Obama’s Gay Military

“When I joined the military it was illegal to be homosexual, then it became optional and now it’s legal. I’m getting out before Obama makes it mandatory.”

Probably an apocryphal comment by a “Gunnery Sergeant Harry Berres”

 

 

Allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military is giving a whole new meaning to unit cohesion:

U.S. soldiers deployed to Afghanistan are using Craigslist to meet and have sex with each other on bases across the war-torn country, leading to concerns about a breakdown in discipline overseas. Military commanders have forbade any service members who are not married to each other from having sex while deployed to the combat zone. As a result, each of the covert meetings is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.The vast majority of the posts on Craigslist involve male soldiers seeking sex with other men – a practice that could have resulted in the discharge of both parities from the military under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which barred gays in the armed forces.

Go here to read the rest.  Any officer or non-com who acts against this will be taking their career in their hands as it will surely be a strike against them in the eyes of the gay friendly powers that be.  Therefore most of them will turn a blind eye to this as sexual relationships rip apart units and gays form an ever more powerful lavender mafia in the military.

Then we have the growing problem of sexual assaults on male troops:

But in a debate that has focused largely on women, this fact is often overlooked: the majority of service members who are sexually assaulted each year are men.       

In its latest report on sexual assault, the Pentagon estimated that 26,000 service members experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2012, up from 19,000 in 2010. Of those cases, the Pentagon says, 53 percent involved attacks on men, mostly by other men.       

“It’s easy for some people to single out women and say: ‘There’s a small percentage of the force having this problem,’ ” said First Lt. Adam Cohen, who said he was raped by a superior officer. “No one wants to admit this problem affects everyone. Both genders, of all ranks. It’s a cultural problem.”       

Though women, who represent about 15 percent of the force, are significantly more likely to be sexually assaulted in the military than men, experts say assaults against men have been vastly underreported. For that reason, the majority of formal complaints of military sexual assault have been filed by women, even though the majority of victims are thought to be men.

 

When our military suffers a devastating loss in a future war, I guess we take consolation in the fact that while we may no longer have an effective military, we certainly have the gayest.

 

39 Responses to Obama’s Gay Military

  • But remember, the only POSSIBLE reason for objecting to Gays in the military is rank bigotry.

  • Facilis est descensus Averni. Virgil

    Das dicke ende commt nach.

  • Kipling: “An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool – you bet that Tommy sees!”

  • When I was born, homosexuality was illegal in my state, then in the 1980s it became legal. It still has not become mandatory. In fact some of my conservative friends (falsely) insist they never supported the laws against homosexuality.I have a better memory than they do.

  • I bet your state has already seen lawsuits by homosexuals Kurt against people who “discriminate” against them, a la the photographers who did not want to take pictures of a gay “wedding”.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=146108976

    If you live in California you are witnessing the schools being used for homosexual indoctrination.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/07/06/california-bill-that-mandates-public-schools-teach-gay-history-goes-to-governor/

    Ultimately of course they will attempt to bend their Church to their will. This has nothing to do with civil rights, and everything to do with compelling people to accept, as perfectly normal and right, homosexual sex. If the military and the Church suffer in the process, so much the better as far as most homosexual activists are concerned.

  • We’ve seen this movie before, and it’s called “Sparta”.

    And it goes on until it stops because there are no more Spartans left who are willing to have little Spartans.

    And the Helots were never happy about Sparta.

  • But of course, remember that “internal” DOJ document “LGBT Inclusion at Work: The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Managers” warned employees:

    “DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”

    Basically, government employees can’t be silent, they have to verbally affirm.

    I watched the AP video, and it was sad to see those young men trying to defend their beliefs… and the officer going on about how “nobody is trying to tell you what to believe.” So in other words: sure you can believe in traditional marriage; you just can’t talk about it.

    You won’t be asked if you have these beliefs, you must not tell anyone you have these beliefs, and furthermore, don’t even act like you have these beliefs or your career in the military is over. Smile when you say that, mister.

  • Are the US soldiers being targeted by the Afghans because the Gay Brigade is on their land?

  • The Taliban are attacking US forces in Afghanistan because they despise anyone who is not Taliban as the people of Afghanistan will find out once again once we leave. The promotion of homosexuality fostered on the US military by the Obama administration lends credence to jihadi arguments that the West is decadent, as well as adding sexual conflicts to the long list of factors that commanders of US combat units have to worry about.

  • “DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”

    Let’s all join in a rousing sing-along!

    Born Gay

    Born gay, as gay as the wind blows
    As gay as the grass grows
    Born gay to follow your heart

    Live gay and beauty surrounds you
    The world still astounds you
    Each time you look at a star

    Stay gay where no walls divide you
    You’re gay as the roaring tide
    So there’s no need to hide

    Born gay and life is worth living
    But only worth living
    ‘Cause you’re born gay

    Apologies to Elsa, the heterosexual lioness.

    (BARF)

  • Lady Gaga got nothin’ on T.

  • But seriously, “This has nothing to do with civil rights, and everything to do with compelling people to accept, as perfectly normal and right, homosexual sex.” Which is in itself only a step towards the ultimate goal of eliminating the Church, and God, from the minds of men. And we all know who is behind that effort.

  • bet your state has already seen lawsuits by homosexuals Kurt against people who “discriminate” against them,

    Yes. There was a restaurant that refused to serve gays. Or maybe it was Blacks….one or othe other; I can look it up if you want.

  • “There was a restaurant that refused to serve gays. Or maybe it was Blacks….one or othe other; I can look it up if you want.”

    Confusing a sin with a race isn’t clever Kurt, merely predictable.

  • It was better when it was “”the love that dare not speak its name”. Now it won’t shut up.

  • Confusing a sin with a race isn’t clever Kurt, merely predictable

    Capitalism is dependent upon business doing commerce with sinners.

  • Actually no Kurt. For example I am not mandated to defend abortion clinic owners as an attorney. Doctors are not mandated to offer sexual predators abortions for their victims. Some hotels have routinely refused to rent to unmarried couples. Traditionally vendors and vendees in the marketplace had complete liberty to choose who they would deal with. The exception to this general rule was made for blacks to avoid the effects of Jin Crow laws and customs. The problem was so great that it was proper that an exception be made to the general rule of liberty of contract. The problem comes in when a sin is confused with a civil rights cause and the example of what was done in the sixties is used as an excuse to bludgeon people into acceptance of treating homosexuality as acceptable conduct. That is why small scale bed and breakfastsm photoshops and florists have been victims of such lawsuits by bullies intent on causing every knee to bend to the “love that dare not speak its name”, now known as “the love that will not stop screeching”.

  • The are not the victim of lawsuit by bullies, they are the lawbreakers who have violated the non-discrimination laws that a democratic civil society has set for those engaging in public commerce.

  • Shorter version Kurt is that you are all in favor of a mom and pop photo studio being told by the State that they must take pictures of a gay “marriage” in spite of the fact that there are plenty of other photo studios that could accommodate them. That is the epitome of being a bully: forcing other people to compromise their beliefs because you have the power to compel them. When the gays seek to compel the Church to perform gay weddings, a movement already afoot in Britain, we know whose side you will be on.

  • Kurt – assuming you are employed, your new clients are the Westboro Baptist Church, and they are going to very publicly advertise that fact. Because of this, and because you are fair, open-minded and non-discriminatory, the KKK, Aryan Nations, John Birch Society and the Scientologists all soon start banging on your door. Your other clients, not wishing to be associated with these groups, leave you.

    Do you accept?

  • Do you accept?I am employed and I do accept. My other clients, as you term them, perfectly understand the justice in this.

  • Don,

    If you can bring yourself to say that the State can tell a business it cannot refuse commerce to people like Blacks and Jews that they might claim a moral objection to serving because you and I don’t agree with their stated religious objection; and, if you can bring yourself to say that you don’t believe that in general a business can refuse service to gay people but only those businesses that are mom and pop rather than a large corportion and which provide a service easily available elsewhere, I can come and meet you in the middle too.

    I have no problem with a small business exemption (as exists in all federal civil rights laws including the proposed gay rights ENDA) so long as the business with the moral objection clearly states to its potential customers their objections. Maybe a “Gays and lesbians not served” sign in the store window.

  • “I have no problem with a small business exemption (as exists in all federal civil rights laws including the proposed gay rights ENDA) so long as the business with the moral objection clearly states to its potential customers their objections.”

    Big of you Kurt, since you obviously hold people who have moral objections to homosexuality in complete contempt. The Catholic Church in Illinois has been forced out of doing adoptions since the State has required that their must be no discrimination in regard to adoption and that restricting parents to a mom and dad is discrimination. We live in morally insane times and you are cheering on the powers that are beginning to persecute the Church you are supposedly a member of. However, the Church will endure and ultimately conquer as she has throughout her history. Enjoy your moment in the sun. It will doubtless be brief.

  • Big of you Kurt, since you obviously hold people who have moral objections to homosexuality in complete contempt. The Catholic Church… The Catholic Chuch does not teach its members that it is a sin to do commerce with people who are sinners. In fact, save a spending spree by the Blessed Mother during her next apparation, there is no one else to do commerce with.

    But thank you for clarifying your agenda is not for mom and pop businesses but the right (if not the moral obligation) of every corporation in this country to refuse business to gay people.

  • How you got that from what I wrote Kurt I will leave to you to explain. However, I will assume, since you do not deny it, that you have absolutely no problem with the Church being coerced on behalf of “rights” for homosexuals.

  • The contortions Patriotic Associationers twist into in their advocacy on behalf of the well-heeled gay rights push is fascinating. The fact it devolves into unexamined cliches, bad analogies and howls of “Hatey Hatey Haterpants!” at all who fail to kneel before Caesar (the state-corporate capitalist establishment) ages badly, however.

  • you have absolutely no problem with the Church being coerced on behalf of “rights” for homosexuals.

    Maybe we have both misunderstood each other and are actually in mutual agreement.

    I have no problem with corporations engaged in commece being prohibited from refusing service to gay people. I believe regarding the status of gay people, the Church should have absolute legal freedom in her internal life (*) and, when collaborating with others, freedom in doing whatever is mutually agreeable to the parties.

    * While unlike with businesses, I believe the Church should have this freedom, my own parish happlily engages in commerce with gay people at the parish festival and bazzar. This is done with the full knowledge and approve of the Archbishop.

  • My default position Kurt is one of complete freedom in the market place as a general rule. I have represented homosexuals in legal matters, and I helped direct a campaign to save the job of an individual who is probably a homosexual but who also happens to be a very nice guy. Most people have no problem engaging in commerce with anyone who can plunk down the green, but there are limits. For example I will not represent people who I know have sold drugs to kids or who are guilty of rape. That is a line which I have drawn. If I were a caterer or a photographer, I would not render my services to a gay “marriage”. In the days of Jim Crow it was necessary to limit liberty of the market place because blacks in parts of the country were simply shut out of the market. No such situation exists in regard to homosexuals, but activists wish to pretend that such an emergency exists. It doesn’t and such stratagems are all about getting a public seal of approval.

    By the way, if you leave a comment in this thread it may stay in moderation for a while, simply because I am going on vacation today for a week, and my internet access will often be minimal where I am going with my family.

  • My grandchildren sign MICKEY MOUSE on the supermarket receipt when I send them to charge out. They are not me and the card is not in their name but they are doing my bidding. No individual can force a person to sign his name. Not ever. A marriage certificate without the name of the witness for the Church and God is useless, so is a contract for catering, or renting a hall. If the church or facility manager refuses to sign his name to a contract, there is no contract and no body can force a person to sign his name to a contract, not God (God will never violate a person’s free will and informed consent), not man. (Man includes those in government, the state) ask Saint Thomas More.

  • “Capitalism is dependent upon business doing commerce with sinners. ” Marriage is the consummation of the marital act. One half of consummation is no consummation. This is why our economy is only half of what it ought to be. Fifty cents on a dollar is equal to one half of a consummated marriage in gay behavior.

  • “If you live in California you are witnessing the schools being used for homosexual indoctrination”. “In loco parentis”, the teachers can only teach what the parents want them to teach. Minor children, as captive audience, in public school and without informed sexual consent to give, are being propagandized by the state in fallacy. Their innocence and virginity are held in trust for them by God, their parents and then and only then by the state. No parent may be locked out of their child’s classroom by the state or by the school. Schools do not have authentic authority to indoctrinate any minor child without the parents of the child’s given written permission. Sending a child to public school does not legalize sexual indoctrination.

  • My default position Kurt is one of complete freedom in the market place as a general rule….In the days of Jim Crow it was necessary to limit liberty of the market place because blacks in parts of the country were simply shut out of the market.

    I understand that. It is a free market argument, not a religious liberty argument. I think a large number of conservatives after the passage of the 1965 Civil Rights Act have come to look back and see that the race discrimination part of the 1965 Act was needed and should not be repealed. For me, while limited, it is a welcome change from the views advanced by Goldwater, W.F. Buckley, etc in 1965.

    The authors of the 1965 Act obviously acted from a different position. Their inclusion of religion and sex (and later extensions to disability) show that it was not based on just Jim Crow but as an issue of human dignity.

    However, to show the common sense of us liberals, the federal law (and its proposed extension to gay people) does include limitations that exempt employers of less than 15 people or housing providers of less than four units. It is not that we liberals feel discrimination is not wrong in these situations it is just that we think the reach of the federal government should be limited (a hat tip but not full embrace of maybe your views).

    For states, municipalities or professional licensing commissions that have enacted rules that go beyond the federal law I think it is worthwhile that as a compromise, rather than covering these small businesses or housing providers by non-discrimination rules instead in order to avoid hurt feelings, they should be required to state up front “this business does not serve homosexuals” or “this house not for sale to homosexuals.”

    It seems a fair compromise.

  • “I think a large number of conservatives after the passage of the 1965 Civil Rights Act have come to look back and see that the race discrimination part of the 1965 Act was needed and should not be repealed. ”

    Which may be why the (Goldwater, Buckley et al.) Republicans advanced the Civil Rights Act of 1957 that was gutted so heavily by then-Senator Lyndon Johnson as well as Robert Byrd, William Fulbright and a few other white Southern extremists, and the Civil Rights Bill of 1960, against which Johnson led a 43-hour filibuster. More Congressional Republicans (apx. 75%) than Democrats (just over 50%) voted for Johnson’s own 1964 legislation.

    There’s a 1964 quote from LBJ that, in the interest of decorum, can’t be reproduced here about how a “certain demographic” would be voting Democrat for the next 200 years because of his Civil Rights legislation. The epithet he used for that demographic speaks volumes about his views on “human dignity.”

    It was all about politics and nothing more, just as anything Liberal is. I would like – honestly, really – to know of a single Liberal effort that does not involve handing power to a bureaucrat, let alone an effort that involves taking power away from one. Not that the recent NeoCon cabal hasn’t mimicked that; that’s not the point, so no “Bush did it too.” Additional idiots do not make the room smarter.

    Name one Liberal undertaking that depends upon trusting the Common Man, individually and with moral intent, to act in a fashion through which his own self-interest is abetted by his commitment to a better family, community and nation. Even if that’s possible, describe one that’s done without some Administration, Commission or Bureau watching over his shoulder . . . at taxpayer expense, of course.

    And what if the shop keeper at 126th & Douglass in Harlem decides he’s going to sell only to his neighbors, say, in a 10-block radius? He wants no part of anybody who doesn’t share his cultural outlook, and will refuse service to anybody who isn’t from his immediate area. Does he have that right? Is he the owner of his own choice of association? Or are “some animals more equal than others?”

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .