Posted on 02/27/2010 9:46:30 AM PST by Maelstorm
If homosexuals are allowed to serve in the military, they will be recruiting in the showers, having sex in the barracks, and straights will undergo sensitivity training. Before long, the U.S. may be defended by the sex-obsessed and those who can tolerate kowtowing to them.
These are the truths that no one will speak.
Forget about ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ (DADT). The issue is NOT about whether those engaging in homosexual sex are, or are not, asked about their ‘sexual preferences.’ The real issue is whether the federal law against sodomy in the armed forces will be abolished either by statute or practice. If the law is abolished, not only will there be open homosexual sex in the barracks, but regulations against hostility to it will be enforced with vigor.
Of course, almost no one else is saying these things. So how can FRI be sure they are true?
It is the ‘nature’ of most homosexuals to ‘do their thing’ — and the more public the better. This characteristic has been noted throughout history. Sex, to the homosexually addicted, is close to the be-all and end-all of life. Why else have 300,000 male homosexuals died of AIDS, even though the mechanism — penile-anal sex — has been known since 1983? Why else do so many homosexuals engage in public sex? Why are there ‘gay pride’ parades?
How else to explain Adam Lambert? Instead of becoming just another rich ‘star,’ on November 22, he performed at the American Music Awards, broadcast on ABC. During his number, he proceeded to grind one of his dancer’s faces into his pelvis, grab the crotch of another, and passionately kiss his male keyboardist1. That “performance is something I’m extremely proud of and I wouldn’t change a thing. I am glad it facilitated a conversation about what kind of double standards there are out there.”
The risks homosexuals pose for the military are evident in an interview we recently conducted with a woman in basic training. Homosexuals are sensing that whining and complaining about their lack of rights, along with sheer persistence, are about to win them the prize. Homosexuals may care about protecting the country, but that care is almost always trumped by their homosexual compulsions. See if you can identify the compulsive behavior in the following interview recorded February 1-2, 2010. The female enlistee we spoke with was recalling her 2009 experiences in Basic Training:
Woman: “My experiences in BCT and AIT with homosexuals was and is awkward! Of course at first I didn’t know who was lesbian and who wasn’t, so I didn’t think much of who I was showering with. Then, noticing that they were looking at me a little too much made things clear as to their preferences.
“It was uncomfortable in so many ways. When your only choice is to shower in very close quarters with 60 other females, it is already embarrassing enough. Add that over half of them are lesbians, and you end up with very difficult feelings. It is like I was showering with 40 males staring at me and making comments. That isn’t acceptable for males to do to females in the military, so it shouldn’t be for females to do to each other!
“Living with them and changing clothes near them made me self conscious and uncomfortable. The ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy is practically void because everyone tells. You don’t even have to ask. What made it worse was when males talked about our bodies — things that the homosexual females had told them…. having a female whistle at you is not appreciated!”
Comment: If young men and women showered together, dressed together, etc. — how much ‘serious business’ could be accomplished? The answer is the same as to why single-sex schools generally produce better learning. When you are on ‘sexual alert’ you spend energy avoiding or seeking sexual attention. The military is focused on smashing and killing enemies. Given the age of most soldiers, sexual interest is necessarily ‘along for the ride,’ but getting trained and doing your job are both compromised by the easy availability of sex (e.g., STDs in WWI disabled almost as many as were wounded).
Dr. Cameron: How many of the women in your group have been discharged or processed for discharge because of homosexuality?
Woman: “Well there were 60 females that I stayed in the same barracks with, and 60 more down the hall. Out of the total 120 females, I know that at least 50 were found to be homosexuals. Many more we weren’t sure about.
“It really depended on what they did openly that determined their punishments. Some that actually got caught in sexual action were chaptered out of the army. A chapter 11 I believe. Others that were caught kissing or hand holding were given company grade article 15’s which gave them 14 days extra duty. The ones that were chaptered ended up even more openly homosexual because they had nothing to lose at that point. The ones that had article 15’s had two different outcomes. The ones that didn’t want to be in [the armed forces] just continued to misbehave so they could get chapter packets. Others really wanted to be in the military so they kept their preferences to themselves. All in all, I would guess that about 20 got chaptered out and 30 had article 15’s. The main problem was that the chapters had to remain in basic training until their packets went through and were approved. So some stayed in for all 12 weeks and caused trouble the entire time.”
Comment: The rates of lesbianism implied by this enlistee are much higher than polls suggesting that about 8% of servicewomen engage in homosexuality. Perhaps this is an anomaly or an unusual unit or training discharges are not counted. Or perhaps this enlistee was speculating without knowing the hard numbers.
Dr. Cameron: Was there any instance or instances of officer (NCO) or otherwise having sex with one or more of these recruits?
Woman: “No one in my company had sexual relations with their NCOs or chain of command. My whole battalion was really squared away. I’m not sure about any of the others.”
Dr. Cameron: Was there any hanky-panky between any of the recruits and officers?
Woman: “No, there was no fraternization between privates and NCOs [non-commissioned officers] in my company but I heard rumors about it in another company. That wasn’t homosexual, though. The private was given UCMJ action for her conduct and did not graduate. The drill sergeant did not accept her offers.”
Dr. Cameron: Were you approached to participate in lesbian activities?
Woman: “I was approached several times by lesbians who wanted me to participate in their nonsense. Of course, I immediately reported that back to my drill sergeant. I do think you need to know that the cadre at basic training did everything they could do to stop the homosexuals and they gave us frequent briefings on harassment and homosexuality and how it was not acceptable. My platoon’s drill sergeant was our company’s EO and she was always doing all she could to help those of us that were being pressured.”
Comment: Right and left lesbians were being warned, disciplined, and discharged. Yet they almost all persisted. Homosexual sex overwhelms rationality, overwhelms the desire to serve, and pushes aside a sense of propriety and scale. Other Testimony
The Washington Post2, ‘campaigning’ as it were for homosexuality, led a recent story with the tale of a 26-year-old male homosexual. He admitted ‘dating’ another soldier in the combat arms battalion — that is, he was breaking military law against sodomy. Yet this homosexual bragged that he “won hearts and minds among my brothers in arms because I did my job well and went above and beyond. I was respected.” The Post story did not suggest his mates knew he was sodomizing another soldier — who knows what they would have thought if they knew? But the Post rhapsodized that:
“Underground gay communities have emerged at bases across the United States and even in war zones. In Iraq, one e-mail group maintained by gay troops includes a database where soldiers post their instant-messaging screen names and the base where they’re stationed. Dozens have profiles on gay dating sites, some posing in uniform.”
What are these ‘communities’ for other than illegal homosexual sex? Why would the Washington Post — self-proclaimed guardian of Washington — praise disruptive lawlessness?
Randy Shilts, acclaimed historian of the gay movement (he died of AIDS at 42), lauded similar single-minded lawlessness.3 But in one incident he placed the ‘fun and games’ at the Pentagon:
“In the bathroom on corridor 6, just inside the five-acre central courtyard, men literally stood in line outside the stalls during the lunch hour, waiting their turn to engage in some hanky-panky.” (p. 184)
Assuming Shilts was reporting accurately, these homosexuals were apparently on the job. Yet they were so consumed with sex that they stood in line waiting their turn to engage in sodomy. Do heterosexuals do this? Not many in FRI’s experience. If homosexuals can’t control themselves at the Pentagon, what happens when the bullets fly, or during the many hours of ‘down time’ in training, traveling, waiting for orders, etc? [Re-read the interview with the female enlistee above.]
President Obama is pushing for a change that no ‘third party’ reports would be permitted to lead to dismissal of homosexual service personnel — effectively repealing the current federal law against sodomy in the armed forces. Thus, if two homosexuals have sex in the shower — as long as one of them doesn’t complain (and that is unlikely) — it will be considered ‘OK.’ The woman we interviewed could still report being ‘hit on,’ but she would not be able to object if three gals had sex next to her in their bunk. Would she have the right to complain if they also engaged in the grunts and groans homosexuals like to make in their parades, or would she merely put herself in line for more sensitivity training?
How many ‘straights’ want to serve under conditions where homosexual sex — in public or semi-private — is protected, but heterosexual sex is not? Some, perhaps. But many would simply not sign up or would leave. When the dust settles, who will end up defending the U.S.? How many will be left besides homosexuals and those who can tolerate being around them? Conclusion
Given the foregoing testimony, does it make sense to let homosexuals serve openly or otherwise in the armed forces?
To homosexuals, it makes plenty of sense. Sex would be highly efficient and they would be quartered with any number of potential partners. They would be allowed to ply their compulsion in a veritable ‘candy store.’ And fellow service personnel who gave them grief for their ‘need to be who they are’ would be punished.
For the rest of us? No way. A sex-saturated military would have a hard time getting out of bed, exiting bathrooms and showers, maintaining discipline, etc. No nation can expect to survive that trusts its protection to the sex-obsessed.
1. Macleans.ca, 2/8/10 ↩ 2. Washington Post, 2/10/10 ↩ 3. Shilts R (1993) Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the U.S. military. NY: St. Martin’s ↩
If you are a heterosexual, you are in danger.
ping
Earth to folks...Rupaul would not be able to make it through boot camp and gays emulate him/her so I don’t think you will see an influx of gays joining the military. First they would have to get through boot camp. Some of them really could not handle that. I really believe that nothing would change. Maybe that one guy who was outted by a former friend would be able to stay, but otherwise I can’t see how those fems would join.
Military Quote of the Day:
“When I joined the military it was illegal to be homosexual, then it became optional. I’m getting out before it becomes mandatory!”
If a homo lays hands on a hetero, under the new proposed rules, the homo will have the upper hand. I predict murders over this. All of it is unnecessary. Just another way for Obama to humiliate and create dissent in the military.
“Gays in Military = Sex in Barracks”
Newsflash, there is already sex in the barracks.
I got F’d-overed many times while in the Navy, but that was figuratively not literally.
It will change because then they will demand that the military march in gay pride parades and recruit at gay pride events. It is already happening. Also it will lead to people who dare express any affront to homosexual bad behavior being placed at risk. Say you are in the barracks and sexually harassing language or touching occurs that is considered “all in fun to homosexuals” those that dare report it would find themselves to the disadvantage. People say nothing would change. It already is and for the worse.
Yes there is but this is an order of magnitude different.
Thanks - guess it’ll be a busy ping thing day. I appreciate the alerts.
The military has shown tremendous inability to keep male and female service members from engaging in sexual activity, and that's with highly segregated berthing areas. That problem, but with gays, is only going to become exponentially greater because there's no way to segregate the gays from each other. This is going to be a moral and discipline nightmare.
You could be right...I stand by the fact that gays will not make it through boot camp. How are they going to????? Have you ever seen them play sports??? They aren’t very coordinated.
Ummm ... Homosexuals have been allowed to legally serve in the military ever since Bill Clinton instituted "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" in 1993.
They just have to keep their mouths shut. (No pun intended.)
Only those of us that served prior to 1993 have ever experienced a military where homosexuals were not allowed to legally serve in the military. That excludes the vast majority of the current active duty population.
It is unnecessary. There are gay men and women who serve without a problem. What does being open about your sexuality have anything to do with doing your job? It is inappropriate for heterosexuals or homosexuals. Sex isn’t about pride it is about privacy and this effort is driven by activism pure and simple and it will be used to change policy and change the atmosphere even further against anyone who has any sense of morality or modesty. I think the military should be forced to consider privacy concerns. There are already many same sex attacks and sexual harassment that go unreported in the military. It would only get worse.
Here is the case of Cody Openshaw which the media still hasn’t seen fit to report much on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybfbxwyczz0
The Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Conway, honestly expressed his concerns to Congress last week while most of the other bureaucrats in the Pentagon are busy protecting their careers. I have 2 sons in the military who will be counting the days until they can get out if this horrible exercise in political correctness is inflicted upon our services.
““When I joined the military it was illegal to be homosexual, then it became optional. I’m getting out before it becomes mandatory!””
LOL!
That's not entirely accurate. The Army Chief of Staff, as well as the current Secretary of the Army (former Republican Congressman, John McHugh) both were critical of the decision in a Congressional hearing last week; It was quite clear that both thought it a poor idea.
They already do and you can be sure that as the leadership gets infiltrated that the rules will change they already have to allow more women in the military. The key thing to remember is that the removal of this policy will be used to open up the military for more and more activism which has no place in our fighting forces and endangers our young men and women who go into the military to serve their country not to face sexual abuse and harassment which will only increase. The reason we don’t hear about it now is because it is usually only reported when it involves men in reference to women such as tail-hook. Their is a veil of silence and not just in the military but in the political and media world in general.
When I was in the military, some guys decided to get out, claiming to be homo’s.
While their paperwork was being processed they moved to series of special barracks. We had various names for those but that isn’t the point.
The worst scutt duty was be put on night watch for those barracks to keep an orgy from breaking out.
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.