By Here is an e-mail I received that provides yet another opinion on the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell changes:
I was skeptical of DADT also. But, it worked because the objective was to permit individuals to serve. Not once did I ask a Marine if he or she was a homosexual or a heterosexual. It was not an issue for me, and the Marines with whom I served never made it an issue. Unlike DADT, the current agenda in not about individual service. It is a political agenda focused on total integration and acceptance not of individuals but of the homosexual lifestyle. I think ending DADT suddenly is a major distraction to combat readiness and good order and discipline. Special interest groups whose primary intent is fostering total acceptance not only of homosexuals but the homosexual lifestyle are using the Armed Forces as a judicial lab rat. I am suspect of any person who puts any personal issue above devotion to duty and accomplishment of mission. Are we Marines 24/7? What is more important one’s sexuality, one’s religion, one political party, or the imperatives of duty? On a practical level: I am not sure what serving “openly” as a homosexual means. I would like to see a definition. Is all homosexual conduct permitted such as, cross dressing and going to the PX and having homosexual parades be permitted on military parade fields, downtown Salt Lake City and aircraft carriers? What conduct is not permitted? From a command and leadership perspective these questions need to be addressed, and the Congress needs to make the necessary adjustments to the UCMJ. When someone joins the Armed Forces must he/she declare their sexuality?…i.e. male or female; homo/hetro.
I want to know how Federal hate speech laws apply to the Armed Forces. For example, If a non-homosexual Marine calls a homosexual Marine a “faggot” is that hate speech? Will company commanders be required to take judicial action? If no judicial action is taken, will commanders be subject to civil or criminal suit by various homosexual political groups and their elected sponsors. Will a career Marine’s personal opinion on homosexuality become an impediment to promotion or assignment to key billets?Specifically, is the belief that homosexuality is a choice and homosexual acts are compatible with military service? Do the Senate and the House Armed Services committees intend to demand sexuality statistics to make certain that homosexuals are being promoted at the same rate as non-homosexuals? Will homosexuals be promoted at a faster rate to “compensate” for previous years of discrimination? Since same sex marriage is not authorized by Federal Law, is a married homoexual from Mass. authorized to enlist? Does the spouse of a married homosexual rate a dependent’s ID card? Will “partners” of homosexuals be given dependent status?
If yes, what is the definition of a “partner”, one night stand, one year relationship. How often may a homosexual change partners and the partner still rate dependent benefits? Will partners of homosexuals be assigned to on-base housing? Do former “partners” of active duty homosexuals retain dependent benefits (like a divorced spouse when divorce is not a legal option? Will homosexual Marines be permitted to date each other? Live with each other as “partners” in the BOQ/BEQ”? How does this affect fraternization regulations? Will homosexuals be deployed to countries where there is no SOFA in place in which homosexuality is a crime? If no, who picks up the slack? Are there any assignments to which homosexuals must be or may not be assigned? For example, may an elected official demand a homosexual officer as a military aide? Will homosexuals who become HIV positive still be discharged? Is being HIV positive now a “service-connected” injury which rates disability? These are just the tip of the ice berg. I have no doubt that right now there are active duty colonels who are just now discovering their real sexuality and can’t wait to be the FIRST OPENLY HOMOSEXUAL GENERAL.
To sum it up, it is approaching FUBAR status!! I fear for the future of our Corps.Marty
Walker M. Lazar
Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps, Retired
I think a lot of people show too much criticism in regards to gays integrating within the ranks. This part is going to go much easier then people realize in my opinion simply because there are not many gays in the military to begin with and the ones that are gay are not about to go around make that the issue that identifies them. However, the Colonel reiterates some of the same concerns I have been making which is the special treatment and further political goals the militant gay activists want to use the military to pursue. This is where it is going to get ugly and the military does not like being involved in domestic political spats and it looks like this is exactly what the military is being dragged into.
Any bets on how long it will be before Dan Choi is chaining himself in uniform again to the White House fence claiming the military is discriminating against gays because of the Defense of Marriage Act?
10:07 pm on December 23rd, 2010 1
Dan Choi is a disgrace to Koreans everywhere.
10:18 pm on December 23rd, 2010 2
"Special interest groups whose primary intent is fostering total acceptance not only of homosexuals but the homosexual lifestyle are using the Armed Forces as a judicial lab rat."
I'm curious about the 'homosexual lifestyle'. Two stereotypes for gays are having excellent fashion sense and being slim and fit. The army may never look better!
I don't know the specific restrictions on the military or on protesting near the White House, but gays, in the military or not, have a right to make protests to gain equal rights.
11:03 pm on December 23rd, 2010 3
Maybe the gays and their powerful lobbyists will be able to kill the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act (USFSPA)!
…and maybe all those gay senators and preachers will finally be able to come out of the closet.
11:41 pm on December 23rd, 2010 4
@#2-no one in the military has the right to make any kind of protest in uniform, which just by itself, makes Dan Choi in the wrong.
12:58 am on December 24th, 2010 5
First, everybody currently serving on Active Duty should be allowed the chance for an early (honorable) discharge with full benefits due to breach of contract.
When they joined, they didn't lie about who or what they are, and they were all told (regardless of branch), that in military service they have a commitment to God, Honor and Country. Now, with DADT gone, the initial training has to be changed to just plain Honor and Country, as God is now gone from what the military stands for.
1:19 am on December 24th, 2010 6
#5
Huh? I must have missed that part. I don't recall pledging a commitment to any god when I joined the military.
I only recall an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the U.S, and obey the orders of those appointed over me.
I still have one of my original dog tags from basic training and it plainly says "NONE" in the space for religious preference.
1:45 am on December 24th, 2010 7
Did this colonel just tie HIV to homosexuality? Really? And how exactly is this a new issue? What happens to current service members who contract HIV?
Would calling a homosexual servicemember "faggot" be considered hate speech? You tell me. Is calling a black servicemember "nigger" hate speech?
Gay pride parades? Since when are parades in general authorized?
Oh no! Gay generals! The horror!
I'm sorry, it's hard to see this letter as motivated by something other than homophobia.
2:01 am on December 24th, 2010 8
Hey Bill, did God ask you to go join the army to kill people too? Go educate yourself, people aren't forced to pledge allegiance to your christian god when joining the army. There are people from all types of religions in the army.
2:03 am on December 24th, 2010 9
Bill #5, Watched, "A Few Good Men", too many times.
"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!"
2:58 am on December 24th, 2010 10
…a couple thoughts.
The AIDS rate among open homosexuals is much higher than closeted ones. Even if every straight guy who caught HIV through high risk sex or IV drug use was actually a closeted homosexual, it wouldn't come close to the rate among open homosexuals.
Further, closeted homosexuals in the military are not as promiscuous as open ones will be. That is not speculation. That reflects the number of partners gay men have… and the number of partners straight men would have if women were as quick to get in the sack as men.
Is "faggot" hate speech? Is "nigger" hate speech?
Is "cracker" hate speech? Will "breeder" be hate speech? Will there be different standards for hate speech which cause further resentment and division?
It is likely that encouraging people who.define themselves as gay rather than defining themselves as soldiers to serve in the military will bring more problems than benefits… and the careers of some professional soldiers will be ended along the way.
There will be a time in the coming decades where homosexuality will not be an issue any more than hair color… and that will be the time for open homosexuals to be welcome in the military.
3:06 am on December 24th, 2010 11
I thought it was "DUTY, honor, country". I also didn't swear to any deities. NO PREF on the dogtags, no one told me about the NONE option. We did have a guy with SATANIC on his dogtags, he didn't finish basic. I'm certainly no fan of the homos but I think I'd prefer them to the religious.
4:02 am on December 24th, 2010 12
GI Korea, I agree with your Colonel's Letter. I'm sure that is no surprise.
As a side thought:
I find the anti-God crowd amusing in an infantile manner. As there are many "Gods" represented by many religions.
But please, I don't want that to stop their anti-God "hate speech". I enjoy listening to those that demand acceptance of the Faggie types but fail to do the same for those that believe just as strongly in a God.
Hippocrates all. Allah be praised and God be with you. Buddha is wiser still.
MERRY CHRISTMAS !!!
Happy Birthday to Jesus.
4:41 am on December 24th, 2010 13
The letter makes you start to think about other issues that don't seem to have been considered… like…
What happens if a gay soldier is stationed in a country that recognizes gay marriage and get's married to a same-sex partner? Is the US government going to have to recognize their marriage? Are all gays that want to claim a same-sex partner as their "spouse" or that want to marry going to have to change their "Home of Record" to a state that recognizes gay marriage? As with so many bills our government passes, it's clear that this on also has not been "thought out" to the extreme, which has to be done for any bill to actually work.
4:48 am on December 24th, 2010 14
The 'tards who equate criticism of blind belief ('faith') with 'hate speech' need to take a class in logic. These people would have no problem accepting that things fall down, not up, and that the Easter Bunny is a fantasy for children, but when it comes to those 'big questions' they can't think anymore and act like infants who just had their binkys taken away…lots of crying and whining about how their fantasy has to be respected and use of negative stereotypes for those who question it. For once, I'd like to see one of the believers tell me why their personal fantasy is any more legitimate than mine, the cult of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, without resorting to circular logic and references to their 'holy' tomes, or to stories about how some unwashed nut in a desert heard voices. It can't be done, because it's all bullshit.
4:57 am on December 24th, 2010 15
Mostly agree with this letter, he makes the same points that many others have made. It isn't disagreeing with repeal of DADT he is saying to do it slowly and look at the issue from all sides. To do it with a service orientated goal instead of a leftist political one. The Military should never be used as a domestic political tool, its purpose is to defend our nation and look after our nations interests not as a statement for one side or the other.
On the HIV + Homosexual issue, I'll clear this up and silence the leftists. There is a very real biological reason that HIV is higher risk amongst humans with a male on male preference. Male ejaculate only contains 5% sperm, the other 95% is a plasma full of hormones and fluid to facilitate bonding. The soft tissue membranes inside the vagina is particularly permeable to this plasma, the hormones cross through the membrane into the blood system of the receiving partner. The soft tissue inside the anus also is very permeable and the plasma can cross over to the blood stream there. HIV use's this natural weakness if our defense system to spread itself via the ejaculate plasma. The female lacks the ability to create ejaculate plasma, as least to the same functional level a male has. The male penis also lacks the soft easy permeable membranes that are present in the anus and female vagina. It is a whole order of magnitude more difficult for a male to contract HIV from a female then from another male.
What this all does is create distinct desperate categories for rate of infection. Highest are humans who participate in male on male sex as both partners are capable of easily infecting the other. Next are humans who participate in male on female sex, the male is capable of easily infecting the female but the female has a low chance of infecting the male. And the lowest category are humans who participate in female on female sex, neither partner is capable of easily infecting the other. It has nothing to do with "homosexual lifestyle" or other BS, its just the way HIV works.
Male on Male sex = highest possible rate of infection
Male on Female sex = low rate of infection
Female on Female sex = almost zero rate of infection
4:59 am on December 24th, 2010 16
#13,
Well, Americans probably have no business being in those countries anyways.
5:17 am on December 24th, 2010 17
#16… but we're in almost EVERY country! lol
We better hurry up and move the NATO HQ; it's in a country that recognizes gay marriage. Here's a list of countries that recognize gay marriage: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden.
And we better start moving any military units we have in CT, DC, IA, MA, NH, VT.
#14: As a Christian I contend you can believe in whatever you want. It's not my problem if you reject what we believe.
5:18 am on December 24th, 2010 18
The repeal of DADT is a good thing in only the perspective of civil rights. Sexuality, gay or straight should be considered a private manner in every single aspect.
Dont ask dont tell was an imperfect system of privatizing sexuality in an extreme sort of way.
Two gay men having sex in their combat unit will ruin cohesion, and in one sense it is unfair for the other straight soldiers who dont get to have sex. DADT tried to address that problem with unit cohesion.
I dont know the specifics, but hopefully open integration of gays in the military will be executed smartly and in an orderly way.
6:48 am on December 24th, 2010 19
#14 And a child reveals itself. Let me guess, you're a Liberal also.
Just as a child does, you open up with name calling.
There is nothing wrong with "blind faith". I had blind faith in my fellow soldiers.
As for my "fantasies"…usually a B-cup, butt you can bounce a quarter off of, a set of DSLs, and silky black hair.
Almost forgot, and speak a language I don't understand and she knows it! 
