The strategy gay advocates inside government used to allow gays to serve openly in our armed forces was revealing (Yes, it was an inside job). The fanfare, the open advocacy of the gay lifestyle, indoctrinating the troops into the gay agenda and criminalizing dissent, carving out another protected, special-rights group for gays. The government did not have to do all that to simply allow gays to serve.
The Department of Defense, with the concurrence of Congress and the President could simply have removed all laws from the UCMJ that criminalize homosexual acts and been done with it. Period. But no, this was not about gays in the military; it was about nationalizing gay marriage and shoving the acceptance of homosexuality in everyone’s faces and forcing us to bow down at the rainbow altar.
Gays in the military was about federalizing gay marriage by first boxing in the DoD. Step 1 is complete, now comes step 2...
NORFOLK, Va. — A gay rights group kicked off the repeal of the U.S. military's ban on openly gay troops with a protest outside the world's largest Navy base that called for an expansion of benefits for gay and lesbian military members.Nor do unmarried opposite sex couples. You've got to be married to get those bennies, and the advocates know that. They have pitted the federal government against itself. In the name of fairness, DoD must now grant these benefits to every boyfriend and girlfriend. That will never happen.
"Same sex couples can't live on base together, they don't have medical benefits, they don't have travel allowances, they don't have housing allowances. They don't even have the right to be notified if their partner dies in battle." (Gazette.com)
Here's what will happen: A phalanx of well-funded lawyers will bring a suit against the federal government, forcing the DoD to accept gay marriages (Which are five times more likely to involve infidelity than hetero ones) and treat them the same as traditional ones. And they will win.
* Late breaking news! Now the trannies want in on the deal. I don't know about you, but if someone can't find their gender with both hands I don't want them handling explosives and having other military members rely on them for mission success.
...................................
I have no problem with gays serving, but Western Hero co-blogger Hugh Farnham does, creating an editorial split. Here's his take:
With the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, many military bases are getting copies of LGBT newspapers - for free. This is to help the gay base population to adjust to the new order of things. Hugh Farnham thought he'd help them out with this (Right click and download to embiggen):
58 comments:
Is it wrong to allow a gay serviceperson's partner to live on base, or to receive notification in the event of death in service.
It doesn't seem that big a deal to me. If a soldier makes the ultimate sacrifice and dies in the field, why on earth would anyone object to notifying his or her partner?
Those are the same rules heterosexual partners must live by.
It is somewhat amusing to see motivations assigned not only by outside parties, but by parties in opposition.
I have yet to receive any logical definition of how serving gays is a 'protected class'.
My perspective is as a senior officer in a reserve component unit. DADT was tolerable as the gay lifestyle wasn't a protected topic. With the acceptance of the openly gay lifestyle, the Law of Unintended Consequences will begin to take hold.
Some time ago, I was given an "anonymous" survey as to my opinions on DADT repeal. I knew it was a sham at the time, but I completed it honestly anyhow. In a nutshell, this is what I told them:
- DADT repeal would be prejudicial to good order and discipline due to yet another protected class being created. Don't like the race card being used? Try the gay card. You've created another set of untouchables when upholding military standards.
- Good and moral soldiers would be driven out, either by their own choice or forced out by saying the "wrong" thing;
- Our military being slowly transformed from world class with a backbone to more like the French Army.
It turns out my intuition about the sham DADT repeal survey was correct. The administration trumpeted the Military would not object to DADT repeal. What they didn't tell you the survey was rigged - 54% of the respondents turned out to be Coast Guard members! There were other statistical distortions as well.
See these for background:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=237077
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=244653
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=235797
Now if you will excuse me, I need to head off to military duty today.
Damn, you fundies get all in a lather about the homos.
Mean old socialist America putting the hate on thumpers (prime haters themselves) again?
and shoving the acceptance of homosexuality in everyone’s faces
---------
The evangelical may feel this way but you should be clear about the applicability. "Everyone" does not have your phobia.
"Those are the same rules heterosexual partners must live by."
Except you want to uniquely privilege heterosexual couples with the opportunity for marriage. Stop pretending not to understand this.
You mean the "unique privilege" which has existed in every culture since time immemorial?
Not very unique when you think about it...
You accuse me of purposely not understanding, but I think you are the one who does not understand, and it's probably because you don't live in the US.
We have the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which effectively nationalized the issue against gay marriage. This is about overturning that law.
What I object to is the pink hand using DoD as a chessboard. The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things, no conduct social experiments.
@ Ducky: Damn, you fundies get all in a lather about the homos.
An ignorant statement. I had beers and bbq on my back deck this past weekend with some Vietnam vet friends, and this subject came up.
I doubt you could find a veteran who did not know at least one gay fellow soldier, sailor, airman or marine.
More telling, these gay people served unmolested because nobody ratted them out.
The only time a gay would get bounced was because of an attempted sexual assault on a non-gay member or because a cat fight broke out among a group of gays and spilled out into the open, disrupting their unit.
Military people don't care what others do on their off-duty time. You can build model airplane, drink yourself stupid or take college classes, nobody cares, so long as you can do your job.
I don't believe our military was ever intended to be a microcosm of society at large. Machismo may not be the most acceptable behavior in civil society but is exactly the behavior a well disciplined military unit needs. Soldiers give up a lot of their freedom of expression in order to protect all of our freedoms. This is a very slippery we slope we are going down and I don't see it ending well for America.
"Not very unique when you think about it..."
You want it to be available uniquely (ie only, exclusively, solely) to heterosexual couples.
"You accuse me of purposely not understanding"
I do.
"The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things, no conduct social experiments."
I hope that the military addresses the broader requirements of national defence and doesn't focus narrowly on the kill kill kill and the cool explosions. If a man dies in the course of his duty, it is not a social experiment to inform his partner of whatever gender; it's just decent.
Yes, Silverfiddle, you apparently have no problem with gays ... in there place.
There is a lot of back and forth going on among this debate but what it all boils down to is the simple question: Is homosexuality right or wrong? If you can answer this question everything else comes easily. The fact of the matter is human anatomy is designed to support heterosexual behavior, not homosexual. Homosexuality, by every indication, is wrong, unnatural behavior, just as bestiality is wrong, unnatural behavior. That's all there is to it.
Gay marraige is already legal in some states, so I would imagine the military would have to accomodate married gay members, right?
Gay marraige is becoming a reality in the country, and like desegregaton before it, the military should be ahead of the curve on this.
It's good for the military and good for America. For those of you who have a problem with gay people, tough shit. Grow up.
JMJ
@ Jersey: Gay marraige is already legal in some states, so I would imagine the military would have to accomodate married gay members, right?
It all comes down to DOMA.
And tell me why this is good for the military?
Jez: The "death notification" issue is a red herring. You fill out paperwork stating who you want to be notified in the case of death. You can write down whoever you want.
No Ducky. As I said, nobody cares what you do on your own time. Don't make everybody take indoctrination sessions on it and don't create yet another class of protected species.
I have an openly-gay friend who frequently rants about Chik-fil-A since that company has close ties with organizations (like Focus on the Family) who are perceived as anti-gay. ("Perceived" may be a bit nice since Chick-fil-A's charitable arm, the WinShape Foundation, actively opposes gay marriage.)
But here's my thing: what the hell does your sexual preferences have to do with a chicken sammich?
Much like some non-Caucasian people make race a much greater issue than it should be, some gays make their lifestyle choices far too much of an issue.
I don't thrust (rimshot!) my heterosexuality into each and every conversation. That I prefer super crunchy peanut butter isn't a pivotal issue at my workplace, so why should something much, much more private ever be?
Exercise some personal discretion, folks!
The military has always been a political incorrectness testing bed for society. What would never fly in the real world is forced on the Armed Forces. This is from the same people that sat soldiers down in the Nevada desert as they exploded a atomic bomb. just to see what the effects would be. Now they are repealing the gay ban in the military, just to see what the effects will be.
And can we call them something else and get the gay word back? That used to mean carefree and happy. No they can't have it! I think most of us already have a term. And probably have been using it for a while.
OD357: why don't you just take those words back. I bet you had a whole bunch of them, not just one, and now they can be restored to their former meanings. Meanwhile, you've only lost one. Surely this exchange is a win for you?
Silver: I'm glad it's a red herring (I was going by the article from Gazette.com which you quoted in your piece). Now I don't know which if any of the remaining grievances are also red herrings.
There is some accuracy to what Rob is saying but as long as there is the need to deal with the likes of Hack, OD357 and other haters you are going to see a militant gay front.
They've faced too much and achieved too much to drop it now.
Now they are repealing the gay ban in the military
----------
I thought they were repealing DADT.
"And tell me why this is good for the military?"
How is it bad?
I think it's benign.
JMJ
Just bend over, my fiddling friend.
The Roman "Cincinnatus" model of military service is officially dead. The Theban "Sacred Band" model has now begun again.
Get used to "perpetual war".
...until the next "Night of the Long Knives", at least. ;)
Farmer, your petty homosexual gossip is boring.
Your multiple personality disorder is getting a little old, also.
All of the anti-ANTI movements began with anti-Semitism.
The reaction to anti-Semitism, which was once as much a part of European, British and American life as sunrise, sunset and changes in the weather, was the Mother of all Protest Movements and strident cries for reform.
Jews
Workers
Negroes
Non-Caucasians
Women
Cripples
Mental defectives
Homosexuals
Each of these despised or oppressed groups started making a lot of noise once the intellectual aggression of the mid-to-late nineteenth century started to question openly, the doctrines, mores, philosophical perspectives and blind assumptions by which Anglo-European societies had lived for centuries.
The advent of Darwin acted as an unintended spur to the drive for "liberation" from what-came-to-be-regarded-as "outmoded traditions."
The very real ugliness and obnoxious qualities we see in all of the groups listed above -- when they act as a political bloc -- is in truth only a REFLECTION of the Arrogance, excessive Pride, lack of Charity, lack of Humility, lack of Thoughtful Consideration, lack of Empathy, lack of Compassion, lack of Decency and profound lack of Imagination the Anglo-European Christian majorities have expressed toward those who do not fit their traditional models of what is right, proper, and desirable.
Women are the exception in the groups listed above. Women have never qualified as "anomalous," but they have come to identify with these other anomalous groups because traditional Male Domination has, indeed, deprived women of fulfilling their intellectual, creative and artistic potential for countless centuries, because of the blind-but-self-serving assumption that women were fit only to bear and raise children while cooking and cleaning. Women's traditional purpose was to make life a pleasanter, more comfortable experience for men.
So, Marxism -- the Bowel Movement produced by the Body made up of daring, intoxicating philosophical theses, scientific discoveries, technological advances, and the new forms of oppression and exploitation brought by the Industrial Revolution -- laid claim to all the muck stirred up during the nineteenth-century, and has USED every bit of it as a wedge to gain ever-increasing political power.
SIN -- however much we don't want to believe in it -- casts a long, long shadow, and has tremendous power, UNTIL we recognize and acknowledge it for what it is and REPENT, which means to act contritely and constructively to undo the great harm we have done.
The saddest part of the pattern is the way an honest desire for REFORM too soon mutates and becomes a bloodthirsty quest for REVENGE.
~ FreeThinke
Jez you said it was a Red Herring? So what is the real matter at hand?
Ducky, not me. I did my time. The next generation can deal with it.
Jersey you said It's good for the military and good for America. How about the opposite. If it's good for America then it's good for the military. Stop using the military as a social experiment laboratory.
OD
"Farmer, your petty homosexual gossip is boring."
Hardly as tedious as your perpetually rebarbative personality and impotent attempts to convey bilious condescension and withering scorn on unsuitable objects, Ducky.
Besides, I seriously doubt that "Titan" is the person you so carelessly accuse him of being.
How many times have we participated in these Carnivals of Contempt over the years? And where has it gotten us?
Nothing's learned. Nothing's gained. Nothing's achieved in a mere exchange of insults.
I agree with Jersey's frequent assertion. I think it's long past time we grew up, and quit indulging in food fights.
It's so Junior High.
~ FreeThinke
@Freethinker -- The very real ugliness and obnoxious qualities we see in all of the groups listed above -- when they act as a political bloc
----------
Freethinker, are there any blocs you left out or are you only focusing your cheap bigotry?
But anyway, carry on and let us know which groups meet with your approval and disapproval. That should carry some weight.
Just as I said, "so Junior High!"
You have a positive genius for missing the point, Ducky, but don't despair -- you have lots of company.
~ FT
As for "open" homosexuality in the military:
Won't it be a hoot when raw recruits start showing up for basic training in blonde wigs wearing lipstick, black net stockings and pink tutus with gold lamé halter tops?
I'm sure the enemy will be absolutely floored -- and then easily won over -- when our proud Fags-at-Arms offer blow jobs in exchange for a cease fire.
The End of War Begins with a Non-Partisan Orgy!
Make Love Not War!
Don't Get Dead -- Just bend and Spread!
Won't it be LOVERLY?
~ FreeThinke
"I don't thrust ... my heterosexuality into each and every conversation. That I prefer super crunchy peanut butter isn't a pivotal issue at my workplace, so why should something much, much more private ever be"
Excellent point, Rob.
It ought to nail it, but you know how folks just love to argue.
~ FT
>You want it to be available uniquely (ie only, exclusively, solely) to heterosexual couples.
Only in the same way that designation as a lemur is available uniquely (ie., only, exclusively, solely) to any of various small, arboreal, chiefly nocturnal mammals of the family Lemuridae, of Madagascar and the Comoro Islands, especially of the genus Lemur, usually having large eyes, a foxlike face, and woolly fur. If it doesn't fit the definition of a lemur, it's not a lemur.
By definition, "marriage" is a type of formalized relationship between a man and a woman, thus, the very definition of the word makes "gay marriage" a logical impossibility. Yes there have been and are variations on the elements of marriage, but the one element that has always been the same is that it is between a man and a woman. (The second is that it is chiefly for the purpose of bearing children in a family environment, another core element that excludes homosexual relationships by definition. And, yes, I understand that there are heterosexual couples that cannot have children, but those are anomalies.)
It is true that there have been formalized relationships between individuals in various societies at various times in history, but aside from statistically meaningless aberrations, they were not considered to be marriages, they were not accorded the same social status, and they were not (and are not now) for the same purpose as marriage.
Go ahead and have civil unions if you'd like. Just don't usurp words (or concepts that have been established for thousands of years) for social engineering propaganda.
Oh, it's me, alright, FT. Sorry if that disappoints.
But the Cincinnatus model for military service is NOT a piece of "petty Homosexual gossip." Homosexuality HAD a place in the military ranks, for both Spartans and Thebans. And it's a rather ugly history of exploiting young boys for sex. For allowing women to serve in the ranks has NEVER been a very good idea. And it NEVER will be.
War has its seasons. Homosexuality merely enables war to become a "year-round" occupation. The "men" have no "reasons" to return home. They can stay in the field, "indefinitely" and sate all their preternatural "needs" to their hearts content.
Homosexuality is a reason for "young lions" to temporarily band together, enabling them to conquer a "pride" by double teaming an already dominant male. It's a strategy born of "weakness", NOT strength.
Bastiatarian, are you stating the the institution of marriage has been static through human history?
That isn't even wrong.
@ Jersey: How is it bad?
I think it's benign.
Glad to see you've moved off of your untenable position.
>That isn't even wrong.
You're right. It isn't wrong. As recorded history amply demonstrates.
Exactly, Silverfiddle-- this isn't about gays, it's about weakening our military.
Wow, so many dumbfucks in one place. Smart bomb please?
No Bd. Just you. And you are obviously already bombed.
I can see it now, yellow hanky for water sports, red hanky for fist fucking, brown for taking it up the ass, the latest in accessorizing in this man's army. Question though, how does a tranny display, french fuck himself? Of course the asshole liberals will take it as a rite of passage when their sons who left for boot camp straight come home on leave with a boy toy.
Silver,
What "unteneble position?"
Gays can serve just fine in the military. If anything, it should be best overall if gay people can just serve as they are.
OD357,
What "social experiment?" Were you born yesterday? Have you never met a gay person? What? Are you guy Ahmadinejad? "No! No gays here, man!" Get real.
Over the years, I've known quite a few gay guys who are far better human beings than some Christian conservative folks I've known. Especially the "Christian" types who throw a lot of stones.
JMJ
Bastiatarian: the definitive thing about marriage is the taking of another person to be your exclusive romantic partner, your next of kin and your primary relationship, even usurping your family; all these things are more important than the genders of the participants. There are plenty of man/woman relationships that are not marriage.
If childless heterosexual couples are acceptable as aberations, why aren't homosexuals? Is there any principles involved, aside from your irrelevant opinion that "it's nasty!"
Lot's of comments are obsessed with the mechanics of gay sex. If y'all hate it so much, why get into such detail? It wouldn't bother me, but i don't talk about it as much. Are you folks masochists?
As I try to indicate in nearly everything I post, NONE of the issues and grievances Marxists love to exploit are about ANY of the victim groups they purport to champion.
ALL of this stuff is about a large collection of vain individuals with an authoritarian mindset, who imagine they know what's best for all mankind, acquiring absolute, dictatorial power.
They feel a compelling urge to tell YOU and ME what to do, how to do it, and when.
They are the Critics and Prescribers who are determined to make slaves of us all.
It's nothing more -- or less -- than that.
~ FreeThinke
Jez: Self-described gay people are the ones who define their identity by how they have sex.
Jersey: Who or what are you arguing with?
No one said gays are bad people.
Repealing DADT is indeed a social experiment using the military as a laboratory.
As to your untenable position. You at first said this was "good for the military." When I asked you to explain how, you then said it was "benign."
In reality, you have no idea what you are talking about.
In truth homosexuals have been serving honorably and valiantly in the military since time immemorial. The issue today isn't about that. Every sensible person realizes that and accepts it. Instead, a bunch of Marxian activists have targeted the military -- as they've targeted just about every other sector of society -- in their eternal and infernal quest to DOMINATE, TRANSFORM and eventually to OBLITERATE every trace of elements that made Western Christian Civilization the great thing it has been.
Their method is to attack (study "Critical Theory) all established things by portraying them as "evil" and "unjust" -- simply because they have failed to reach perfection.
By constantly redefining everything they touch -- and making their twisted new interpretations stick, because of their success in infiltrating the legal profession -- they have succeeded in warping our vision of ourselves sufficiently to cause SUICIDAL impulses to grow in the minds of whole generations of supposedly intelligent young people.
There's nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality -- despite the vicious, self-serving claptrap written by bellicose, pathologically authoritarian Jewish tribal leaders that appears in The Pentateuch, much of which is an imposture of "Holy Wrist. "
HOWEVER, there is everything wrong with the brand of social activism that continually pokes sticks into hornets' nests of this kind in the guise of "enhancing humanitarian interests," while its true motive is to disrupt and eventually destroy our basically Christian Civilization.
Don't inform people -- CONFUSE 'em.
Don't educate people -- INDOCTRINATE 'em with SOPHISTRY and GUILE.
Don't HELP people -- EXPLOIT their grievances real and imagined.
Do these things long enough, and you will ROT a society from within and then like any other predator EAT IT ALIVE till it turns into EXCREMENT of your own making.
And some say the Devil is only a figment of vain, superstitious imaginings!
~ FreeThinke
Silver fiddle: what's your point?
The pussification of the most lethal fighting force in the world continues. Leftist scum will not rest until its also turned to shit. Just like everything else they've touched.
>the definitive thing about marriage is the taking of another person to be your exclusive romantic partner
Nope. There have been millions of people throughout history--and especially today--that maintain such relationships without the formality of marriage. In addition, the "romantic" aspect of deciding on marriage is essentially a modern development.
>your next of kin and your primary relationship, even usurping your family
Again, you neglect to look at the historical record of cultures around the world.
>all these things are more important than the genders of the participants.
Nope. The only element of marriage that has been consistent throughout recorded history and societies around the world is that it has always been a formalized relationship between a man and a woman. That's the only part of the definition that has never changed.
>There are plenty of man/woman relationships that are not marriage.
Non sequitur.
>If childless heterosexual couples are acceptable as aberations, why aren't homosexuals?
I agree. Homosexuals are, indeed, aberrations.
>Is there any principles involved, aside from your irrelevant opinion that "it's nasty!"
Non sequitur, again. (Also, you're mixing singular and plural.)
>Lot's of comments are obsessed with the mechanics of gay sex.
Lot's? I only see one that could possibly be interpreted that way. Maybe that's the filter you are reading through.
>If y'all hate it so much, why get into such detail?
Again, I think your filter is taking your mind into gay sex when it isn't really there.
>It wouldn't bother me, but i don't talk about it as much.
What does that even mean?
>Are you folks masochists?
Probably, since we keep engaging irrational intellectual sloths who are unlikely ever to take the giant leap to reason, instead of just laughing you off.
@ Constitutional Insurgent: I have yet to receive any logical definition of how serving gays is a 'protected class'.
You've obviously been out of the military for a few years and have not received the mandatory gay indoctrination training.
Constitutional Insurgent, sorry, the Marines started the training back in April.
http://www.military.com/news/article/marines-get-trained-on-accepting-gay-recruits.html
>>the definitive thing about marriage is the taking of another person to be your exclusive romantic partner
>Nope. There have been millions of people throughout history--and especially today--that maintain such relationships without the formality of marriage. In addition, the "romantic" aspect of deciding on marriage is essentially a modern development.
Sure, but there are many small arboreal Madagascan mammals with large eyes but which aren't Lemurs. Similarly, every marriage (should be) romantically exlusive and permanent, but not every romantically exclusive and permanent relationship is a marriage.
Anyway, are you saying that the definition of marriage that the military uses must embrace all forms that marriage has taken across the world and throughout history? The child marriages, the arranged marriaged, the polygamy etc.? I rather hoped my non-sloth readers would cotton on that I was talking about marriage as it is in our local, modern culture.
>>There are plenty of man/woman relationships that are not marriage.
>Non sequitur.
No, because we're looking for the defining qualities of marriage. Your choice, the genders of the participants, is weak because there are so many relationships which satisfy your criterion but to not qualify as marriage.
>>If childless heterosexual couples are acceptable as aberations, why aren't homosexuals?
>I agree. Homosexuals are, indeed, aberrations.
You said that infertile heterosexual married couples are aberrations. If you will extend the same privileges to homosexual couples as you do to them, then my next question does not apply.
>>Is there any principles involved, aside from your irrelevant opinion that "it's nasty!"
>Non sequitur, again. (Also, you're mixing singular and plural.)
I'm asking what principle, if any, drives you to accept infertile heterosexual couples as worthy of marriage but reject gay couples?
>>Lot's of comments are obsessed with the mechanics of gay sex.
>Lot's? I only see one that could possibly be interpreted that way. Maybe that's the filter you are reading through.
It's a small point, but you could try looking at some of eg. Titan's and FT's remarks, or even the magazine mock-up in the article.
>>It wouldn't bother me, but i don't talk about it as much.
>What does that even mean?
It means: those who claim to be bothered by it, but talk about it at length and in detail, are the architects of their own discomfort. To them, I suggest that they'd be happier if they talked about it less than I do.
>>Are you folks masochists?
>Probably, since we keep engaging irrational intellectual sloths who are unlikely ever to take the giant leap to reason, instead of just laughing you off.
That really would be an act of intellectual sloth. It is brave and instructive to examine our beliefs and discover what assumptions they are based on. This is an issue where so many assumptions lie just below the surface, which people are terribly unwilling to own up to. I don't know why. They're pretty obvious, why not admit they're there?
Interesting strategy using the DoD as a carrier for the gay marriage virus. I wonder if the Ford Foundation was involved somehow - I suspect they were behind the original gay rights business back in the '70s after they finished with the women's lib business?
If the government hadn't become involved in marriage back during the eugenics age of the 1910s, we might not be fretting over this now.
The short explanation for all this: it's just Satan's perversion.
@ Republican Mother:
If the government hadn't become involved in marriage back during the eugenics age of the 1910s, we might not be fretting over this now.
Astute observation!
A postscript:
One of the insidious things about Gay Rights is censorship of differing views. There's a whole list of things I can't say as a military officer now while on duty without being drummed out of the service.
And by the way, Google has censored "The Daily Rear Admiral" graphic in the article. Did I hit a nerve? Heh heh.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.