Alan Steinman, Keith Kerr, and Virgil Richard. Picture: New York Times Posted on 01/11/2004 1:30:21 PM PST by Destro
US generals, admiral come out of the closet - flag fag officers
By John Files
Washington
December 11, 2003
Alan Steinman, Keith Kerr, and Virgil Richard. Picture: New York Times
Three retired US military officers - two generals and an admiral - who had been among the most senior officers to criticise the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for homosexuals in the military, have revealed that they are gay.
The three - army Brigadier-Generals Keith Kerr and Virgil Richard, and Rear-Admiral Alan Steinman of the Coast Guard - said the policy had been ineffective and undermined the military's core values - truth, honour, dignity, respect and integrity.
(Excerpt) Read more at g2mil.com ...
Chief Inspector is the latest incarnation of a poster who was banned here back when she used the posting name of jengaio. While she was jengaio, she announced to the forum that she is a homosexual woman. This emphatically did NOT get her banned. But, as jengaio, she broke the rules of FR by posting a thread/article entitled, according to what others told me, something like, "Are There Any Gay Freepers?" At that point jengaio was banned. She continued, however, to re-register on FR, and still does, to this day.
She has had numerous posting names. This list is by no means comprehensive: she has posted here under the names Gina Joe, Martyn Tarne, just vincent, stdiego, EllisV, editer, Williewonta, Aussie Cattledog, Yesenia, The Boston Stranger, Wheat, tapu, hsimon, calcetines, cafecito, Cotter Pin... and on and on. Now she goes by Chief Inspector.
I have no doubt that she also has other FR posting names which are currently active.
She divides her time btw coming on FR to disrupt, and going to the FR-bashing site, where she uses the name tapu, to bash FR.
She also enjoys making defamatory statements about other posters.
She has represented herself on FR, either on this thread, or on another recent thread, as being "not even gay". This is a contradiction to her continual internet statements that she IS gay. This will serve to inform you of the honesty/dishonesty level of "Chief Inspector". It's hard to debate with a person who will not be honest. So if you find yourself spinning your wheels, it's not b/c of anything lacking in you, it's because she doesn't play fair to begin with.
She does a slow burn when she sees persons express opinions which are contrary to the homosexual agenda. She insists that she and her female partner are in every way superior to a random heterosexual couple, on issues from the upbringing of children, to other issues as well. She particularly likes to insinuate that heterosexuals have "dirty minds", and has in fact said before that heterosexuals are perverted, though I am sure that if confronted with that statement, she would say, "I was just joking, can't you understand a joke?"
You see, claiming to have been "just joking" is a standard method she uses in trying to avoid responsibility for statements she is called on.
I'd argue that neuroscience has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that some folks are wired in such a way that they are more likely to commit crimes than others. Studies of criminals have found a large amount of evidence that those who commit crimes are likely to have defects in the way their pre-frontal lobes are wired, thus making them less capable of knowing right from wrong (or feeling empathy for others).
So to answer your question, yes, nature has certainly created the conditions for such criminals to be created, of course there are other factors involved but one can not overlook the fact that brains develop differently and whether or not we want to accept it, we are all controlled by how our brains are created. Some folks are just wired in such a way that they are unable to be empathetic to others, just as some folks are created in such a way that they are succeptable to diseases such as Alzhiemers.
We certainly know it isn't 10% and as Quix said, it's closer to 2% including bisexuals, and this from the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation: Homosexual Advocacy Groups Admit 10% Fallacy
Okay, argue. Provide evidence homosexuality is genetic.
There is absolutely no evidence homosexuality is genetic. In fact, all the studies state the major factor in determining homosexuality is environment. And guess what? Homosexuals can change. Yep, homosexuals can leave the lifestyle which puts a rather large and powerful crimp on your genetics bluff. Because homosexuals can leave the lifestyle it further supports the environment factor.
For a collection of articles on the subject: Homosexuality and Genetics
I've asked numerous freepers to post rebuttals from credible sources to anything found at the above link. Nobody ever does, and they can't, because no rebuttals exist from credible sources.
I've asked numerous freepers to try and discredit the information at the above link, and of course, from credible sources. Nobody tries.
People can only try to denigrate the facts. If you respond at all, you won't respond with anything of substance either.
Feel free to scroll up and down the nearly 500 articles at the above link and get educated on the subject.
It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.Your source is outdated and wrong.
This bone smuggler knew the rules going in. Nobody pointed a gun at his head and forced him to join the military. If he had gone to college and moved into a civilian job, this never would have been a problem. But no, homosexuals always have to be elevated to a martyr role, make a damn nuisance of themselves, and make everybody else's life hell.
I'll be danged. I had her pegged as some mushy moderate soccer mom. Did she invent that story about her husband being a pro-homo naval officer who died of a heart attack at age 47?
Sounds like a good way to get something new to talk about over at that other place, doesn't it?
Anyway, looks like you were right about the poster.
We get lots of people here inventing lots of things.
I don't take ANYONE at their word anymore about anything. The internet is the most fun compulsive liars have ever had. LOL
Many years ago, jengaio was married. She has, according to her, not been with the husband for many, many years--and was only married for a short time. As a young wife, I believe she went with the husband to CA, b/c he was in the service. (I hadn't known he was in the navy; if she says so, it must be so, eh, considering we know how honest she is?)
Her account was that he got sent somewhere else, and they went their separate ways. But she has also said she felt herself to be homosexual in her teen years, so why she married a man, I don't know. You'll find a lot of that with closet homosexuals. They freely move back and forth across the line of how they represent themselves, whenever it is to their advantage.
After having been with her female consort for, she says, something like 12 years, she found out in the last year or so that the husband had died. She worked this for max sympathy, as is her way, then apparently got over it (a difficult struggle, I'm sure). She learned of his death, I believe, from a news article, and yes, I seem to recall that she said it had something to do with a heart attack. I hadn't known he was "pro-homo". She had never spoken of his views. He had apparently been a teacher of hers.
Considering her contemptuous view of heterosexuals and of our life in general, I find it sickeningly hypocritical for her to use this deceased heterosexual man as a way of getting a leg up in an argument about homosexuality. Or perhaps the husband, too, was homosexual? Perhaps it was a marriage of convenience? I doubt it, though. I imagine he was a heterosexual, and hence she is doubly hypocritical for using him as someone to marry, and now using him to gain an artificial advantage in her spurious arguing on here.
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.