Traditional Values Coalition: Our Soldiers Are Not Lab Rats!
Posted: 05 March 2010 05:15 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1835
Joined  2006-03-26

This isn’t a parody. These people are for real.

In any event, H.R. 1283 is being seriously considered in Congress, and the Pentagon is pushing ahead to “study” the consequences of overturning the ban on gays openly serving in the Armed Forces.

I am outraged that Obama, Gates and Mullen are pushing this effort to effectively undermine the military readiness of our Armed Forces for political correctness.

There is no “right” to serve in the military – and there are certainly legitimate reasons to oppose having gay men or lesbians in units.

How will men in a Marine platoon react to the knowledge that one of them is a gay who sexually lusts after other men? Men in the Armed Forces have little or no privacy and shower together and share foxholes together. The tensions that will be produced by forcing Marines to deal with someone who engages in sodomy will be unimaginable.

But, there’s much more. By forcing acceptance of gays, lesbians, bisexuals – and eventually transgenders into the military, every soldier will be judged by a zero tolerance program.

No soldier will be permitted to express disapproval of sodomy or other bizarre gay behaviors. If they do disapprove, they’ll be subjected to discipline and retraining.

Many of these good soldiers will be faced with two choices: shut up or resign.

I am convinced from my study of this issue that many good soldiers will simply choose to resign rather than be forced to accept homosexual conduct as something compatible with military service.

In addition, Chaplains who want to preach from the Word of God will be forced to skip over passages that condemn homosexual conduct. Preaching from the Bible will become a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice if it involves homosexuality!

Good Chaplains will flee the services and the only ones left will be liberals who have no respect for God’s Word and who embrace the gay agenda.

more at link

 Signature 

Bill Maher’s New Rule About Religious Tests for Office

Sam explains the difference between the belief in Elvis and belief in Jesus

Support the Separation of Church & State!
Freedom From Religion Foundation

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 March 2010 11:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  95
Joined  2006-12-17

Wow - like, paranoia is just not healthy.  These people need to see a shrink.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2010 05:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  94
Joined  2008-08-14

From the article…

“I can foresee rampant violence in the military if macho men must share shower facilities, bunk beds in a submarine or fox holes with sex-crazed gay males.”


Obviously. Because we know that on the battlefield and in an extreme life or death adrenaline-induced state with bullets flying and bombs exploding everywhere that a gay man is immune to the self-preservation instinct and is instead obsessed with thoughts of a potential future sexual encounter. And it follows that gays are hell-bent on “rampant violence” regardless of whether or not their own well-being is at stake (e.g., in the confines of a submarine, etc.). If gays had their way, they would infiltrate all branches of the military, “convert” all the heterosexuals, engage in sodomy 24-7, and allow our military to totally collapse, subjecting our country to being taken over by the muslim fundamentalists. Which means that sodomy would not be tolerated and gays would be put to death. Wait a minute…


Ron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2010 06:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
MrRon - 06 March 2010 10:41 AM

From the article…

“I can foresee rampant violence in the military if macho men must share shower facilities, bunk beds in a submarine or fox holes with sex-crazed gay males.”


Actually that’s the only reservation I’ve long had about dropping DADT and adopting openly gay military service. Not that “sex-crazed” gay men would be wantonly sexually assaulting our poor heroes without reprisal (that’s a plainly absurd notion), but that our homophobic heroes would be wantonly assaulting gay men without reprisal.

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2010 06:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  94
Joined  2008-08-14
SkepticX - 06 March 2010 11:00 AM
MrRon - 06 March 2010 10:41 AM

From the article…

“I can foresee rampant violence in the military if macho men must share shower facilities, bunk beds in a submarine or fox holes with sex-crazed gay males.”

Actually that’s the only reservation I’ve long had about dropping DADT and adopting openly gay military service. Not that “sex-crazed” gay men would be wantonly sexually assaulting our poor heroes without reprisal (that’s a plainly absurd notion), but that our homophobic heroes would be wantonly assaulting gay men without reprisal.

Aside from a perhaps a couple of isolated incidents, is this really what we have to worry about? Will these sorts of assualts be so common, so pervasive, and so egregious as to cripple and/or paralyze our armed forces? Once we all get over the “shock” and hubbub of having gays in the military, won’t it just be business as usual? Put the focus back on self-preservation in an extreme situation (war) and defending this nation and the issue should be self correcting over time. After all, nobody wants to be a pariah going into battle. Cooperation for one’s own well being should be instinctive. I don’t know. All that being said, I suppose I can envision some extreme right-wing looney who is so near-sighted as to not realize that the fellow gay soldier that he hates so much may be in a position to save his life during battle some day. But shouldn’t that be taught on day 1 of basic training? 

Ron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2010 07:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
MrRon - 06 March 2010 11:42 AM

Aside from a perhaps a couple of isolated incidents, is this really what we have to worry about?

Dunno. I doubt there’d only be a few isolated incidents if many gay men actually did “come out” while in uniform. As I said, it’s the only reservation I have about dropping DADT though.

MrRon - 06 March 2010 11:42 AM

Will these sorts of assualts be so common, so pervasive, and so egregious as to cripple and/or paralyze our armed forces?

Do you think that’s a good place to set the bar? If it doesn’t cripple our armed forces it’s good to go ... never mind the homosexuals who are assaulted?

MrRon - 06 March 2010 11:42 AM

Once we all get over the “shock” and hubbub of having gays in the military, won’t it just be business as usual?

Just as with sexism and racism, eh?

That’s the ideal, but the ideal rarely matches reality.

MrRon - 06 March 2010 11:42 AM

Put the focus back on self-preservation in an extreme situation (war) and defending this nation and the issue should be self correcting over time.

Well, troops actually do spend more of their time outside of extreme self-preservation situations (even in combat), and just exactly how do you think “self-correcting over time” translates into combat?

MrRon - 06 March 2010 11:42 AM

After all, nobody wants to be a pariah going into battle.

Nope, because combat offers too many opportunities to get rid of pariahs.

MrRon - 06 March 2010 11:42 AM

Cooperation for one’s own well being should be instinctive. I don’t know.

When necessary, yes. In reality there are plenty of internal conflicts in battle, including some that turn out to cost lives.

MrRon - 06 March 2010 11:42 AM

All that being said, I suppose I can envision some extreme right-wing looney who is so near-sighted as to not realize that the fellow gay soldier that he hates so much may be in a position to save his life during battle some day. But shouldn’t that be taught on day 1 of basic training?

And as we all know, what we’re taught sticks and proper education resolves these problems. That’s why there’s no more racism or sexism or other forms of bigotry any more.

Ideals are goals in the sense that we strive to get as close to them as reality will allow, but reality is always the bottom line. That’s something the military teaches better than just about any other context (also public safety—PD, fire dpt, medics). I think we agree on what should be for the most part, but we can’t move to what should be if it doesn’t coincide with what is.

In most other contexts I agree with pushing the issue, and I’m not sure I don’t agree with pushing it in this case, but I certainly don’t think it’s a good idea to distort our perception of the actual issues.

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2010 04:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  94
Joined  2008-08-14

I hear you, SkepticX. And I think we’re pretty much on the same page. Except I am perhaps a little more hopeful (OK, maybe naive is the right word) than you because I don’t quite foresee the same level of discrimination/abuse that you seem to foresee. Thirty years ago the socio/political climate in this country would have made gays in the military unthinkable, let alone debatable. But there has been tremendous inroads made for gays in recent years (although still a ways to go). Sure, there will always be sexism/racism/bigotry in the world. But it remains to be seen how this particular issue will ultimately play out.

And for the record, I am opposed to violence of any kind against gays or any other group. I didn’t mean to imply by my previous post that a few isolated incidents of assaults on gays would be “acceptable.” In looking at the larger picture of the military establishment, I was expressing doubt that a few isolated incidents of any kind would impair our nation’s overall ability to defend itself. But if it turns out that an “open” policy is ultimately more problematic than DADT, then I agree that we should return to DADT.     

Ron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2010 09:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  23
Joined  2006-04-22

I can speak on this as i was in the military for 13 years in both aviation and ground units.  Your responses seem to be from a civilian perceptive and I can respond from military experience and relay an event that happen while in boot camp.

Enlisted training is about discipline and thirty years later I can cite what we shouted at the top of our lungs about 50 times a day, for thirteen weeks.  The call from the Drill instructor would be DISCIPLINE IS? And in unison the reply was….“SIR DISCIPLINE is the INSTANT-WILLING-OBEDIENCE and RESPECT FOR AUTHORITY SIR”.  Anytime, anywhere, no matter what you were doing, solo or in a group AND we lived it. 
Authority is rank structure and the purpose is, given the situation, to do and not think.  Its powerful, it works and can be abused.

During the 7th week of training our platoon was assign kitchen duty and put under the command of a corporal.  This individual habitually opened bathroom stalls while being used.  When it happen to me, he just stared at my groin and all I did was stare back at his rank insignia.  Nothing was said, I didn’t report it, but someone else did.  The following day my drill instructor went “off line” and asked me what happen. I along with others responded to the facts and that afternoon no more corporal.

Another incident as an officer, one of my Marines tested positive for HIV.  The cover story was a blood transfusion but we all knew he was gay.  This was before anti viral drug regimen and we had to monitor his white blood cell count.  When it dipped below a threshold, he could no longer work in the field, so a fellow Marine had to carry out his duties.  The Marine was awaiting discharged and a year later, died.

The issue for senior ranking officers is not a man sexuality but how to prevent one in authority (gay or straight)from abusing that authority by demanding sex.  What if a HIV infected (or not) person in authority used his rank to sodomize a lower ranking soldier and he/she becomes infected?  Who’s responsible?  Obviously the offender but what’s the responsibility the command if they were aware of his sexuality.  Will the Veterans administration take over the drug regimen of both soldiers?

The military lead integration in fifties, because it was told to.  Women in uniform, late eighties-early nineties right about the twenties you’ll see gays openly in the military.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 March 2010 05:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
MrRon - 06 March 2010 09:05 PM

I hear you, SkepticX. And I think we’re pretty much on the same page. Except I am perhaps a little more hopeful (OK, maybe naive is the right word) than you because I don’t quite foresee the same level of discrimination/abuse that you seem to foresee. Thirty years ago the socio/political climate in this country would have made gays in the military unthinkable, let alone debatable. But there has been tremendous inroads made for gays in recent years (although still a ways to go). Sure, there will always be sexism/racism/bigotry in the world. But it remains to be seen how this particular issue will ultimately play out.

Well, my position is more conditional than set. I haven’t said that I’ve formed a conclusion (sort of but not really), but rather that the issues I’m presenting are critical.

And you have a good point—my military service ended over ten years ago and things do change, and had changed (when I first enlisted in the Army we hadn’t even gotten to DADT yet—the discovery of a troop’s homosexuality would result in a discharge.

MrRon - 06 March 2010 09:05 PM

And for the record, I am opposed to violence of any kind against gays or any other group. I didn’t mean to imply by my previous post that a few isolated incidents of assaults on gays would be “acceptable.” In looking at the larger picture of the military establishment, I was expressing doubt that a few isolated incidents of any kind would impair our nation’s overall ability to defend itself. But if it turns out that an “open” policy is ultimately more problematic than DADT, then I agree that we should return to DADT.

I didn’t suggest you were saying assaults would be acceptable, but rather that a degree of compromised military capacity was an acceptable trade-off for a more enlightened policy. My point was that, given the nature of the military beast, in some cases enlightenment is a luxury troops may not be able to (or shouldn’t be asked to) afford. It’s tactical thinking though, and it seems very few people are very comfortable at all with thinking in that context.

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2010 11:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1183
Joined  2007-08-07
mk10108 - 07 March 2010 02:44 AM

The issue for senior ranking officers is not a man sexuality but how to prevent one in authority (gay or straight)from abusing that authority by demanding sex.

How do they deal with it now when a heterosexual commanding officer demands sex from a female subordinate?  Is it permitted?

 Signature 

Faith-free since 1985

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2010 11:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1183
Joined  2007-08-07
SkepticX - 06 March 2010 11:00 AM

Actually that’s the only reservation I’ve long had about dropping DADT and adopting openly gay military service. Not that “sex-crazed” gay men would be wantonly sexually assaulting our poor heroes without reprisal (that’s a plainly absurd notion), but that our homophobic heroes would be wantonly assaulting gay men without reprisal.

Randy Shilts accurately pointed out in “Conduct Unbecoming” that this issue is not about gay men behaving inappropriately, but straight men behaving inappropriately.

So what this boils down to is this: A competent gay military man risks physical harm, intolerance and discrimination, dismissal despite good performance, loss of career, loss of benefits… all because heterosexual men can’t behave with civility.

I can only conclude that that reality is one of the most compelling reasons why gays should be allowed to serve—in order to combat that kind of despicable injustice.

 Signature 

Faith-free since 1985

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2010 11:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1183
Joined  2007-08-07
MrRon - 06 March 2010 10:41 AM

From the article…

Actually it’s not an article, it’s a fundraiser.  At the bottom, you’ll find the typical plea for “gifts”:

A gift of $50, $75, $100, $150 or more will help us educate Members of Congress and the public on this serious threat to our military readiness.

We cannot permit a one-term trainee President to destroy our Armed Forces and drive good people away from serving their country.

Let me hear from you today with the largest gift you can give.

And, please subscribe to our FREE weekly email to get updates on the DADT issue and other important threats to traditional values.

I look forward to hearing from you!

Sincerely,
Andrea Lafferty
TVC Executive Director

 Signature 

Faith-free since 1985

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 March 2010 06:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
Keep The Reason - 09 March 2010 04:17 AM

So what this boils down to is this: A competent gay military man risks physical harm, intolerance and discrimination, dismissal despite good performance, loss of career, loss of benefits… all because heterosexual men can’t behave with civility.

Exactly.

Keep The Reason - 09 March 2010 04:17 AM

I can only conclude that that reality is one of the most compelling reasons why gays should be allowed to serve—in order to combat that kind of despicable injustice.

I can’t say for sure that I disagree. I was torn over that issue solely regarding the homosexuals who would be at risk, but decided it should be up to them if they want take the chance and to deal with the bullshit. I’m not quick to impose that choice on all troops though. In most cases I’d agree completely, but in the military combat effectiveness can be compromised over this kind of bullshit. That can cost lives, and who’s at fault is secondary at best (in fact it’s not even on the table). The nature of the military makes much of anything beyond hard core pragmatism a luxury (i.e. how things should be rather than how things are). I’m not for putting lives at risk even if they need to be enlightened.

And I’m still not completely sure whether DADT is an acceptable compromise.

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed