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.
HHhhmmmmm.Anonymous said...
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.4:18 PM
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.
And finally:
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.
.
6 comments:
Sounds like 'Anonymous' might actually be Basil Seal/Giles Witherborne since we have had quite the time on Victoria Taft's, Basil/Giles showing himself clueless, as usual.
Whether the number of incidence increased or just reporting it increased is immaterial. The fact is, sexual assault, including male on male is happening and causing trouble.
Then, this idiot (Giles/Basil) claims that male on male sexual assault might not necessarily be homosexual in nature.
Grasping at straws & clueless.
Oh, and 36% of experienced combat Troops indicating they will leave the Military doesn't really matter. After all, anybody can face combat, right?
C-L-U-E-L-E-S-S
Odd they we haven't heard about the rush of otherwise capable applicants who were rejected for declaring their homosexuality.
I guess they didn't get the memo.
Whoever doesn’t know your position hasn’t been paying attention!
Obviously, gays can and have served successfully in the military – over a decade of DADT is proof positive that being “gay” per se has nothing to do with the ability to serve. It’s a subjective social issue – I don’t like subjective arguments because both sides can be right. You support your side well by sticking to objective themes like lying and dishonesty where you’re right. If I was to debate this topic, I would stick to other objective themes like liberty and the law – but I’ll let it lie because it worked itself out already.
But I base my position on equal parts of integrity AND the law.
As both the law and I have pointed out, there is no right to serve.
The DADT law itself encapsulates that fact:
§ 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces
a) Findings.— Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
Since what's being discussed here is a "right," the law pretty much establishes that, as I have written, there is no such "right."
What we're talking about here is a standard of conduct first, and the veracity of those who, in the past, have practiced this conduct.
One has to wonder: what other objectionable forms of military conduct are under review by the left?
Further, this issue has to address the "volunteer" nature of service in the military; that is, as Obama would tell you, you certainly don't HAVE to serve in the military.
In that respect, the fact is that since no one is forced to serve, the military is much like any other job today. You know as well as I do the choices made concerning employment; it's a matter of pay and benefits.
If one is considering employment, and one is confronted with working conditions that one disapproves of, one is free NOT TO FRICKING JOIN.
What this issue is about, it seems to me, is putting the desires of a group of people, people who support the current Administration with their well-stocked check books, getting their political payoff; ahead of the security of the United States.
And they're getting that payoff at the risk of reducing our combat effectiveness, which is supposed to be the entire reason we have a military outside philosophical considerations.
This change in regulations risks far too much, to gain us far too little.
My concern isn't that Obama manipulated the GOP into getting stupid... That's been their pattern for years. My concern is that a non-existent "right" has now been provided in the middle of a war, consequences be damned.
My concern is for the poor bastard guarding the wire. And no one engaged on the pro-side of this issue seems the least concerned for him.
When blood is spilled over this policy, it will cease to be "subjective." And Martin, I would venture to say that this is anything BUT "worked out."
And I fear that "working it out" will include increased amounts of body bags, and decreased amounts of combat capability.
But why should that even be discussed? Those considerations are certainly secondary to micro-managing military personnel policies under the umbrella of political correctness.
What's a few more bodies, more or less?
Martin, the notion of Gays have already served with no problems is wrong. Granted, many have served and kept their sexuality to themselves, just as Heterosexuals should.
But, the Military has been forced to have a program, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response in the last few years.
In 2009, there was 11 percent increase from fiscal 2008 in reports of sexual assault. While the majority were male on female, the Army has seen an increase male sexual victims coming forward. Likewise, the Navy/Marines have seen a significant increase in male sexual assault victims coming forward to report being assaulted. rising to 17% in 09 from 8% in 08.
This, at a time they are "keeping it to themselves."
This amounts to a huge distraction frontline combat Troops (or any other) does not need.
The Military is not now nor has it ever been about individuals, but the unit as a whole. Nor is it like a 9 to 5 job.
The problems that will occur are numerous and all will degrade our national security, while we are at war.
Our country was founded on the concepts of freedom & liberty: every person can do whatever they please as long as it does not affect another person - if it does then the conflict goes to the Courts. Total freedom & liberty, however, means every man is an island, without much hope of rebelling against a troop of Girl Scouts, let alone Great Britain, so we added an exception to “total freedom & liberty” and begrudgingly accepted a weak representative form of central government based on democracy. Unfortunately, exceptions invite exploitation: in the case of democracy, the majority could simply vote to take all the minority’s stuff. Hence, to prevent exploitive democracy, we protect the minority with a guarantee called the “Constitution.” Interestingly, and often mistaken, the Constitution does NOT apply to private individuals or businesses – it ONLY applies to government agencies! The military is part of the government so no undue discrimination. IF the military was private enterprise, they could discriminate however they damn well pleased, (as long as it did not conflict with State law).
That's my line of reasoning - but obviously on an issue this divisive, everything you say has validity too.
Post a Comment