It's just plain common sense to keep perverts out of the military. Has nothing to do with religion.
There are no "private bedrooms" in the military
Posted on 03/12/2009 1:12:55 PM PDT by PurpleMan
the current policy was essentially written by six admirals and generals who made up the second study group assigned by Clinton.
The first head of this group was Lt. Gen. Robert Alexander, who told me his team "didn't have any empirical data," so the conclusions it drew were purely "subjective." It was "very difficult to get an objective, rational review of this policy," he said. One group staffer, Vince Patton, tried to provide research to the flag officers in charge, but he said it was never even considered. According to Patton, the policy was created "behind closed doors" by people who were impervious to data, and who relied on fear and anti-gay stereotypes instead.
Rear Adm. John Hutson, who would become the judge advocate general of the Navy, was a participant in that service's talks about whether to lift the ban. Hutson told me the process was "based on nothing. It wasn't empirical, it wasn't studied, it was completely visceral, intuitive." He said that the policy came out of "our own prejudices and our own fears," and that it was a "moral passing of the buck."
These and other military officials have acknowledged what many have long suspected: The ban on openly gay service was not based on sound research because no research has ever shown that openly gay service hurts the military.
(Excerpt) Read more at comments.realclearpolitics.com ...
I’m talking about universal morality which is theistic based. Not blind this or that. That is a silly fake argument you are using merely to make my position look fanatic.
But funny thing - science, reason, health, common sense and Nature all support theistic morality. Odd, hunh.
Empiric data would mean putting homosexuals in the military, seeing how it worked, comparing everything (otherwise all the same) with none, etc. No need for that. The above mentioned reasons are all that is needed. In fact, it would be irrational and cruel to experiment with putting homosexuals in the military to “see what happens”.
The bottom line is that homosexuality is NOT normal, NOT natural, IMmoral, deviant, and ruins society when it is promoted and accepted as equivalent to normal sexual relations and orientation. That’s it in a nutshell. Therefore, homosexuals should not be in the military, nor in the priesthood, nor in positions where they interact with youth.
Homosexuals need help, not flattery and obeisance.
I don't imagine the generals/admirals who made the decision had no empirical data on serving dog s**t on a regular basis in the chow hall either, only subjective conclusions.
You'd probably have better luck advocating perversion in the military over at the daily cos or the DUmp.
That is the trouble with allowing a very small group whose minority status is based on a lifestyle choice that can’t be proven and isn’t visibly noticeable unless they choose to tell others.
You would have to either house them separately and have entire “Gay” unit and that would be viewed as discriminatory. There is nothing worse than jealousy in close quarters.
However the activists won’t ever be satisfied until all Americans become homosexuals or they control us breeders. They would be marching against being house separately.
They would want subgroups to be allowed to join the Army. All we need is a bunch of Klingers in the military.
Many homosexuals are not only very immature,but Deep down they hate what they do and who they are. Like anyone with an addiction others with the addiction want everyone else to be as miserable as they are.
The only way you could treat all individuals in the military equally is to either go back to the old ban, or continue the don’t ask don’t tell.
It is their choice to join the military and their choice to actively engage in risky and life threatening sexual behavior. Therefore they should know that abstinence will be a requirement. All soldiers regardless of their preference should know that sexual relations between soldiers will not be allowed.
When you have to trust the other guy with your life, you don’t want him staring at your crotch while you are showering.
“...to make my position look fanatic.” No, just to make your positions look religion based, which it appears to be.
WIthout getting into a complete and total discussion on rights as discussed by the Constitution/Dec of Ind/Fed Papers/etc, we differ from, let’s say Iraq which has in Art. 2 of it’s constitution: “First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation.” We have a freedom of religion. Say, if a religion accepts some belief you do not accept, are we not to bound to afford them the same freedoms and protections?
If not, how do you make the determination. Based will of the majority? Cultural history? Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?
You say “ The bottom line is that homosexuality is NOT normal, NOT natural, IMmoral, deviant” — based on?
These are arguments that occur in the public forum. Is it important to persuade those who don’t agree with you?
Hoping to just move the dialogue and reasoning forward (here and in my mind).
“advocating perversion”
Arrrrrgh!
I’m advocating people to work out arguments that persuade people. It’s that what we want to do?
“advocating perversion”
Arrrrrgh!
I’m advocating people to work out arguments that persuade people. It’s that what we want to do?
It's just plain common sense to keep perverts out of the military. Has nothing to do with religion.
I have no religious bias, in the sense of trying to push sectarianism, or even wanting to pressure anyone into any kind of religious or spiritual belief system, church, synagogue, temple or anything of the sort. On the contrary, I use universal moral principles to guide my intellect.
The only other option is to reject universal moral principles and be guided by one’s own faulty mind fueled by whims and desires, or other peoples’ faulty minds fueled by their whims and desires, and the faulty minds they were similarly influenced by.
Read my comment above about how there is no neutral ground. Either you are a theist or at least accept the theist moral principles, or you are an atheist and reject universal moral principles. Actually there are many atheists on FR who admit that they are guided by religious based universal moral principles and are glad those principles are still (to some extent) guiding our country and civilization in general. They admit their debt to such principles. This kind of atheist is fine - they aren’t trying to shove a-theist rebellion of moral principles down everyone else’s throat like you and the fellow who got banned upthread.
