Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama cautious on gay rule in US military
AFP ^ | 3/18/09

Posted on 03/19/2009 5:14:19 AM PDT by DirtyHarryY2K

9 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Gay rights advocates welcomed US support for a United Nations declaration decriminalizing homosexuality but expected no quick action by President Barack Obama to lift a ban on gays serving openly in the US military.

The United States had opposed the UN measure under former president George W. Bush but joined 66 other countries on Wednesday in backing the declaration proposed by France.

Although the State Department said the measure had no legal consequences for the United States, opponents of the US military's ban on openly gay members viewed the move as an encouraging sign.

"The move is welcome, this is helpful on many fronts. This was long overdue," said Paul DeMiglio of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN).

(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bho44; bhodod; bhohomosexualagenda; dadt; dontaskdonttell; homosexualagenda; obama

1 posted on 03/19/2009 5:14:19 AM PDT by DirtyHarryY2K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 185JHP; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Agitate; AliVeritas; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; BabaOreally; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

Checkout: http://SilencingChristians.com


2 posted on 03/19/2009 5:15:56 AM PDT by DirtyHarryY2K (The Tree of Liberty is long overdue for its natural manure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DirtyHarryY2K

Maybe Bambam will get advice from Frank Marshall Davis, after all Frank always gave him lipservice in the past.


3 posted on 03/19/2009 5:39:28 AM PDT by Vaquero ( "an armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DirtyHarryY2K

Obama cautious on gay rule in US military

Obama is finding out he can screw up a lot of things but the one thing that brings Americans together the fastest is screwing with the military. He proposed making disabled vets have their private insurance pay for their military disabilities and got hammered for it. Has since backed off that program.If he lifts the homosexual ban in the military he will get hammered even harder.


4 posted on 03/19/2009 5:52:00 AM PDT by SECURE AMERICA (Coming to You From the Front Lines of Occupied America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DirtyHarryY2K
Sorry, but long post follows (necessary to get all of the facts out):

SFGate
home of the san francisco chronicle

Let them serve with dignity
Tuesday, March 3, 2009

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/02/ED56167QSD.DTL

[excerpt follows:]

A measure to drop the ban was officially introduced this week by Rep. Ellen Tauscher, a Walnut Creek Democrat. She served notice last year of her plans, and she's keying the change to President Obama's campaign pledge to junk the Clinton-era rule.

Instead of the existing bigotry-lite policy, the bill would end the rule, allowing the president as commander-in-chief to ban discrimination in the ranks based on sexual orientation.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION Preamble. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [emphasis added]

In the very first paragraph of the foundational document of our country, the purpose of the military is defined. The military exists to provide for the common defense not to provide a specific “right” to serve in the military. As military service is not a “right,” all kinds of people are excluded for very good reasons, e.g., those physically, mentally or emotionally incapable of performing required tasks, as well as certain categories of law breakers such as felons, etc.,

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, Article. I., Section. 8., [Congress shall have the power ] 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.


The following excerpt (passed in 1993) is from Public Law 103-160, Section 654, Title 10—"Homosexuality is incompatible with military service." (See Senate and House Reports, pages 293 and 287, respectively.)

Constitutional challenges to former and current military policies concerning homosexuals followed in the wake of the 1993 laws and regulations. Based on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) that there is no fundamental right to engage in consensual homosexual sodomy, the courts have uniformly held that the military may discharge a service member for overt homosexual behavior.

The logic reality:

Homosexuality is defined practically by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual.

Contrary to popular opinion, the term sexual orientation, an expression based exclusively on “feelings,” does not practically define anyone as a homosexual. To contend that only “feelings” can categorically define a person is to maintain that “feelings of “lust” define one as a rapist or “feelings” of “anger” define one as a murderer or “feelings” of “greed” define one as a thief.

“Feelings” are phenomena completely internal to their possessor(s). No human can know any other human's "feelings" without that other human engaging in some behavior from which those "feelings" can be inferred. Therefore, outside of mental health terms, defining a classification identifier, i.e., homosexual, based exclusively on a human's "feelings" makes the term practically meaningless.

Any human behavior (not driven by autonomic or instinctual responses) that is not voluntary is, by definition, a psychosis.

Therefore, homosexual behavior is either a voluntary choice or a psychosis.

If homosexual behavior is a psychosis, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure. Nonetheless, treated or not, like other psychoses, it is grounds for exclusion from military service.

If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal and/or military behavioral regulations as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc.

Homosexual behavior, in general, like theft, assault, drug abuse, etc., is counter to good order and discipline within any organization, especially a military one.

This fact, just as with excluding convicted felons or drug abusers, is sufficient reason to exclude homosexual behavior practitioners.

The fiscal reality:

Homosexual behavior practitioners are statistically subject to a much higher rate of HIV/AIDS and other deadly diseases than the general population.

This fact alone increases the cost of providing medical care for the services. Increased costs in the medical care arena means reduced financial capability to purchase military hardware and pay other military personnel benefits. In short, it decreases the capability of the country fiscally, to provide for the common defense.

However, there is another, even more compelling, reason for exclusion associated with the disease rate among homosexual behavior practitioners.

The combat asset risk reality:

Because HIV/AIDS and other diseases prevalent among homosexual practitioners qualify as blood-borne pathogens, the presence of homosexual behavior practitioners creates statistically increased, and completely unnecessary risk for the loss of combat resources. The long and short of this fact is that these diseases can be spread, among other ways, through contact with the blood of the diseased individual. The military is its own, largest source of material for blood transfusions. Additionally, in a battlefield setting there is never a shortage of blood to create exposure risks to those who are not homosexual practitioners.

Summary:

Homosexual behavior is illegal in the military for very good, legal, logical, fiscal and combat asset risk reasons. Those who have ignored these strictures, either, willfully, or inadvertently, under the so-called Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy have caused a tremendous waste of taxpayer resources as well as lowered morale within the military. These costs were entirely driven by individual homosexual practitioners’ hedonistic, selfish motives and behavior and resulted in unnecessary detriment to the mission capability of the US defense establishment.
5 posted on 03/19/2009 6:11:07 AM PDT by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

gave him lip service! I’ll bet he did.


6 posted on 03/19/2009 6:18:03 AM PDT by Piquaboy (22 year military veteran of Navy, Air Force, and Army.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog

Well said.


7 posted on 03/19/2009 6:36:50 AM PDT by ELS (Vivat Benedictus XVI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ELS

Thanks...


8 posted on 03/19/2009 6:57:43 AM PDT by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DirtyHarryY2K

It’s a great new bright Obama day.


9 posted on 03/19/2009 6:58:56 AM PDT by ichabod1 (I am rolling over in my grave and I am not even dead yet (GOP Poet))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog

Are you aware of the science on the issue?

For example, when they have looked at identical twins raised apart, there is a 100% concordance rate on sexuality. Either they are both straight, or both gay - suggesting that sexuality - both gay and straight - is inborn, not “voluntary”.

Furthermore, 95% of child molestors (whether they molest little boys or little girls) are straight men. Yet many people confuse pedophilia with sexual orientation, and specifically, with gay sexual orientation.

I thought, if you have any respect for science, you’d want to become aware of these facts.


10 posted on 03/19/2009 8:29:59 AM PDT by canaan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: canaan
Are you aware of the science on the issue?

Yes.

For example, when they have looked at identical twins raised apart, there is a 100% concordance rate on sexuality. Either they are both straight, or both gay - suggesting that sexuality - both gay and straight - is inborn, not “voluntary”.

Your attempted point is inappropriate in the extreme due not only to its irrelevance, but to its betrayal of any semblance of critical thinking. Please allow me to repeat a portion of my previous post:

The logic reality:

Homosexuality is defined practically by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual.

Contrary to popular opinion, the term sexual orientation, an expression based exclusively on “feelings,” does not “practically” define anyone as a homosexual. To contend that only “feelings” can categorically define a person is to maintain that “feelings of “lust” define one as a rapist or “feelings” of “anger” define one as a murderer or “feelings” of “greed” define one as a thief.

“Feelings” are phenomena completely internal to their possessor(s). No human can know
any other human's "feelings" without that other human engaging in some behavior from which those "feelings" can be inferred. Therefore, outside of mental health terms, defining a classification identifier, i.e., homosexual, based exclusively on a human's "feelings" makes the term practically meaningless.

Any human behavior (not driven by autonomic or instinctual responses) that is not voluntary is, by definition, a psychosis.

Therefore, homosexual behavior is either a voluntary choice or a psychosis.


I trust that the above restatement has clarified the fact for you that any mentally healthy human being chooses his or her behavior. Therefore, how one feels toward a member of his or her own sex, or, for that matter, toward a member of the opposite sex does not force a person to engage in any particular behavior.

Furthermore, 95% of child molestors (whether they molest little boys or little girls) are straight men. Yet many people confuse pedophilia with sexual orientation, and specifically, with gay sexual orientation.

In 1987, Dr. Stephen Rubin of Whitman College conducted a ten-state study of sex abuse cases involving school teachers. He studied 199 cases. Of those, 122 male teachers had molested girls, while 14 female teachers had molested boys. He also discovered that 59 homosexual male teachers had molested boys and four female homosexual teachers had molested girls. In other words, 32 percent of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the population.

The Los Angeles Times conducted a survey in 1985 of 2,628 adults across the U.S. Of those, 27% of the women and 16% of the men had been sexually molested. Seven percent of the girls and 93% of the men had been molested by adults of the same sex. This means that 40% of child molestations were by homosexuals. (Los Angeles Times, August 25-6, 1985)

In 1984, a Vermont survey of 161 adolescents who were sex offenders found that 35 of them were homosexuals (22%). (Wasserman, J., “Adolescent Sex Offenders—Vermont, 1984” Journal American Medical Association, 1986; 255:181-2)

In 1991, of the 100 child molesters at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third were bisexual, and a third were homosexual. (Dr. Raymond Knight, “Differential Prevalence of Personality Disorders in Rapists and Child Molesters,” Eastern Psychological Association Conference, New York, April 12, 1991)

Drs. Freund and Heasman of the Clark Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two studies on child molesters and calculated that 34% and 32% of the sex offenders were homosexual. In cases these doctors had handled, 36% of the molesters were homosexuals. (Freund, K. “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 1984; 10:193-200)

I thought, if you have any respect for science, you’d want to become aware of these facts.

It appears out of respect for science you may want to check your data sources.
13 posted on 03/19/2009 1:06:20 PM PDT by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: canaan

zot


14 posted on 03/19/2009 1:14:28 PM PDT by darkangel82 (I don't have a superiority complex, I'm just better than you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DirtyHarryY2K
Rome is burning, Zero and the senate are fiddling, it maybe time for the legions to enter the city gates and stop this madness now.....
15 posted on 03/25/2009 4:42:00 PM PDT by Reflex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson