In general homosexuals have dysfunctional relationships with their families. Not surprising because their homosexual relationships are all dysfunctional by default.
Homosexuals have less of a problem assaulting ‘normal’ people they are inclined to hate anyway. Most lesbians hate men altogether, it’s very easy for them to pull the trigger on guys. Weak hetero ‘breeder’ women, not so hard to do that to, either. And these are people who can’t have kids because two of a kind doesn’t equal procreation, so they don’t feel that much towards kids except that perhaps at some point in the future they can mess up their heads and maybe give a few of them a rape and see if any come back for more.
Read the Pink Swastika. You will see how that turned out.
100% wrong in my opinion. Destroying the military is only a bonus. They aren’t concerned with using the military to take over anything. They would disband it if they could.
From a 4 part review I did of the Don’t ask, don’t tell report (Sorry, it came in 4 parts as it was my first posting attempt.) Here is the section on the ‘why’:
“...The first thing to question is whether the report has any validity at all. The underlying assumption for the report is that homosexuality is an identity. Who says? It appears that the President, the Secretary of Defense, Admiral Mullen, the researchers for the report, all believe that homosexuality is an identity and not a behavior and a mental disorder. That determination is no more settled than the demand that global warming is real and manmade. If they are wrong, then the report itself is not only moot, it is destructive to the very core of the military by introducing and promoting emotionally disturbed people into life and death positions.
There is no agreement that sexual orientation is fixed and genetic. There are people who engage in homosexuality that later do not. If someone is in the military and is homosexual, and then isn’t, how can that be an identity when it is a behavior instead? There are plenty of parallels of this in the outside world. There is even therapy for people who engage in homosexuality. If that therapy helps a person become heterosexual, then how can being “gay” or “lesbian” a fixed identity? It can’t. Same sex attraction is neither comparable in numbers, nor equivalent of the normal of heterosexuality for humanity. Same sex attraction is a mental disorder that can be treated.
As for the politics of homosexuality in the scientific community, it is as politicized as global warming. Homosexuality is no longer classified by the APA or the WHO as mental disorders. But their decision is entirely political and not based on fact. You can research that one on your own as it is a completely different and complex topic. However, there is ample indication that those who engage in homosexuality have increased risk of mental and emotional problems. From the introduction of “Homosexuality and Health Problems”, by N. E. Whitehead, found on the NARTH web site:
“Summary: Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. This paper highlights some new and significant considerations that reflect on the question of those mental illnesses and on their possible sources.
The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its diagnostic list of mental disorders in 1973, despite substantial protest (see Socarides, 1995). The A.P.A. was strongly motivated by the desire to reduce the effects of social oppression. However, one effect of the A.P.A.’s action was to add psychiatric authority to gay activists’ insistence that homosexuals as a group are as healthy as heterosexuals. This has discouraged publication of research that suggests there may, in fact, be psychiatric problems associated with homosexuality.”
http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html I would encourage all to read the full article at the link.
So, while disputing the very fact that homosexuality is an identity at all and is instead a behavior, even when granting that identity argument, it still shows an increased risk of other associated mental health problems. Why would anyone wish to increase the participation of homosexuals in the military? The repeal isn’t for the existing members of the service who suffer from same sex attraction. They are already serving. If they feel less included, well that’s too bad. They understand the culture in which they operate and have adapted to function. They chose to contribute to the military. They have their disorder under control or at least hidden. By changing the military culture to endorse the disorder, the promoters of gays in the military radically risk chaos in the function of our armed services. The military has a standard of good order and discipline. Their mission involves life and death and war. Anything that degrades that mission is not a positive development, and open service by homosexuals degrades that mission.
So if it isn’t about the military, then why the push by those with the disorder and their supporters for repeal? Why the need to demand that the military allow those with same sex attraction disorder serve openly? It is because there is another agenda operating. This report, and the effort, has nothing to do with the military and everything to do with the promotion of the disorder across society.
The gay lobby has tied their promotion of their disorder to the Civil Rights movement. They are using the military to follow that agenda. The effort is to tie their push for the acceptance and active promotion of homosexuality to the desegregation of the military in 1948. The two cannot be equated as homosexuality is a behavior and being black is an identity. The moral component is also lacking if it can be considered at all in an age when all things moral are discouraged, disparaged, and marginalized.
This tactic is done without any concern as to how the military is affected. They couldn’t care less. This is about normalizing and promotion of homosexuality and the military is a tool to do this. If the military is altered to normalize this disorder, then there is little defense for marriage, religious objection, and individual states complaints. The push is all about the promotion of homosexuality in the greater society and nothing about the military or its mission. If a person wants to serve in the military it is because they wish to join the service and serve. They should want to contribute, not have the military serve them. What selfishness! What a degrading effect on the services!
That’s a pretty strong motive by a group with an agenda to be completely ignored by the press. On any story when a company or government entity puts out a report, shouldn’t the press question whether to take the report at face value? Or is there some reason for the report? Shouldn’t they examine the people writing the report to see if there is an ulterior motive? If the report itself is simply a lever to accomplish an agenda that is destructive, shouldn’t the press look into who is doing the destruction and why?
I mean, the report is touted as something completely positive and accepted by the troops. Then, Admiral Mullen comes out at the Senate Armed Services hearing with the statement that anyone who doesn’t like it can get out. I guess tolerance is only for ‘special’ groups of people. Plus, it is a pretty good indicator that Admiral Mullen knows the report isn’t worth the paper it is printed on, and the positive acceptance of homosexuals in the military is an invention by the people pushing the report.
There are over two million people in uniform that now have to face accepting open homosexuals as their companions in war, or get out of the service. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of consideration of their views. There doesn’t seem any consideration of the mission of the military, good order and discipline, or honor and tradition. So, before Congress forces this wrecking ball of social engineering through the lame duck session, let’s look at the report the press wasn’t interested in examining in any way shape or form.”
Part 1:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2638468/posts
Part 2:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2638470/posts
Part 3:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2638473/posts
Part 4:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2638474/posts
Why They Want to Homosexualize the Military -
Because it is better to rein in hell than to serve in heaven?
This is one of those threads that are a must to get bookmarked. It deals with is really going on, an essential article to refer back to as we go along.
The article was dead on, in my opinion, control is what is all about. I don’t think the article mentioned the Al Gore inspired enviro, climate-based, global warming scam, what is it about but control?
“
Why They Want to Homosexualize the Military
“
Where’s that photo of the tough guy that says
“Stop This Faggotry Immediatley”...
when you need it for thread such as this?