Stop The Military From Discriminating

The lame duck session of Congress passed a bill to end the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy for military service that was enacted under Bill Clinton. Barack Obama signed the new law while flashing a big smile and telling us that no longer would homosexuals in the military be forced to live a lie.

They were never forced to live a lie. Military service is not compulsory so people do not have to join. It is also not a lie to just not say what your sexual orientation is. If it is considered a lie then the decision to lie was taken freely by the person who enlisted. Once again, that is not being forced.

There was nothing wrong with DADT. It allowed gay people to serve so long as they kept their sexual orientation to themselves.

That was not good enough for the progressives because they said it was discrimination not to allow gay people to openly serve. Was it discrimination, sure but it was not unconstitutional as many claim.

Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 14 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to make the rules for governing and regulating the military. Since they made DADT the rule then it was not unconstitutional.

The military routinely discriminates. People who are overweight (and exceed the body fat standard) are put out of the service. It does not matter if they can pass all the physical fitness tests or not, they are out. Overweight people are not allowed to enlist (though the threshold is higher than for those already in).

Now that we have ended the discriminatory practice of DADT it is time to end the practice of discriminating against others who want to serve. If an overweight person wants to serve, then let him. Why discriminate? These folks just want to serve their country.

While we are at it we can end the discriminatory practice of forcing people who want to be in the Special Forces from having to pass more stringent physical tests and end the practice of discriminating against those with poor vision from flying fighter planes.

If the whole premise is to end a discriminatory practice then how do we still allow other discriminatory practices?

This will lead to problems. Those with deeply held religious views will be reprimanded or put out if they do not march lock step with the gay agenda. People who oppose this will not be able to refuse to share a room with a homosexual soldier. What happens when homosexuals want housing for them and their gay lover? Will the military be forced to sanction gay marriage (which I believe is an end goal). What happens when the gay soldier wants medical care for his gay partner? How will this play out when an unmarried straight soldier demands housing and medical care for his opposite sex partner? If that soldier does not get the same treatment as the gay soldier the discrimination begins anew.

The poll taken among soldiers was flawed in its design but one thing is clear, combat forces overwhelmingly disapproved of repealing DADT and allowing openly gay soldiers to serve. If they show their disgust with their feet, we will be in a world of hurting.

The only upside is that if they ever reinstate the draft, being a homosexual will not keep people from being drafted.

I wonder how many gays who fought for this (and have never served or had any intenting of serving) will whine when the draft board sends them a letter.

Yep, be careful what you ask for.

If this has a negative impact on the military Barack Obama will go down in history as the one person who destroyed the greatest military in the world. He will be even worse than Carter, as if anyone thought that remotely possible.

Then again, Obama has never liked the military and he and his progressive buddies will do whatever it takes to destroy it.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

25 Responses to “Stop The Military From Discriminating”

  1. […] United States of America will remove ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and replace it with dogma that will penalize those who refuse to adhere to their new religion of […]

  2. Eoj Trahneir says:

    Why does anyone need to invoke biblical teachings here? Isn’t logic enough? Don’t people like that realize they are setting back progress by into the first century by bible quotes? It is no better than a quote of the Koran, except it is more peaceful and older. I am not impressed.

    Use logic, and logic will prevail.

    And here is a bit of that; if the gays are accepted, openly, in military, the the GI bill will have to pay for all the sexual related medical bills that a gay will get from his anti-biblical behavior.

    And it will have to pay the medical for the other soldier(s) who catch that same STD, and the non-rump-wrangling spouse(s) etc.

    Since it is accepted behavior, they can’t say “Not! Covered! He was not abiding the rules!” Nope, all you poor suckers, the gleeful public, you will foot the bill for the endless years of medical that, inspite of any expense, will result in death death and death.

    And that makes liberals REAL happy! To burden the US economy and to destroy the military, at the same time!
    All under the guise of “being…fair! Equal! Compassionate to men who only want to…just to…love!”
    Yeah.
    I Love you, mister.
    Anyone, anywhere, anytime. Until AIDS do we catch. Amen.
    I now pronounce you man and man.

    • Blake says:

      Eoj, here I have to part ways with your thinking- I do not think being Gay is a “right”, nor do I believe that it is normal behavior, and it is certainly against many of the precepts of the Bible.
      All of that being said, I do think that while the Military CAN and DOES discriminate, this DADT would be akin to saying that Blacks can serve in the Military as long as they dress in Whiteface, and cover their “blackness”- that would be wrong, and so is discrimination against gays.
      I do not believe that there will be an explosion of gay behavior, or that some will dress in “rainbow camo”- the military will address this issue internally. If gays get out of line, they will be court-martialed, as fraternization is taboo, no matter the sex.
      Believe me, if this issue turns into, as they say in the Army, a cluster-f**k, it will be repealed, just as prohibition was- faster, actually, as this will be an internal military matter.

  3. Adam says:

    “If an overweight person wants to serve, then let him. Why discriminate?”

    Desegregation could have caused any number of problems. So could allowing women to server and be officers. Ending such policies would not have made you write that we might as well get rid of weight and skill requirements next, would it?

    I’m sure there were people at the time that used the very same arguments over race and gender that were used against DADT.

    Who wants to serve under blacks? What if a soldier doesn’t want to share a bunk with a black man? What if a man doesn’t want to take orders from a woman? Now we’ll need two showers for men and women and double the bunks! If soldiers show their displeasure with their feet, we will be in a world of hurting!

    There are interesting parallels between race and gender in the military and DADT.

    “There was nothing wrong with DADT. It allowed gay people to serve so long as they kept their sexual orientation to themselves.”

    The problem is when living in close quarters with folks it’s hard to not reveal personality and private views. In some cases it hasn’t taken much to get the humiliating investigations going.

    The number of discharges under DADT over the years is somewhere above 13,000 reportedly. That’s a lot of men and women denied the right to serve their country for a silly meaningless thing like sexual orientation.

  4. Big Dog says:

    A person cannot choose to be a woman or to be black and during those times we had compulsory service. I would also add that being a black or being a woman is not seen as a sin in anyone’s eyes. There are plenty of people who see homosexuality as abnormal and a sin (with which I agree). Forcing a person to ignore his beliefs based on a politically motivated stunts and social engineering is wrong. I am glad I am no longer in the military so I do not have to deal with the pussification of the services.

    And women and blacks are not 2000 times more likely to carry a deadly disease that could be passed on on the battlefield. 97% of the military’s blood comes from the military. Will we continue to exclude gays from donating or will they taint the blood supply?

    It is meaningless to you because you can only speculate, you have had no practical experience with the service.

    As for women serving, that has created its own set of problems (many of which were predicted). The number of women discharged for being pregnant is far greater than the number discharged for being gay.

    And about 8 times as many get discharged for failing to meet the weight standards. If an
    overweight person can still pass the PT test and do his job isn’t it silly to discriminate because he doesn’t look “fabulous” in his uniform? Think about it, we have discharged 8 times as many skilled people for being overweight than for being gay. We have discharged about 4 times as many for being pregnant than for being gay.

    The military is not a social engineering proving ground though the leftists like to make it such.

    Will this cause problems, probably. Will they last, I have no idea. But, if they reinstate the draft I will be cheering for you as you get on the bus.

    And you did not answer the questions. How do we handle medical for the partner, how about commissary privileges? Will we let straight guys’ girlfriends have the same access?

    And what about the forced reeducation where they will lecture troops on accepting homosexuality (they admit there will be a lot of training)? What do we do with the troops who refuse to accept it as normal? Do we infringe on their rights to push a social agenda.

    And remember, your leader lied. No one is FORCED to live a lie…

    Here’s a record of the discharges for 2008, according to the Defense Department:
    — Drugs: 5,627
    — Serious offenses: 3,817
    — Weight standards: 4,555
    — Pregnancy: 2,353
    — Parenthood: 2,574
    — Homosexuality: 634

    13444 have been discharged since DADT (and that includes the year it was enacted) which is an average of 840 a year. That is one fifth of those discharged for being overweight.

    It is not a huge number of discharges but that was made to look bad to push the agenda.

    One last thing about the discharges. How many of them were voluntary? How many of these folks “told” so they could get out of a deployment or avoid war or some other assignment? Certainly some of them were on purpose just like some of the pregnancies…

    • Adam says:

      “A person cannot choose to be a woman or to be black and during those times we had compulsory service.”

      And I guess you believe gay people choose to be gay then despite what science tells us? But what am I asking? You believe global warming is a myth despite what science tells us…

      “Will we continue to exclude gays from donating or will they taint the blood supply?”

      Blood can be tainted by anyone. It still needs to be tested without DADT as much as with it.

      “Think about it, we have discharged 8 times as many skilled people for being overweight than for being gay. We have discharged about 4 times as many for being pregnant than for being gay.”

      Those are things that drastically limit service capacity. Homosexuality doesn’t. The changes and issues that will come up will be no more or less than race or gender problems have created but I’m sure you’ll agree that the military has always more than met that challenge. It will this time too.

      “How do we handle medical for the partner, how about commissary privileges? Will we let straight guys’ girlfriends have the same access?”

      Who knows? You could do a what if scenario for any aspect of military service for straight or gay people. The military will continue to address issues as they come up in society as it’s done since it was created. It’s not social engineering. It just reflects the evolution of the people of our society. The people of our society make up the military force so the military will never be completely walled off from outside social forces as you seem to want it to be.

  5. Big Dog says:

    I might add that some of the discharges were because soldiers declared their homosexuality to their commanders and were discharged then they filed suit.

    It is likely they came out solely to pursue the issue in court.

  6. victoria says:

    I heard it said the best I think when it was asked–“does this in any way help the mission or in any way relate to the mission?” I was a military dependant back some years ago–basically the impression I got was (and rightly so) that the people were there to serve the purpose of the military only and not the other way around. There was even a saying as far as spouses go–if the military had wanted you to have a spouse they would have issued you one. Boy it has come along way–now they are worried about hurting some gays feelings and whether or not they have offended some minority in anyway. (ie–the shooting by Major Hasan).

    • Adam says:

      “I heard it said the best I think when it was asked–’does this in any way help the mission or in any way relate to the mission?'”

      In cases like Arabic translation this has been an issue. We’re talking about a group of people who are just as willing to serve their country as any other group in America but they can’t unless they hide who they are and tell no one their secret. If the secret comes out all their training and all our tax dollars spent on them is all just wasted. Doesn’t seem right to me from any angle.

  7. Big Dog says:

    Once again Adam shows his ignorance because he has never served.

    How does being overweight (being above 22% body fat) reduce a person’s ability if that person can get a maximum score on the physical fitness test and can qualify as an expert with his weapon? Explain to me genius, how a guy 10# overweight who can lift more than he weighs is a detriment to service and a guy who is well within weight standards who can’t life as much as he weighs and barely passes the PT test is a better asset?

    You have no clue.

    And you falsely claim that I do not believe the myth of global warming. I believe the globe is getting warmer and cooler in cycles as it has for millions of years. What i believe is the myth is that man is doing anything to affect it.

    The so called science on homosexuality is not reality based and was devised to give legitimacy to an abnormal thing. Being homosexual is a choice that people make.

    But, if we are to conclude that it is not a choice but rather a thing in nature then we MUST conclude that homosexuals are defective.

    People have mental issues because of genetic problems and we medicate them. We would not say a bipolar person is normal.

    Homosexual behavior is not normal. It can NEVER lead to procreation and the sex parts are not compatible. So any behavior by same sex persons is abnormal.

    It should not be accepted as normal because it is not normal behavior any more than schizophrenia.

    Either these folks choose to be abnormal or they are genetically abnormal, wither way they are abnormal and no science can conclude that any gene that makes people engage in abnormal behavior is normal.

    It is not abnormal to be black or to be a woman. Those are genetic traits that are normal and comply with nature. Any genetic reason (if there is actually such a thing) would render the carrier of the gene abnormal as same sex relationships is not normal in nature and serves no purpose.

    The people are defective. So do you suppose NARAL and the others can require a test for that so called homo gene and abort any baby with it? That way they can stop targeting the black population and rid us of defective people.

    Homosexuality is abnormal behavior.

  8. Big Dog says:

    Come on Adam, quit being stupid. How many Arab translators do you actually think have been thrown out for being gay? Are all translators of Arabic gay? Mathematically, 8 times as many translators have been thrown out for being overweight.

    The number of translators is small. Homo groups trump up this small number as if it hurts readiness.

    Once again, you have little knowledge of mission because you have no experience with it.

    • Adam says:

      “Explain to me genius, how a guy 10# overweight who can lift more than he weighs is a detriment to service and a guy who is well within weight standards who can’t life as much as he weighs and barely passes the PT test is a better asset?”

      I’m not suggesting rules for weight or pregnancy are somehow perfect, but clearly we can all understand how levels of obesity or a big fat pregnant belly can inhibit a person’s duties in the military.

      “And you falsely claim that I do not believe the myth of global warming.”

      You do not believe that humans are causing the warming then you do not believe what scientists overwhelmingly believe. So don’t try to wiggle off the hook.

      “We would not say a bipolar person is normal.”

      And informed people do not say homosexuality is a mental disorder or a disease. Inform yourself.

      “Mathematically, 8 times as many translators have been thrown out for being overweight.”

      And again there is a reason we throw fatties out of the military. They are real reasons Homosexuality is not a threat to the military. I don’t need to be a seasoned military man to see that.

      • Big Dog says:

        What threat does an overweight guy WHO CAN PASS ALL TESTS (you keep ignoring that part) pose that a gay guy does not when gay men are 2000 times more likely to have HIV or Hep B?

        Blood is tested under ideal conditions but, HIV might not be detected early on and on the battlefield there might not be elaborate tests.

        As for the reason we throw fatties out, explain how a guy who is a “fatty” but is physically able to pass all the fitness tests is a threat to the military. What is that reason Adam?

        As for pregnant women, pregnancy is a condition of health and will end in 9 months. It costs a lot to discharge them as it does the overweight guys WHO CAN FULLY FUNCTION.

        As for global warming, you keep saying the majority of scientists believe it is man made but that does not make your statement true. I am not wriggling, I do not believe that man is responsible for something that has been taking place in cycles since before man arrived here.

        But we will see in a few years, your genius Gore said it would be all over in 10 years and 5 of them are up. We are either going to burn to death or not.

        I say not.

        No, man is not responsible and even if the discredited scientists say so, the majority of climate scientists do not believe it. Those who profess to believe are saying so to keep funding coming or to keep from being assaulted by the global warming zealots who attack those who disagree.

        And Adam, until pressure was put on by gay groups the psychiatric folks labeled homosexuality a mental disorder.

        There is no way to say homosexuality is normal because it is not. I am an informed person. I, unlike you, do not believe those who keep claiming a mental disorder is normal. It is not normal and would not be viewed as such without pressure from gay lobby groups.

        Can you offer evidence that same sex is NORMAL? Absolutely not. And the psychiatrists thought so until special interests were involved.

        But forget the science (which you usually do) what about people who object on moral foundations? Whose right wins?

        • Adam says:

          “…when gay men are 2000 times more likely to have HIV or Hep B…”

          I’d love to see a source for that.

          “..your genius Gore said it would be all over in 10 years…”

          Frankly I don’t care what Gore says. I care what the scientists believe. Usually what Gore says is backed up but he’s mostly a celebrity and he’s certainly not a scientist. You act as if refuting Gore refutes what thousands of other scientists believe. Wrong.

          “But forget the science (which you usually do) what about people who object on moral foundations?”

          Same goes for the folks that objected to ending slavery, to allowing blacks to vote, to desegregation, to women voting, to blacks and women in the military, and so on. They can shove it. We’re moving on as a society without those people holding those attitudes.

  9. Schatzee says:

    I was just going to add in, BD, the same thing you mentioned earlier. Until homosexuals made such a commotion regarding the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder it was in fact listed as one in the earlier versions of the DSM. It is clearly NOT strictly a genetic condition (as with being female or black) because monozygotic twin studies indicate that sexual preference (and please note the term used by everyone is in fact PREFERENCE) is NOT genetically based.

    Also, while we’re at the discrimination thing, they really need to stop discriminating against men in favor of women in the military. Women should have to take the same tests and perform under the same standards as men.

    I also think since military service is not mandatory or compulsory then the individual who is homosexual can choose not to serve if they do not want to keep their preference to themselves. I am sure there are many gays and lesbians who have proudly served and could continue to serve without the obvious strain that this decision is going to put on all our service people. Men and women are separated in housing and showering and things of that nature to avoid any sexual tension in an already tense environment. How will the military now handle transvestites? Is it fair to force a woman to shower and live with a man who chooses to dress and behave as a woman just because it’s what he wants? What about what she wants? And the same thing with a men. Why are we constantly forcing the majority to change their ways to appease and conform to the very small minority (albeit the noisiest minority ever).

    I think this is one way to further break down America and our “greatness” from within. The military is the last bastion of honor and respect that the liberals can infiltrate and demoralize. It’s sad and I personally think that this decision has done nothing but put our country and our military people at risk.

    And I can’t believe we are going there with global warming on this post. Anyone with a scientific background (and no ax to grind – meaning they are not paid by Al Gore and his group) can tell you that we have had at least 2 ice ages and warming trends BEFORE man was even here. Before industrialization. In fact, the warmest period on record is in the 1930s – before most of our “evil” modern inventions. This is really a no-brainer and just another way to steal people’s money and issue more government control over our lives.

    • Adam says:

      “In fact, the warmest period on record is in the 1930s…”

      Where do you get that idea?

    • Adam says:

      “Is it fair to force a woman to shower and live with a man who chooses to dress and behave as a woman just because it’s what he wants? What about what she wants?”

      Since when do transvestites shower and live with women simply because they like to dress in women’s clothing?

  10. Schatzee says:

    Sorry – I forgot to add that all of this “sensitivity” and “accommodating” comes on our dime – the taxpayers. That really ticks me off. They will throw out the fat guy, refuse to pay for surgery for him to lose weight even though his weight condition may be genetic or metabolic but we’re going to be paying for sex changes in no time because they can’t help who they are inside. Give me a break – this is out of control.

  11. Big Dog says:

    Same goes for the folks that objected to ending slavery, to allowing blacks to vote, to desegregation, to women voting, to blacks and women in the military, and so on. They can shove it. We’re moving on as a society without those people holding those attitudes.

    We could have avoided all this if we had gotten rid of the Democrat party…

    So you are actually saying that a person who has an objection to homosexuality based upon religious beliefs can “shove it” if he decides he would not like to share a room with that person? You are saying that a person who holds those beliefs MUST conform to the gay agenda and support all of it just because his beliefs don’t count?

    Are you saying he can get out if he does not like it? Because that is what was said about people who did not like DADT and that was wrong in your eyes.

    Funny thing, we have a First Amendment that allows people to worship and believe what they want and government CANNOT interfere with that. Forcing people to do something against their religious beliefs would lead to plenty of lawsuits.

    Those people can shove it. You are moving on as a society? Your cowardly ass would never join the service and the same is true for 99% of the gays who fought for this and you have the nerve to tell people to shove it?

    Yeah, you progressive morons are real tolerant. But only with people who agree with you.

    I have a new word for you to learn for those whose attitude is that he people who built this military and the majority that serve in it can shove it. That word is fratricide…

    Shove that…

    • Adam says:

      “We could have avoided all this if we had gotten rid of the Democrat party…”

      Strange. For all it’s faults now and in the past, my party has moved into the 21st century when it comes to civil rights. Why’d your party have to go and move backward in time to try and protect a legacy of discrimination and bigotry? Sad. Your side used to be much better than that.

      “You are saying that a person who holds those beliefs MUST conform to the gay agenda and support all of it just because his beliefs don’t count?”

      A person doesn’t have to support any part of the gay agenda if he or she doesn’t want to just like some whites are free to hold out spreading fear against minorities. That’s fine. Be free. It’s just that your bigotry is no longer backed up by the law of the United States and you’ll all be exposed for your true, hateful characters.

      “Your cowardly ass would never join the service and the same is true for 99% of the gays who fought for this and you have the nerve to tell people to shove it?”

      Yes, bigots can shove it. It’s not a policy insisting gays join. It’s a policy that simply insists that being openly gay or lesbian is no longer a factor in denying an American the right to serve his or her country. I’m sorry you think my choice not to serve in the military has any significance in this conversation.

      “Yeah, you progressive morons are real tolerant. But only with people who agree with you.”

      Yes, I’m so sorry that I’m not more tolerant of bigots who hold on to backwards intolerant thoughts and feelings. Shame on me for not being so open minded as to support absurdity and discrimination in America.

      • Big Dog says:

        So a person who has no problem with gays expressing themselves as part of the open society but thinks it will be bad for the military is a bigot? Not quite. I happen to feel this will harm readiness and that is my ONLY concern. Unlike you and your ilk, I am not concerned with social experiments, I am concerned about the readiness of the military and ONLY that.

        If it pans out that all is well then fine but if it does not then what happens?

        As for conforming, this is where your lack of service leaves you at a disadvantage. In the military one is required to support the mission and the things that are dictated by the command.

        If a person does not approve of gays or believes that it is an immoral practice then that person must shut his mouth or risk being reprimanded. If a soldier says he thinks homosexuality is a sin then he will be subject to discipline or a bad evaluation. It is not like the civilian world where people can say what they feel.

        If you work for a company that supports the gay agenda and says that employees should attend the gay pride parade, you have the right not to go. If a military unit says you will attend then you will regardless of how you feel. You have no concept of how it is run and what happens to those who fail to support what is dictated.

        I do not care about homosexuals. I don’t care how they live or who they love. I think it is an abnormal lifestyle and that it is a sin. But I would not treat a gay person any differently than anyone else. I have cared for plenty of gays over my career and they have gotten the best care available.

        But I am concerned about military readiness. Thinking that openly gay soldiers will harm readiness does NOT make me a bigot.

        Of course anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot or a racist. You need new words.

        • Adam says:

          “Of course anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot or a racist. You need new words.”

          Time and again we’ve disagreed. Have I called you a bigot or a racist every time? No. Your argument is nonsense.

          When you line up your grievances against gays serving openly in the military they do not make sense or have any logic behind them. You fall back to an argument about readiness but you cannot say how readiness will be effected without sounding like a bigot.

          “You have no concept of how it is run and what happens to those who fail to support what is dictated.”

          I’m sorry that you think the military is such a closed system that I would have to have served to understand simple concepts like the chain of command and following orders. Get real. It’s not a secret society. Even people like myself who have not served have friends and family who have and I fully understand the roles and responsibilities entailed in the service.

    • Adam says:

      I really have no clue what you mean about fratricide. Are you calling on soldiers to kill fellow soldiers over being forced to serve with openly gay Americans? Surely not. I hope you wouldn’t go there.

      • Blake says:

        Perhaps he is calling on liberals to kill other liberals, like lemmings running off of a cliff- a rather exhilarating thought, when you get right down to it- go ahead, Adam, you may begin-

  12. Big Dog says:

    No Adam, I never said it was a secret society. You just think it is like the civilian sector where people can do what they want.

    If a person who objects is told to do something contrary to what he believes he will be expected to do it or face consequences.

    No, I do not sound like a bigot and yes readiness is my concern and the concern of a lot of people (not counting the political appointees who wear a uniform. They say what they are told to).

    There are a lot of readiness concerns. It will be a problem.

    But what do you care if it is or not? As long as the agenda passes you do not care what it means.

    And don’t forget, the military discriminates as a regular routine in the name of readiness, DADT was not unconstitutional and it worked.

    No, readiness is the concern. If it has an impact what will we do? Considering that most countries that allow openly gay people to serve have problems (and mandatory service) then we can expect some of the same.

    In fact, I believe we should have compulsory service now to give everyone a chance to serve with pride including all those who pushed for this but would never consider it.