Skip to comments.Openly homosexual troops would destroy the military: Mass resignations if gay activists meet goals
Posted on 04/16/2009 11:23:24 AM PDT by DesertRenegade
With the nation engaged in two wars and facing a number of potential adversaries, this is no time to weaken our military. Yet if gay rights activists and their allies have their way, grave harm will soon be inflicted on our all-volunteer force.
The administration and some in Congress have pledged to repeal Section 654 of U.S. Code Title 10, which states that homosexuals are not eligible for military service. Often confused with the "don't ask, don't tell" regulations issued by President Clinton, this statute establishes several reasons that homosexuality is incompatible with military service.
Section 654 recognizes that the military is a "specialized society" that is "fundamentally different from civilian life." It requires a unique code of personal conduct and demands "extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense." The law appreciates military personnel who, unlike civilians who go home after work, must accept living conditions that are often "characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy."
While there have been changes in civilian society since this statute was adopted by wide bipartisan majorities in 1993, the military realities it describes abide. If anything, they are more acute in wartime.
In our experience, and that of more than 1,000 retired flag and general officers who have joined us in signing an open letter to President Obama and Congress, repeal of this law would prompt many dedicated people to leave the military. Polling by Military Times of its active-duty subscribers over the past four years indicates that 58 percent have consistently opposed repeal. In its most recent survey, 10 percent said they would not re-enlist if that happened, and 14 percent said they would consider leaving.
If just the lesser number left the military, our active-duty, reserve and National Guard forces would lose 228,600 people - more than the total of today's active-duty Marine Corps. Losses of even a few thousand sergeants, petty officers and experienced mid-grade officers, when we are trying to expand the Army and Marine Corps, could be crippling.
And the damage would not stop there. Legislation introduced to repeal Section 654 (H.R. 1283) would impose on commanders a radical policy that mandates "nondiscrimination" against "homosexuality, or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived." Mandatory training classes and judicial proceedings would consume valuable time defining that language. Team cohesion and concentration on missions would suffer if our troops had to live in close quarters with others who could be sexually attracted to them.
We don't need a study commission to know that tensions are inevitable in conditions offering little or no privacy, increasing the stress of daily military life. "Zero tolerance" of dissent would become official intolerance of anyone who disagrees with this policy, forcing additional thousands to leave the service by denying them promotions or punishing them in other ways. Many more will be dissuaded from ever enlisting. There is no compelling national security reason for running these risks to our armed forces. Discharges for homosexual conduct have been few compared with separations for other reasons, such as pregnancy/family hardship or weight-standard violations.
There are better ways to remedy shortages in some military specialties than imposing social policies that would escalate losses of experienced personnel who are not easily replaced.
Some suggest that the United States must emulate Denmark, the Netherlands and Canada, which have incorporated homosexuals into their forces. But none of these countries has the institutional culture or worldwide responsibilities of our military. America's armed forces are models for our allies' militaries and the envy of our adversaries - not the other way around.
As former senior commanders, we know that the reason for this long-standing envy is the unsurpassed discipline, morale and readiness of our military. The burden should be on proponents of repeal to demonstrate how their initiative would improve these qualities of our armed services. This they cannot do.
Consequently, our recent open letter advised America's elected leaders: "We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all echelons, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force."
Everyone can serve America in some way, but there is no constitutional right to serve in the military. The issue is not one of individual desires, or of the norms and mores of civilian society. Rather, the question is one of national security and the discipline, morale, readiness and culture of the U.S. armed forces upon which that security depends. It is a question we cannot afford to answer in a way that breaks our military.
The Navy is downsizing. The Army and Marine Corps are enlarging. This would be detrimental to the Army and Marine Corps as they are taking the brunt of Afganistan and other areas. No offense to the Navy...I am in, but we just don’t need the additional manpower right now. Now back to the subject, the don’t ask, don’t tell is a policy that has worked for almost 10 years...just keep it. There is nothing wrong with it. Although if they lift the ban, I can’t imagine the military getting this huge influx of homosexuals that people fear. However, my wanting the ban has more to do with morals than anything else. God is getting pissed at America...I am sure of it.
My guess is that the left would simply say (to those still active) "Thanks for helping us identify the "bigots" - don't let the door hit you in the rear."
Short-sighted they are - to our detriment...
having served I can honestly say that not one guy I know or myself would want to have homos in the military
what if you go to the shower and this sicko comes on to you and you smash his face into the tiled area.
Would I get done because this sicko had an hard on and tried it on with me
yea I would and that is one reason why it should not happen
“God is getting pissed at America”
I would venture to say God is by now enraged by what He sees. It’s beyond “pissed.”
Thanks. Sorry, I didn’t know the story had already been posted under a different title.
What happened in Israel when it, uh, integrated??, its armed forces? (I’m not sure what term to use.) Or maybe it only integrated some of its forces but not others? I often hear “It worked fine in Israel” but never have followed up on these assertions.
Zero is not looking ahead. If he fools around with the military and they all quit, and these terrorists keep it up, the draft will be back. Now, zero’s two daughters will be of age for the draft and they will have to serve if thier number os called.
This would all play out if there is no deferments, and there should be NONE.
While many closeted gays have served with distinction, to open the doors officially would bring a slew of wannabes, leather fetishists, "bears" and affirmative action activists out to prove something politically, but not fit for combat. Imagine the tears and the discrimination lawsuits if a drill sergeant demands equal performance.
And what would be next? -- "Whether the orientation is real or perceived" opens the door to transgenders, including the political test-case applicants. Anyone who spurns advances would be open to charges of bigotry, hate and homophobia. What an expensive mess, just when our economy is tanking and our enemies are just looking for their chance.
I don’t think it would end....It would be full of queers
I have always had this question and challenge and urge that the argument be made vigorously along these lines:
“If its ok with the NeoMarxists to put open homosexuals into men’s barracks and communal showers,
and, if that makes heterosexual men uncomfortable - then “too bad - you have no rights and your feelings or belief system are of no concern to anyone - homosexuals feelings and concerns trump the majority”,
why is it not equally ok to house men in women’s barracks and communal latrines/showers? How is it any different?”
Thought so, you sick freaking hypocritical Leftist NeoMarxist Scum.
In one instance you are forcing a situation where meat gazing homosexual humanoids who are sexually attracted to humanoid males in with other men whether they like it or not.
Then why is it not equally ok to put heterosexual humanoids who are sexually attracted to females in with females?
FU and your double standards, Democrats.
Or are we now going to give every soldier his or her own room and latrine?
Finally - what are you going to do when deployed in FO’s and other remote areas. What about TDY? The homosexual going to always get his or her own room and everyone else shares a room?
This is a BS fvking nightmare thought up by NeoMarxist twits.
I served 12 years in the US Navy and over the years I have met many gay males, all of them are constantly thinking about sex and nothing else. Also before the Clinton administration ordered a change in the way the data was presented in 1997 the FBI crime report for that year showed that in the cases of child abductions under the age of 12 not done by relatives of the child, 98% of those were done by homosexual males. Freud was right in his idea that homosexuality is a mental condition.
I would think the destruction of the military is one of their primary goals...
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.