thrust into the midst of that totalitarian structure warps the relationships that must be maintained.

This debate veered into humanist social alchemy as a means to fabricate attachments to our Constitution and to dissemble concerning military operations. The primary issues of Constitutional speech and religious freedoms, and of whether any mental disorders can be tolerated within the exceptional human structures needed to defeat enemies were not addressed.

DOD Homosexual Report
Raw numbers of the responses
http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/Vol%201_Appendix%20A%20-%20Appendix%20AL.pdf

Note the number of “missing” that vary from question to question. Anyone think that the people taking the survey wanted to be on record on some of these questions? Also, on page 62 of the 64 page appendices is the fact that 34.4% were from the warfare community and 65.5% were from the non warfare community. Not quite a 2 to 1 ratio between non combat troops and combat troops.

Full Report http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/DADTReport_FINAL_20101130(secure-hires).pdf


14 posted on 12/23/2011 2:51:05 PM PST by Retain Mike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformationFan

lol...yeah, dude, that’s exactly what it means.


15 posted on 12/23/2011 2:58:59 PM PST by Future Snake Eater (Don't stop. Keep moving!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: OldMissileer

Of course I knew a few gay shipmates when I was in the Nav. Everybody just minded their own damn business and that was that.

This repeal amounts to a license for gay servicemembers to be just as disruptive and obnoxious as they can be. I would imagine most gay soldiers, sailors and airmen join for the same reasons the rest of us do, but, as with the Kara Hultgreen feminazi types in the nineties, there only have to be a handful of flamers to turn a command upside down.

What anecdotes have your friends been telling you?


16 posted on 12/23/2011 3:03:51 PM PST by sinanju
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

It’s all part of a long term strategic agenda:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattachine_Society#Goals

The primary goals of the society were to

1.Unify homosexuals isolated from their own kind;

2.Educate homosexuals and heterosexuals toward an ethical homosexual culture paralleling the cultures of the Negro, Mexican and Jewish peoples;

3.Lead the more socially conscious homosexual to provide leadership to the whole mass of social deviates; and

4. Assist gays who are victimized daily as a result of oppression.

The advancement of homosexuality has long served as a vanguard for other sexual deviants. Once you recognize a mental illness as normal where do you stop?


17 posted on 12/23/2011 3:05:05 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater

It’s so sad. I used to have a lot more respect for the military collectively. I still admire individuals within the military but there’s so many folks who join not to serve their country but just to get their food, shelter and clothing taken care of, they’ve lowered the collective respect for everyone in it. Which is, of course, ultimately all part of the communist goal in the long run.

http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm


18 posted on 12/23/2011 3:05:50 PM PST by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: pfflier

Damn the consequences, man. We’ve got to get ‘modern’!


19 posted on 12/23/2011 3:15:46 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Retain Mike

Tried both links and both came up “page not found” Hmmmm does this suggest scrubbing by DOD ? OR am I just worthless at this computor?


20 posted on 12/23/2011 3:16:22 PM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-58 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