WARNING: This post is full of sarcasm and bloviation. It reflects my own personal opinions and does necessarily reflect those of this site or any branch of government. If you are prone to calling people who disagree with homosexual conduct “bigots” you may not want to read any further. Otherwise, I’ll call you a bigot for not respecting my beliefs. Bigot! Stick and stones may break my bones…yadda yadda.
Yippee! I feel like frolicking through the corn rows in those sexy Marine PT shorts and big, pink sash in celebration. I’m so excited that the military and our federal government is so focused on the sex lives of gays while we are falling apart at the seams. It makes me proud (no pun intended) to be a part of such a monumental social engineering and experimentation project gone wrong.
Yes, folks. September 20th marked the one year anniversary of President Obama signing the repeal of the so-called “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” law. The president was so overjoyed, he even sent out a press release to ensure that Americans were made aware of the sex lives of a super-small percentage of US troops:
A year ago today, we upheld the fundamental American values of fairness and equality by finally and formally repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ Gay and lesbian Americans now no longer need to hide who they love in order to serve the country they love. It is a testament to the professionalism of our men and women in uniform that this change was implemented in an orderly manner, preserving unit cohesion, recruitment, retention and military effectiveness. As Commander in Chief, I’ve seen that our national security has been strengthened because we are no longer denied the skills and talents of those patriotic Americans who happen to be gay or lesbian. The ability of service members to be open and honest about their families and the people they love honors the integrity of the individuals who serve, strengthens the institutions they serve, and is one of the many reasons why our military remains the finest in the world.
Isn’t that sweet? I just can’t wait until we’re allowed to celebrate the one-year anniversary of allowing fraternization, incest, and polygamy within the ranks and truly celebrate sexual deviancy in ALL its forms. After all, it’s okay for two men or women to get it on, but not an officer and NCO or me and my cousin. Odd. I wonder if it’s fraternization if it’s a gay officer and gay NCO? Then they could just claim they were targeted for being gay and not fraternization.
But, seriously, I take offense to this statement – “It is a testament to the professionalism of our men and women in uniform that this change was implemented in an orderly manner, preserving unit cohesion, recruitment, retention and military effectiveness.” Here’s the thing – I haven’t seen, heard of or met a single openly gay Soldier in the past year. I don’t see same-sex couples shopping at the commissary or PX. I don’t see them holding hands walking around the common areas or barracks. There is nothing “orderly” about forcing troops to accept deviant sexual behaviors (my opinion) or else face punishment.
In the past year, I have a seen a few stories about how “successful” the repeal has been. The Army Times recently quoted an independent report that said “the military has reported no substantial problems as a result of allowing gays to serve openly in uniform.” But, what it doesn’t tell you is that either gays are still staying in the proverbial closet or there really aren’t as many as we were led to believe that are hanging up their rainbows in exchange for camouflage.
While our media – including the tabloid-prone Military Times magazines – has gone through great strains to highlight people like Brigadier General Tammy Smith’s recent (legally unrecognized) marriage to her girlfriend, the fact is that most troops still are opposed to such relationships.
“As Commander in Chief, I’ve seen that our national security has been strengthened because we are no longer denied the skills and talents of those patriotic Americans who happen to be gay or lesbian.” I continue to fail to see how someone’s sexual orientation strengthens (or weakens) national security at any level. For over 230 years, our military has opposed homosexual relationships and we’ve never lost a single war due to lack of homosexuals serving. All the realities paint a much different picture.
In a study by the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association titled “LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER HEALTH: FINDINGS AND CONCERNS,” we find that homosexual activity is actually MORE detrimental to national security since the health of our troops directly influences our ability to wage the nation’s wars. We call that “military readiness.”
The study points out that gay men and lesbians (why don’t gay men have a cool name like gay women get? Seems a bit sexist to me.) are at increased risk of getting certain cancers. Gay and bisexual men are at excess risk for anal cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and Hodgkin’s disease compared with heterosexual men. Nearly 10% of all males aged 15-22 that have sex with other men have HIV. While this is a disqualifier for military service, as well as a reason for discharge, we must assume that gay troops are not going to solely “date” other gay troops that are nearly guaranteed to be free of the disease, but will, in fact, mingle with the general, non-military gay population. This puts the military at increased risk of losing manpower due to HIV, AIDS or some other disease or ailment. With 10% of homosexual young men found to have the disease this isn’t a flawed argument. Read the studies. I don’t make this up, I relay what’s out there.
In addition to the physical risks of homosexual activity, the report cites numerous studies that point to increased rates of mental and bipolar disorders among gay men. Depression is also a common factor. The study lists several potential reasons for this, including stigma and social introversion. But, it could also just be that since homosexual behavior goes against normal human nature, the minds of gay men are still at odds with themselves. I’m sure vegans also have the same problems since humans are carnivores! Someone should make a movie about a vegan caveman. I can see it now… But, I digress. Just because it happens in the wild, doesn’t make it normal. Animals with homosexual tendencies also eat their young and others’ feces. I hardly think society would find that acceptable in humans.
Right now the military is in the throes of a terrible epidemic of suicides among its troops. No matter how we try to attack the problem, we seem to be engaged in a losing battle. We have already lost more troops to suicide this year than all of last year and we still have three months to go. While we won’t give up, we can’t ignore the fact that suicides are a major factor in military readiness and national security. This week, the Army is setting aside an entire day to focus on suicide prevention to address the problem. The federal government at large is also trying to stem the tide.
So, I fail to see how allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military helps national security when that population of society is at INCREASED risk of committing suicide, according to the study quoted above and others. The homosexual population is also at increased risk of chemical dependency and alcohol abuse.
All that aside, being proud (again, no pun intended) of allowing homosexuals to serve openly really presents more problems than it solves. Troops are REQUIRED to share rooms with homosexuals whether they are, themselves, homosexuals or not. Troops are not allowed to request room changes based on sexual orientation. And what about the transgendered population? Right now, I don’t think the military will accept transgendered recruits. If that is the case, I’m sure that there will be a hefty lobby to allow it. If they are allowed, how are they to be classified for physical training or housing? Will the military (re: taxpayers) be responsible for paying for transgender surgical procedures? Which uniforms do they wear? The see where this is going.
This all boils down to the fact that I think the general population has been mislead into believing that troops have overwhelming accepted the repeal. The Army Times story noted in an unscientific poll that only “4.5 percent of troops said their unit was harmed when a fellow service member came out as gay.” What the poll fails to inform units of is what percent of units even reported having a fellow service member come out as gay to begin with!
In the past year, I have not met A SINGLE Soldier that has met or witnessed a Soldier that came out after the repeal. But, let’s keep spreading the “good news” that everything is peachy and national security is somehow “strengthened.”
To be fair, I will say that regardless of personal opinions in the military (including my own), there is something the President stated that I completely agree with. Our troops are professionals and are capable of separating personal opinion from the mission and responsibilities as Soldiers. There is no doubt in my mind that it makes no difference in the mind of the grunt sitting in a foxhole during a firefight whether or not the person protecting his flank is gay or straight. As long as his aim is straight, that is all that matters. But, this was never about the man in the foxhole. This is about the 95% of the time that a troop is NOT in combat and working in a garrison environment. Even still, our troops know how to be professionals and respect the private sex lives of everyone. This, however, does not mitigate my previous statements.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Army, the Department of Defense, or any branch of government or military unit.
“…..gay men and lesbians (why don’t gay men have a cool name like gay women get? Seems a bit sexist to me.) ….
Way back when homosexuality was coming out of the closet big time (and before HIV/AIDS) I knew a lot of homosexual men who called themselves by the cool name now referred only as ”the F-word.”
Blacks owned their own N-word and will NOT allow it to die (although if YOU or I use it we might get charged with a ”hate crime”).
And actually, if you speak with homosexuals privately, they pepper their speech with all sorts of self-depricating lingo.
The F-word is still as alive and well among them (in private) as the N-word is in public rap.
I guess their rappers just don’t make as many hit records as blacks.
In war there is a thing called a fighting hole – a defensive position dug into the ground; can be dug for one Marine, a pair, or a weapon crew; formerly known as a “foxhole”. Incoming and an enemy advance, it makes no difference if the man in the fighting hole is straight or gay-he is now your cover and possibly your life. In the end, each one of you would die for the other. Ever been shot at? Ever been overrun on August 5, 1968? When you have called artillery fire down on your own camp and watched as the V.C. attempt to overrun a camp-and survive than you can talk. The media today is clueless. There are no brainless. Too bad no one ever read Edward Gibbon’s work! When you read his work-take notes.
@MOS 8541: I guess I can talk then, can’t I? I’m not quite sure what your point is since I already covered the buddy in the foxhole issue.
CJ, thank you for this article. It has to be said. But the problem with our military goes deeper than allowing gays to be vocal about their personal lives while on duty. The problem goes all the way to General Casey, and his ilk, when he said that while the loss of lives at Fort Hood by a jihadist (although our military is now supposed to call that “work place violence”) was regretable, the loss of diversity in the military (not recruiting Muslims) would be even worse. Political correctness (cultural Marxism) will eventually destroy our military, and that, IMHO, is the goal.
Stupid Americans who supported the repeal of DADT have the impression that being in the military is just like any other job. It’s not. You are trained to blow shit up and kill people, hardly like the job of some computer geek or a auto mechanic. And for the most part, the rules are made for our soldiers by people who have never been in the military. So those civilians, who are making the rules for you, are allowed to social engineer using you as a guinea pig.