6:57 am on December 24th, 2010 20
14, I don't gave a rats asss if you respect ANY RELIGION. Since it isn't yours. But you should respect People who have blind faith just as much as you respect people who don't.
Whatever happened to that (tolerance) of those different than you, that the Liberals always CRY about?
7:52 am on December 24th, 2010 21
After reading the comments here, I am inclined to provoke a BH Liberal at today's Christmas dinner party, just because whatever he says will be wrong
…#19 and #20 Spot on!
31 years in the Army and I never put a Gay out…they put themselves out….by choice…
8:55 am on December 24th, 2010 22
Someotherguy 15, that was a good comment, with one tiny error. Where you said 'desperate' you meant 'disparate'.
10:51 am on December 24th, 2010 23
As some have predicted, this repeal will lead to many other intended and unintended consequences, largely distracting and deleterious to the efficiency and effectiveness of the armed forces, and the overall health and welfare of the United States. This prospective endorsement and the coming promotion of an abnormal, unethical lifestyle will wreak havoc in the military as well as in the military family and support communities. It will spawn the pursuit of equal opportunity and treatment of other perversions of the norm, the bi-sexuals, transgenders, polygamists, sheep and dog lovers, the man-boys – why should any of them be denied their so-called rights by any bigots, including homosexual bigots? How does the logic train run on that one, eh? How can anyone draw a line or delimit what is OK, or what is acceptable?
10:52 am on December 24th, 2010 24
Respect this, respect that.
Bullshit. Respect is earned.
12:09 pm on December 24th, 2010 25
#5 You were never in the military and everyone can tell.
#14 Respect and tolerance for everyone except Christians? Not very positive.
#18 It's all being done for political reasons.
#23 We all know that what you posted is true.
12:12 pm on December 24th, 2010 26
If we could just get every other Army on earth to overwhelmingly embrace gay culture, then there'd be no war. All of the generals would be too busy tailoring their uniforms to fit like sausage skins, working on color coordination of armored vehicle camouflage patterns, or trying to do march music adaptations of Judy Garland tunes to even think about fighting.
Except for GEN Gaylord's DIV; they would be very very disciplined.
12:40 pm on December 24th, 2010 27
All of the generals would be too busy tailoring their uniforms to fit like sausage skins, working on color coordination of armored vehicle camouflage patterns…
#26 LIKE THIS?
2:23 pm on December 24th, 2010 28
@22,
Actually I meant to type in "separate" but the spelling auto-correct put it in as "desperate". But yes people tend to get wrapped up in name calling and jumping to conclusions without looking at the hard facts of life first. Tacked onto this is the medical fields desire not to let certain bits of biological information out due it to conflicting with their message about safe sex. Ejaculate plasma if packed full of all sorts of "feel good" hormones designed to enter into the female blood stream through the vaginal walls and basically drug her into feeling good. They include but are not limited to, testosterone, luteinising hormone, oestrogen, follicle-stimulating hormone, prolactin and several different prostaglandins. Their effect is to give a well-being / positive reward feeling to the female in response to copulation, the secondary effect is that some of those hormones can trick the female reproduction system into accelerating the ovulation period by a few days. Using a condom prevents these hormones from reaching the females blood stream and produces less satisfying sex, this isn't a subjective feeling its a very real biological one. Also a male is at a significantly less risk of contracting HIV from a female then from another male, again due to very real biological reasons. You'll never see a medical professional openly mention these things, instead they'll always refer to them in purely medical terms and as an abstract.
The more you know.
6:00 pm on December 24th, 2010 29
Someotherguy 28, your spellcheck is smarter than I thought. It saw that 'distinct separate' is redundant. But then it guessed wrong. I don't use a spellcheck, so my errors go right out there for everybody to see.
Anyhow, back to your point: unprotected anal intercourse is very unsafe sex, especially for the recipient.
7:22 pm on December 24th, 2010 30
"Ejaculate plasma if packed full of all sorts of “feel good” hormones"…"Using a condom prevents these hormones from reaching the females blood stream and produces less satisfying sex"
Yes…
…spoken like a man who just doesn't spend enough time with coke whoores.
12:22 am on December 25th, 2010 31
I'm amused by the fact that the Colonel considers 'cross-dressing' to be part of the 'gay lifestyle'. This guy legitimately believes that gay soldiers will be putting on slinky dresses and dancing around their base.
By the way, most cross-dressers are straight. Just so you know.
100 years from now, kids will look back on letters like this in history textbooks and laugh in shock at how ignorant and hateful and hilarious these people are. Everyone needs to STFU and chill the eff out about gay people already. Get over it!
12:54 am on December 25th, 2010 32
I always wonder why the Liberal answer is always STFU AND CHILL OUT.
I guess the Fags just can't handle a view that doesn't agree with theirs.
"oh please…don't talk about us", they CRY.
Oh and MOST people know cross-dressers are straight. Just so YOU know.
Nothing hateful about what he said, but NICE TRY.
Question: Do you always describe things that YOU find hateful as also hilarious? Hateful and hilarious go hand in hand for YOU?
Not even Gays are as mixed up as you are.
But it was amusing to her what a 15 yo thinks about this.
1:42 am on December 25th, 2010 33
Yes, you're right. The Liberal answer is ALWAYS stfu and chill out. Liberals never feel strongly about anything. Rape and murder? STFU, who cares. Genocide? Chill out, no biggie. Do you not recognize that making a caricature of your opponent only serves to lessen your own credibility?
If most people know cross-dressers are straight, then why does the colonel bring it up in a letter addressing the 'gay' lifestyle?
And if you really don't think that that letter (and your response) are hateful, then please justify your use of the word 'fag'. Nobody in their right mind would argue that that's a tone-neutral word.
I think it's hilarious – along with being kind of pathetic/sad – when mean old people shake their canes at young folk and progressives. These people didn't grow up with gay friends (or video games, or rock 'n' roll) and so they've created this demon-filled worldview wherein gay people frolic around trying to have buttsex with everything that moves. Admit it, when you read old letters to the editor about how Elvis's hips are really the devil in disguise, you chuckle.
My question to you is – honestly, WHY do you care whether or not a man kisses another man or a woman holds hands with another woman in his/her free-time? Have you ever stopped to consider why it pisses you off so much? If it's religious in nature, do you feel the same way about adulterers or Jews? Because they're sinning just as much (if not moreso) according to conservative Christian values.
In the end, it really doesn't matter what you or I or Colonel "Slippery SLOOOOPE" Lazar think. Because never in the history of our country has a vocal minority demanded rights that they did not receive. And eventually all you crotchety old farts will die off and the new generations won't give a rat's ass about other people's sexual preferences.
3:15 am on December 25th, 2010 34
Wonderful Christmas day bomb Tiffani W., Exquisitely timed to please those of your ilk! Yes, sodomy is still a sin, no matter what the pro-homosexual lobby says or what is written on increasingly worthless government paperwork, as is adultery, murder, etc. You are urinating vinegar in your comments, so judgmental, sharp and angry, perhaps even bitter over some slight you've received. Beware of the hate and condescension you feel and express, it's unhealthy. And God will be the judge of all, past, present and future, so you don't have to kill off all the older people and feel so morally superior – beware! He will be YOUR judge too.
3:32 am on December 25th, 2010 35
Tiffani W,
That was a little grouchy… but I pretty much agree with you.
…except that there is no question in the scientific and gay communities that gay men DO go "around trying to have buttsex with everything that moves"…
…although they may not all frolic.
If it makes you feel any better, straight men would pretty much go around and have sex, butt or otherwise, if they could find female partners with the same sex drive, willingness and standards, they have. And they would likely frolic if that's what it took to score.
While there are those who hate homosexuals and find their lifestyle to be disgusting or counter to their religion, there are many more who really don't care what homosexuals do on their own time…
…but they rightfully don't want gayness shoved in their faces and they don't want the wartime military to be the place for the first big gay social experiment to take place…
…especially as the second and third level consequences have not been planned for… or thought out… or even recognized… as the end of DADT has come about to satisfy an agenda dreamed up by people who have little understanding of the military… or care to have any understanding of the military… or even like the military.
This colonel's misunderstanding of the difference between cross dressers, transsexuals and homosexuals is just a single small issue in the MASSIVE culture shift the end of DADT is trying to force upon the military.
This MIGHT be something to do in a peace-time military of a few years from now… but it is only going to breed distraction and resentment at this time.
In the end, the homosexuals in the military now define themselves as soldiers (sailors, airmen and marines) rather than homosexuals.
And that is how it should be.
4:27 am on December 25th, 2010 36
Tiffany, My use of the term "fag" is designed to piss off the pro "fag" people such as yourself. It worked.
As for your lack of understanding shown in your post, this might take more time than you are worth, but Elvis and I grew up not far from each other. I love Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, AC/DC, The Doors, Alice Cooper and Pink Floyd, just to name a few.
I care very little about the rules of religion. I'm a Whore Monger of the first order.
I have had Gay friends. A nice couple. But the less manly of the two was always trying to find a way to get me to cross over. I guess that means at least one gay man found me attractive AND he had a partner at the time. Then there was the black Gay man (fag) in the army that thought I was abit desirable.
I really don't give a rats asss who does what with whom. I DO give a rats asss when you try to tell me it is normal (not) or that I should accept it as normal (not going to happen).
That should be OK with everyone. I like to tie women up and tickle them with a feather till they beg me to stop. I don't think that is normal, but I *love* to do it. I don't care if other accept it. I don't demand that others accept it. It is who I am and I just do it. I don't need the approval of those outside my group. Gays (fags for you) should have their chit together, like I do. BUT THEY DON'T. They whine and cry about being accepted. F them. Grow a pair already.
As for being Hateful, you started off that way. I like to piss "special interest" groups off. Perhaps that is a weakness of mine, but I'm not going to change. In that respect, I'm just like the Gays, ACCEPT MEEE! Like it or not.
Time to eat. PS: Gays are nothing more than Slores.
9:29 am on December 25th, 2010 37
Pops – Love the sinner, hate the sin, right? You're telling me it's not my place to judge. Take a look in the mirror. Condescending is a fair swipe, but I definitely don't hate any of you. Not even a tiny bit. I think you are ignorant and misguided, and I kind of feel sorry for you, but I think God has a plan for all of us and I hope that you follow his for you and find a place of humility and peace re: other people's decisions. I hope I find mine too.
Chickenhead – My first Christmas alone in 22 years was bound to leave me a little grouchy.
It's okay, I'm all better now. I understand your misgivings, but please be aware that what a lot of people consider to be having gayness 'shoved in their faces' is just due to ignorance/inexperience. When your straight colleague talks about his wife, holds her hand coming into the office Christmas party, invites you to their 20-year anniversary party, and gives her a peck on the lips right in front of you, do you feel like he's shoving his sexuality in his face? Or would that only be applicable if you changed the gender?
I think for most people (my father included), being uncomfortable with gay people has a lot more to do with inexperience than malice. And while I agree with you that it's difficult to predict the effects that the repeal of DADT will have on the military, I think our nation's military has endured far worse than integration scuffles. In fact, as far as integration scuffles go, I suspect it was a lot more complicated with integrating women. I'm really happy I wasn't around to see that!! I would not have been so mildly amused.
Retired GI – Trust me, I'm from rural Georgia, I heard farrrr worse than that on a daily basis. So if you want to get an emotional reaction out of me, you'll have to do a hell of a lot better than that. As it stands, using hate speech like that doesn't get most people riled up…it just makes them dismiss you as a hateful person.
Most gay people do not try to 'convert' anyone. And honestly, I already question the sanity of anyone trying to get into the pants of someone as hate-filled as you. Maybe they assumed that someone with so much ire toward gays could only be a closet case himself?
Also, slore sounds like a character in Dr. Seuss.
Anyway you're clearly just ignorant and a bit of a troll, and I have a feeling I would get along with you if we were on the same side of a disagreement, so I'm not going to put too much effort into this.
And for anyone who's wondering, I'm a pro-gun, pro-military, war hawk, religious, family-oriented, capitalist with little to no patience for people who complain about their problems and don't take care of them on their own. So dismissing me as 'just another liberal' would be a mistake on your parts ^^
11:17 am on December 25th, 2010 38
Everything is a right. I have the RIGHT to be RESPECTED…and the RIGHT to a JOB… and the RIGHT to have all YOUR MONEY….
I just ain't buyin' what they are peddlin'.
This is tyranny by an annoying minority. Sure- the President signs a law, and I have to allow and accept men in my unit to fall in love with each others' hairy anuses. Game on. But this is yet another attempt to demonize those who don't like it. And it WON'T be in the privacy of their own homes- now it will all be out in the open. How nice.
This isn't about homosexuals in the service- it's about homosexuality in the service.
12:08 pm on December 25th, 2010 39
#37 Looks like we both made a mistake then. I judged you a Liberal and you didn't understand a word I wrote.
I'm somewhat easy to get along with, so you're probably right. But you would have to understand *all* that I said and not just pick and chose.
I don't hate Gays as you STILL somehow believe. I hate special interest being force into my life. I thought my now you would have understood that, but somehow you missed it. Even after I told you I have had gay friends.
Absolutely amazing.
12:40 pm on December 25th, 2010 40
So basically what you're saying, Retired GI, is you hate having your privilege questioned. You're (presumably) a straight, white male, am I right? Our society is DESIGNED to afford every opportunity to people like you. You don't have to worry about losing your job because you have a girlfriend, do you? So when people who are marginalized by society demand the same rights and luxuries you're afforded, it looks to you like 'shoving their special interests in your face'. Because you've always had the privilege of being able to ignore it. This might be an interesting read for you: http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~hyrax/personal/files/s…
PS – "I can't be racist! I have black friends!" You've seriously never heard that argument before? It's so old that it's a *mainstream* joke. You'll have to try a little harder. And anyway, I don't give a damn about your personal feelings on homosexuality as long as you keep them out of the government.
@Vince – You do realize sex is only a very small part of gay relationships, right? Should we ban straight servicemembers from getting married because sex might be involved? And why are you so fixated on anuses? Seems to me you think about them and their hair a lot more than any gay people I know.
1:14 pm on December 25th, 2010 41
Of course, you had to toss in that little ad hominem remark. I am only describing buggery for what it is, and the practitioners and adherents of it in a likewise manner. If I was a sodomite, I wouldn't be offended, and we're celebrating diversity right now, aren't we? Hurray for bleeding rectums! OK, I'm on board with this little experiment in the decline of the West.
Bottom line (no pun intended, but what the hell!) I'm for the right to being left the hell alone.
Yes- there are certain "things" which are normal in a civilized society which isn't literally turning into free for all mayhem. Those who depart from those norms can expect to meet an appropriate level of ridicule, mockery, resistance, discrimination. I do not have to accept anyone for who he is- nor does he have to do the same for me. That said, we have a current culture which embraces everything as a damned right. I do not embrace this or several other ridiculous concepts.
A person has the right to be, and with that the right to possess property, and the right to defend the right to be and possess property.
Again- I am for the right to being left the hell alone.
You want to be a person who enjoys another man's appendage rammed into your anus (or vice versa- your free choice, sweetie)fine. Just don't expect me to accept you with open arms. I won't. I will regard you in the same way I regard those who fornicate with farm animals. It's my right, after all.
There is not now, nor has there ever been, a "right to serve". That was a Bill Clinton buzz phrase. You want to serve (it isn't a "job") you have to meet numerous discriminating standards.
But good order and discipline are pretty adjustable standards, I guess. Maybe just letting everyone do whatever the hell they want to do whenever they want to do it is the answer. But the more we make the service like a civilian job, the less of a fighting force we'll have. We will have a hell of a good welfare/federal jobs program- and much of the Army today is just that- we might as well just go for the touchdown.
1:43 am on December 26th, 2010 42
By definition, if you have black friends, you like some black people, which means you don't hate people because they are black. That was just too easy. (did you just say that being black is the same as being Gay)
It isn't.
Since you don't seem to understand that, your logic is absent. Which means you are indeed a Liberal. You have no desire to see or understand what I'm saying, which means you're a typical bored American female.
Based on the above, I do not like you. Based on that statement, I do not like white females living in the South. Based on that statement, I hate Crackers from the south, but that won't stop me from F'ing their women.
You remind me of the experience of a white friend in the army, that had a black wife. While correcting one of his black female soldiers, she tried the tired old tactic of accusing him of being a racist and a sexist. Normally a white male would be totally defenceless in the face of said accusations. After all he is white and a male, therefore he is the source of all evil in the world. If you disagree with that you're and uncle tom at least. Anyway said friend pulled out his wedding picture of his evil, racist white self with his black bride. BAM!!
His black female soldier was still a lazy piece of chit race baiter. He was still married to a very well educated black female.
But you would call him a racist, simply because he is white. Which means that you are a bored, liberal female. Which means I don't like you. So because you're a female, means you would say I hate women.
Simply amazing.
2:46 am on December 26th, 2010 43
There is no such thing as a right to serve in the US Military, all liberals get that through their heads. It is a privilege, a privilege that is extended based on needs of the force and qualifications of the individuals who volunteer as determined by the senior force commanders. As much of a cluster fck as the Military's been turning into lately there are still some things that don't change, one of them is the completely alien culture. One of the greatest culture shocks a young liberal can possibly go through is joining the US Military. The reality that sets in during BCT when you have to handle and throw a live grenade, a simple device that could easily kill you should you make a mistake, will alter your perception of the universe. And again this reality rears itself when going through your first gas chamber, in your mind you ~know~ its not lethal and can't really hurt you but your body will be screaming something completely different and your panic instinct will kick in. And its all brought home during your first live fire exercise when you and your battle buddies are now armed with real weapons loaded with live ammunition and are expected to employ those weapons to maintain fire onto a target area during combat maneuvers. Anyone screwing up can and will seriously wound or kill someone, the person next to you can trip and kill you in a split second and there is nothing you can do about it. This new reality demands each and every member of a team have complete faith and trust in the other members of the team to not get them killed. This isn't some fantasy idealistic reality, not something written about it books or being made into movies with your Hollywood hero's face painted all over the front. This is the real ugly reality of men and women who's ultimate mission isn't to die for their country but to give the enemy a chance to die for his. The US Military isn't there to look pretty, its not there to please some political ideology or make some homosexuals feel nice and happy about some sort of "achievement". Its there to kill people, service members exist to kill the enemies of the USA both foreign and domestic. Its not a game, there is no extra lives, there aren't any no-name NPC squad members that get killed off and replenished before the next "mission". Everyone has a name, a face, a family, a story, a life. And everyone must live together, work together and put aside any and all differences to make the whole stronger then the sum of its parts. Take your political ideologies and shove them where the sun don't shine, because the US Military doesn't have the luxury of a political ideology.
2:49 am on December 26th, 2010 44
Tiffini, as you said, "hate the sin, love the sinner". However, if you're going to carry out the "hate the sin" part of that oft quote statement, then you also have to hate the lifestyle that leads or or continues the sin.
3:22 am on December 26th, 2010 45
Someotherguy,
Perfectly said!
…well… almost perfectly.
"Its there to kill people, service members exist to kill the enemies of the USA both foreign and domestic."
They are not there to kill domestic enemies. That is rightfully a law enforcement role… something about Posse Comitatus.
Clean that up and publish your essay.
5:46 am on December 26th, 2010 46
Na, ChickenHead. Someotherguy had it spot on.
It is not the job of "law Enforcement" to Kill "domestic enemies". It is their job to "arrest" criminals.
Law Enforcement does what it sounds like…enforce Laws.
Only the Military is charged with the protection of the Constitution, from enemies both Foreign and Domestic.
Someotherguy is right. You (surprisingly for me) are wrong.
7:10 am on December 26th, 2010 47
Hmmm…
Come to think of it, the Oath of Enlistment certainly does say "foreign and domestic".
I never really thought about it as it just sounded so natural… but what is an example of a domestic enemy?
The FBI goes after spies and terrorists. ATF goes after bombers. The military has assisted DEA… but the targets were coming from foreign countries.
The military has helped during natural disasters… but that's not exactly an "enemy".
It might be possible to declare all gun owners to be enemies of the state or something.
Despite attempt to dilute it since the 80s, Posse Comitatus really keeps the military out of domestic affairs for the most part.
…so I have no idea what a domestic enemy might be that the military might be called upon to defend against… and the only ones I can think of would be manufactured at a point where the government would actually be the real enemy.
Anybody have an idea about this.
7:23 am on December 26th, 2010 48
My copy of the Constitution requires things like Habeas Corpus and a trial by jury to first establish that someone is a domestic enemy before we get to the killing.
9:28 am on December 26th, 2010 49
So #48 agrees that cops do the killing.
ChickenHead believes that only legal *gun-owners* could be thought of as domestic enemies.
My vote for a domestic enemy is anyone (group)inside the government, be it federal or state that seeks to go against the constitution. Which does not include the common law breaker JoeC.
In other words, perhaps only a politician has the ability to be a domestic enemy of the constitution. Not the guy/girl holding up the liquor store. I believe that was the intent.
I'm not sure how someone could confuse common lawbreaking with a threat to the constitution.
Or how those that abide by the second amendment could be considered/ confused with being a threat to that same constitution.
I'm shocked to see that it is even a possibility to not know the difference.
9:40 am on December 26th, 2010 50
…so I have no idea what a domestic enemy might be that the military might be called upon to defend against…
Lets just say: all of the Indian Wars, the 1811 German Coast Uprising, The Confederate States of America, the Utuado Uprising, Whiskey Rebellion and the events around John Brown, Fries's Rebellion, Utah War, Philippine-American War,
…and let's not forget the Bonus Expeditionary Force (President Hoover then ordered the army to clear the veterans' campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded the infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned. Two more of the veterans died.)*
*list not all inclusive.
11:15 am on December 26th, 2010 51
Deciding who is a domestic enemy is as clear as … Well, it's not clear. It's only decided after the fact. History is first written by the winners of a dispute.
One man's freedom fighters is another man's rebels, terrorists or anarchists.
The writers of our Constitution were at one time "domestic enemies." To the Native Americans, the Europeans were domestic enemies. Descendants of the Confederacy still don't accept the historical version that they were domestic enemies. You can have a heated debate is some states that have militia camps over what or who is a domestic enemy.
Before we call out the troops on Them, we should have some objective national consensus on identifying who They are.
Help me out with the "anyone (group)inside the government, be it federal or state that seeks to go against the constitution." Who would that be? The elected politicians? Special interest groups? Corporate lobbyists and fund raiser? Or some as yet undiscovered, super secret and super competent cabal with the ability to manipulate all agencies of the government and led by some Kenyan Islamic group?
Giving the military a mission to hunt and destroy "domestic enemies" is not as simple as it sounds. I believe that task had already been given to the FBI; a law enforcement agency.
11:54 am on December 26th, 2010 52
Someotherguy #43, DUDE!! I am a simple person and I try to make things simple.
Let me get this right. Serving your country is a privilege?
When did that happen? With the advent of the "All Volunteer" Army?
Or is it more because of a depressed economy and high unemployment?
A privilege to have a wellpaying job that just happens to be in the Military.
In the past we had a "Draftee" military where Service was an individual's obligation to society.
I am afraid the current Military personnel look at themselves as "Privileged" in our society therefore better than those who choose not to serve. With privilege comes entitlement.
Who here is Serving who??? I think you need to reevaluate the whole "Service to Country" concept.
Clearly we need to reinstitute the draft as the All Volunteer force is breeding an Elitist segment expepecting entitlements.
12:20 pm on December 26th, 2010 53
Tiffany W,
I agree pretty much with everything you say. Hard to reason with a bunch of "Military type, Macho, Tuff Guy, Sex Studs' (did I get enough adjective?)on an internet site.
3:23 pm on December 26th, 2010 54
It is a privilege- always has been. Unless you look at it as a welfare program, which for many, it is.
That said, even those who use it as a federal entitlements program may be put in harms way, with the charge due being their lives. And even they did indeed have to meet the minimum standards for enlistment (or pre-1973, induction). Not everyone does. Or wants to, either…
3:50 pm on December 26th, 2010 55
Ouchy!
Retired GI… don't even think for a second that I don't fully support the Second Amendment.
If you remember my thesis that one of it's purposes it to keep the government respectful of the rights of the people, you will understand why I included gun owners as potential domestic enemies.
If the government becomes so bad that citizens take up arms against it in numbers larger than law enforcement can control, declaring ALL gun owners as domestic enemies will be the easy answer…
…and it may happen anyway in a future leftist administration that uses some emotional event to further their agenda of disarming the population.
6:39 pm on December 26th, 2010 56
-GASP-
You mean– the Second Amendment isn't about HUNTING? Or about the National Guard?
The horror. Free citizens empowered to protect themselves against bad guys AND bad government.
We can't have that. People who know what's best for us will be along shortly to enlighten us and tell us how bad guns are. And how law abiding gun owners are the problem in the inner city third world sh tholes where gun ownership is already unconstitutionally restricted.
1:12 am on December 27th, 2010 57
ChickenHead, special commendation for #55. Yes, I recall your past comments on civilian owned weapons. Put a band aid on that ouchy.
What an outstanding way to start a Monday morning.
8:16 am on December 27th, 2010 58
Guys, Guys, Guys you've got it all wrong. The most powerful person in the USA is the private citizen. No it's not because of the right to vote, it's not the ole "pen is mightier than the sword." It's called freedom.
Let me tell you a little story about a conversation I had in a Dunkin Donuts with a couple of Americans.
Once upon a time, these two "Dudes" (probably transplants to the area) discussed the illegal alien problem….. They apparently discussed the topic several times as their vernacular and syntax seemed inquisitorially streamlined. Their topic of discussion turned to deterring illegal immigration and focused on job creation south of the border, enforcement of immigration laws, fence lines, etc, etc, etc and blah, blah, blah. As I sat alone, listing to their conversation and sipping my elixir, they invited me into their conversation. I politely told them the problem with illegal aliens and drug runners crossing the border into the USA is easily solved. Since they had discussed the topic for some time, they set their coffee down and listened intently to what I said, looking for "chinks" in the conversational armor. Since I was not dressed the part of a local, they were ready to listen to what they expected was a typical "city-slicker" liberal attitude. Seemingly, they were ready to counter anything I said. Except – I looked at them as I said Kill them, shoot them when they cross into the USA illegally. It is difficult for any man to step over dead bodies and continue into the unknown.
You can change the story into what ever you want to include homosexuals.
This could easily be turned into an Aesop's fable – you can figure out the title.
8:37 am on December 27th, 2010 59
I personally was lucky to have the OPPORTUNITY to serve my country.
http://www.answers.com/topic/privilege
9:54 am on December 27th, 2010 60
Made in 1948. This Cartoon Seemed Far-Fetched In 1948: http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com/2009/09/th…
10:37 am on December 27th, 2010 61
Ole Tanker #59. You are a wise ole Tanker. I loved your link.
While I will bitchh often about the shortcomings of my time in uniform, I don't regret Serving one bit, and would do it again.
I too was lucky to have the OPPORTUNITY to serve my country. It surely was not my "right", as other Males (with girl-friends) were not accepted.
10:39 am on December 27th, 2010 62
Daddy, just made me drink a bottle of "OBAMA CARE"' it was sooooo sour.
1:09 pm on December 28th, 2010 63
Serving in the Armed Forces has been a privilege since the founding of the first colonial Army. Anyone can serve their nation, volunteer your time at some local charity or do some other charitable work. Heck during WWII the women were the ones who picked up the slack of domestic war production, they served their nation proudly without becoming a member of the Armed Forces.
I don't know, maybe some people who have grown up in constant safety or were never part of the Armed Forces might never understand this. The US Military isn't some job, it bears almost no resemblance to what you see on TV. Its an agreement to not only be willing to sacrifice your life for your country, not only to be willing to take on the mental damage that comes with killing other people, but willing to give up the most precious thing in the world, their freedom, so that others can enjoy that freedom for themselves. They sacrifice their freedom during the most youthful and active parts of their lives. Not anyone or everyone can do that. With this service also comes the responsibility of handling the most lethal weapons ever created. Things whose whole purpose of existence is to maximize the efficiency of killing and maiming people. With one slip or mistake they can kill themselves any everyone around them. Take the MK-19 automatic grenade launcher for example. A device designed to hurl little balls of exploding death at a rapid rate in whichever direction you point it at. Just about anything you aim at will be destroyed or severely impaired. Now imagine the guy sitting behind this machine of death is a 17 or 18yo kid fresh out of high school and right out of BCT. Given into his hands is the responsibility to not only kill the bad guys, but to prevent his machine of death from killing the good guys, and to not harm or kill any civilians who happen to walk into the line of fire. Where other 17 and 18yo highschool grads are at college partying with their friends, or staying at home and partying with their friends, this guy who volunteered to give up his freedom is instead killing people, or being prepared to kill people.
This is the reason the service has a minimum set of standards required to enter. Not only most the individual be physically capable of doing all this stuff at a high pace, but they must be mentally capable of withstanding the insane levels of stress and mental fatigue that comes with the job. Along with both these requirements they must have some sort of moral base or sense of duty, else they can never be trusted to do the right thing when the leader isn't around. The specific requirements for these are determined by each service branch and our DoD. If someone has an issue with these requirements then they need to bring it up with the ones who wrote them and don't throw sh!t on the soldiers.
2:42 pm on December 28th, 2010 64
Kind of like an expensive Private University, "You made the cut son, you get the privilege of attending our school."
5:35 pm on December 28th, 2010 65
The problem as I see it is that the pro-DADT-repeal people want to put sexuality before service. I don't care if someone is sexually attracted to men, women, little boys, little girls, warm fuzzy peaches, or porcupines. I proudly served with people who were homosexuals during my 20 years of service & they considered the needs of the defense of our nation more important that some 'right' to hang a sign around their necks saying 'look at me & who I want to fornicate with'. They kept that crap on a low profile. I just returned from CT where my wife & I spent Christmas with our son who serves aboard an attack submarine. I got to tour his boat. The sleep racks are very close together & sailors rotate their bunks with others who work a different shift. Also there is no privacy in the heads (latrines). These politicians care nothing about the defense of our nations, all they care about is getting votes from different voting blocs. I don't believe that either Defense Secretary Gates or Adm Mullen ever made a comment about open homosexuals serving when George Bush was president. Their comments only happened after the new commander in chief became president. If this was really such an important thing to do then why didn't they suggest it during the previous administration? If either man did make a comment previously please provide a link to it to show that I am mistaken. This is all political BS. The old policy was Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Rush Limbaugh says the new policy is Show & Tell.
6:27 pm on December 28th, 2010 66
@66 Sure.
The topic of service is a deeply personal one for myself and my brothers. Every able bodied male in my family has served in the Armed Forces for as long as our family can remember. The farthest back my mother has traced the tradition is a general during the civil war. Most just do one 3~4 year enlistment and get on with the rest of lives, some stack a few more years. Its just one of those things that is expected of all the male children. I don't personally care about politics or political ideologies, both are dangerous when taken to the extreme. What I do care about is when people who have ~never~ served make comments and assumptions about the Armed Forces and what it means to serve your nation in that capacity. Regardless of the carrot used (college / load repayment / family benefits) nothing is more precious then the personal freedoms granted to you by the Constitution. People who've never served just can't understand that in the military you can't just tell your boss "f*ck you, I quit" and walk away to find a new job. Try that and you could go to prison.
12:40 am on December 29th, 2010 67
Someotherguy #63, very well said. May I quote you?
1:17 am on December 29th, 2010 68
#67, I agree completely. I retired after 20 and went "back home". Not many Military around here. Sometimes that's a good thing and sometimes not.
To say that I'm sometimes shocked by what the civilians (family and others) don't understand or worse still, what they think they understand, is an understatement.
2:00 am on December 29th, 2010 69
I think Vince (#38) said it right when he said:
"This isn’t about homosexuals in the service- it’s about homosexuality in the service." There's a big difference.
Everyone's wondering why they repealed DADT so quickly and without thinking things through. I'll tell you why. Because they could. I work for the govt. (the VA) and they do things like that all the time. The people at the top make a decision to make a change or institute something new without thinking things through at all. Worse yet, they completely ignore any suggestions or concerns from the people who would be directly affected by those changes and who would have the best ideas on how to make the change as smooth as possible. It's the same as with repealing DADT. They made a big show of repealing it without addressing any of the major concerns that will have to be worked out at the unit level with no guidance or policies to assist them.
As far as calling out the military to deal with domestic enemies, I didn't see anyone mention rioters. I just talked to a guy during deer season who was called up for the '67 riots in Detroit. He said it was surreal to be shooting down the streets of Detroit at rioters shooting back. On the other side of the coin, I was in basic training with some guys who said it was a MF'er to be shooting at those "army guys" while they were shooting back at them.
2:04 am on December 29th, 2010 70
This whole thing about promoting the queer agenda makes me wonder how many cold weather injuries there are going to be now.
Not sure what the 'proper procedure' is now, but back in the 70's we (infantry) were taught that if it looked like your buddy had hypothermia or other cold weather ailments, for both people to strip naked, then climb into a tent and a sleeping bag and huddle together, sharing body heat.
Some will now gladly do it, and others will choose to die.
1:14 pm on December 29th, 2010 71
I was talking to a SSG today who was retiring soon, as I gave him tips on his resume', he said,
"I serverd 20 years for my country, I deserve a GS job."
Entitlement. Priviledge??
What gives some one the unmitigated gaul???
2:47 pm on December 29th, 2010 72
Someotherguy, great posts, thank you! Retired GI #68, I've heard crap from civilians who never served that make the old military saying so true, that is "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." We all can go back & forth with the arguments about DADT repeal. I just hope that it all goes well for the sake of the defense of our nation. The one thing that I really don't understand & I wish that the pro-DADT repeal folks would answer is: We are in the middle of TWO WARS right now including the longest war that we have ever fought(Afghanistan), why do we have to do this RIGHT NOW? Can we wait until these two wars have wound down so that we can make this new policy a success instead of just trying to score political points with homosexual & pro-homosexual voters? Do we really need to give our soldiers, many of whom have been on multiple tours in Afghanistan & Iraq more stress than they already have? Ole Tanker, #71, I hope that the SOB whom you quoted never gets a GS job.
4:00 pm on December 29th, 2010 73
Hey we kinda got off the subject there. Maybe we can get Obama to sign off on this: why don't we just have one standard pink leotard for the primary uniform for the entire United States Military. When we go to battle we will mesmerize our opponents with our fancy dance moves to the songs "It's Raining Men" or "Poker Face". At least we will be dress right dress and NO ONE will feel left out or discriminated against. Then we can definitely become the laughing stock of the world, since it has already been proven in the last month that we like to talk about other countries dignitaries’ behind their backs and make backwater deals. Then we can have two black eyes instead of one!!! What do you think is going to happen when the first male service member is sexually assaulted by another male service member since DADT has been put to bed? Do you think he is going to report it to the Chain of Command or go talk the Chaplain? Hell No!!! He is going to retaliate against that service member who assaulted him and it will probably not be just a beat down. The bad thing about this is the fact that the person who assaulted him in the first place was suppose to be protecting his battle buddy’s 6, not forcibly taking it. How can anyone concentrate on fighting what is in front of them or what is around the next corner in close quarters combat situations if he/she has to worry about what is going on behind him/her within thier own ranks? Trust me there will be casualties before the kinks are ironed out of this screwed up situation. Also, if Obama signs off on this then he will surely get the votes of the Ballet Community, since votes are the only reason he has clearly caused this headache. And if I have to look at another picture in the news or on the internet of him and his family doing it up big on my dime I am going to go postal, since there are so many "Americans" that are doing without these days!!! And if ya'll are wondering I am not white, but I am a Proud Veteran and American!!!
12:32 am on December 30th, 2010 74
This is what the new policy will look like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol5Dfs7jqFI&fe…
1:19 am on December 30th, 2010 75
I don't think we're going to see any more MST (military sexual trauma) now than we have in the past. I'm a nurse at a VA and I'm sure all of you would be astounded at how many MEN are sexually assaulted by other men in their own units. Most of them go unreported at the time due to embarassment. Anyone out there who is a pt. at the VA may have been asked more than once if they were ever sexually assaulted while on active duty. The VA has specialized treatment programs at several VA's for the treatment of MST. I've heard that there are more males sexually assaulted in the military than females. Usually a male/male rape involves physical abuse along with penetration. It's not about sex, it's about violence and brutality. Many times it is a gang rape situation. The ones where a homosexual makes an advance is most of the time just that, an advance. Some of the guys I've talked to woke up with their "buddy" giving them a BJ. I would imagine that it would be somewhat disconcerting when you're having one of the best dreams ever, to wake up and find out that it's something totally different.