Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military

NY Times ^ | 2 January 2007 | JOHN M. SHALIKASHVILI

[shrinkermd]

I guess it is time for the next step. I hope some tells General JOHN M. SHALIKASHVILI that only 4% of men are activie practising homosexuals. Doesn't seem likely all will want to be in the military so probability of additional homosexual volunteers is limited.

I guess statistics was not the General's long suit.

[Buffalo Bob]

We are going in the wrong direction. We should extend the "don't ask, don't tell" policy to the civilian sector as well.

[stevie_d_64]

Don't forget about the female equation in this...There are some "practicing" lesbians serving our country with distinction in the armed services...

We just don't know who they are...

And with that said, from a veterans viewpoint...I would say that it may be a good thing we don't make a big deal out of this...again...

This is another attempt to bring down, from a certain political agenda's efforts, to errode the American military as a cohesive and viable force of this countries policies in the future...

This story was nothing but a bubble being put out there for some to pop...Thats just something to remember here...

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Recruiter "Can you kill a man?"
Queer "Yeth, but it would take thimply me hours and hours".

[shrinkermd]

Yes, good points worth reflecting on.

[OldFriend]

Let those who think practicing homosexuals have a place in our military, I suggest they take the first blood transfusion from one of these homosexuals.

Soldier to soldier transfusions are not uncommon in a war.

Just recently a young Iraqi child was saved by walk-in blood donations from soldiers.

What would be the consequence if that child then contracted AIDS.

This is a terrible idea and consideration should be given to removing the don't ask, don't tell provision to outright denial of the ability to serve in our military in any capacity.

[rbg81]

Yeah, right, let openly gay people into the military. For evey openly gay man (or woman) you recruit, I bet you'll lose five others. Part of the attraction of the military is that its a macho organization--one of the last places in our society where men can literally be men. Change that, and you will make it a lot less attractive to many--especially the warrior types! Also, people in the military tend to be more Southern and religious than the norm. Watch how fast base housing will empty out when you let homosexual couples live right next door to married ones.

And lastly, there is the small matter of getting hit on by gay members in positions of power. Not that it doesn't happen among straights, but most are programmed to deal with that. People will just bolt when their gay sergeant or Lt puts the screws to 'em to put out.

Will there be enough gay people to fill the ranks to deal with a straight exodus? Of course not--since they are such a small percentage of the population and inclined to...other things. And most of those who join will not be warrior types. So, both quantity and quality will suffer.

The fact is that anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that letting openly gay people serve is a formula for wrecking the Armed Forces. The dishonest, the bad actors, and the MSM will strive to portray it otherwise, however. Unfortunately, it will probably come to pass within the next 20 year--especially if we get a Democratic Congress + President.

[traditional1]

[fatrat]

Prediction: If openly queer folks are OKd for military service we will have to re-instate the draft.

[Criminal Number 18F]

Not many gay men want to be in the military, but a lot of gay women do. I only served once in a unit with females in it, but almost half of them were lesbians.

Still, one interesting thing about "gay-friendly" organisations is that the more open they are to gays, the fewer straights are interested in them. At some undefined "tipping point" the institution itself becomes "gay" and heteros lose all interest in it (example one: Broadway, which focuses on themes about homophobia and AIDS, neither of which has much interest for the straight community. Example two: the Episcopal Church, which has lost all sight of Christianity in its attempt to raise buggery to a sacrament).

Shalikashvili is a Clinton general, and one who has been a dependable signature on the less extreme set of "generals against the military" letters that some ex-JAG generals are always sending to the all-gay-all-the-time MSM papers like the Times.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Boris99]

Just an observation, but did you ever notice that many butch lesbians gravitate towards the military police corps? One reason I believe is that it is as close as a female can get to a combat arms MOS. Another is that they get a chance to assert their authority over male soldiers. I've seen many a butch female MP, complete with a male "high and tight" hair cut. Something is clearly not right, but because of don't ask don't tell, they are allowed to be as butch as they want to be.

[sgtbono2002]

I read of your comments on having homosexual NCO's and Officers in the military and immediately thought of the Fire Chief of Minneapolis. A lesbian herself she harrassed women and promoted other Lesbians , she refused promotions to straight men and she lost over 400,000 for the city in sexual harrassment lawsuits before being fired.

I dont think recruitment into an active homosexual Military would be so easy.

[WorkingClassFilth]

I think they ought to scrap the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy and institute a 'Just Shut Up Already' policy with all possible haste.

[Red6]

I agree 100%

[Suzy Quzy]

Geesh....what REAL man would go into the military if there were open gays???? NONE!!! What REAL man wants to sleep in CLOSE QUARTERS with QUEERS??? NONE!! That ould END our fine military. Gen. Shalikashivi is a LOSER NUT!

[Lucky Dog]

Yes, good points worth reflecting on.

Here’s you more points to reflect on:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, Article. I., Section. 8., [Congress shall have the power to] Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

As enacted by the United States Congress:

Uniform Code of Military Justice

925. ART. 125. SODOMY

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Until Congress changes the UCMJ, homosexual behavior is, and remains, illegal in the military. Consequently, the don’t, ask, don’t tell policy can only apply to something called “sexual orientation.”

The term sexual orientation, as defined by the APA, is purely about how one “feels” about members of the opposite sex versus how one “feels” members of the same sex. As telepathy is still in the realm of fantasy, no human can know how any other person “feels” about anything unless there is a behavior (speech is a behavior) from which “feelings” can be imputed.

Therefore, a protection emplaced for the benefit of “sexual orientation” is meaningless unless the possessor of that feeling acts in some fashion on that feeling. If there is an action on the “feeling of sexual orientation,” then, in the military, there is a violation of the UCMJ. Even speech, can be, and is, restricted in the military. Therefore, if ordered not to talk about “sexual orientation,” doing so, violates the UCMJ, which requires individuals to follow lawful orders. As far as other arguments against homosexual behavior, please consider the following:

1) Utilitarian Assertion: Homosexual behavior serves no useful/productive purpose [to society, in general, or to the military, in particular] and causes significant detriments [to society, the military and individuals].

2) Resource Inefficient Use/Misapplication Assertion: Homosexual behavior results in significant inefficient/misuse of societal (and military) resources:

a. Increases completely avoidable, deadly disease rates (HIV/AIDS) among its practitioners with attendant increases in premature death rates.
b. Increases other, completely avoidable, potentially less deadly diseases (STD’s) among its practitioners and potentially others (unavoidably).
c. Potentially exposes innocent parties to blood borne pathogens through transfusions or mere “splatter” of body fluids such as blood. d. Inordinately diverts resources to the care (particularly, long term) of completely avoidable diseases (especially in acute stages).
e. Inordinately diverts (in proportion to the percentage of those affected to the overall general population) limited resources into medical research for prevention/cure of these completely avoidable diseases.

3) Biological/Psychological Assertion: Homosexual behavior is contrary to the natural function of sex and normal human social behavior, i.e., that practiced by over 90% of the population.
a. Procreation is impossible to exclusively homosexual behavior practitioners.
b. Homosexual behavior is a conscious choice by its practitioners… homosexual “orientation”(if it exists) no more requires an individual to participate in homosexual behavior than heterosexual “orientation” requires an individual to participate in rape, bigamy, prostitution or any other sexual activity.

4) Theological Assertion: No major religion approves of homosexual behavior and most discourage and/or prohibit or condemn it. Consequently, the military, which maintains a corps of chaplains, would potentially be forced to order these individuals to violate the tenants of their religion and conscience to allow full participation of homosexual practitioners.
a. Homosexual behavior is explicitly condemned multiple times in the Judeo-Christian scriptures (both Old and New Testaments).
b. Homosexual behavior is explicitly condemned in the Islamic foundational documents.
c. Tenants of Buddhism strongly discourage homosexual behavior.
d. Hindu documents discourage homosexual behavior.
c. Homosexual “orientation” is not a problem absent homosexual behavior, but as noted earlier, no one can know “feelings” unless an individual acts on those feelings.

[Criminal Number 18F]

Boris:

did you ever notice that many butch lesbians gravitate towards the military police corps?

Oddly enough my first wife wound up in the MPs, but I never had a problem with her cheating on me with women, and she wasn't butch. But she got hit on a lot, which did not please her. Another friend was in the medical field, and she got hit on a lot too. The thing is that nobody turns gays in (even before DADT). I tried during my stint in a co-ed intel element, and was told, "if they are proficient in their MOS we don't want to get rid of them no matter how disruptive they are, because we are always shorthanded."

One reason I believe is that it is as close as a female can get to a combat arms MOS.

Yep. Many female officers in MI, also, are wannabee guys. Oddly enough women can serve in ADA, which

Another is that they get a chance to assert their authority over male soldiers. I've seen many a butch female MP, complete with a male "high and tight" hair cut.

Well, any female soldier can assert authority over male soldiers, based on rank. I never knew anybody, male or female, to have a problem with it, and I served in a pretty Neanderthal branch. When an individual gets into a power trip (it happens) and tries to rely on the overt military command structure for support, that individual forfeits respect, which is way more powerful than rank in actually getting things done.

Filth:

Yeah, what ever happened to "the love that dare not speak its name"? Now it's "the love that will not shut its face." I liked (tolerated?) it better before.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Sarajevo]

A fag in every (fox)hole, eh? Shalikashvili is an idiot.

[Apercu]

That was my second thought as well.

[300winmag]

Shalikashvili is a Clinton general, and one who has been a dependable signature on the less extreme set of "generals against the military" letters that some ex-JAG generals are always sending to the all-gay-all-the-time MSM papers like the Times.

Something that bears repeating. Along with the fact the Hillary only approved their appointments if they looked bad on TV. She didn't want anyone on TV looking better than Bill and herself.