But here is my question: if gay men, who are attracted to other men, are allowed to bunk and shower with men, in the name of all things equal, shouldn’t heterosexual men, who are attracted to women, be allowed to bunk and shower with the women?
DADT worked. And the research that shows those who have left the military due to coming out of the closet, actually outed themselves. What the new rule does is eliminate any possibility that a homosexual, who finds that they are not suited to military life, no longer has an easy out. Now Sgt. Hardass will tell Pvt. Flamer “You’re gay? You stay.” No more getting out just because a gay guy announced “Hey, Sarge, I’m gay and I want to be discharged; honorably.” Too freaking bad. Obama just closed that door for you.
Sometimes people just have to accept they are not cut out for certain jobs. A person may want to be a firefighter, but if you are a five foot, three inch, 105 lb. woman you would not be able to do the job of a firefighter simply because you could not meet the weight lifting requirements. You might want to be a nurse, or a doctor, but if the sight of blood makes you faint, find another line of work. The same goes with being in the military. And the sooner the elites in D.C. realize that not everyone was really created equal, except under the eyes of the law, the better off this nation will be.
CJ.. you said:
ah… peer pressure. The most effective law enforcement there is. Like perhaps many are afraid to solicit same sex, sexual favors from one, well trained in the use of a firearm?
You omitted one detail. Obama already lost in court. DADT was declared illegal and Obama got the courts to delay the implementation of the ruling. Thus he ran to congress and got them to end it so he could get credit. The fact remains Obama fought tooth and nail to keep DADT the law of the land.
@CJ: Between a CiC who treats the military as an organization whose successes are to be used for political gain and the PC crowd looking from the outside in trying to tell you how to do your job, it must be frustrating. I feel sorry for today’s NCO’s having to deal with PC constraints in addition to dealing with PTSD, suicide issues, and a lack of funds for training. It’s a needless distraction that should have never been thrust upon our military at a time when the latter problems are far more deserving of attention.
Yes, and I’m sure everyone is burning a path right to you to come out of the closet, or to admit knowing someone who has, given your, um, subtle viewpoints on the subject. But then again, if you haven’t seen any pink sashes festooning any machine gun emplacements, that’s straight up scientific evidence to your point. Science, you know, filled with facts, like your post.
Dethpicable………….
http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae277/RAPH6969/03-5.jpg
I feel I must first say that I don’t belong to any political party or religious organization, but I will put my moral values up against any church goer.
For many years I have wondered why anyone would CHOOSE to be gay. I have been “neutral” about it most of my life. I needed more information before I decided if it was a CHOICE or not. I finally decided that if a person CHOOSES to be gay, they also must CHOOSE to be straight. You can’t have being gay a CHOICE, but being straight is NATURAL. Either both are NATURAL, or both are CHOICE.
Many times over the years I have heard of women finding out that their husband has been cheating on her. To make it worse, some of them were with other men. When the husbands were asked about it, the ones who would answer, all said that they were ALWAYS attracted to men, but they didn’t want to be thought of as queer and condemned by others. They pretended to be straight so others would think that that they are normal, even marrying and having kids. There are now kids without dads because mommy left daddy when she found out he was gay.
What about the thousands of babies who are born with all of the female parts and all of the male parts. They are half male and half female. Are they sinning for being born that way? They didn’t CHOOSE to be half and half. For those who say that people CHOOSE to be gay, what category do you put the half and halfs?
I do believe that, in the military, there are certain things that one person shouldn’t be able to decide: Gays in the military, women in combat areas, etc.
Great article. Mr. O and his followers have succeeded in creating a special class within the military, they have in fact placed the tiniest of wedges to help facilitate the destruction of the military unit. We’re talking about a very, very small percentage of the population of the country and the military. I could care less if you are gay, straight, or any combination. All that matters is if you are a good soldier, airman, Marine, etc. By creating a special class the NCO’s and the Chaplains have a very hard job to do now. Thank you PC Casey, Obama, et al.
You may want to consult a dictionary regarding the meaning of the word ‘bigot’—it’s a little more than a mere disagreement:
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
I’ve read Gibbon three times over in my life and still am not quite sure what your point is, my friend…
I wish the chaplain had linked the appropriate stories to his anecdotal evidence, but this is a very interesting opinion piece regarding the chilling effect the repeal of DADT has had..
@Smorgasbord:
I will attempt to address your concerns and I am not going to get into the religious aspect of the issue of homosexuality. First, let me direct you to an article that will tell you why homosexuality was removed from the list of mental disorders in the DSM.
In 1974, homosexuality was removed from the approved list of mental health disorders, not because of any scientific research or extensives studies, but due to pressure from primarily the homosexual community in California. But the fact remains that homosexuality has never been proven to be a natural trait, like having blue eyes or being tall. There is no genetic test that can determine a baby will grow up to be gay, because there has never been the discovery of the “gay” gene. Some will point to the homosexuality in the animal world, pointing out to a gay penguin. But that too has been distorted because what was not reported about the gay penguin was that the older penguin was basically having the “father/son” discussion with a younger penguin. Even in the plant world, we cannot achieve hybrid species without genetic manipulation.
If you look at the construct of the human body, as with any species, it is designed, by nature, for the continuation of the species. There are certain aspects of the human body that were created with one purpose in mind, procreation, and not for any other reason. Now you mention the anomoly of a child born with dual sexual organs, although I question that the number is in the thousands. Yes, those anomolies happen, but they are no more normal than a two headed calf, or a person born with 12 fingers or toes; they are exceptions to the rule, not the rule.
Study after study has been done and they show that, especially in homosexual men, a large percentage of those men were sexually abused as children. The trauma that this causes in a young male often results in gender confusion, much like a captive often developes Stockholm Syndrome. The truely sad part of this in our society, at least to me, is that the medical field tends to brush off these tramatic events, shoving them under the rug, and using the excuse that people were just born gay. Millions go untreated and that is a failure on the part of our society and medical field. These early years trauma leads to other phychological problems; unablity to relate to others without extreme emotions, anger, etc.
Much of our opinions are based on certain movements that infiltrated, and influenced, our society. One of those movements was the Fabian Socialists which was started by a few really odd people. One, Edward Carpenter, was an open homosexual, who wanted to make homosexuality a normal condition, and another, Havelock Ellis, who was considered a “sexologist” that married a lesbian, went on a honeymooon with her and never lived with her again. He admitted his unability to have a normal sex life, and later, around the age of 60, said he discovered that he could finally be aroused by a female but only if she ur!nated in front of him. Another founding member was George Bernard Shaw, who was a supporter of Eugenics, and became good friends with Margaret Sanger. Tony Blair belonged to the Fabian Society, which is still very active in Great Britain.
Since the beginning of the Fabian Socialists, helped along by the Frankfort School, with its creation of political correctness (cultural Marxism), the goal has been to push homosexuality not as an anomoly, but a a normal state of the human condition. This was acheived in the U.S. in 1974. Gramsci discussed this in his writings.
But the fact remains that nature designed itself to survive. And it is impossible for our species to survive if we were all gay and lived that lifestyle. The human species would eliminate itself in one generation.
@retire05: #15
The gay issue is something I won’t change my mind on. We are born the way we are, and don’t have a choice. I agree with your right do disagree with me. Just like the fact that the “gay” gene hasn’t been found, neither has the “straight” gene.
This reminded me of St. Paul saying that he felt that God didn’t want people to marry, so that they would have more time to pray. This would also end humans in one generation.
@Smorgasbord:
“This reminded me of Paul saying that he felt God did not want people to marry”
Actually, you would be wrong. Paul never said any such thing. But I assume you are refering to 1 Corinthians 7: 1-9. What Paul did say was that in response to matters that were written to him, “it is good for a man not to marry.” He then goes on saying why it is good to marry. What Paul was telling was that for those who devote themselves to spreading the word of God, as he had devoted his life to doing, it was better to not marry.
No, people are not born gay. They may be attracted to the same sex over various reasons, but one of them is not DNA. And even with references telling you that until the ’70’s, homosexuality was deemed a mental disorder, and that it was political pressure that caused that to be changed, you have made up your mind that people are born gay. That causes you to become part of the problem because that attitude allows the trauma that often causes people to have sexual disorders go untreated.
@Smorgs,
Your thinking on this issue is spot on. One had to wonder what some people get out of trying so hard to make other peoples’ lives miserable instead of just allowing then to live in peace. Do you ever wonder about that motivation?
@Tom:
Let’s just assume, for argument’s sake, that you were one of the hundreds of thousands of young boys that had been molested by a man sometime in your formative years, and it caused you to be confused by your own sexuality. How much peace do you think you would have in your lifetime?
And what is your motivation to want to shove that abuse under the table and just brush their trauma off by accepting the premise they were born that way?
@retire05: #17
It took me many years to come to my conclusion. This is one reason I’m not a church goer. Only churches say it is wrong to be gay. I make up my own mind.
@Smorgasbord: “Only churches say it is wrong to be gay.” No, science says it is wrong to be gay. There is nothing normal about it. How do you explain my belief in it being wrong BEFORE I even belonged to a church?
Just because the gay rights lobby wants everyone to believe it’s “normal” doesn’t make it normal. It’s an abnormal and counter-productive behavior. It’s no more normal that men attracted to little boys or girls. Are they “born that way” too?
@Smorgasbord:
Why do you bring up the POV of churches? I deliberately did not bring religion or faith into the discussion, yet you seem to want to fall back on that.
You are free to have any opinion you want; you are also free to be wrong.
I personally hope that the gay “gene” is someday discovered. Because when it is, and women start aborting their babies because they don’t want to raise a gay child, you will see a movement in this nation to end abortions by the very loud, and very vocal, gay community. But until that day of discovery, you have NO scientific data to back up your opinion. But we do have scientific data that says many gay men, and some gay women, were sexually abused as children and they go untreated for that trauma. But hey, if that policy advances the gay agenda, then what is the problem with thousands of people being left to deal with emotional disorders without mental health treatment, right?
@retire05:
Please point me to where I wrote I wanted to shove child abuse under the table. If you can’t, well, what you wrote above is demonstrably untrue. What type of people, I wonder, intentionally and repeatedly make untrue statements? There is a word for that, I think.
@retire05:
And there’s absolutely no scientific data that concludes it’s merely a choice, or only the result of trauma. How do you account for the gays who weren’t sexually abused? How do you account for the sexually abused who didn’t grow up gay? How many holes are in this swiss cheese argument?
@Tom:
As always, you remain the hypocrite. You accuse others of wanting to not let people live in peace, then get your Hanes in a wad when I state you want to ignore the plight of others. How are those of us who don’t subscribe to the “born that way” theory trying to make the lives of others “miserable” when I advocate helping those who have had early childhood trauma?
As for those who were NOT abused as children, do you totally discount peer pressure? Kids aren’t born drug abusers, or gangbangers, yet they exist.
If you, or Smorg, think gays are born gay, then back up your hypothesis with solid scientificic data. But you can’t, because that data doesn’t exist.
@CJ:
Obviously, you have every right to your opinion. But how much should that factor into the subject of your post? Should national defense policy hinge on your moral squeamishness? You haven’t articulated any reason against the current policy other than how uncomfortable it makes you personally feel. This feels more like a rant against gays than a reasoned argument against why they should not serve.
@retire05:
So your argument against homosexuality being an innate trait is that it’s either the effect of molestation or a choice made as a result of peer pressure?! How tortured and desperate can this argument get? Simply put, gays exist, have always existed. They, along with most anything you can point at, can exist without precise knowledge of the reason why. Can you tell me exactly why the sun exists? If you can’t, will it disappear, or can I walk outside and point at it and say, “it obviously exists, it’s warm and it’s bright – and I have no idea why, but that’s the truth”. Anyone who has ever met a gay person knows this trait is not analogous to some teen fad. Your political agenda to try and erase gays from history as some sort of mental or medical abnormality is completely overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of their continued existence.
@retire05:
By the way, Retire, are you going to answer the question in #23 “Please point me to where I wrote I wanted to shove child abuse under the table” or are you g0ing to retract that statement? If you have a shred of integrity, that retraction will be accompanied by an apology, but the retraction will suffice. So pony up the proof or retract. Your choice.
Tom, the sun has nothing to do with human behavior. And when are you going to retract your statement that those of us who don’t subscribe the “born that way” philosophy just don’t want to let others live and peace and want to make their lives “miserable?” As with most progressives, you like to sling mud, but don’t realize that it remains on your hands after you sling it.
I suggest you study the issue (unless you already have because you are gay) and get back to me. Yes, there have been homosexuals all through history. The practice of homosexuality was one of the reasons for the downfall of the Roman empire. The Fabian Society (socialists) was started by someone who was homosexual. Gramsci, Marx, Engles, all promoted homosexual behavior in order to destroy established sociatal norms so that useful idiots would place their loyalty in government, not in religious faith. When people believe in a higher power that is not the government, they cannot be lead as easily.
I am still waiting for you to prove that homosexuality is a born trait. So where is your proof?
If the purpose of nature is the continuation of the species, why did nature only give spem cells to men and ovaries to women? As to the sun, it too, is part of the natural order.
You guys are missing the point of the post, which is that Obama declared a strengthening of our national security footing by including homosexuals in the military and yet studies published from with the homosexual community (which indicates LESS homophobic bias) show certain health issues, both physical and mental, are in the homosexual population in statistically significant numbers. Does that help military readiness? I would counter than having women and their tendency to magically catching pregnant also reduces military readiness so should women be excluded?
Wow… this went from whether military gays should throw it in your face to whether being gay is a choice or inbred? woof…
CJ, while I’m thinking of it, do enlistment applications have any fields for “sexual orientation”? I’m thinking that question is in violation of federal law, myself. So while Clinton put in DADT, and Obama removes it and gives a victory sign for doing so, I’m confused as to how and why sexual orientation is legally brought up during the enlistment process. Perhaps, Mr. CJ, you can enlighten me.
As to choice or inbred. You can count me with Smorgasbord that this is biological, and not a subject of environmental influences. There is far more evidence that it is an effect on the chromosomes while in the womb than anything that happens in family life.
i.e. some good reading about gay gene studies comes from a course citing studies offered by New Zealand’s Massey University. They point out flaws in the more well recognized study by NIH’s Dean Hamer, but also mention Chandler Burr’s “A Separate Creation” study as well. Also an informative article from the Boston Globe back in 2005, revolving around studies of siblings, including identical twins where one is gay and the other hetrosexual.
I believe what most say is that they believe it’s biological, but not sure how to identify it or when it happens for certain, save that most believe it’s still pre birth. I might also add, what if they did? Are we then to consider genetically altering children just so they can avoid being homosexual? That’s a highly offensive thought…
I’ve got several gay cousins who I’ve grown up with. Even when I was a child, and didn’t know about sexual orientation, I had an impression that the girls were really boys in my mind. Nothing concrete, but let’s just say that when they struggled with themselves as being “abnormal”, and finally came out as homosexual to the family, I wasn’t in the least bit surprised. Love them dearly, including who they’ve chosen as their significant others. I wouldn’t trade them for “normal” cousins in a million years.
I guess I don’t think about hetro and homosexual orientation as being normal or abnormal, since I do believe it is a biological make up that happens prior to birth. When considering procreation, of course it’s “abnormal” in the sense of perpetuation of a species. But all species of life have variances from the usual biological make up. Homosapiens are no different.
My problem is that I personally don’t want someone’s sexual orientation shoved in my face. If I want to know, I’ll ask. But other than that, I’m not going to be volunteering what I prefer in my bedroom activities and I appreciate others doing the same when not solicited in general conversation.
Gays in the military? I think that’s up to those in the military to decide. My guess is that most of them wouldn’t care if their peers kept their bedroom activities to themselves. And it’s also my guess that those that are opposed do so for the same reasons as I do… why the heck do we have to hear about it, and pronounce either acceptance or condemnation?
Actually, LL, I’ll probably draw the ire of any feminists on the forum, but I’ve always been one to agree with Col. David “Hack” Hackworth’s “free a soldier to fight” philosophy for women in the military. i.e. I do not support them being on the front lines or in the trenches, but I do believe they can take over other tasks and “free” another male soldier to fill that slot instead. My main reason for this is that I think the protective instinct in men for the female can and is likely to affect decisions when in a firefight. And that’s not always a good thing.
Hack, RIP that wonderful guy, spent his career in the military and it was his opinion that women holding certain positions was creating a sexual tension that was destroying our forces. If that is true with women and men, sexual tensions via homosexual can have the same effect.
There’s an April article by Atty Scott Tips, that also notes other mitigating factors that make women in combat situations less desirable, such as being more susceptible to injuries (i.e. knees, etc)
@MataHarley:
There have been no changes that include sexual orientation on any applications…yet. I would agree it would be against the law to even ask, though I imagine the government could find a way around it under the guise of “affirmative action” in the future.
Look, I personally have nothing against gays in the military in spite of my belief that homosexuality is wrong. What I have a problem with is being forced to accept the practice as “normal” and a special class of Soldier created in the process. I think Soldiers should have the right NOT to room with someone attracted to the same sex.
I think that getting rid of DADT was a mistake for the gay population. Because most troops don’t support the practice, it opens them up to more harassment – which I do NOT condone and is no excuse ever. It also opens up the the military to more risk, not less, which affects national security. This is something the President touts as a success and in light of the evidence, I don’t see how that is possible.
Thanks for the response, CJ. I didn’t think such a field question would exist, but thought I’d ask.
As far as a success vs failure for DADT, I guess Obama and Clinton can fight that out between their liberal selves. It was a Dem creation, and it’s a Dem repeal. As I said, I think most of the soldiers just plain don’t want to know, or have another’s sexual antics in their face. I doubt, being adept in firearms, most gays would be foolish enough to solicit sex from one not of their own orientation in the barracks. At least not without fear of repercussions.
@MataHarley:
I was just referring to CJ’s argument that any potential health issues related to mainly homosexual men could be counterargued by the fact that women have one MAJOR one that reduces readiness, whether she is on the front line or not. Even if she is in the rear, that is one less person to fill a slot if she comes up pregnant, just like there is one less person to fill a slot if a homosexual gets anal cancer or whatever else was listed as occurring in higher rates. Even in peaceful times, there is always a turnover amongst women who chapter out for pregnancy reasons. So I’m not sure that CJ’s argument holds water that way.
LL, I realize you brought up the question, but didn’t weigh in with your own opinion. But I decided to answer your question in that I believe that women do affect the readiness and focus of our military. Hack also was stonewalled getting pregnancy figures from the Pentagon prior to his death… saying those stats were “….a higher security classification than the number of nukes in their arsenals.” This was an issue even back in the days of the first Gulf War.
I would think that CJ’s counterpoints for increased health risks for those who indulge in same sex activities are similar to women and their natural exposure to injuries and pregnancy.
@retire05:
So now we’ve come full circle. Homosexuality is just another symptom, or cause, or result 0f Socialism. It’s really convenient how all the things you hate just happen to dovetail under this handy umbrella. Correct me if I’m wrong, this is the current state of your argument against the biological/innate view on homosexuality: it’s a result of molestation and/or peer pressure and/or Socialism. Now where would that put a Log Cabin Republican with a happy childhood and an angst-free adolescence, I wonder?
You can definately count me with Smorg.,Mata and Tom on this issue.
Retire 05’s got some interesting theories on causality. Molestation,peer pressure,Socialism. Don’t stop there, PLS GO ON.
Are people born gay?
1991 Hypothalamus Study: Simon LeVay, who identifies as being a homosexual male stated “It is important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homsexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpretingmy work. Nor did I locate a gay center of the brain.”
1991 Twin Study: Richard Pillard, a homosexual, said “Although male and female homosexuality appear to be at least somewhat heritable, enviorment mus also be of considerable importance to their origins.”
Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project said “sexual orientation is gentically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, NOT predeterminations.”
Kate Kendell of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, argued [in a gay magazine] that sexual orientation is not fixed. Jackie Black, a lesbian columnist and psychotherapist said sexuality is not static. Camille Paglia, a lesbian, argues that homosexuality is not normal and it is an adaption, not an inborn trait.
From the website Avert.org which deals with HIV/AIDs issues, as well as issues of the homosexual community writes:
The American researcher Dean Hamer published research that seemed to prove that homosexual orientation could be genetically trasmitted to men on the x chromosome, which they get from their mothers. However, when this study was duplicated it did not produce the same results. A follow-up study which Hamer collaborated on also failed to reinforce his earlier results.
Subsequent research published by George Rice and George Ebers of the University of Western Ontario has cast doubt on Hamer’s theory. Rice and Ebers’ research also tested the same region of the x chromosome in a larger sample of gay men, but failed to find the same ‘marker’ that Hamer’s research had found. Claims that the part of the brain known as the hypothalamus is influential in determing sexual orientation, have yet to be sustained.
Psycho-social explaination offer a variety of factors that could contribute to the development of a person’s homosexuality. For example, a female dominated upbringing in a gay man’s past, with an absence of a male role model. Others stress adherence or deviance from conformity to gender rols, and individual psychological makeup. While none of these factors alone completely answers the question ‘what causes homosexuality?’,they rule out somethings. ………………..
What is clear is that people’s behavior is influenced by their family environment, their experiences and their sense of themselves. Beliefs about sex are initially shaped by family values. Later on these beliefs may be shaped by pleasant and unpleasant experiences of sex and also shape their choice of activities and partners. Throughout their life a person’s sense of who, and what, they are has a strong impact on their sexual development and experience.
The studies will continue but the one fact that has been proved is that every person reacts to stimuli differently. One twin may be a raging liberal while the other twin (raised by the same parents) becomes a confirmed conservative. It is the same reason that one twin may be a rocket scientist while the other choses to live on the street pandhandling. Parents generally apply the same method of raising their children to all their children, yet we have the phenomena of the “black sheep” in a family.
@Richard Wheeler:
So when a website devoted to homosexuality and the problem of HIV/AIDs makes the claim that there is NO scientific data that supports the “born gay” theory, and even states that it is “nurture” not “nature” that contributes to a person’s sexual orientation, you want to continue to put you fingers in your ears and scream “I can’t hear you?”
And while you may decide to subscribe to a particular philosophy, you cannot back it up with hard science and even homosexuals, leading homosexuals, disagree with you.
@MataHarley:
So it comes down to the question of whether CJ believes this post is truly a valid argument or if he is using this as an argument because he MORALLY objects to having homosexuals in the military. CJ and I are close friends. I like to challenge his thinking. 😉
And one thing that a mutual friend has pointed out, most military men who get a military woman pregnant are not held to the same accountability as the female is, most likely because they need men more than they need women in uniform.
If you ever get a chance, read Amazon Legion. Tom Kratman picks apart how to make an all-female infantry unit (within a science fiction setting) and the best part…he uses homosexual males to train the women. There is no using sex to secure favoritism, no pregnancy (although that is taken care of by mandatory long term birth control, ie IUD type stuff), and no sympathy from the men to the women. It is an interesting concept and technically, I think workable as the only solution. It’s a pretty well thought out female infantry unit from the numbers to the equipment to the training.
@Tom:
Tom, you’re not real bright, are you? I never claimed that homosexuality was the result of Socialism (take a reading comprehension course. It will serve you well). I said that homosexuality was used by the Socialist/Marxist proponents to destroy loyality to a religious faith in order to gain loyality to the government.
As to Log Cabin Republicans, can you prove that any of them enjoyed an angst-free adolescence? I doubt any of them would make that claim since the very nature of adolescence is full of angst due to both physical, and mental, changes.
@LL: “So it comes down to the question of whether CJ believes this post is truly a valid argument or if he is using this as an argument because he MORALLY objects to having homosexuals in the military.” I don’t morally object to having homosexuals in the military. I morally object to homosexuality. I also morally object to liberals, but not liberals in the military. To me, this is both a moral issue and a security issue. My opposition to gays in the military is limited to the special status created for them. That’s it.
@CJ:
So then next time, write a post about that, using data to back up that position. This was a red herring. 😀 I linked that article earlier, with anecdotal information from a Chaplain. Do your research and see if his stories of religious suppression to accommodate gays in the military are true.
@LL: “So then next time, write a post about that, using data to back up that position. This was a red herring.” This post wasn’t about my opposition to gays in the military. It was to counter the argument that lifting the ban was good for national security. I provided the data to back up that position, in my opinion.
@Tom: #18
I’m sorry for taking so long to answer. Fri. Sat., and Sun. I was attending a Search And Rescue course learning how to use the ropes to rescue victims, and I am grosely out of shape, and was too tired to do much after each day. I finally got to repel Sunday. I have wanted to do that for a long tim. It was from about 140 feet. Monday I slept in and rested up. In the afternoon I went out on my ATV and rode some trails. I hadn’t been on it for some time.
There are always people who like to rule other people, whether it be in religion or in ruling a country. Hitler taught his people to hate the Jews. Religions teach to hate the act of being gay. For thousands of years teaching people to hate SOMETHING OR SOMEONE is a way of getting the rest of the people to fall in line where the leader wants them. This is one reason I learned to make up my own mind on everything. Over time, I found out that some things I was told were wrong.
@CJ: #21
As I was growing up I started hearing about “queers” and other names they were called. Even Rock Hudson had to hide the fact that he was gay until he was dying of AIDS. There are Egyptian drawings showing gays in the act. I don’t know if this was to honor or condemn them. I also believe pedafiles are born that way, but acting on those feelings is wrong.
Again, I have been through things like this many times with others. I ain’t cahnging my mind, and you ain’t changing yours. Lets agree to disagree and stay friends.
@retire05: #22
All of the religions I know of in the USA teach that being gay is a sin. I am guessing that this is where most people hear that it is wrong to be gay. I admit that it is possible that when kids are sexually abused by others, it can affect there development, but many thousand of gays had no such experiences.
I’m just going to present a situation that I have wondered about, but haven’t decided either way, so please, lets not get in a discussion on the issue. I am just wondering. A long time ago the question of some of the research facilities’ data for products tested might be angled towards the company paying for the study. The thinking was that if the research facility found that a product or something else they were studying, didn’t do what the ones paying for the study hoped it would do, and this happened several times, would that company, organization, etc., keep paying them to do studies, or would they look for places that would give them the results they want? If studies proved that it was NORMAL to be gay, look at all of the money that wouldn’t be made by trying to convert gays to NORMAL people. It is just like racism. If racism was eliminated. look how many people would loose there jobs.
@Smorgasbord:
Nope. The major churches teach that engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but being gay is not.
@Tom Kratman: #49
That’s like saying a serial bank robber isn’t a bank robber unless they are in the process of robbing a bank. In between robberies, they aren’t robbers. I look at it this way: It doesn’t matter what others think or teach, I have my opinion and they have theirs. Why do religious people feel they have to convert others to THEIR way of thinking?
Nonsense. Imagine – and it shouldn’t be all that hard – a virgin, gay, teenager. He never has engaged in homosexual acts. Therefore, in the eyes of, say, the Catholic Church (largest Christian denomination in the world, doncha know) he has not sinned. (And, George Carlin notwithstanding, nobody’s even been excomunicated over “wanna.”) It’s even easier that that, actually. Take someone who has indeed engaged in homosexual acts. He goes to confession and thereafter stops. Nobody Catholic will consider him to be sinning thereafter, at least as regards homosexuality.
Would you like to know where idiocy crept into your position? It was in your presumption that gays _will_ always engage in homsexual acts, illustrated by the nonsense serial bank robber analogy. Try to work on that, won’t you?
Oh, and by the way? I’m religious and I really couldn’t give a good goddamned whether you burn or not, let alone what you believe about fine points of theological doctrine. Free will is part of the doctrine and you have my blessings in exercising yours.