Posted on 02/07/2010 8:33:28 AM PST by Kaslin
The APA put forth the statement last year that after decades of study, they could find no proof that homosexuality is genetic-based. In other words, it is not a matter of “being,” but of “choosing.”
At one of the bases I was at, they did an undercover operation and busted some guys for having child porn on their computers. They were dishonorably discharged. So you’re exactly right in your point. The comparison is ridiculous because murderers, rapists, and child molesters are not condoned and accepted in the military. In this case, they hadn’t committed child molestation, they were investigated and discharged for even having it on their computers. Oh, how I miss the days where our country was still sane and not sick.
Giving the patent approval to behaviors that are nihilistic and destructive to social order, only encourages those practices and puts homosexuals in a power to use their “special protection status” over new, young, and naive recruits. They can force their attentions on others through rank which is where the danger occurs. To think that that will not happen is ridiculous when that is why men and women were separated. If you think that men and women can not control their sexual urges, then multiply that by 10 because homosexuals are at least that much more out of control and aggressive.
Homosexuals lack of “control” is well documented and for centuries considered a mental illness—public restrooms, bushes in public parks, priesthood assaults on boys. Homosexuals promiscuity and pedophilia victims far exceed the numbers from the heterosexual community when ratios are figured. Their “emotional” control over their reasoning makes them a danger. Their lack of moral constraint makes them a supreme danger. That is the bottom line. You want the military to “approve” of a destructive behavior. With no “shame” applied to behaviors, they become mainstreamed. Since homosexuality is a learned behavior, homosexuals have been fighting for the right to mainstream that behavior—to muzzle our most masculine men and make them impotent to fight the homosexual propaganda.
This undermines the freedom of religion—people have the right to have moral codes—to judge behaviors as good and bad and if the military forbids its troops from expressing disgust for certain behaviors, then it gives it tacit approval. It is imperative for the military to have a moral code. For egalitarian societies, where women are not degraded and used as breeders and slaves, homosexuality can never be condoned.
Look to the Spartans who practiced rampant homosexuality (women had no rights) and the recruitment of young boys was incorporated into that military. Yes, they had an outstanding military and homosexuality was used to encourage cohesion (just like the Nazi Brownshirts who used the Hitler Youth for recruits)(pantheistic culture encouraged it and all sexual immorality—pedophilia was rampant since it is learned and necessary for recruitment.)
Judaism and Christianity were the forces that ended the pagan practices. That is why we see the destruction of Christian principles now: to give freedom to all sexual immorality and perversions.
Actually, the definition of “specious” is “superficially plausible, but actually wrong”.
That is my opinion that it is wrong. If I am wrong, it is not specious...:) I simply don’t think it is plausible.
I would be willing to bet the vast majority of men and women serving in the military would be thrilled with others doing their job as they should, sexuality aside.
I found that one of the biggest sources of friction was people who did not perform professionally as they should, not that a given person was genuinely being outperformed by someone else.
Want to take that up a ratchet? Take the friction now that is seen regarding the perception that people have been promoted to fill a gender quota. Multiply that with the prospect of the perception that promotions that have been given to avoid accusations of sexual discrimination against homosexuals.
I think military life is trying enough without adding in this element.
Does it like leather, lard, insertion, oral, anal, rubbing up against little boys, being on it's knees in public toilets and rest stops like George Micheals? Nancing in public in fishnet stockings and a stuffed bra? Dressing up like mice and being chased by a transvestite with a knife? Whipping his boyfriend on a parade float at high noon, to the disgust of the straights and the edification of the children?
I REALLY want to legislate these emotional cripples' behavior as a protected right.
Do YOU get off passing around STDs? Can you name all of your sexual partners for the last, say, two years? Or are they simply male members that were sticking though a hole in a public rest room, for you to service?
That sounds like true love to me...
So, you are officially going on record to deny individuals free choice? Going to stop there? Or go on to tell them that the food they eat of the clothing they wear is unacceptable also and the MUST COMPLY!
You see, it's a slippery slope that we find ourselves on in denying the free action of choice. I bet you and I will agree that the liberal food police are wrong. Or that choosing where to live is something the state has no parts of, but why do we disagree here?
I will state once more that I am against public action that are deemed obscene, or causing disruption on military ranks. I condemn that in every case. But I will not condemn for choosing, or being.
That's all well and good and principled in a perfect world but we don't live in a perfect world.
If the brass could be trusted to crap can homosexuals immediately who are being disruptive to discipline and good order and avoid the inevitable sensitivity training that would accompany open homosexuality in the military then I would be on your side.
As it is they didn't even have the balls to crap can Major Hasan. Don't ask don't tell works fine. It allows that tiny fraction of homosexuals to serve while avoiding the government imprimatur on that behavior and the accompanying bs sensitivity training.
Once you sign on the bottom line you give up all sorts of rights and privileges. Giving up the privilege of announcing your sexual proclivities to the world seems a small price to pay for those who want to serve their country.
;)
“If you want to ban people from our military, ban the muslims.”
In the runup to the invasion of Iraq an Army sargeant “fragged” a tent.
We had the DC shooter.
We had Maj. Hasan of Ft. Hood Texas, killing 13 people.
Muslims should be screened very carefully, and once in still monitored.
It was utterly stupid to let that Major stay in, after things he said.
I’m not laughing. Some things, like poofters raping children, are no longer amusing.
Not disagreeing with your example. Hasan should have been ID'd and stopped long before. It's an issue to be addressed NOW. But it really has nothing to do with the denial of choice, or the claimed fact of homosexuality, or serving in the military.
I observe that in the USA social-political culture, wherever people with various sex or gender issues work, recreate, or live peaceably with folks in general, they do so on an informal but effective, de facto basis of don't-ask-don't-tell: your sex and gender business is none of my business unless you make it my business.
This seems to work well enough for most people in most settings, including the military.
IMHO, the whole purpose of abolishing don't-ask-don't-tell is not in making a necessary accommodation to permit gays to serve: it couldn't be "necessary," because they serve now and always have. The purpose is opening the door for activists to create social change by their favorite method: coercion:
When I say "they," I don't mean the majority of gay people who are already serving honorably in the military. I mean the social change activists who cannot achieve their aims by the democratic process.
Keep posting facts with citations and you will get yourself banned or something (/s)
Thanks, have copied and added to my pile of stuff.
Are you not reading my posts? Hand me a knife, I don't even care if it's sharp. Convict that 'poofter' and I'll take care of the problem for good.
What does that have to do with the group denial to serve in the military?
Now I'm not blaming homosexulaity for that I'm just stating a well known fact. The author doesn't seem to know that.
kAcknor, what you are doing is engaging in polemics. Your aim is to equate the cause of “homosexual rights” with those of civil rights, and there is no parallel.
The other poster was using studies that he took the time to reference. Those studies may be correct or incorrect, flawed or sound, but your argument would be better served by refuting the claims of those studies, if you can.
I have done that exercise you just did by taking a speech or statement by a black person towards whites, and doing a search and replace to highlight a double standard.
It works with rhetoric. It doesn’t work with referencing established research.
I am unfamiliar with the studies referenced, so I cannot vouch for their authenticity or accuracy. If you wish to refute his point, that is how you should do it.
Play nice all.
Only to the willfully blind. Like you. The Pentagon and the higher up brass can not be trusted to be anything but politically correct to the nth degree. That is evidenced both before and after Major Hasan's jihadist attack at my old post. It is the brass and politicians who will disrupt good order and discipline and it is the grunt who will pay the price.
I see things as they are, you see things as you want them to be. Perhaps the difference between the Air Force and Army? :-}
Being in the military is not a right.
No one has responded to the homosexual health concerns, their staggering std problem, sexual promiscuity and blood supply risk, their huge over exposure in depression and mental illness. These are significant problems that the military will need to expend millions of dollars to address.
Are trans-gendered people allowed in? Can they be stopped? Can transvestites be allowed in? Will there be countless law suits and ACLU actions, and is this just a red herring for homosexual acceptance? Does our military need to deal with these issues? Do they have the resources? Why should the US risk our nation’s security on social experimentation? It is not the place for the military to bear this unnecessary risk.
Let us have a little honesty here. It is not a question of eliminating “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” but upon whom it will be applied. If sodomites are allowed to openly serve in the military then all those who are rightly opposed to it will be forced to keep quiet about their opposition. It will be the majority who still hold onto traditional morality, Christians or otherwise, who will be forced into “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” about their moral beliefs. And that is the whole purpose of this push for Gays in the military after all, is it not?
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.