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

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

[Godebert]

"I have no patience with that kind of confusion."

You're the one who is confused. You seem to equate sexual deviant behavior the same as race. That's straight out of the liberal play book.

[Chief Inspector]

Is it that you don't read my responses, or that you don't understand them?

[Godebert]

I understand that you want homos to serve openly in our armed forces. I also understand that you advocate "gay" marraige. Did I get that part right?

[Chief Inspector]

Yes, those parts are right. You're on a roll. I mean, not that I was being vague or anything... but I'm glad you've got the gist.

[Godebert]

Just curious.....did you ever serve in the military?

[Chief Inspector]

No, but my husband was a naval officer.

[Lucky Dog]

Let me address your point with a few questions:

Do you consider yourself a murder because someone makes you angry enough to want to kill them (but you do not)?

Do you consider yourself a rapist because some excites your sexual desire to the point of wanting have forcible intercourse (but you do not)?

Everyone who is not suffering from the condition of “homomorphism” is, by definition, a heterosexual. Heterosexuality is a condition of physical genital. That to which you are apparently referring as “homosexuality” is a behavior. If there is no physical deformity, nor any sodomy, the term “homosexuality” is meaningless in a practical sense.

The mere existence of an unacted-upon attraction to someone of the same sex does not make a person a sodomite.

[Godebert]

"No, but my husband was a naval officer."

Interesting. Does he also share your opinions on homosexuality?

[Chief Inspector]

He died of a heart attack at 47. But yes, he would think it impractical to bar gays from the military.

Is there a point to these questions you're asking me? If so, just make it.

[Lucky Dog]

Who said we're in bad shape for "canning gay translators who specialized in Arabic and Korean," I contend we are better off for it. We will not be offending potentially valuable allies with such people who violate these allies' moral and legal codes.

Who told you it is not practical not to "can all of the gays" in military service? I submit that it is impractical not to do so. We have been doing it for at least half a century.

It appears that you have made up your mind and do not wish to be "confused with the facts," i.e., the fact that homosexual behavior is illegal in the military, the fact that breaking your oath is dishonorable, etc.

[Godebert]

..."he would think it impractical to bar gays from the military."

I'm sorry for your loss....but I find that difficult to believe. I guess I'll just have to take you at your word. Seems a rather liberal attitude for a naval officer. Was he a democrat?

[Chief Inspector]

Who said we're in bad shape for "canning gay translators who specialized in Arabic and Korean," I contend we are better off for it. We will not be offending potentially valuable allies with such people who violate these allies' moral and legal codes.

---

We're short on translators of those crucial languages. Also, some Arab translators haven't been working out so well for us recently (news item of a few days ago). And the gay translators aren't going to offend anyone they're working with (translating for)--it won't come up.


Who told you it is not practical not to "can all of the gays" in military service? I submit that it is impractical not to do so. We have been doing it for at least half a century.
&

---

You only think you have been doing so. Witness the officers in the news story we're commenting upon. I'm telling you if all the gays got the nerve to up and walk out, we'd lose a lot of good people.



It appears that you have made up your mind and do not wish to be "confused with the facts.

---

I could say the same thing about you. And it isn't that I don't want to be confused by "the facts." I don't want to be swayed by others' arbitrary opinions.
I do understand that you're saying these men broke military law. I do not condone that. But the law is wrong, and cases like this bring it out.

[Chief Inspector]

"Was he a democrat?"

Ha! Okay, I've had it. No more answers from me until you can cut the passive aggressive questioning. Can't you believe that someone might agree with you on some things, but not on others? You're wanting to put anyone who doesn't have a problem with gays in some group you deem negative. Well, it must be a real paradigm shift but try to deal with it. You and I would probably get along in a lot of ways, but we would disagree on how much we have to punish or regulate people who are gay. OH WELL. (And good night. Hope to see you later.)

[Lucky Dog]

>>> We're short on translators of those crucial languages. Also, some Arab translators haven't been working out so well for us recently (news item of a few days ago). And the gay translators aren't going to offend anyone they're working with (translating for)--it won't come up. <<<

Just like it didn’t come up with the officers cited in this thread. Or just like it didn’t come up with the Mass. Supreme Court Ruling or the US Supreme Court ruling? We can cure the shortages in translators by training non-sodomite candidates for language school just those who lied to gain entry the training to start with.

>>> You only think you have been doing so. Witness the officers in the news story we're commenting upon. I'm telling you if all the gays got the nerve to up and walk out, we'd lose a lot of good people. <<<

I think if you consult JAG statistics, you will note that there have been in the vicinity of 800 courts martial per year for violations of Article 125 of the UCMJ. We obviously did not catch all of the offenders, to your point. Nonetheless, failure to capture all of the criminals does not make the law they violated a “dumb” law.

Additionally, your opinion that loss of all of the gays equates to the loss of “good people” is not an opinion that I, the majority of Americans or even the majorities of Congress share. Were it so, Congress would change the UCMJ. Is it possible that, not the majority of Americans and Congress, but you, are wrong in your opinion?

[BSunday]

Rear-Admiral Alan Steinman of the Coast Guard

As a navy man, this phrase leaves me laughing my butt off, no pun intended

[Godebert]

"You're wanting to put anyone who doesn't have a problem with gays in some group you deem negative. "

Some group? Interesting way of defining the opposition in the culture "war". I would hope that you also deem that "group" negatively, otherwise the pleasure of making your acquaintance could be short-lived indeed.

[BSunday]

"Sparky - don't be gay, Sparky!"

[Looking for Diogenes]

The mere existence of an unacted-upon attraction to someone of the same sex does not make a person a sodomite.

You are right. But it does make them a homosexual.

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

[liberty or death]

Homosexuality is a sin and an abomination to God. Anyone who struggles with this should read the book of Romans in the bible and see what God has to say. Though the sin alone would condemn you, God gives us all a way to redemtion and forgiveness. Read the whole book because though we are condemned because of sin we are given a Saviour to redeem us.

[Lucky Dog]

Like many, it appears that you have fallen prey to the language twisters. You have equated so-called "homosexual orientation" (to use the common term) with being homosexual. The two are not the same.

As for your quote of scripture, you are confusing a religious or philosphopical injunction with a secular legal one. In the "secular legal realm" a crime requires an intent AND an action. In the absence of both, there is no crime. In some cases the existence of the action implies the existence of the intent, but never the reverse.