Posted on 02/07/2010 8:33:28 AM PST by Kaslin
Somehow, the concept that heterosexuals fear openly serving homosexuals as some sort of threat to their professional competitiveness, is specious. Are you suggesting that homosexuals in the military somehow truncate their professional superiority because they are homosexuals? Exactly how would that work? What does advertising or disclosing one’s sexuality have to do with advancement based on better performance than their heterosexual peers? Remaining “in the closet” has no bearing on performance.
As to the absolutely specious comparison of skin color and homosexuality, General Powell, before he became a Democrat sycophant, testifying before congress, summmed it up susccinctly. Skin color is genetic; sexual proclivity is a choice.
Liberals would neither understand nor care about order and morale.
It is hard to argue with referenced facts.
Spread the words of truth.
Thank you....panax
“I used to be against having gays openly in the military until I gave it rational thought.”
Then obviously your thoughts were not “rational” they were “rationalizations.” Right now we have enough problems in the military maintaining good order and discipline because of men and women serving to together (no blame to either women or men - it is just natural for their to be problems). It is unsafe for females in some areas because of sexaul harrassment. On the flip side, many a foolish male soldier has been booted out of the military because he fraternized with a subordinate female soldier (especially Drill Sergeants).
So, now politicos want to make things worse by allowing openly homosexual persons in the military. A very bad idea. The Inspector General Corps is already dealing with numerous military members (some correct some false) filling the R (race) Card complaints or the G (gender) Complaints....so you want us to further deal with the H (Homosexual) Card complaints.
Females are half of the population and HAVE been more good than bad, but there is still a long way to go. They are a valued part of the military...but problems remain.
I can’t see the value or sense in disrupting the morale, religious sensibilities, social sensibilities, etc. to accomondate a very small minority of 1-3% of the population (I suspect it is well below 1%) to be politically correct.
What contributions that small minority may potentially make isn’t worth the disruption.
“Perhaps the straight soldiers and sailors recognize this too. They recognize that keeping gays in the closet or in fear of being summarily dismissed, may be the only way for straight soldiers and sailors to stay competitive.”
That is an unwarranted insult to the members of the U.S. Military. I know that “ad hominen” attacks are not good form here. However, it is my opinion that you should change your handle from “johnnycap” to “johnnycRap.” Because you are very full of it.
There are already gays serving in the military. I supopose there have been since Valley Forge. They haven't been denied the opportunity to serve.
I think it's a wise policyin general---- not just in the military --- not to ask people if they're gay or straight, or press them for details about their sexual feelings, practices or habits.
It's apparently working out for thousands. If you don't make an issue out of it, it doesn't have to emerge as an issue.
That's quite an amazing claim you're making. I suppose you have data or other evidence to back it up.
Despite the stereotype of the "neat, clean, hardworking gay man," I've noticed those who have been discharged were usually the opposite. Many were obsessive about their hair or clothing, but more often than not, their quarters were pig-styies.
So, just because the military can survive and obstacle being placed within it, doesn't mean no harm will occur.
I agree. The question should not be asked. The problem is in the 'Don't Tell' half of the issue. It also covers "Don't get caught."
Many things should never have been an issue. But somebody had to go and say because skin colors were not like theirs, it was an issue. Somebody went and said, you don't worship like I do it's an issue. In this case, somebody has said, you don't have sex like I do, it's an ISSUE.
It's not a question that needs to be asked but it seems to some, it's an issue that will get a person fired, kicked out and not allowed to continue in a job they've proven to be able to do. So...
It's an issue.
There are minds that will never be changed. It's always like that in prejudice. People rationalize and quote 'facts' and claim the moral high ground. Not pointing fingers, not talking only about the homosexuality issue. But in the end, as a society we always seem to look back and wonder how the hell anybody could have defended the policy.
What is your post supposed to accomplish? You have simply proved your own position false.
Your "Statements" Include:
Because blacks can’t reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children.
The fact is, a homosexual couple cannot produce offspring. A black or mixed race couple IF THE COUPLE INCLUDES ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN can.
I'm not sure what your problem is, but I bet it's really difficult to pronounce and a pharmaceutical company manufactures a chemical to treat it!
You're absolutely correct. Dropping DADT and openly admitting homosexuals will begin a long march toward making it an actually preferred lifestyle. First will come the inevitable "sensitivity training." Then the general orders prohibiting "hate speech" toward homosexuals. Selection boards will be given "quotas" for numbers of homosexuals to be advanced. Service academies will have reserved appointments for homosexuals. There will be years of "firsts" -- each one heralded as the greatest civil rights victory since Rosa Parks. "First Gay Recruits!" "First Gay Commanding Officer!" "First Gay Admiral!" (although I believe Sestak should have that honorary title).
Officers who want to advance to high rank will have to outdo each other in their special observances of Gay Appreciation Week (which will eventually become Gay Appreciation Month).
"The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted." Ps 12:8
You mean, you actually read that whole thing through?
Wow.
Most people got the point by the second or third line.
I understand your point here. What I don't understand is why a person would be fired, kicked out, or not allowed to continue in a job under DADT. As I said before, thousands of gay people ARE serving in the military, and are NOT fired for being gay. It is prohibited even to ask about their private sexuality. How is it an issue if they don't make it an issue?
I also wonder if the potential for conflict and disruption is the same in all countries and cultures. (And admittedly I'm not equipped to say much about this aspect, since I don't know how sexual behavior plays out in a range of countries.) Maybe in some places it just doesn't turn into a disruptive social-change campaign.
But in some countries, there's an aggressive sex-rebel movement, deliberately provocative, which targets and tries to break individuals and institutions who find their behavior objectionable.
Such activist organizations have repeatedly forced the closure of adoption agencies which wouldn't supply children to gay couples; sued dating services which wouldn't reconfigure themselves to accommodate gay pairing (when there are hundreds of gay dating services they could choose from); targeted, selected and sued church-owned facilities which wouldn't host gay wedding receptions, brought legal charges against printers or photographers who wouldn't produce gay-promotional materials; publically pressured people who wouldn't actually join in celebrating Gay Pride --- it goes on and on. In some countries (Canada, England, and I think in Norway) they've persued, prosecuted, fined and jailed clergy for teaching the tenets of their religion.
None of this was "necessary" --- all of it was an aggressive and punitive campaign against anyone who put up any moral, social or ethical resistance to, or even refused to publically affirm, behavior they found objectionable.
Who would want to open the door to all this nonsense in the military?
Abandoning DADT in some other countries might not lead to a concerted campaign of provocation against traditional moral people. But one can confidently predict that's just what would happen in a military setting--- that is, in the USA, under today's political conditions--- as I argue here.
Mrs Don-o you bring up some interesting and valid points.
And admittedly, I don’t personally like some of the actions that have been taken. Particularly around the adoption area. But those personal reservations have nothing whatever to do with the gay aspect.
Liberty is not and has never been perfect, pretty or comfortable to everyone. Other cultures are just that, other. In Europe gays serve openly without problem, but in other places they are stoned to death upon discovery. It is not pertinent to our question of acceptance or rejection of openly homosexual individuals in the United States military.
I don’t much care about disruption. It was very much a disruption to our society to integrate the black and white skinned humans. Still is in many areas, as the basic human natural desire for ‘revenge’ fanned by some for their own gain playing out culturally everyday in America.
The alternative is to repress a minority while claiming a free society and I will never agree that it’s a better idea.
I will stand with anyone here to take steps to prevent individual acts of public obscenity or child abuse or harm. But I will not condone the targeting of a group of people for individual acts.
Your substitution was evident after a quick skip. Don't worry, your pointless, juvenile efforts did not waste too much of my time.
Well said. I’m against anything that would give legitimacy to perverted behavior,and that’s just exactly what allowing the sodomites to serve openly in the military would do.
What part of NO OPEN BUGGERY dont you understand?
And if those who are opposed to homosexuals openly serving in the military dare open their mouths about it,don’t be surprised to hear about court-martials for “hate speech.” What a pathetic,sick society we have become, when this issue even has to be debated. Common decency and common sense already say “no” to this.
You have not been reading my posting here have you?
Please review and point out where I've said I was in favor of open anything. You can post an apology later.
Glad to hear it.
The pitiable attempt to read it for detail and concider it something worth attacking me with did waste mine.
But like you, not too much.
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.