Homosexuals in the military

[Fusilier]

Then re-read the thread because i'm really getting tired of repeating myself. And I am not going to further hijack this thread. The Internet is FULL of news stories from valid news agencies that have covered this subject over the years. San Fran is notorious for the kinds of things happening that worries NOT JUST ME, but many in the Gay Community happening in the armed forces that will cause problems that will get people killed. If you can't understand that, then i'm sorry.

Now let's get this thread back on the subject of Female Combat Personnel.

Ok. No problem. This will be my last post.

However you might want to entertain the idea that you are repeating yourself because some questions were not being answered.

I wouldn't be too worried though. There are gay people in Canada too, including the military. Not only that but when I was in the army, we didn't have laws that violated human rights which kept them from serving... and interesting enough, the gays didn't make a mess of things.

[Targan]

And don't forget your helmet - the sky may fall what with me being a voice of reason!

I think that alone has accomplished what I could not!

[natehale1971]

Ok. No problem. This will be my last post.

However you might want to entertain the idea that you are repeating yourself because some questions were not being answered.

I wouldn't be too worried though. There are gay people in Canada too, including the military. Not only that but when I was in the army, we didn't have laws that violated human rights which kept them from serving... and interesting enough, the gays didn't make a mess of things.

The Gays that I knew while in the Navy never felt their Human Rights were being violated, and I still know them to this day and they were the first ones who had expressed the fears I'm talking about.

[95th Rifleman]

Coming from a British perspective, I don't understand all the fuss. In the British military gay and lesbian soldiers are accorded the same rights as everyone else, hell they can get married and qualify for a family quarter.

This is a relatively recent thing but the British attitude, post-80's, has been really positive in this regard. Who you screw has nothing to do with how you fight.

In the post-2tk enviroment it'l be even less of a consideration as basic survival tends to be mor eimportant than cultural/religous bigotry.

[natehale1971]

Coming from a British perspective, I don't understand all the fuss. In the British military gay and lesbian soldiers are accorded the same rights as everyone else, hell they can get married and qualify for a family quarter.

This is a relatively recent thing but the British attitude, post-80's, has been really positive in this regard. Who you screw has nothing to do with how you fight.

In the post-2tk enviroment it'l be even less of a consideration as basic survival tends to be mor eimportant than cultural/religous bigotry.

Ture. who you sleep with is between you, your partner and God. And that's who it should stay with. The fear is that the identity politics activists are going to be able to get in, and start causing problems (there is a laundry list of cases of the kinds of things they have done in San Fran, the list of gays storming chrisitan churches, ect).

That's what my friends and family who are openly gay are worried will happen beause of what's going on with the so-called "gay marriage" debate with activists pulling some horrible things off to just get attention.

And as I have stated time and time again... I don't care who you sleep with, I just don't want you forcing it down mine or anyone else's throat. I had someone do that to me LITERALLY, not figureative. I was rapped. and they got away with it because of the political games being played at the time.

I am joining my adopted family was we just hope and pray that the recruiters and indoctrination & training centres will be able to weed out the ones who are Identitiy Political Activist who do horrirlbe things to get special 'gay rights'

[95th Rifleman]

Ture. who you sleep with is between you, your partner and God. And that's who it should stay with. The fear is that the identity politics activists are going to be able to get in, and start causing problems (there is a laundry list of cases of the kinds of things they have done in San Fran, the list of gays storming chrisitan churches, ect).

That's what my friends and family who are openly gay are worried will happen beause of what's going on with the so-called "gay marriage" debate with activists pulling some horrible things off to just get attention.

And as I have stated time and time again... I don't care who you sleep with, I just don't want you forcing it down mine or anyone else's throat. I had someone do that to me LITERALLY, not figureative. I was rapped. and they got away with it because of the political games being played at the time.

I am joining my adopted family was we just hope and pray that the recruiters and indoctrination & training centres will be able to weed out the ones who are Identitiy Political Activist who do horrirlbe things to get special 'gay rights'

Yeah, that's the issue. It's like the feminazis who hijacked the feminist movement. While most feminists wanted equal rights, the feminazis wanted MORE than equal, they wanted special treatment. Some gay-rights groups are the same, wanting special rights rather than just equality.

[natehale1971]

Yeah, that's the issue. It's like the feminazis who hijacked the feminist movement. While most feminists wanted equal rights, the feminazis wanted MORE than equal, they wanted special treatment. Some gay-rights groups are the same, wanting special rights rather than just equality.

Exactly the point that i was trying to make.

[Jason]

Ture. who you sleep with is between you, your partner and God. And that's who it should stay with. The fear is that the identity politics activists are going to be able to get in, and start causing problems (there is a laundry list of cases of the kinds of things they have done in San Fran, the list of gays storming chrisitan churches, ect).

That's what my friends and family who are openly gay are worried will happen beause of what's going on with the so-called "gay marriage" debate with activists pulling some horrible things off to just get attention.

And as I have stated time and time again... I don't care who you sleep with, I just don't want you forcing it down mine or anyone else's throat. I had someone do that to me LITERALLY, not figureative. I was rapped. and they got away with it because of the political games being played at the time.

I am joining my adopted family was we just hope and pray that the recruiters and indoctrination & training centres will be able to weed out the ones who are Identitiy Political Activist who do horrirlbe things to get special 'gay rights'

I am really trying to understand. First, I am sorry you suffered a personal degradation. Currently, 30%-40% of service members suffer a sexual assault, and 80%-90% suffer from sexual harassment. People that suffer military sex trauma (MST) are five times as likely to suffer from PTSD.

One third of female vets with PTSD that served in Iraq or Afgan have suffered military sexual trauma. Sex, both consensual and rape is happening in the military on a regular basis. Same-sex rape is not about sexual gratification or homosexuality, but it is about violent control and domination, and the vast majority of men that sexually assault other men identify themselves as heterosexual. Many rapists will attack either males or females, while in their consensual sex lives, they will only have sex with females. Some target males more than females as it gives them even a greater sense of power and control.

Based on the stats, I could argue that MST is endemic to the military.

I googled "gays storm church" and found one single incident in Lansing, MI. here in the U.S. One incident that had zero to do with the military.

Again, I am just trying to understand your point. You believe that there is a danger that the U.S. military is going to be infiltrated by gay activists bent on breaking rules to gain rights? Am I right?

[pmulcahy11b]

The person repsonsible for this will be punished and have no grounds to stand. But the idenity politcs activists will always fall back on accuastations of 'Homophobia' and 'Bigoitry'... because history has shown this, time and time again.

It's the US military -- no one will be punished for forcing anyone to worship in a proper Christian manner (however "proper" is defined by their superiors), except for the soldiers who speak out against it. Being a life-long atheist who's a vet, I know this from experience. There are a lot of hidden bigotries in the military, and religion is one of them.

And sorry, I couldn't figure out how to grab the quote that was the reason for Nate's answer.

[pmulcahy11b]

With the new policy these kinds of people can now get into the armed forces and MAKE IT AN ISSUE. As it was, it wouldn't be an issue. Because even HETEROSEXUAL sex acts (even nothing more than heavy kissing and petting) being done in public WHILE IN uniform is AGAINST THE UCMJ and military policy.

That's a big part of the point of removing the ban against being openly gay in the military, and then ensuring that the chain of command follows the new regs -- so there is no issue anymore. If you are in the military and being treated fairly and given the same opportunities that anyone else has regardless of sexual orientation, race, or religion, then you have nothing to bitch about except yourself. If you continually complain about being treated unfairly when you're not, you're just a troublemaker, and the military should show you the door, as you made the wrong career choice. If you unjustly complain so loudly about being treated unfairly so loudly that you make the military look bad, you should be treated according to the UCMJ as harshly as possible. Regardless of who you are.

But for a long time, gays in the military have voluntarily served the country while knowing if their sexual orientation ever leaked out, they could suffer anything from a beating to a court-martial, and it wouldn't matter how well they served their country. They joined anyway, because they wanted to serve their country that badly. The treatment of gays in the military to date is a point of dishonor to the entire military right up to the President. If you want to serve your country so badly you're willing to deal with such treatment, you're not a liar and you are not a pervert -- you are noble, honorable and patriotic, perhaps more than the typical soldier.

[95th Rifleman]

It's insane that in the 21st century to have a military that bars people based on sex, sexual orientation or religion. it's just bloody daft.

[natehale1971]

I am really trying to understand. First, I am sorry you suffered a personal degradation. Currently, 30%-40% of service members suffer a sexual assault, and 80%-90% suffer from sexual harassment. People that suffer military sex trauma (MST) are five times as likely to suffer from PTSD.

One third of female vets with PTSD that served in Iraq or Afgan have suffered military sexual trauma. Sex, both consensual and rape is happening in the military on a regular basis. Same-sex rape is not about sexual gratification or homosexuality, but it is about violent control and domination, and the vast majority of men that sexually assault other men identify themselves as heterosexual. Many rapists will attack either males or females, while in their consensual sex lives, they will only have sex with females. Some target males more than females as it gives them even a greater sense of power and control.

Based on the stats, I could argue that MST is endemic to the military.

I googled "gays storm church" and found one single incident in Lansing, MI. here in the U.S. One incident that had zero to do with the military.

Again, I am just trying to understand your point. You believe that there is a danger that the U.S. military is going to be infiltrated by gay activists bent on breaking rules to gain rights? Am I right?

Yes. There is, because that type of tactic has been used repeatedly in the past and currently in the present. And it's not just me who is worried about this, but openly gay men and women who have, and those who have not, served in the armed forces.

I'm not talking about the type of openly gay person who just wants to serve a country that they love. I'm talking about the kind who puts identity politics above the needs and welfare of others and their country.

Look up "Folsom Street Fair" and "Up your Alley" for some of the kind of things that the type of people that I'm talking about have just done in San Fran. There are other cities in the US and Europe where this kind of behaviour has been happening over the past 10+ years during so-called 'gay pride' parades. Men having sex with other men, or doing the 'leather' S&M sex acts IN PUBLIC infront of children is something that is just plan wrong.

And you didn't look hard enough if you only found out about Lansign church being attacked... because this has happened more than once here in the US AND in churches over seas.

Below is JUST ONE story that had happened in 1993, i can't find the story again that had been written in 2010 that covered 20 years of really obnoxious behavour that didn't help the gay rights debate, but set them back because it caused people who were already fearful of something they didn't understand. And if you take the time to look for them, you can find out about the many other cases of homosexual activists who have been going into churches and interrupting the services.

One of the groups actuallly had men that were dressed in Nun habits and kabuki stype makeup storming in and causing all kinds of problems in a catholic church. This one actually had video that showed the priest tried to keep the peace and he offered them a chance to take communion and blessings from the father, and then sit down and listen to the surmen. But that wasn't what the activists wanted. They just wanted to keep yelling and making all kinds of problems to disrupt the services.

It's THAT kind of thing that i'm talking about. That all this is being done for political reasons. There was a better way of doing this, and it wasn't taken.


News Release: Official Statement by Dr. David C. Innes

The following events took place on Sunday evening, September 19,1993, revolving around the regularly schedule 6:00 PM Sunday Evening Worship Service of the Hamilton Square Baptist Church, 1212 Geary St., San Francisco, California. Reverend Lou Sheldon, of the Traditional Values Coalition, was invited by the church to be the guest speaker.

Only the church's membership and regular attenders were notified of the service, through the church's own Sunday bulletin. No public notice or invitation was made in addition to this. However, in the September 16,1993 edition of the Bay Area Reporter, the meeting was announced in a front page article using intemperate, inflammatory language. A three-by-five ad on page five of the September 15,1993 edition of the San Francisco Sentinel announced a protest of the Sunday night service. The church has no knowledge of how, or from whom they obtained the information.



The church received telephone calls during the week prior to the meeting, demanding that our guest speaker should not come. Two people came to the church during that week asking to see the pastor and, speaking to the caretaker, notified him that we could not have Rev. Sheldon as a guest in our church, and that they intended to stop him.



The church's pastor, Dr. David C. Innes, made at least four calls to the Northern (Police) Station prior to the meeting, on Saturday and Sunday afternoon regarding the demonstration, expressing his concern for potential problems. He called the Northern Station immediately before the service, and requested more backup police because he felt the situation was not under control. He was informed that no backup would be sent unless requested by police that were present and further, that they had not requested it. Dr. Innes was told, "You must understand. This is San Francisco."



Homosexual and lesbian demonstrators began gathering around the church property as early as 5:00 PM.



The police were immediately notified by telephone of their presence. As people entered the building, demonstrators handed flyers purporting to be published by the church. These were also placed upon automobile windshields in the immediate area. By 6:00 PM a riot was under way. The rioters assumed complete control of the exterior property and grounds of the church. In spite of several requests to have them removed the officer in charge insisted that everything was under control and that police procedures and regulations would not allow him to do so.



At about the time of the beginning of the service, an usher, stationed himself in the courtyard to assist members in gaining entry to the building. The usher witnessed the destruction of church property and notified an officer who turned away and ignored him. The rioters recognized him as a church member, surrounded him and completely denied him any freedom of movement.



Pastor Charles and Donna McIlhenny were refused entry by the rioters, and told they could not enter the building. The doors were completely blocked by the rioters. Pastor McIlhenny held on to Donna as they began to make their way through the mob who were shouting and screaming in their ears, "You will not enter this church."



The rioters assaulted them, pushing and shoving them, seeking to keep them from the front door. One of them grabbed Donna's body, lifting her off the ground, and attempted to pull her back away from the entry. She stretched her arms out for help from a near by police officer who offered no assistance. Her son, seeing she was in trouble, pleaded with the officers to assist her. The officers appeared so overwhelmed by the rioters that they were unable to take control of the situation. Both of her hands were scratched (the skin was broken).



Finally, the church's caretaker grabbed her outstretched arms and pulled her through to the door, out of the hands of the rioters. As they made their way past the three police officers at the door, they were pelted by rocks, which also struck the window panes of the entry doors. Several members from Pastor McIlhenny's church also were accosted and had to flee to a side entrance. There they also found the entry blocked and had to remain outside until the riot police arrived and let them in the building. Pastor McIlhenny's son, Ryan and his friend were not able to enter the building.



The rioter removed the Christian flag from the flag pole, and attached the gay flag under the U.S. flag.



The church's caretaker removed both flags, but a rioter grabbed the gay flag and it was again run up the flag pole and the rope knotted out of reach. When the caretaker, again attempted to remove the gay flag, he was assaulted and hit with eggs. Being pushed back he was unable to reach the flag pole, and returned to the entry of the church. Much of the newly planted landscaping around the flag pole was damaged. One cement bench was pushed over into the fountain by rioters.



When the police were notified of this they refused to respond. A second bench was dismantled and the seat thrown over into a light well and destroyed by rioters. The rioters guilty of this vandalism described this wanton destruction of church property as "interior decorating." Paper messages were stuck to the handrails, walls and windows of the building.



A single parent, who is a church member, and her six year old daughter were told they could not enter the building. A rioter grabbed her daughter's arm as she was clinging to her mother, and began interrogating her. The mother and daughter finally entered the building by passing through the rioters.

The child was crying and terrified. The mother had also brought an elderly friend who was refused entry by the rioters. Twenty minutes passed before she was able to get her friend into the service. Along with these, many others of the elderly and children were terrorized.



To our knowledge, riot police were never called in by the officers present. They came only because the guest speaker left the worship service and called 911. The rioters were then removed from the courtyard area of the church property by the riot police. They proceeded to the emergency exit doors on the west side of the auditorium where they pounded and kicked the doors seeking to break them down. This disturbed the service in process that the service had to be temporarily discontinued.



The officers present were immediately notified. The pounding was so loud, that an elderly blind woman was terrified, thinking that the sound was gunshots. She began crying, feeling helpless and threatened, and was comforted by nearby members. Due to the forceful nature of the rioters' attempts to break down the doors, one of the exit doors was damaged in a major way, the door jam being broken.



