That is the question that needs to be asked and answered before any serious debate can take place on this issue. Without answering this question, lifting the gay ban in the military will be opening the door to major unrest and frivolous complaints from gay and lesbian activists who may serve in the military.
The reason I say "frivolous" is because I saw quite a few complaints from feminists in the military that turned out to be bogus "gotchas." The really sad part about this is that the truth didn't come out until several careers had already been ruined.
Remember "Tailhook 91" and the bogus charges that Paula Coughlin made in 1991? How many careers were ruined before the truth about what really happened and how Coughlin was a willing participant came out? How much damage was done before someone realized that Coughlin admitted to her fellow Tailhookers that they had made her "see God?" How long did it take before the public was made aware of the fact that Coughlin had fingered people who weren't even at Tailhook?
Therein lies the problem. What happens if some gay or lesbian goes into the military and has a radical political agenda? How long before some false charge of "homophobia" is made and a fabricated scandal ensues which destroys one or more careers? What are the safeguards against this?
TAILHOOK 91 is a prime example of how one person making false accusations can have a major negative impact on the military and its combat effectiveness.
Lt. Col. Oliver North notes the following:
| But the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgendered community, which worked so hard to elect Mr. Obama, wasn’t feeling the love. The President wouldn’t let them out of the closet, they argued, and their patience was wearing thin. POTUS had to give them reason to stay in the fold. The payoff came in his State of the Union Address, when Mr. Obama went off on another frolic and diversion in declaring, “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.” |
No, it is because of how they act and how they are trying to force their agenda on America whether it be through secret classes (i.e. telling children not to inform their parents) to school children or by pulling a Coughlin on the U.S. Military.
More:
| Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey informed the Senate Armed Services Committee he has “serious concerns” about repealing the law in the midst of war. “We just don’t know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness,” Casey testified. A somewhat softer note was sounded by Air Force Chief of Staff, General Norton A. Schwartz, who said, “This is not the time to perturb the force that is, at the moment, stretched by demands in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere without careful deliberation.” Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, testified that he endorsed a “study” of the issue because “only with that information can we discuss the force that we have, not someone else’s.” He also resisted a “freeze” on discharges for homosexual behavior, citing duty to “the families that support the force.” The straightest shooting of all was done by General James Conway, the Commandant of the Marine Corps. In testimony to the House Armed Services Committee on February 24, he said, “Unless we can strip away the emotion, the agenda, and the politics...and ask...do we somehow enhance the war fighting capabilities of the United States Marine Corps by allowing homosexuals to openly serve, then we haven't addressed it from the correct perspective.” Then he reloaded. After observing that proponents of repeal have failed to produce any evidence that openly homosexual individuals serving in uniform will improve combat readiness, Conway unequivocally stated: “At this point...my best military advice to this committee, to the Secretary, and to the President would be to keep the law such as it is.” |
Just going forward on someone's political whim is not the way to do it. It is true that gays are allowed to serve in militaries like Great Britain and Isreal, but it is also true that in both cases, gays are counseled to keep it low profile.
Are U.S. gays and lesbians willing to do the same thing? Given the militancy of the gay and lesbian political movement, my first inclination is to answer "no." Anyone who has been forced to take a required "diversity" class from an employer knows why.
You can access the complete article on-line here:
Not So Fast
Lt. Col. Oliver North
Human Events
March 5, 2010
4 comments:
Equality is about improving the conditions under which people live. It's about not forcing people to lie about who they are in order for them to protect their country.
Arguments presented here are akin to someone questioning in the 60's whether desegregating water fountains would improve the water quality. It's a red herring as far as I see, and has no genuine place in this debate.
The LGBT agenda is simple: Equality. Period. We are a minority, and as such need to be represented and protected as such, but all the energy you see from LGBT activists isn't about consolidating political power, it's about fighting for the equality that should already exist.
Almost nobody wants to talk publicly about this issue.
Civilized people do not really want to talk about other people who prefer anal sex between men, or the use of appliances or various deviant role play engaged in by lesbians.
Most people, including homosexuals, do NOT want to talk about it; so they just say things like, "Look, I don't care what other people do behind closed doors, and I think everyone should be able to serve."
They don't want to think that their son or daughter will be placed in a subordinate position to someone who lives in one of these so-called, "alternative lifestyles."
My chief objection to this whole mess, is that the Pentagon will create, yet another, special class of citizen and give the homosexuals a bunch of hiring and promotion quotas.
Do people understand that our military promotes based on racial and gender quotas RIGHT NOW! Do the citizens understand that our military will just create another set of promotion quotas for dykes and homos?
Should we repeal, "Don't ask don't tell?" I say, ONLY if the military s forced to repeal ALL hiring and promotion quotas and replace those gender and race set-asides with ONLY merit-based selection and promotion AND that the regulation put in place of DADT, returns our military to the position that deviant behavior is grounds for, but not a guarantee of, dismissal from the ranks.
A MERIT based policy would restore real fairness and ensure that more capable leaders are placed in charge of our forces, while including specific language that would list deviant sexual behavior as an offense, but not necessarily an automatic dismissal, would allow all citizens who can serve honorably to serve, but would also free the military to discipline (including discharge) anyone who engages in deviant sexual behavior while on active duty.
The Bible is pretty clear that homosexuality is a sin. I don't know why Joel McDonald would say that "The LGBT agenda is simple: Equality". That's a lie! The LBGT agenda is about special rights, free governmental handouts, and trying to change our schools where they will provide students with ideas about the alternative lesbian lifestyles.
In the beginning, it was Adam and Eve....
Adam and Steve didn't exist.
Sorry Joel, you can try to embellish the truth, but the LGBT agenda is not civil rights, but special rights. I'm sure we all will be paying reparation taxes for you before too long.
Post a Comment