General observations on just about anything.
If it passes I have a new name for it...
Published on May 31, 2010 By Nitro Cruiser In Politics

...but first some background.

Disclaimer: I'm really uninterested in another persons sex life (other than my wife that is), that's their business. Also having spent half my life in the military, I fully realize that gays have and are serving their country in that capacity, thank you (and all folks, past and present) for your service. I don't dislike people personally for their lifestyle. I'm sure most serve(d) honorably, and a few were trouble makers, just as their heterosexual counter parts.

What does concern me is the total disregard of the people currently serving in the military today. Not that it was sneaked in on a Friday, prior to a long weekend (again, a reoccurring theme with this administration). Not that it was sandwiched in with other more pressing items  and $$$ goodies for the military (it was). The Pentagon was to have its finding (consultation with military members) complete by December. This administration, for political expedience, couldn't wait that long. They have showed their total disregard for our military folks opinion, just as they have for the American peoples opinion on other recent issues. They are willing to force an issue without regard for cost (there always is a cost) or plan to implement.

Why the rush? Were the people that shouted Obama down, at the recent Boxer fundraiser, on the issue anxious to enlist in the military. Hardly. Why is this important to gay activists? Are they that concerned about our military? No. They realize the way to "normalcy" is through the military. Their means to an end, their agenda. It worked for minorities and it worked for women, so it will work for gays, right? Well being a minority or a woman is pretty much an inalienable fact, with little room for interpretation. It doesn't involve personal tastes in lifestyles (I can hear the disagreements now). What will be the next "oppressed" group after this one? Time, and anyone's guess, will tell.

If this passes, this will be the first time in history that a protected "special" group of people will be treated differently in the military. Different how? They will not have their own facilities, so they will cohabitate with the sex they are physically attracted to, with only their own sense of discipline as a guide.  The finial vestiges that "helped" people consider their actions (Don't Ask Don't Tell) will be gone. Rest assured, some deviants will be attracted that might not otherwise be. Is it worth even one unwanted incident? What if it is your family member? IMO, to utterly dismiss the sexual aspect of this issue is shortsighted and unrealistic. If someone told me that I would be living in close quarters, uninhibited, with women when I enlisted as a young man at the tender age of 17, I would have thought that was a benefit!

Whoa...hold your horses you say, men and women aren't allowed potential intimate contact on a daily basis in the military. That would be correct, but if that concept bothers you, why the double standard? How would you feel having some guy live in your wife or daughters (or a woman with your husband or son) military dorm room or barracks, shaving his face while she shaves her legs in the shower? I could tell you probably nothing would happen 90% of the time (there is fraternization now, and it is punishable), but there would be problems. Jealous spouses have left their soldiers, sailors, and airman just on suspicion. The opposite is also true. I understand that gays can be afflicted with these emotions, real or perceived, too. I don't foresee men's, women's or other's facilities on the horizon anytime soon.

What else can be exploited? Well let me give an example that many can relate too. When the presidents critics voice their opposition a bit too loud, what is one of the first counter accusations? Racism. And make no bones about it it is effective and used often (read some blogs and see for yourself). So what if a gay person doesn't like his/her evaluation? "My marks are low because you hate gays". Someone harasses you, you're just making the complaint up because you don't like gays. Do I believe this will be the norm? No, but it will happen and when it does it affects the effectiveness of a command.  The military is mired heavily in PCness lately the way it is. We can't afford this additional intrigue IMO, especially during two ongoing wars.

For any of its flaws, Don't Ask Don't Tell applied to everyone, straight or gay. IMO it protected both. This is decision is best left up to the personnel serving, not the politicians, not the activists. If this is something the bulk of our service people can adapt and handle effectively, I would humbly concede to them and the issue is done. Would the gay activists do the same? Can the folks asking for tolerance show some as well?  If it passes without military input, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"(DADT) will become "Look, But Don't Touch" (LBDT).

Remember, you heard the term coined here first.

UPDATE 05/24/2017

Since this post in now locked for 2 years for whatever reason (most likely due to its longevity). I wanted to add the (sort of) conclusion of the Bradley, now Chelsea, Manning story that erupted in the comments. As you may or may not know Manning was pardoned of his espionage 35 year sentence by departing President Obama. With the current leftest push for clamping down on claimed foreign involvement in US affairs, I find the leniency they provide proven traitors they sympathize with, fascinating. Anyway, now Manning is free to live his/her live with military medical benefits for the rest of his years, on your dime of course. More here.


Comments (Page 4)
16 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last
on Jun 05, 2010

So now we have your opinion.

It's not an opinion.  It's flat out reality. 

 

on Jun 05, 2010

It's not an opinion. It's flat out reality

Thank you for your reality.

 

on Jun 05, 2010

Dan posts

There really aren't many good arguments against gay folks in the military.

Nitro posts:

But, the kinship is a hard thing to lose. When I was on active duty, I had to deal with plenty of "sexual" issues, from rape to fraternization, infidelity, and harassment. It's not a simple thing to do, and can hardly be dismissed as easily as pinning a "phobia" on it. While not in my direct chain of command, I did learn of three cases of man on man rape (all involved parties being servicemen), so to deny this as a potential problem does not make much sense to me. The favoritism and "blackmail" cases are true to life too. I even know of a lesbian case of favoritism. It couldn't be verified until years later (Don't Ask) but people knew, and the truth did come out eventually, when the jilted lover half of the partnership became a civilian. The remaining career was ruined. And yes it did cause morale problems, as any case of special treatment for some would, because the people in charge didn't know how to handle it. But, I digress.

 

Nitro,

These are good valid arguments against repealing DADT. My brothers told me similar stories so these can't be just a few isolated cases. In fact, they are good reasons why we should bring back the laws against sodomy in the military. 

Right under the noses of those in Washington, on 2-10-10, the Washington Post ran an article about homosexuals breaking military law against sodomy,

"Underground gay communities have emerged at bases across the United States, and even in war zones. In Iraq, one email group maintained by gay troops includes a database where soldiers post their instant messaging screen names and the base where they are stationed. Dozens have profiles on gay dating sites, some posing in uniform."

Randy Shilts author of  "Conduct Unbecoming: Gays and Lesbians in the U.S. Military", wrote about sex on the job at the Pentagon, " In the bathroom on corridor 6, just inside the five-acre central courtyard, men literally stood in line outside the stalls during the lunch hour, waiting their turn to engage in some hanky-panky." (page 184).

It just doesn't make sense for Congress to allow homosexuals to serve openly. It would definitely be special or preferred treatment. If it passes, what about the homosexuals that want sex-change procedures? Will their partner be entitled to benefits, military base access, commissionary and exchange privileges? Military housing? Next, the "transgendered" will posture for their "rights".  If this goes through, it's going to be a nightmare, and I'm sure there will be more regulations against any hostility towards it will be enforced.

 

 

 

 

 

 

on Jun 05, 2010

Dan posts:

Then what exactly are you describing? Having to live in close quarters with somebody who's gay seems to be at the nut of your argument....

Nitro already responded to this.

It goes to the fundamental aspect of privacy which military services entails enough sacrifices to privacy without subjecting individuals to live in close quarters or shower with others who openly practice homosexuality.

Dan wrote: 

In fact, don't encourage your son to go to college, get a job, or ever travel outside your home. There will be gay people there too.

To my knowledge there are no colleges that force students to share dorm rooms with open homosexuals. And if it happens, then the student is free to living somewhere else or even go to another college. Not so in the military.

 

 

on Jun 05, 2010

http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10E118.pdf

Here is another link which is the Pentagon's own report on sexual assault for 2009.

do however, know who the FRC is. I can say with absolute certainty based on their hysterical, inane, completely out of line with modern living comments on gay folks and other issues that they are totally nuts.



FRC was just the messenger bringing the Pentagon's sad message that homosexual assault is up for 2009.  

 

 

on Jun 05, 2010

Dan posts:

But for you, you seem to see this sexual potential in these happenstance interactions. It's irrational and very, very strange.

Ah no. Homosexual "happenstance interactions" are reality, DAN. Homosexuals do their thing and if they are allowed to serve openly, they will be doing their thing even more and most assuredly the Pentagon numbers will go up.

And fellow service personnel who give them any grief are going to be punished.

 

 

 

 

 

 

on Jun 05, 2010

It just doesn't make sense for Congress to allow homosexuals to serve openly. It would definitely be special or preferred treatment. If it passes, what about the homosexuals that want sex-change procedures? Will their partner be entitled to benefits, military base access, commissionary and exchange privileges? Military housing? Next, the "transgendered" will posture for their "rights". If this goes through, it's going to be a nightmare, and I'm sure there will be more regulations against any hostility towards it will be enforced.

There is no denying that there will be a monetary cost. In these times can we afford it? Also male/female violence and accusations of violence, harassment, favoritism, you name it - takes a huge toll on the military today, unfortunately. I'm not sure opening up a new dimension to the inevitable possibilities, especially while engaging in two wars, is the most expedient use of our resources at the moment. It really boils down to privacy needs of a few for the privacy needs of many. Everyone has their own answer to that question, no matter who spins it. I can only assume activists hope to circumvent state marriage laws in the future, since the military is in most every state, with the camels nose in the tent approach. Voting amendments on a state level appear to not be working quickly enough for them.

Also to answer your question about sodomy, it is an article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Article 125, it states:

( a ) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

( b ) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

In the 80's I was aware of two cases of men being raped by other men. I don't have figures or statistics, as it wasn't something that interests me. When something of this magnitude occurs, a command understandably tries to keep these things quiet to protect the victims, and to some measure the attacker. There is obviously a reason this article is in place. It was implemented in 1951, with the last revision in 2005. I suppose the data due out in December will have the details, provided the Senate cares to wait for it, which is the focusing point of this article.

Thanks for your stating opinion.

 

on Jun 06, 2010

It goes to the fundamental aspect of privacy which military services entails enough sacrifices to privacy without subjecting individuals to live in close quarters or shower with others who openly practice homosexuality.

If it were an issue of privacy, wouldn't the issue of sexuality be rendered irrelevant.  Again, I know that you and Nitro aren't exactly hip to issues of human sexuality, but we're talking about non-sexual situations. 

 

To my knowledge there are no colleges that force students to share dorm rooms with open homosexuals. And if it happens, then the student is free to living somewhere else or even go to another college. Not so in the military.

The military is a job.  College isn't.  Like I say though, keep your kid locked in your basement, because if he goes on to college, he will be exposed to LGBT folks.  Either in the same dorm or in the same building or in the same gym.

 

Homosexuals do their thing and if they are allowed to serve openly, they will be doing their thing even more

Yes.  And yes.  And there's nothing wrong with that. 

 

And fellow service personnel who give them any grief are going to be punished.

As well these service personnel should be. 

 

FRC was just the messenger bringing the Pentagon's sad message that homosexual assault is up for 2009.

Lulsa, I know this is going to come as a shock to you.  Sexual Assault - rape of any kind - has exactly nothing to do with sex.  It's about power.  This is a demonstrable fact.  It has been proven a thousand times over.  It is undisputed. 

That and the FRC is totally incompatible with the real world. 

 

( a ) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

So Nitro, are you saying that even straight folks in the military have to have boring sex lives?  I mean, given the definition of Sodomy...

on Jun 06, 2010

So Nitro, are you saying that even straight folks in the military have to have boring sex lives? I mean, given the definition of Sodomy...

You're an idot... it was obviously a cut and paste from the UCMJ article in referance to another posters question...you know, concerning the laws at the "job". It's not my opinion it is a fact. I did not express an opinion. Thanks for your "insightful" comment LOL.

on Jun 06, 2010

You're an idot... it was obviously a cut and paste from the UCMJ article in referance to another posters question...you know, concerning the laws at the "job". It's not my opinion it is a fact. I did not express an opinion.

I know.  I'm trying to figure this out:  'Sodomy' is generally defined as digital, oral, or anal sex (amongst other bedroom behavior that---in more victorian eras was viewed as 'unnatural'.)

 

The text of the UCMJ includes the statement: 

Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex

Now---pay attention---this is going to be some logic.  I'm going to go nice and slow: 

So if: 

-'Sodomy' is defined as anal, digital, or oral sex

-And the UCMJ says that sodomy between men and women is illegal

-That would mean that straight soldiers can't have oral, anal, or digital sex with their partners, wives, whatever. 

 

So again, back to the question:  are you saying that even straight folks in the military have to have boring sex lives?  If I'm misinterpreting this, how does the UCMJ define sodomy between a man and a woman? 

 

 

on Jun 06, 2010

So again, back to the question: are you saying that even straight folks in the military have to have boring sex lives? If I'm misinterpreting this, how does the UCMJ define sodomy between a man and a woman?

You're asking me,  who is not an author of the UCMJ in any shape or form, a question about why an article is written the way it is? And maybe you could tell me want George Washington was thinking when he cut down the cherry tree. Again, since you already know, I won't repeat it. Contact the Pentagon and find your answer, just tell them you'll have your HR department send a nasty letter if they don't comply. That should shake em up. It is a Federal Agency after all.

Maybe we do need to spend more on education.

on Jun 07, 2010

You're asking me, who is not an author of the UCMJ in any shape or form, a question about why an article is written the way it is?

Well based on the language of it, it would seem that if you had any carnal interactions with women during your stint in the military, that there are elements of this article that would have applied to you directly.  Or, even if you chose some sort of weird celebratory, you would certainly be aware of soldiers who it did apply to.  Something as broad as that, I would think would have a very strong effect on servicemen. 

It's interesting that there apparently wasn't any effort to inform you of how that particular portion of the bill is interpreted.  It's almost as though.....the rule remains a little blue. 

 

 

on Jun 07, 2010

Well based on the language of it, it would seem that if you had any carnal interactions with women during your stint in the military, that there are elements of this article that would have applied to you directly. Or, even if you chose some sort of weird celebratory, you would certainly be aware of soldiers who it did apply to. Something as broad as that, I would think would have a very strong effect on servicemen.

It's interesting that there apparently wasn't any effort to inform you of how that particular portion of the bill is interpreted. It's almost as though.....the rule remains a little blue.

That's your take. I've heard of it being applied in two rape cases with men as the victims. I know it was applied in at least two cases dealing with women as the victim. I also have knowledge of one case were the attacker was female.

on Jun 08, 2010

've heard of it being applied in two rape cases with men as the victims. I know it was applied in at least two cases dealing with women as the victim. I also have knowledge of one case were the attacker was female.

 

so this sodomy law applies primarily to issues of sexual assault? 

on Jun 08, 2010

Dan posts:
But for you, you seem to see this sexual potential in these happenstance interactions. It's irrational and very, very strange.

Lula posts:

Ah no. Homosexual "happenstance interactions" are reality, DAN. Homosexuals do their thing and if they are allowed to serve openly, they will be doing their thing even more and most assuredly the Pentagon numbers will go up.

Dan posts:

Yes. And yes. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Agree or not, believe it or not, homosexuality is patently a destructive sexual behavior whether it’s consensual or not. The reason why is the body parts don’t fit and the only life that comes of  penal-anal sex  is bacteriological. Disease is born and 300,000 males have died of AIDS since 1983. Are you so immersed in moral relativism that you think there is nothing wrong with that Dan?

Last year the Department of Defense reported that male on male assault was up 7 percent. Gotta ask….Is there nothing wrong with that Dan?

Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis (USA-Ret.) was part of the military group that helped craft the 1993 law known as Section 654, Title 10. The law states that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. Maginnis considers the seven-percent figure in male-on-male sexual assaults alarming.
 
"You've got to come to the conclusion that in the military, where we have a ban for that type of service and we're having a fairly significant incidence of assault that's associated with that type of activity, then you actually may have a worse problem than you think," he suggests.
 
Maginnis argues that the DoD report is not going to help those in the Pentagon who are supporting President Obama's call to lift the ban. "They may dismiss it as just an aberration or [say] this is not indicative of gay behavior, but their own statistics are pretty self-evident," he says. "Seven percent is not something to dismiss lightly. If you're going to have that much homosexual assault, that's just the tip of the iceberg."

16 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6  Last