US generals, admiral come out of the closet - flag fag officers

theage.com.au via g2mil.com ^ | December 11, 2003 | John Files

[gcruse]

when they can't even control their own deviant lusts

Where does it say they didn't?

[Coastie]

The US Coast Guard is indeed a part of the US Military. It was originally under Treasury, then DOT, now Homeland security. The reason it's under civilian dept is in part for law enforcement reasons. It operates under the Navy in time of war, if SecNav desires it. By the way, RADM Steinman is actually a USPHS officer, who was serving with the CG as a doctor (Coasties don't have their own MD's, we use the PHS).

US Coast Guard

[Cvengr]

By their claim to be homosexuals. Admission of guilt.

[gcruse]

Admitting to be homosexual is equal to not controlling your deviant lusts? Sorry, that doesn't wash. I'm oughtta here.

[Cvengr]

Any officer in federal goverment admitting to being a sexual deviant as in pedophile, homosexual, serial rapist, very well disqualifies that person from the office.

The issue now has grown to control the numbers of criminals who have achieved higher office and have not been held accountable for their felonious activities.

It will continue to grow into other abhorant behavior if ignored or condoned.

[claudiustg]

Anyone know the policies on sexuality in other militaries?

[GladesGuru]

One reason is that when an officer makes a decision which likely will result in men being killed, those at risk of being killed would like to know, beyond any doubt, that there was no bias in the selection, based on a sexual favoritism.

For just that same reason, traditionally, the military didn't let women anywhere near a battlefield, either.

[zerosix]

Exactly right.

I used to be one of those women who felt sorry for homosexuals when they identified themselves as victims of prejudice in jobs and housing. A couple men that I knew from work said that all they wanted was to not be penalized for their choice of lifestyle.

I found out much later that what they were wanting was to force an elderly Catholic woman who owned a duplex to rent to them regardless of her desire not to have an "unmarried" couple residing on her property. I also found out that they wanted to force a Christian book store to hire them to work with teens in the music department!

No more do I believe that all homosexuals want is to be left alone, they want everyone to acknowledge their lifestyle and equal to hetrosexuals.

If the military does not allow men to shower with young female recruits, why in the world would they wish to place a lesbian in the shower?

[Chief Inspector]

"On the contrary, these men apparently did NOT serve honorably "

Only because it's defined as dishonarable to be gay and in the military. Let's make that not dishonarable. It's a dumb rule. Besides, isn't it "don't ask, don't tell"? So they were honorable and not that they're retired they are coming out.

[Chief Inspector]

Lots of hetero couples can't reproduce naturally either. Should we forbid them to be married?

Also, about the not going about bragging about bedding your wife, you're on here putting down gay members of our military. I take that as "bragging" you're straight.

For years blacks walked to the back of the bus while whites sat in the front. They were used to it. Nobody bragged or complained about anything. Think of these guys as being fed up, the gay version of Rosa Parks.

[Chief Inspector]

People choose favorites on many basis, not just sexual attraction. Come on.

[Lucky Dog]

As I said in an earlier post: “Any sexual activity, except rape, is purely voluntary. Consequently, the inescapable conclusion from their own words, is that these officers violated the UCMJ by engaging in sodomy.”

Nobody is, anymore, a homosexual for tendencies (orientation) from which no actions result than someone is a rapist for lust that produces no rape. In other words, absent some homosexual behavior, no one is a “homosexual.” These officers implied through their own words that they had engaged in homosexual activities.

As to the activities you cited, to wit: “homosexual kissing or mutual masturbation,” a “kiss” is not, in, and of itself, “homosexual” nor does “mutual masturbation” involve “penetration.” Nonetheless, both of the activities, especially “mutual masturbation” may be judged to “conduct unbecoming” and still a violation of the UCMJ although not specifically Article 125.

The fact remains that these officers swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Admitting that they violated the UCMJ is a violation of that oath and thus their “false swearing” is dishonorable and that is also a violation of the UCMJ.

[Chief Inspector]

Think Rosa Parks.

[Lucky Dog]

Military officers do not have the option of declaring portions of the UCMJ to be “dumb rules.” Whether you think a particular article is “dumb,” or not, only Congress is empowered under the Constitution to change it.

You either “honorably” follow your oath, or you “dishonorably” do not. Your personal preferences are either “honorably” subjugated to the discipline required or you leave the service.

[cowdog77]

All this debate and point/counter-point. The actual point here is that what these people do "in their closets" is so nasty, gross and repulsive. We're not talking about a group of people who "choose an alternate lifestyle". What we're talking about is folks who_______ and _____ when they _____, etc. Fill in the blanks and then realize how absurd it is that they would want to flaunt it. All beside the fact that God doesn't like it!

[Lucky Dog]

Your opinion of how "nasty, gross and repulsive" the activity in question is not the point. Nor is what God thinks of it (as far as the homosexuals are concerned).

The point is that these officers apparently violated their commissioning oath and seem to think that because they have retired, that they can now flaunt it. Some others (Chief Inspector, for one) seem to think that such behavior constitutes "honorable" behavior. Such behavior is far from "honorable," in fact it is illegal in the military.

[Looking for Diogenes]

In other words, absent some homosexual behavior, no one is a ?homosexual.?

I'm not sure what you are basing that on. Most folks consider themselves heterosexual because they are attracted to the opposite sex, not because they regularly participate in sexual activities. Is a virgin teenage boy with pinups on his walls not a heterosexual because he hasn't had sex yet?

Same goes for gay guys, from what I understand of the world. They're gay because they are attracted to men, not because they've done anything about it. They'd still be gay even if they had a wife and thought about guys while having sex with her.

[Godebert]

"Think Rosa Parks."

Why? Do you think being a faggot is the same thing as being a black person? I noticed from your other posts (since you signed up last week) that you are also an advocate of "Gay" marriage. Are you Pro-Abortion as well?

[Chief Inspector]

Okay, let's have all gays in the military request discharge tomorrow. Oh, sh*t. We'd be in a situation 1000 times worse than when we canned the dozen or so gay translators who specialized in Arabic and Korean. The point is: the whole thing is just not practical. Military service has nothing to do with being gay. So let's get rid of the weird rules that make them seem related. S'all I'm sayin'.

[Chief Inspector]

You'll say "faggot" but you're a good person to then say "black person." A selective bigot.

No, I don't think it's the same, though. I was making the point that the military guys coming out are like Rosa Parks deciding she'd had it and sitting at the front of the bus, despite the differing rules for "differing" people. It's a subtle distinction, but try to get your head around it instead of inciting a whole different kind of argument.

And, no, I abhor abortion. And I'm not even gay. Why do you make all these assumptions about my belief system based on one opinion I have?

I have no patience with that kind of confusion.