COL. RON CREWS, a retired Army chaplain, writes in the Washington Times about the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
The first anniversary of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Sept. 20, has come and gone. Now, there is mounting evidence that proves our warnings were not idle chatter. The threat to freedom posed by this radical sexual experiment on our military is real: It is grave and it is growing.
Activists inside and outside our government who pushed the repeal have deployed a smoke screen around the fact that once the military was forced to exalt homosexuality in the ranks, the all-too-foreseen consequence reared its ugly head.
Senior military officials have allowed personnel in favor of repeal to speak to media while those who have concerns have been ordered to be silent. …
…. At an officer training service school, a male serviceman sexually harassed another male serviceman through text messages, emails, phone calls and in-person confrontations. The harassing male insisted the two would “make a great couple.” The harassed serviceman reported the harassment, but the command failed to take disciplinary action.
Service members engaged in homosexual behavior protested a service school’s open-door policy for all students that prohibited the closing of room doors for the purpose of hiding sexual behavior. The protesters claimed that they had a right to participate in sexual behavior with their same-sex roommates.
A senior chaplain was stripped of his authority over the chapel under his charge because, in accordance with federal law, he proclaimed the chapel to be a “sacred space” where marriage ceremonies would only be between one man and one woman.
The Navy has allowed sailors openly engaged in homosexual behavior to choose their bunkmates. Imagine in this new age of “tolerance” if a sailor asked to be moved from a close-quarters berthing area because of his concern about another sailor’s sexual appetites. We already know what would happen, because tolerance has never been a two-way street.
Obviously, the recent “study” (aka propaganda) claiming that the repeal went off without a hitch should be shredded post-haste. It has no connection to reality.
All this for what reason? There is no military justification for permitting open homosexuals to serve. There has never even been a pretense of a military justification for it.
—– Comments —-
Terry Morris writes:
The irony in the rise and fall of the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is that those who most strongly opposed its initial institution after Clinton’s inauguration, were its greatest defenders and strongest advocates when it was replaced. It’s quite the tangled web that weave.
Buck writes:
In a VFR
entry at the time of the U.S. Senate vote on DADT, I make the following comment. I’ve added some clarifying remarks, boldened in brackets:
This issue makes me crazy. I’ll never understand how men don’t all agree on this. I’m going to keep repeating this point until someone dissuades me. I know that Ken Hechtman has heard this before, but like most, he ignores this most salient point—that, homosexuality is not a choice (he agrees), but declaring oneself gay is a choice (which he ignores). Being gay is not a sexual orientation—homosexuality is. [ Buck added today: I know that there are arguments and anecdotal evidence asserting that homosexuality is a choice. I don’t yet find them persuasive, if for no other reason than the simple “why?”. It makes no sense. Why would any male choose the inherent misery and destructive nature of homosexuality, especially as a young person? It’s not like getting hooked on drugs, you have to first experience the very desire that defines the homosexual. ] Choosing to be gay is a life style choice, a political position, a separate-rights advocacy, a legal position, a group rights effort—it is everything that they demand for themselves BUT SEX. Homosexuals still have their sex—don’t they? The UCMJ outlines the military rules about sexual activity and PDAs. Is the military now to be seen as discriminating against heterosexual men and women—by prohibiting them from showering together? No? Why isn’t that hypocritical? Because men can’t get pregnant? So, is this only about pregnancy? Of course not. It’s about sex and a the full range of intimacies between members of the military. [LA replies: I’m not entirely following this.] [ Buck explains today: My point is that homosexuals can have sex anytime that it’s convenient, just like heterosexuals. Gay “rights” is not about having sex per se, they already have sex, that’s the point. It’s about everything else. They want to beexalted as special “citizens” with special “rights”, one being the right to shower and bunk together, when healthy heterosexuals can not, or don’t want to. Heterosexual men and women are not permitted (or forced) to shower and bunk together – so why are homosexuals given such a unique right, one that none would refuse? Homosexuality is only sex. The essence of homosexuality is sexual attraction. So they are now privileged to do the very thing that heterosexuals know to be foolish and destructive of good order – men getting naked and bedding down every night with women. Isn’t that a newly created discrimination against healthy men and women? And, my question about hypocrisy and pregnancy? Under this new homosexualized military, pregnancy is is single difference left standing. Every other aspect of human relations and intimacy between adults has been equalized. But homosexuals can’t get pregnant. Heterosexuals can. Pregnancy, logically, is the single remaining reason why there is not open showering and sleeping among all uniformed personal. ]
There have always been homosexuals in the military and in all walks of like. Everyone knows it. Please explain the benefit of a new freedom for any gay soldier to proudly and defiantly display himself at attention in the shower—with no repercussions—other than the now constrained natural revulsion of a healthy heterosexual man, as opposed to that same heterosexual man being aroused himself by the beauty of a naked woman in that barracks shower. What’s sane about this stupid conflicted policy?
I’m sick and tired of hearing the stupid and asinine phrases—just as courageous, just as good soldiers, also willing to die, … none of which have anything to do with this. No one claims that homosexuals are not as courageous, as willing to die, as good as soldiers, they are claiming that the military itself—it’s effectiveness will not be as good. If we no longer have good use for our military, and perhaps we don’t, then proceed with this insane social experiment. Go ahead and further degrade our steadily degrading military ethos. We, apparently, don’t intend to actually win a war ever again anyway. What the hell.
One more point. In spite of the dishonest TV portrayals of gay friends sitting in on regular poker nights with all of his old buddies, and openly discussing his gay sex life, and everyone being fine with it—I don’t believe it. How many men, suspect or wonder if one of their old friends might be a homosexual? And, we let it alone—as long as he does and nothing happens. The second that he even hints at the beginning of him outing himself—he’s declaring forever that he’s joined the other team. There is no way that a gay man is hanging comfortably with straight men. You may find it in the arts, but they don’t reallyhang together. Declaring yourself gay is declaring yourself separate from heterosexuals in an obviously important and irrevocable way. You’re no less a person, a citizen, and no less entitled to respect and rights, but to argue that you are the same as a normal man, is like arguing that a man is like a woman. How does that work? How does it work within a captive audience—the military? Now who has to adjust and sacrifice and repress his feelings?
Laura writes:
Buck writes that one doesn’t choose to be homosexual; one chooses to be gay. A better way of putting it is, one doesn’t choose to have homosexual desires. One chooses whether or not to give into homosexual desires by acting upon them or placing one’s will behind them.
Please follow and like us:
