By So what does everyone think about this criticism of DADT?:
On Sept. 20, 2011, a date that will live in infamy, the U.S. armed forces were deliberately and successfully attacked by advocates of the scourge of homosexuality. The elimination of the last vestige of moral restraint on sexual perversion in the U.S. military, commonly known as the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, ushers in a new Orwellian era in which the military leadership of our nation will proclaim the unnatural as natural, the unhealthy as healthy and the immoral as moral.
On Aug. 25, 2010, before the DADT policy was rescinded by Congress and the current president of the United States, I wrote the following in a guest column in Stars and Stripes (“Chaplains in no-win situation on ‘don’t ask’ ”): “A ‘nondiscrimination’ policy would surely mutate into approval and celebration of the ‘gay’ lifestyle, followed by ‘affirmative action’ recruitment of homosexuals, politically correct ideological indoctrination throughout the armed forces including family members, and, finally, active discrimination against — and persecution of — those who dare to express a dissenting opinion.”
Perhaps in another year or so we shall know with certainty whether that prediction was exaggerated or prescient. However, several portents of the latter prospect are already evident. [Stars & Stripes]
Read the rest at the link.
I don’t agree with the chaplain who wrote this article because I believe DADT for the most part will be much to do about nothing. My biggest concerns are the militant gay activists using the military to advance their own political agendas such as the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and instituting gay promotion quotas for example. However, what I don’t like is how some Stars & Stripes commenters are calling what the chaplain wrote “hate speech” which seems to me to be a growing way to silence dissenting opinions now a days.
9:04 am on September 23rd, 2011 1
Oh, I would count on all sorts of gay quotas for promotions, school selections, assignments, on-post housing, etc. DoD is likely already ironing out preferential treatment details right now. As I’ve said before, everyone should announce they are as queer as a three dollar bill to get on the gravy train!
9:41 am on September 23rd, 2011 2
“ushers in a new Orwellian era in which the military leadership of our nation will proclaim the unnatural as natural, the unhealthy as healthy and the immoral as moral.”
Disagree.
Homosexuality is natural… perhaps even advantageous to a population…
…the slightly more unhealthy aspects of male homosexuality can be managed and female homosexuality is more healthy than heterosexuality…
…and there is no immorality with two people loving each other or having consensual sex.
It is likely that homosexuality will become another group in the military with some formal and many informal special treatments and considerations.
The military needs to treat everybody truly equally and go out of its way NOT to track any statistics of homosexuals… or any other group.
10:09 am on September 23rd, 2011 3
Chickenhead is a perfect example of the teachers the Apostle Paul wrote about in his second letter to Timothy, chapters three and four…
11:03 am on September 23rd, 2011 4
Hmmm…
That is the first time I have ever been accused of telling people what they want to hear.
Or did I miss the point?
12:07 pm on September 23rd, 2011 5
Chickenhead is in a class by himself. No one else comes closes or deserves to be in the same league. I agree with Chickenhead when he says that lesbianism is more healthy than male homosexuality, especially if the women are good looking & I am in the middle of it, lol.
2:52 pm on September 23rd, 2011 6
I think Tom answered your question…
3:11 pm on September 23rd, 2011 7
“the U.S. armed forces were deliberately and successfully attacked by advocates of the scourge of homosexuality. ” Are they advocates of homosexuality or advocates of the scourge of homosexuality?
4:42 pm on September 23rd, 2011 8
Setnaffa,
Kindly tell me where I have gone wrong here.
I advocate a position that says there is nothing wrong with homosexuality but homosexuality should not be forced upon the military to appease leftist sensitivities.
As the two primary modes of thought here are… fags are bad and shouldn’t be in the military… and… fags are great and every unit should be forced to have a couple… I’m not sure where my position could be considered pandering to the masses.
Tom L.,
Don’t confuse female homosexuality, which is a bigoted and discriminatory practice, with female bisexuality which is much more tolerant of my kind of diversity.
6:03 pm on September 23rd, 2011 9
Well, we know why they got rid of the beret finally. Cut retirement and empower troublemakers at the expense of everyone else.
6:05 pm on September 23rd, 2011 10
Troublemakers will always find a way though! There’s plenty of AR’s and assholes.
6:28 pm on September 23rd, 2011 11
Also, is it OK to debate about whether the 3 Additional Principles of Joint Operations are equivalent to the 9 principles of war in timelessness, or are they more of a reaction to politics… but Clauswitz says, war is politics by other means.
8:50 pm on September 23rd, 2011 12
Extremists like that are an excellent example of why religion should stay out of politics.
9:33 pm on September 23rd, 2011 13
Chickenhead #8, Good point! Let’s here it for diversity.
2:34 pm on September 24th, 2011 14
The Apostle Paul should have found the right lady, settled down, and raised a family. He could have supported them with his writing, oratorical, and organizational skills. To get started, he could have opened a tent-making shop. And of course, everyone would have been welcome to work or buy there, without regard to race, creed, language, gender, or orientation.
3:08 pm on September 24th, 2011 15
Yeah Teadrinker. Go tell the Muslims. Keep religion out of it. You DO include Islam, right?
If you come back after telling the Muslims to keep religion out of it, report on their answer. If you come back.
4:39 pm on September 24th, 2011 16
Why does this concern about quotas keep coming up? Particularly promotion quotas.
In which other demographic of the military — race, gender or religion, has promotion quotas ever been mandated?
The military can set goals for such things, but not quotas. Last month, the Marine Corps commandant made a speech expressing his concern about the relatively small number of black officers in the Marines.
Ironicly …
5:20 pm on September 24th, 2011 17
P.S.
Since “[p]eople currently in lesbian and gay relationships are better educated than similar heterosexual couples”, it’s quite possible they would be over representative in top positions if they chose to be.
6:10 pm on September 24th, 2011 18
JoeC, Quotas & goals are really the same thing because ultimately your success if defined by numbers. I served 20 years in the military & I know how it works. Eventually there will be goals & quotas for homosexuals whether it is admitted or not. Since homosexuals will be the in group you will have plenty of troops who will say that they are homosexual whether they really are or not. Those troops who are married to a member of the opposite sex will just say that they are bisexual. The next & true goal (DADT repeal in my view is just a stepping stone to the true goal of the militant homosexual activists) is the repeal of the DOMA & to give homosexual “spouses” the same benefits as married husbands & wives. There will also be a push to allow “transgendered” troops in. This push WILL happen, mark my words. Social engineering and political correctness are going to destroy our military.
8:50 pm on September 24th, 2011 19
When the military starts keeping track of the # of red-haired individuals, then I will not have a problem with them keeping track of gays, blacks, muslims, and women.
Untill then, it is a problem.
Case in point: I was ORDERED to send one of my E-5s to the E-6 board. Ordered! A black female, who had not shown me she was worth the stripes she now had. I refused. Then I went home on leave. I came back and she had been to the board and was promotable. Don’t tell me there is no agenda. It will be the same with (openly) gay in the ranks.
But I still have to laugh. African/Americans just slid down the poll of importance when it comes to special interest groups.
6:36 am on September 25th, 2011 20
16: There most definitely are gender and race quotas. From my stint as an Army officer I confirmed females get special treatment for Army ROTC scholarships, Army ROTC Advanced Camp/LDAC grades and Army officer promotions. Race quotas exist too but are somewhat irrelevant because there are usually enough high performing minority males as to make the quotas irrelevant. But minority females in these areas, oh boy! They got it good!!
Now this is just the Army and just officer issues. Doesn’t seem likely quotas are limited to just Army officers.
17: Education is just one piece of the pie.
2:53 pm on September 30th, 2011 21
Here is an interesting development:
“DOD: Chaplains can perform same-sex marriages on bases”
They recognize the distinction between marriage as a formal, civil law established relationship and and marriage as a religious ritual. The government rightly has no say over the latter, but it will make some people’s head explode. It won’t give them housing or legal dependent status.
To be clear. Chaplains are not going to be directed that they must do this, but they won’t also be directed that they can’t do it if they choose to.
2:54 pm on September 30th, 2011 22
Screwed up the link:
“DOD: Chaplains can perform same-sex marriages on bases”