Of course, there is a subset of the second - fake religionists who are merely the second in a cloak.
Your phony rationalism is merely that - consciously fake talking points, probably obtained from websites dedicated to that art. All religions in the world condemn homosexuality as deviant, sinful, unnatrual and so on.
Common sense, medical science, psychology, and statistics support this.
You are a shill for the “gay” agenda and I’m starting to think you don’t belong on FR.
“there is no neutral ground.” In the debate there are, what 25% firmly ensconced on either side of the issue, maybe even 30%? That leaves 40-50% who have yet to choose a side. They are the “neutral ground” that has to be persuaded in the marketplace of ideas.
“All religions in the world condemn homosexuality as deviant, sinful, unnatrual.” However, there are those beliefs (sects of) who now do “approve” of in the Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist, Unitarian and Jewish denominations. If “all” doesn’t mean “all” what does it mean?
“You are a shill for the “gay” agenda and I’m starting to think you don’t belong on FR.”
I’m a shill for Socratic dialogue and discussion, something we all need to become better at. In a pluralistic society, culture and nation it become more and more of a necessary tool. Hell, Lame McCain couldn’t persuade people to vote for him and he lost BHO did and won.
AS an aside, I would contend that the turn in the attitudes on abortion are because of people being persuaded through evidence, basically scientific, on the viability of life earlier and earlier and the questions raised about it not because people saying, “The Bible/religion says it’s wrong.” But then again, that’s a subject for a different discussion.
By no neutral ground I don’t mean peoples’ opinions. I mean philosophically and morally there is no , institutions of higher learning, many traditional foundations and at this point much of the judiciary is saturated with leftists promoting the “gay” agenda (amongst other leftist agendas), the regular people who are influenced solely by these institutions and their agendas are misinformed and ignorant.
Second, the denominations you mention are NOT what I mean by “religion”. I mean the scriptures themselves and the traditional teachings founded on these scriptures. Of course, there is the Metropolitan Community “Church” started by homosexual activists. Many current denominations have no scriptural truthful foundation to much of what they believe, profess and teach. The Bible, the Talmud, the Bhagavad Gita and Puranas, as well as Buddhist teachings, all promote monogamy (husband and wife) and condemn sexual immorality, including same sex acts.
You inclusion of the 0bama’s “victory” proves my point. The MSM was totally in bed with him, he received 3/4 of a billion dollars much of it illegal from overseas, and many states had open primaries and that is at least part of the reason why McCain became the candidate. Add to that ACORN and who knows how much associated voter fraud and intimidation at the polling places, and you call this a cut and dried victory?
You are a shill for leftism in general and the homosexual agenda in particular.
“You are a shill for leftism in general and the homosexual agenda in particular.”
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
LIke the lie that people are born homosexual, and that homosexuality is benign and natural and that homosexuals have “rights” that need addressing via courts and legislative action. And that anyone criticizing the “gay” agenda is a hateful bigot and needs sensitivity training.
It appears a little Pee Wee v Francis is called for:
-You’re crazy.
-I know you are, but what am I?
-You’re a nerd.
-I know you are, but what am I?
-You’re an idiot.
-I know you are, but what am I?
I know you are, but what am I?
I know you are, but what am I?
I know you are, but what am I?
-I know you are, but what am I?
-Infinity!
Lucky Dog - well-thought out and erudite argument. I agree completely.
ODDITHER - As I have posted here before, I spent 23 years in the military, and I can tell we wouldn’t have to create gay units. The main logistical problem would be that the DoD would have to either double or half the number of barracks and latrines. See, we now require two types of each, one for males and one for females. If we were forced by public opinion (or the Democrats, who don’t seem to care about public opinion) to allow homosexuals to serve openly, we would either need four or just one. In fact, dropping to one is the only idea which makes sense because as it is now, people don’t have to be concerned whether there are sexual thoughts happening in the shower. Now, some will say that homosexual people would be equally prefessional as heterosexual ones, and that may be true (I have doubts), but consider this: If they let me shower with the females, I guarantee that from time to time (several times each day) on deployment in the sand pit or somewhere, I would be having sexual thoughts. So would the females. People who are naturally (or unnaturally) sexually attracted to others who happen to be soapy and wet, will at times have sex. And that violates the UCMJ.
Besides all of which, military people already know who among us is gay. We should just keep it the way it is. If men start swishing into battle, and women...well, gay women are already pretty “out” in the service for the most part, let’s just say there would be a lot of individuals getting hurt and a lot of others getting into deep trouble. There are those here (now) who will say “Good! Serves them right.” But think how badly that will degrade military readiness. THAT is all that matters, that is what good order and discipline is all about. If you try to force me to get my brown eye out around men who wolf whistle, we would soon have an all-swish force. Surely even those among you who haven’t served (and you know who you are) can see that wouldn’t be effective.
Finally, for those who still don’t habla, once the homosexuals (it would primarily be the males, as women already know the score - they’re just smarter about it)...anyway, once ‘they’ win this battle, they will lose interest and this will stop being a problem. Faggots do not want to serve, they just want to win. The only gay males I’ve met have been in medical or personnel-type career fields. They don’t want to die anymore than heterosexuals do; it’s just that we are willing to if need be. It isn’t just some game to patriots.
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.