Grassroots Commentary
Do Ask, Do Tell
10 Reasons Homosexual Behavior Is Unfit for the American Armed Forces
Homosexual behavior is unfit for American military and naval service. Homosexual behavior works against good order and discipline. Honoring homosexual behavior grows moral cancer in the American Armed Forces. Ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell doesn't promote equality. It buggers military effectiveness. It serves the political agenda of Homosexuals, not our common defense.
Homosexual behavior is about behavior. Behavior is different from race, ethnicity, religion, language and culture. Homosexuals are from every race, ethnicity, religion, language, and culture. They aren't a "minority" group, but a tiny, aberrant sexual behavior.
Homosexuals can be identified only by their behavior. Nothing else. That behavior consists of sexual relations with persons of the same gender or acting out like a person of a different gender. Innate homosexual radar, 'gaydar', spots men who act effeminately and women who act butch.
Here are 10 reasons those homosexual behaviors should be grounds to not recruit and to dismiss individuals.
Homosexual behavior doesn't improve combat capabilities. Homosexual behavior does NOT increase the combat capabilities of the Armed Services. Where is the proof that X open homosexuals in Y situation improve the combat effectiveness by Z -- because of their open homosexual behavior? What is it about their sexual orientation and behavior that increases combat effectiveness? The military should be about warfighting, not promoting sexual behavior equity.
Men, combat soldiers, must be led by men. Certainly, homosexuals contributed in the past and present. But, not because they acted homosexual. Precisely, because they acted like normal heterosexuals, they could fit in the social organizations that all military units are. This is especially true in combat units.
Women are incompatible in combat units -- lacking the upper body strength needed and disrupting group cohesion. The norm, and ideal, for these combat units is men acting like men. Women are not a combat multiplier in the Infantry.
Men who act like women aren't a combat multiplier either. Men want to be led by men. Not effeminate men. Not men who have sex like a woman does with a man. Not men who might want to have sex with them.
Homosexual behavior destroys unit cohesion. Favoritism kills the chain of command and destroys units. Sexual competition and interests are favoritism on steroids. Accepting open homosexuality means accepting, honoring and, ultimately, promoting homosexual behavior.
Men will be forced to live closely with men who may compete to be their sex partners -- going far beyond the gender integration of non-combat units. Will there be bathrooms for males, homosexual males, females, lesbian females? If not, why not? Genders have separate facilities now because of human sexual behavior, good order and discipline.
Adultery and other destructive sexual behaviors are punished under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But, sodomy will be okay? There is no moral-ethical-legal standing to make adultery and other sexual behaviors unlawful -- if sodomy is officially honored.
Homosexual-friendly and Christian-hostile forces lose the best soldiers. Some devoutly Christian soldiers, key to the moral power of U.S. forces, will leave the politically correct military that promotes homosexual behavior. Some devoutly Christian citizens will never volunteer for the armed forces of Sodom and Gomorrah.
The previously dismissed homosexuals -- after they get back pay, allowances and promotions -- will have something to prove to anyone who doesn't genuflect to their behavior. Their witch hunting to root out anti-homosexuals will be called "changing the military homophobic culture."
Honoring military homosexuals gives official Federal Government approval for homosexuality. The "Miracle on 34th Street" effect is to put the full weight and authority of the Federal Government for homosexual behavior. Homosexual marriage will be recognized by the Federal Government. Homosexual "spouses" will get government housing and benefits -- for life.
Honoring military homosexuals gives the homosexual political agenda the moral authority of the American Armed Forces. No institution, including religion, or group, including clergy, holds the esteem, affection and honor the American people place in their military. That's why homosexual activists asked why a homosexual had to lie about themselves to go die for you -- America. It's clever and essential to wrap homosexuality in the American flag and under the American eagle. Homosexuals openly serving will be the cudgel used against any argument against homosexual marriage, rights, or privileges as a permanently protected minority.
Creates a new category of a permanently-protected minority. The Armed Forces force celebrate Women, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific, and Amer-Indian politically correct diversity today. Homosexual diversity indoctrination will be a harsh reality in training, annual celebrations, publications, etc. Homosexuals are individuals with common behavior, but their political agenda to be esteemed, protected and privileged as a minority.
Gets the Federal Government to suppress Christian chaplains. Chaplains will be ordered to not preach from the Holy Bible that homosexual behavior is sinful. Chaplains will be told to shut up or their careers are over. The chain of command may prosecute them if they speak out. Chaplains will be tested with a true crisis of conscience. If the Federal Government can do it to chaplains, then they can chance it on suppressing civilian clergy too.
Suppresses Christian free speech -- making it 'Hate Speech.' No one will be allowed to say homosexual behavior is sinful. Furthermore, when a man acts effeminately, no one will be allowed to tell them to 'man up.' That would be more hate speech. When a homosexual propositions a peer, the victim's response had better be polite and politically correct, or the victim will be accused of harassing a homosexual.
Opens the door for further moral degradation, like making seriously ill 'transgendered' people into 'normal' soldiers. After homosexuals serve openly, then transgendered persons can serve openly. And bi-sexuals. There is no moral-ethical-legal standing to reject any person for military service based on deviant sexual behaviors. The armed forces must become home to seriously mentally ill persons -- or it just isn't fair.
Politicians have opened Pandora's Box. Soldiers will pay the price. The cost in military effectiveness is real. Making the U.S. Armed Forces homosexual-subservient changes the manly culture of combat troops. It promotes and honors immoral sexual behavior. The loss to the moral standing of the U.S. Government -- and the American Nation -- is profound.
9 Comments
Darrell Keith
Wednesday, January 5, 2011 at 1:21 PM
I would not argue against any of those reasons. We must add to them the medical effects of homosexual behavior. This is too often omitted and can be a major deterrent of efforts to endorse that behavior in a time when other acts, i.e. overeating, smoking, get tremendous attention for their medical effects. I also wonder how this nation is to gain the friendship of Islamic nations that this current administration appears to chase while promoting a behavior and attitude that is strongly denounced in Islam.The report of the actions of removing the negative view of homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association described the event as a bullying coersion not followed by the majority of the group.
Chuck Anziulewicz
Wednesday, January 5, 2011 at 3:05 PM
Everyone in the military knows that Gay soldiers have always been there. Everyone in the military knows that Gay and Straight soldiers have always showered together and bunked together. None of that was ever going to change whether "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was kept or repealed. I don't know why people are getting all bent out of shape about it now.For what it's worth, I really don't care if any soldier, Gay OR Straight, is disciplined or booted out of the military because of inappropriate conduct when on-duty. That's not what's at issue here. A qualified soldier should not be at risk for losing his career simply because of who he's dating on his own time.Hold all soldiers to the same standards of professional behavior, regardless of their sexual orientation, and the military will be able to do its job just fine. We don't need DADT to accomplish that goal.
William Thompson in N.W. Washington State
Thursday, June 21, 2012 at 10:25 PM
I am an USMC Enlisted Vietnam Veteran. Not an “era” veteran but a veteran who served in Vietnam AND while being shot at. You obviously have no idea of what life is like as a low level military man dealing with all of the NORMAL faults of the men around you, let alone those “men” who are allowed to behave as homosexuals in ways that I, as a heterosexual, cannot display heterosexually without being booted out with a dishonorable discharge. Don’t try to tell me that any part of what I say is not true or possible. You simply and obviously have no idea. If I were a young man today I would never volunteer and I have in fact told my sons that under no circumstances are they to go into the military as long as gays are openly admitting to, advertising and professing their perversions, let alone forcing everyone else to celebrate their depraved and sinful behavior. In fact …. If the draft of bygone days were ever to come into existence again …. I would leave the country or go to jail rather than tolerate the behavior in my presence which God has said is unforgiveable and that he turns his back upon such people forever with no possibility of their redemption.
jer
Wednesday, January 5, 2011 at 4:51 PM
this blog or whatever it is is obviously just a place to look official while bashing gays.
Mo in New York
Thursday, June 21, 2012 at 2:45 PM
Your comment or whatever it is is obviously just made to state a politically correct unthinking bias while not actually addressing any of the (mostly factual) points made.
James Atticus Bowden
Saturday, January 8, 2011 at 7:58 AM
CA: I don't know of any open homosexuals in the Infantry. When I was a platoon leader in the 82nd, one of my soldiers tried to crawl in the sleeping bag of another. He got beaten up by a bunch of soldiers. We were re-deploying - coming home. Had to put the platoon sergeant's cot between him and the platoon. Got him discharged asap when we got back. The troops didn't want to be sexually approached by a homosexual. Conduct includes speech. The military will be heavy handed to make units homosexual-friendly where they hear nary a word against homosexual behavior - ever.
Richard Jeffreys
Saturday, January 8, 2011 at 4:50 PM
Allow me please to just to provide my remarks on each of the 10 reasons, and why they are potentially misguided.1/Because of the DADT policy, there is no evidence that the inclusion of homosexuals affects performance in a positive, or negative way.2/Most homosexuals are not effeminate. That is merely a stereotype and most just want to get on with their lives without a 'label'. Again, because of DADT, soldiers in the past may have been led by 'men' who were homosexual, but they never realised.3/ No evidence for this. It is also a huge leap to say that having accepted homosexuality one has to promote it.4/Again, no evidence. The statement that Christian soldiers will not enlist has no reference to any surveys taken of soldier's opinions on the matter.5/The acceptance of homosexuals in the military does not necessarily beget another policy change, but is stated in the text as fact.6/The remarks in this point suggest that homosexuals can be allowed to serve, as long as they are not awarded further priveleges in the future. This not only is an argument against something by positing an unknown and therefore untestable future event, but also shows a lack of understanding for the normal life homosexual people want to live. It is not the pursuit of 'acceptance', merely the chance to live an ordinary life.7/Most who have enlisted just want to do their job, and not have a blatant label attached to them. There is also the assumption that there will be a huge paraphernalia of 'diversity training'. Even if this is the case, which is not confirmed, is it such a problem?8/Suppression is quite an extreme word and has connotations that might not be the case. Perhaps some allowance should be given to homosexual soldiers who are willing to die for their country not to be subjected to anti-homosexual preaching from their chaplains.9/Firstly, as mentioned previously, most homosexuals are not effeminate, so to state that comment is not particularly useful. Secondly, most homosexuals do not 'proposition' other men so readily, and certainly wouldn't do so in a military barracks where their career (and trust from soldier-mates) would be jeopardised. There has been no study that has confirmed homosexuals are more promiscuous that straight people.10/ Bisexualism is a pretty vague topic not truly understood, so is a term that shouldn't be used so freely. Anyway, surely bisexualism is more preferred than full homosexuality? For transgendered people, the term 'to serve openly' suggests the person would be telling every person he met. This I would tentatively suggest is pretty unlikely. Besides, it was his decision to join the military, which he would know is a 'manly' profession.The final remark is easily countered with the DADT policy. If nobody knows the number of homosexuals serving previously, how can one test the effectiveness of a fighting force before or after policy change?Apologies for the length of this, but the discussion in an interesting one.
Alessandra
Sunday, January 9, 2011 at 5:46 PM
Another reason why homosexual behavior is unfit anywhere: CDC report - great increase in syphilis in men who have sex with men (MSM)September 2, 2010The rate of primary and secondary (P&S) syphilis — the most infectious stages of the disease — decreased throughout the 1990s, and in 2000 reached an all-time low. However, over the past seven years, the syphilis rate in the United States has been increasing. Between 2006 and 2007, the national P&S syphilis rate increased 15.2 percent.The rate of P&S syphilis among men increased 17.9 percent in 2007. Since 2005, data reported to CDC has included gender of partners for persons with syphilis and in 2007. 65 percent of all P&S syphilis cases were among MSM, based on data from 44 states and the District of Columbia. =============Update - 9 Sept 2010Men who have sex with other men are fueling HIV infections in Europe, according to a new report supported by the UK’s largest sexual health charity. In 2009 the NBS released a statement showing that men who have sex with men are disproportionately affected by HIV.These men account for 63 per cent of the HIV diagnoses where the infection was likely to have been acquired in the UK.And the UK Blood Transfusion and Tissue Transplantation Services will not accept blood donations from men who have had sex with men, regardless of whether they used a condom. This policy is based on an impartial assessment of the available evidence and is designed to ensure a safe blood supply.
Alessandra
Sunday, January 9, 2011 at 5:51 PM
Creates a new category of a permanently-protected minority. Homosexual diversity indoctrination will be a harsh reality in training, annual celebrations, publications, etc. Homosexuals are individuals with common behavior, but their political agenda to be esteemed, protected and privileged as a minority.================There is a much greater problem with homosexuals, which happens in civilian or military institutions: their corrupt pink mafias.Everywhere where there are homosexuals (and bisexuals), there are pink mafias.Posted by: USMCVet Forcing the services to accept openly gay members will make it impossible to overcome the effects of the gay networks - the preference that gays give to one another based on their sexual contacts. I have conducted many investigations while I was a Marine Officer and I ran into these networks repeatedly and they destroyed evidence, lied, and obstructed to protect one another. The connections crossed ranks, units, services and took priority over everything else. The Marine Corps had to fight long and hard to rid themselves of the "lesbian mafia" who controlled the assignments and promotions of female Marines years ago until an IG investigation finally gave the leadership the tools to break that mess up. The whole reason fraternization has been illegal in the services has been the effects showing preference for one subordinate would have on the whole unit. Legalizing gays will be fraternization on steroids - you will never know (but have strong suspicions) why you got the lousy assignment or got a poor fitness report or didn’t get promoted but chances are, it was because you weren’t part of the sexual network.