PDA

View Full Version : Acceptance of Open Homosexuality in the Military



Jassy Melson
02-25-2011, 07:47 AM
In this article I intend to explain and show how acceptance of open homosexuality in the U.S. military will weaken the effectiveness of it as a fighting force.

The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy concerning homosexuals in the military was and still is the best policy. Instituted by President Clinton and put into force by the U.S. Congress in the 1990s, the policy was the wisest and sanest move that could have been made. Unfortunately, beginning in the latter 1990s, an agenda was pushed forward by certain radicals, an agenda that kept gaining strength. It wanted and demanded nothing less than a total repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and the complete open acceptance of homosexuality in the U.S. military, including in a combat situation. If this agenda is accepted and put into play, the result will be disorganization at the best and chaos at the worst in the military. It will result in the weakening of the U.S. military and make it an ineffective fighting force, and cause the deaths of U.S. soldiers

It may come as a surprise to some that the job of the U.S. military up to the latter 1990s was viewed as not complex, but relatively simple. Its job was to defend the territory of the U.S., protect U.S. interests abroad, and to sometimes fight the spread of communism. In the past fifteen years however, the tasks of the military has been demanded by some radicals to become broadened and to enter into fields in which the military had never been involved. These radicals have demanded that the U.S. military become involved in social issues, social engineering, and issues of a public nature. In short, the military is being called upon to perform tasks it is not suited for, and to promote certain social issues that it is ill-equipped to provide. The U.S. military was never meant to be a provider of rights, pleasures, liberty, or free expression, or a headquarters for the promotion of a certain social agenda. The military's job is to fight—and nothing else.

What is occurring in the U.S. military is a social experiment. Certain radicals have chosen to use the military as a means to promote their agenda. They want unrestrained release of sexual and personal inhibitions, in public and on the battlefield.. In short, when it comes to sex, they don't want any rules whatsoever in the U.S military. What the radicals don't understand (or maybe they do) is that the military operates by rules. Take away certain rules and the U.S. military will become weakened. Take away all rules and the military will collapse.

Never before in the history of the U.S military has it been put under such pressure to promote a certain social agenda. The news is that the military simply cannot do it. It doesn't have the know-how or the tools to suddenly change policies it has followed for more than two hundred years. Put simply, too much is being asked of the U.S. military.

One of the questions that needs to be addressed and hasn't been is why? Why has the military been chosen by certain radicals as a means to advance their agenda? Perhaps they understand that in America the U.S. military is, in some cases, the last bastion of strength, restraint and order. Perhaps they think that by attacking the military from within and from behind, so to speak, they will catch it by surprise and be able to “crush the foul thing,” to quote Voltaire in another context. It is difficult to know the radicals' true motivations for attempting to so abruptly change the policies of the U. S. military. Perhaps the answer is quite simple. The reasons that are guiding and directing the radicals could be that they think that by attacking and defeating the United States' strongest point, the defeat of the other weaker points will be a relatively simple matter.

It wasn't until the 2000s that the radicals, and in some cases militants, gained the support of a number of Congresspeople and judges. They began demanding that Don't Ask, Don't Tell be abolished, and that acceptance of open homosexuality by the U.S. military be put into effect. This is part of the radicals homosexual agenda for America. This agenda for the U.S. can be found by Googling “Homosexuals' Agenda for the U.S.” on any computer.

The radicals know that if open homosexuality is accepted as policy in the U.S. military that the first and most important allegiance and attachment of homosexuals will be to their homosexual partners, not to the military or to their country. Homosexuals will congregate, and demand to be able to bed with their partners. The U.S. military will have no choice but to allow this to happen, because it will be the policy of it to accept open homosexuality. The radicals will demand that homosexual marriage be recognized and openly accepted by the military. Again, the U.S. military will have no choice. It will be forced to accept it. If the military openly accepts homosexuals, it will open a Pandora's box.

Some may say that if the U.S. military openly accepts and acknowledges homosexuals in its ranks, that the military will not be changed, it will remain the same. I assert that the military will not only change; if homosexuality is openly accepted as policy, it will result in complete disorganization, indeed, even chaos, and will result in the weakening of the U.S. military and make it an ineffective fighting force. It will do this because the first and most important attachment and allegiance of homosexuals will be to fellow homosexuals and to their partners. It will not be to their “outfit,” or to the military in general. Some will say no, this will not occur, that homosexuals' foremost allegiance and attachment will be to their country's defense and to the U.S. military. I think those who assert that the military will not change if homosexuality is openly accepted within it are naive at the best and liars at the worst.

To be continued.

Mutatis-Mutandis
02-25-2011, 10:28 AM
The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy concerning homosexuals in the military was and still is the best policy. Instituted by President Clinton and put into force by the U.S. Congress in the 1990s, the policy was the wisest and sanest move that could have been made.

Why?


Unfortunately, beginning in the latter 1990s, an agenda was pushed forward by certain radicals, an agenda that kept gaining strength. It wanted and demanded nothing less than a total repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and the complete open acceptance of homosexuality in the U.S. military, including in a combat situation. If this agenda is accepted and put into play, the result will be disorganization at the best and chaos at the worst in the military. It will result in the weakening of the U.S. military and make it an ineffective fighting force, and cause the deaths of U.S. soldiers

Again, why?


It may come as a surprise to some that the job of the U.S. military up to the latter 1990s was viewed as not complex, but relatively simple. Its job was to defend the territory of the U.S., protect U.S. interests abroad, and to sometimes fight the spread of communism. In the past fifteen years however, the tasks of the military has been demanded by some radicals to become broadened and to enter into fields in which the military had never been involved. These radicals have demanded that the U.S. military become involved in social issues, social engineering, and issues of a public nature. In short, the military is being called upon to perform tasks it is not suited for, and to promote certain social issues that it is ill-equipped to provide. The U.S. military was never meant to be a provider of rights, pleasures, liberty, or free expression, or a headquarters for the promotion of a certain social agenda. The military's job is to fight—and nothing else.

How is this in any way the fault of "radicals"? If I remember correctly, the last people to make the military some sort of freedom fighting force was the Bush administration. They were the ones who sold the country on the idea of "liberating" Iraq and giving them democracy. This has been going on for some time, and can be blamed on both sides of the political spectrum, right and left.


What is occurring in the U.S. military is a social experiment. Certain radicals have chosen to use the military as a means to promote their agenda. They want unrestrained release of sexual and personal inhibitions, in public and on the battlefield..

This is an absurd statement. You're saying that because people can now serve openly in the military, sex will just be happening everywhere? How is that in any way logical? Heterosexuals have been allowed to serve openly since the beginning of time and in modern times can serve with women, and this hasn't caused a problem. Why letting gays serve openly now won't, either. To say otherwise is shortsighted.


In short, when it comes to sex, they don't want any rules whatsoever in the U.S military. What the radicals don't understand (or maybe they do) is that the military operates by rules. Take away certain rules and the U.S. military will become weakened. Take away all rules and the military will collapse.

Any proof of this at all?


Never before in the history of the U.S military has it been put under such pressure to promote a certain social agenda. The news is that the military simply cannot do it. It doesn't have the know-how or the tools to suddenly change policies it has followed for more than two hundred years. Put simply, too much is being asked of the U.S. military.

What news?


One of the questions that needs to be addressed and hasn't been is why? Why has the military been chosen by certain radicals as a means to advance their agenda? Perhaps they understand that in America the U.S. military is, in some cases, the last bastion of strength, restraint and order. Perhaps they think that by attacking the military from within and from behind, so to speak, they will catch it by surprise and be able to “crush the foul thing,” to quote Voltaire in another context. It is difficult to know the radicals' true motivations for attempting to so abruptly change the policies of the U. S. military. Perhaps the answer is quite simple. The reasons that are guiding and directing the radicals could be that they think that by attacking and defeating the United States' strongest point, the defeat of the other weaker points will be a relatively simple matter.

Are you serious? Why? Because it's the right thing to do. If a gay man or woman is allowed to fight and die for this country, they should not have to hide who they are. Simple as that.


It wasn't until the 2000s that the radicals, and in some cases militants, gained the support of a number of Congresspeople and judges. They began demanding that Don't Ask, Don't Tell be abolished, and that acceptance of open homosexuality by the U.S. military be put into effect. This is part of the radicals homosexual agenda for America. This agenda for the U.S. can be found by Googling “Homosexuals' Agenda for the U.S.” on any computer.

You're making these claims. The onus is on you to show proof, and I'd just loves to see some impartial evidence of any of this.


The radicals know that if open homosexuality is accepted as policy in the U.S. military that the first and most important allegiance and attachment of homosexuals will be to their homosexual partners, not to the military or to their country. Homosexuals will congregate, and demand to be able to bed with their partners.

So?


The U.S. military will have no choice but to allow this to happen, because it will be the policy of it to accept open homosexuality. The radicals will demand that homosexual marriage be recognized and openly accepted by the military. Again, the U.S. military will have no choice. It will be forced to accept it. If the military openly accepts homosexuals, it will open a Pandora's box.

Silly slippery slope conjecture.


Some may say that if the U.S. military openly accepts and acknowledges homosexuals in its ranks, that the military will not be changed, it will remain the same. I assert that the military will not only change; if homosexuality is openly accepted as policy, it will result in complete disorganization, indeed, even chaos, and will result in the weakening of the U.S. military and make it an ineffective fighting force. It will do this because the first and most important attachment and allegiance of homosexuals will be to fellow homosexuals and to their partners.

This doesn't make any sense. Please explain how homosexuals desiring to protect their fellow soldiers is a bad thing? Are you saying that homosexual military members will purposely neglect straight military men out of some sort of malicious intent? That is not only illogical, but offensive.


It will not be to their “outfit,” or to the military in general. Some will say no, this will not occur, that homosexuals' foremost allegiance and attachment will be to their country's defense and to the U.S. military. I think those who assert that the military will not change if homosexuality is openly accepted within it are naive at the best and liars at the worst.

As of yet, you've provided no real reasons aside from conjecture and speculation rooted in your obvious personal prejudices. I doubt part 2 will yield anything more.

Jassy Melson
02-25-2011, 12:13 PM
Youir opinion means nothing to me because you have resorted to name-calling and personally attacking me. You called me idiotic, in case you forgot.

Mutatis-Mutandis
02-25-2011, 12:23 PM
I said to say otherwise is idiotic. Anyways, you personally attack everyone with a different opinion than yours in part two, claiming "radicals" don't have a conscience, so don't ridicule me for a personal attack (which it wasn't--I did not call you idiotic).

Anyways, what a cop-out. You probably can't argue your points beyond your prejudicial assumptions.

Jassy Melson
02-25-2011, 01:07 PM
If you can't see what you're doing with your posts toward me, then I see no use in replying to you.

Mutatis-Mutandis
02-25-2011, 04:43 PM
If you're not even going to acknowledge other people's points, I'm just going to report this and have done with it.

Scheherazade
02-25-2011, 06:38 PM
If you are not willing to receive criticism and/or have your views questioned,

please refrain from posting in the Forums.


And, as always, please feel free to ignore those discussions that are disagreeable to you personally.