So, when I busted a cap in Laird's idiocy below as yet another fringe left, non-serving REMF who styles themselves as experts on homosexuality in a military they typically despise (Much like Obama, come to think of it) and wouldn't dream of ever serving in; I was fairly sure that I'd made my position clear.
I guess I didn't.
Here's a (not-surprisingly) Anonymous comment some courageous individual left concerning those positions.
Still trying to find reasons to discriminate.
First, there was no statement they swore to that claimed they were not homosexual. I suppose that neither of you two EVER did anything against regulations that you failed to report. I guess that would make you liars as well. I guess that would make all the minors getting into the military during WWII liars as well, unworthy of serving their country. Your lack of logic is useless and your claims are baseless.
Second, I see that Lew has changed his tune, more accurately showing a change in REPORTING, not an increase in incidents.
It is not that homosexuals are not capable; it is that people like you refuse to accept
that they are without prejudice.
As a case in point, Anon, you'll do quite nicely.
No one who ever served in the Armed Forces could possibly make the following statement:
First, there was no statement they swore to that claimed they were not homosexual.Sorry. When they swore the oath, they both knew that as homosexuals, they were ineligible for enlistment.
In fact, when they were given their physical, they were both, as we all were, asked if they were homosexual, in part to determine their eligibility/suitability for enlistment.
They both inarguably knew that admitting to homosexuality would disqualify them for service... much like being too short, being an avowed communist, having a criminal record or any number of the dozens of other reasons people were and are discriminated against EVERY DAY in the military... without peep one or complaint from people like you
So, when they took the oath and said: "that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;" they were both lying.
They lied when they denied their homosexuality as part of their qualification to enlist, and as a result, they also lied when they said they had "no mental reservation" since as prospective commissioned officers, they both knew that homosexuals were barred from enlistment, and they also lied when they indicated they were not involved in any "purpose of evasion."
To that end, by swearing the oath, they were, in fact, swearing that they were not homosexual.
When you start with a fallacy, Anon, it becomes difficult to take the remainder of your position seriously.
Let me illustrate it this way: Even though I did not go to West Point, I am quite familiar with what used to be their Honor Code:
That's rather straight forward, don't you think?
"I will neither lie, nor cheat, nor steal, nor allow a misleading silence to continue, nor tolerate anyone who does."
Both of them knowingly lied to enlist. Both of them knowingly had mental reservations; both of them knowingly had the "purpose of evasion."
Had either of these two lied in any other way... say, past drug use, past criminal record, lying about their marital status or having kids... would THAT have been adequate grounds for you for their discharge?
These two "officers" lied. They either lied by COmmission when they lied about their sexuality, or they lied by Omission by failing to reveal it once they were on duty, before DADT was implemented... and they were both ON duty before DADT was implemented.
It does not matter WHAT they lied about, or how, or under what circumstances. THAT they lied, from the beginning of their military careers until they were caught is the thing.
And to me, the issue of WHAT they lied about has much less relevance to their continued service then the separate issue of their sexuality. In fact, it's a separate issue... both separate from the issue of homosexuality in the military AND separate from Laird's whine about equality.
Equality with homosexuality is one issue. Having officers serving in the military who are liars is quite another.
Anon, completely missing the point, continues with this issue of "relativism:"
I suppose that neither of you two EVER did anything against regulations that you failed to report.I, of course, cannot speak for Lew. But I can tell you this: I would bet American money that neither of us did anything prior and or up to our enlistment that would have disqualified us from serving that either of us hid at any time.
That is, I had not engaged in activity or conduct that would have disqualified me from enlistment.
And when I was on active duty, I did not engage in any activity or conduct that would have caused me to be discharged.
"Did anything against regulations" that I "failed to report" is ridiculously nebulous.
In response to your question directly, I never violated any regulation that would have seen me discharged as a result.
So, in reality, your effort to manipulate MY reality is a #fail.
Since you asked.
And then this nonsense:
I guess that would make all the minors getting into the military during WWII liars as well, unworthy of serving their country.Sigh.
So, then, we should lower the age of enlistment to, say 10 or so?
Those who fraudulently enlist in the military for ANY reason, including lying about their age (which those who enlisted under false pretenses at any time, for any reason... age OR sexuality) should not be allowed to serve.
LIVES are at stake here. As the soldier, I need to know that the man or woman putting my life at risk by their orders are people of integrity. As the officer, I have to know that my orders will be carried out to that person's best ability.
Liars at either end of that equation screw it up for everybody.
But let's explore that age thing for a moment, shall we?
I enlisted the day after I turned 17. I had a rough time of it. I look at my teenagers (one 17 and one 19) and I shake my head at the thought that they could have served in combat arms like I did at that age.
So, in your world, it's just spiffy for, say, a 15 year old girl to serve in the military?
When and where were you in, again?
CHILDREN SHOULD NOT SERVE IN THE MILITARY. And if it's discovered that someone is serving and they lied about their age... then they need to be removed.
Just like if they lied about their sexuality, education, criminal record OR ANYTHING ELSE.
Again, I cannot comment on what Lew is or is not doing. If you have an issue with him, take it up with him, because I only speak for myself.
It is not that homosexuals are not capable; it is that people like you refuse to accept that they are without prejudice.Really?
Let's replay that statement, shall we?
It is not that 80 year olds, amputees, dwarfs, giants, quadriplegics, identity thieves, those who are blind, deaf or mute; those with asthma, those with cancer or HIV (and yes, the open presence of male homosexuals WILL increase the levels of HIV in the military) Bernie Madoff, polygamists (The next group to be allowed in, no doubt) NAMBLA members, 12 year olds, siamese twins, psychopaths, domestic violence perps, Gordon Gekko, muslim militants, too fat, too thin, or are possessed of any of these medical issues are not capable; it is that people like you refuse to accept that they are without prejudice.See, in your non-military world, apparently the ONLY issue we must concern ourselves with are the "capabilities" of the people in question.
Clearly, based on the long, long list of reasons why you can get disqualified for military service, they've got it all wrong, and the sole arbiter of qualifications should be on how "capable" you are.
This goes back to the one unassailed fact: No one has the right to serve. No one. Gay, straight, crooked. No one.
There is a hell of a lot more to this then what you can or can't do, or what you're "capable" of.
But then, as one of the many gay cheerleaders out there who haven't served and never will serve, I guess you couldn't know that... could you?
And as far as what I personally think of gays openly serving? Well, we're suffering as a nation from one who did: I give you Bradley Manning.