Posted on 12/19/2010 12:25:15 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Can anyone just march into a recruiting office and demand his constitutionally guaranteed civil RIGHT to serve? Or does he first have to qualify? Mentally, educationally, physically, healthwise, morally, etc?
Wanted: A few good MEN (girly-men in a pinch)
> “ these folks dont go around screaming that they are homo any more than we go around screaming that we are hetero”
.
You are, at best, incredibly naive.
Homo is a chosen behavior, and thus not in any way subject to comparison to normal sexuality. At its foundation, it is a craven abandonment of all that is good and narural in favor of satisfaction of a psychotic sexual proclivity.
They are all very dangerous to children, and nothing will get in their way of satisfying their desires.
First proof:
The question only applies to women and children.
Upon reaching age 17, all males are required by law to sign up for military service (aka “selective service”), at which point the government exercises it’s legitimate power to organize the military as it sees fit (to wit: you do as you’re told; you don’t get to demand what job you’ll do when), which in turn renders the “right to military service” question moot. All of-age males ARE serving, most of which under the orders “go about your business, we’ll call you when we need you.”
That leaves women and children.
That children do not have the right to serve in the military should be plain.
That leaves women. To paraphrase Lazarus Long (quote eludes me): “any society which does not put women and children first is doomed.” Google will supply plenty of material on that notion and its relevance here.
Alternate proof:
The Second Amendment guarantees all citizens the right to bear arms for (among others) military purposes, and the First Amendment guarantees freedom of association. Should the government neglect its obligation to organize the militia, you have the inalienable right to acquire suitable military arms and organize with your fellow citizens to fill that void.
Upshot:
Yes you have the right to engage in military service.
The government, however, has the power to assign your service.
You do not have the unrestrained right to serve as you see fit.
Summary for the anti-DADT crowd:
Get an AR15 and start practicing. If you’re not going to go that far on your own initiative and dime, shut up.
I believe both are probably true statements.
But, for those who are charged with phasing out DADT, and have been planning for it, tomorrow will not be a typical Monday. Sooner or later, like a tide that comes in but never goes out, the implementation of those plans will reach your workplace.
We'll then see just how much for the worse military culture changes and affects your Mondays.
Oh, he’s made it clear what position he takes on it for a long time.
i do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle nor do i agree with the repeal of dadt. i do not promote that lifestyle. i believe it is an abomination before God and i have taught my children to understand that no matter what they hear from others (liberal, progressive, politically correct idiots), this lifestyle is not “just another normal”. it is not normal on any level. i am not naive and i will no longer be discussing the issue since mr. robinson has threatened me with the zot for asking a question about the subject.
Yes, the Klingle character (Jamie Farr) was a straight guy drafted to serve in Korea. In those days homosexuality was one of very few outs afforded to otherwise healthy males. So part of the show was his endless attempt to get out on grounds of homosexuality. Alas, no one paid much attention to poor ole Klingle, knowing he was straight,
BTW, the term ‘gay’ wasn’t used in those days other than to denote a happy person, and I can’t remember if ‘straight’ was used to denote hetero.
The military is a lot more picky than they used to be...
One son tried to join the army;
they turned him down; he couldn’t pass the written tests.
My daughter in law tried to join the air force;
they turned her down for a small neck tattoo that would be visible above her uniform
(her name spelled in ancient Irish runes).
Another son tried to join the air force;
they turned him down for rather large tattoo on his leg
(a WWII Liberty Ship honoring his grandfather’s service in the merchant marines).
They may not be perfect, but they sure as hell ain’t faggots.
> “Then my entire command must be made up of moral degenerates because I don’t expect to see anyone having an emotional breakdown at work tomorrow.”
.
The same ignorant dismissal was used for the post office, but now the number of carriers that deviate from their job to have a nooner has reduced the productivity by over 50%, and is driving up the cost of operation.
For the military, the results will be devastating.
No, it’s not a right, it’s a privilege. As such, one serves or not in accordance with the needs of the service.
No, Jim threatened you because he perceived that you were a supporter of the gay agenda. (your post did make it look that way, since you made inaccurate generalities about their behavior)
You make some interesting points in your various posts on this topic. I wrote a post yesterday about my struggle trying to be fair and decent as a woman who strongly believe in the equality of citizens.
I don’t know what is the moral, just or best way to deal with gay and lesbians in our law, or our culture. I do know I have a strong belief- which is probably unfair and unjust- that the repeal of this law is a dreadful mistake that is going to wreak havoc over time with our national defense.
Tell me this- as the professional that you are- what would be going through your mind in boot camp when everyone is showering together, or when you’re sitting on the pot across from each other? How’s that going to affect morale, sailor?
I admire your detached and “professional” manner- sadly, I cannot come close to emulating it. I’m furious and feel we have been harmed and betrayed by our government in ways that will show, slowly, but irrevocably in our military, our schools and our entire culture.
Is it right to think and feel this way? I don’t know. I don’t hate these people- and I sympathize with their feeling like second class citizens. But damn it, is their need to be accepted more important than the nations need to be safe?
I still have very mixed feeling about men and women going through boot camp together- so I’m hardly a liberated gal. But considering this is ALL about SEX, I’ve tried to imagine what I’d feel like if I were a recruit and expected to shower with men. Because that’s how it’s going to be- gay men showering with straight, lesbians showering with straight women.
When straight people are disciplined for fraternizing with the opposite sex in the military they take their punishment like adults- they knew better and did it anyway- pay the piper. NOW we’ll have “but they’re only picking on me cause they know I’m gay and it’s discrimination”....
Oh hell yeah- tomorrow may be the same...come back and talk to us in a year.
"i am a strict fiscal conservative. i am a strict constructionist. i am probably a bit libertarian about social issues. i just dont see what in the constitution gives the federal govt the right to make laws regarding marriage, education, enviroment, and other issues."
Tell me where in the constitution is the authorization for the federal government to FORCE homosexualism on our free society? Our schools? Our churches? Our businesses? Our public square? How is the government using ungranted police powers and FORCE considered strict constructionism? Which of our Founding Fathers insisted homosexualism as God-given, constitutionally guaranteed civil rights? Please refer to the founding documents, federalist papers or debates that substantiate your claims.
Back in the day {I did a tour in Recruiting between stints in Korea and Viet Nam], you had a civic DUTY to serve, if qualified. But you had no RIGHT to serve. Over 6’6”? Forget it [So much for Darth Vader]. Less than 4’ 11 [or was it 4’9”?] - ditto. Really bad acne, no go. Obscene tattoos, the same. If you scored mental category 4 on your tests, you could be drafted, but only enlisted in a 1 to 4 ratio with Cat 1s, 2s, and 3s.
Back in the day {I did a tour in Recruiting between stints in Korea and Viet Nam], you had a civic DUTY to serve, if qualified. But you had no RIGHT to serve. Over 6’6”? Forget it [So much for Darth Vader]. Less than 4’ 11 [or was it 4’9”?] - ditto. Really bad acne, no go. Obscene tattoos, the same. If you scored mental category 4 on your tests, you could be drafted, but only enlisted in a 1 to 4 ratio with Cat 1s, 2s, and 3s.
I'm of the older generation when "gay" meant happy and joyous. Neither of those adjectives can be applied to the twisted perverted deviants who have co-opted that word.
Not only do I want my country back, I want my word back. I refuse to use the term "gay" to characterize the abomination of homosexuality.
As for your question, back in my younger days, I don't ever recall "straight" as a noun to denote heterosexuals. There was no need to distinguish normalcy with such a label. As I recall, the word most widely applied to homosexuals in the 40's and 50's was "queer".
At birth, Almighty God made us all normal sexually. Those who became homosexual did so by willful, deliberate choice. A homosexual must repent of the sin and, after regenerative cleansing through the Blood of Christ, sin no more.
Are you sure you want to go there? Would bestiality not render itself to second class status of the person involved? As a normal adult, why would the "plight" of the buggerer really command that much emotion form you? Come on. We are talking about men acting like barnyard animals.
Yet madam, day after day, you post on this subject but always end it with I will be quiet now. Enough already.
Sonny would be sooooooo proud. /s
I admire your detached and professional manner-
***He’s a practiced troll who knows where the line is drawn, that’s how he keeps detached. Obviously, if he supported DADT and thought homosexuality was an abomination, he would say it. But he doesn’t think that way, so he stops just shy of supporting the repeal of DADT — he knows that if he stepped over that line, he’d get the zot. Keep asking him questions if you honestly think you’ve run into someone “professional”, but I hold no hope that he’ll act in any way but a troll.
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.