Rioters continued their demonstration, standing on church property with their megaphone. The rioters then laid down in the intersection of Geary and Franklin, blocking the traffic. The rioters passed out the fraudulent flyers to waiting vehicles and pounded on the vehicles of those attempting to cross the intersection. The police took no action to remove them for approximately ten minutes. A woman demonstrator exposed her breasts to church members present in the area.


One woman, a regular attender at our services, and her husband were hindered from entering the building by the rioters who had been moved to the sidewalk. When she entered the building she was so terrified that one of our other ladies had to help her calm down. Another member stood across the street and did not enter because of fear of physical violence.



As the service was concluded, the people were split into three groups. All of the children were clinging to the parents, frightened to leave the building. Two groups exited out emergency exits. One group waited, and then exited out the main entrance. The people were shouted at and threatened by the rioters as they made their way to their cars, being called Christian bigots, hypocrites, fascists, homophobes, and other expletives, some obscene. An eight year old retarded girl, upon exiting through the front entrance was so traumatized upon being verbally accosted, that she fell down the steps.



The guest speaker was escorted by the police to the church van, as debris pelted him from the rioters.



Following his departure the rioters began to depart and the riot police were dismissed. The rioters shouted at the police, "You won't be here all night, but the church (building) will be."



Only two or three police officers remained to secure the building Dr. Innes, Rev. Eugene Lumpkin, and the church's associate Pastor with his wife and children remained inside. When this became known to the rioters, they returned in force to the church and began pounding on the front doors. The situation was once again out of control and Dr. Innes called 911 for reinforcements.



When the rioters saw the children standing in the lobby, they shouted "We want your children. Give us your children." The police asked us to move away from the entry. Dr. Innes, his associate and family left through another exit. A nine year old boy, was crying in hysterics, "They are after me. It's me they want." He did not calm down until the family was several miles from the building.



A rioter broke one of the large address numbers off the face of the building and attempted to remove others unsuccessfully. A citizen's arrest was made on this individual. The person making the citizen's arrest was verbally threatened by other rioters.



Officers told us they were informed by the rioters that our meeting was an open, public meeting, and they did not intend to prohibit the entry of the rioters onto our property. The pastor, Dr. Innes, informed the officers that this was a regularly scheduled church worship service and was not, as such, an open, public meeting, in the secular sense. He further informed the officers that no public notice had been made by the church inviting the public.



The police later insisted that they were bound by the rioters' claim that this was an open, public meeting and not a worship service.. We were informed by the police, that due to the city's police regulations and policies, the police were not allowed to enforce the law regarding the disturbance of church worship services and the presence of rioters on church property. Police estimates the number of rioters were approximately 75, although actual counts indicated a number closer to 100.



In spite of all this malicious disruption, not a single arrest was made by police outside of one citizen's arrest. The church's property was not secured, and the fundamental rights of the worshippers were not protected because, we were told, "The Board of Supervisors would never support the measures necessary to do so."

Upon leaving for the final time, several of the rioters said, "We will be back." Numerous obscene and threatening telephone calls have been received at the church following the riot.

[ArmySGT.]

I guess the issue closest to home to Soldiers is the Single Soldiers in the Barracks.

We separate Males from Females because of sexual lust. Separate showers so Females can go without harassment. Separate toilets, and same sex only living arrangements.

Now translate that to four Genders, oh wait six Genders

Heterosexual Male
Heterosexual Female
Gay
Lesbian
Transgender Male
Transgender Female.

[natehale1971]

I guess the issue closest to home to Soldiers is the Single Soldiers in the Barracks.

We separate Males from Females because of sexual lust. Separate showers so Females can go without harassment. Separate toilets, and same sex only living arrangements.

Now translate that to four Genders, oh wait six Genders

Heterosexual Male
Heterosexual Female
Gay
Lesbian
Transgender Male
Transgender Female.

actually you are forgetting the following... and beleive me that there are several more in the community as well.

Hetroflexible
Bi-Curious
Bisexual
Intersexed
Asexual

[Raellus]

Nate, first off, let me say how sorry I am that something so terrible happened to you. I can understand why this is such a painful subject for you and why you are so personally invested in it. I in no way excuse what happened to you or exonerate the scumbag[s] who did it. I respect your feelings about this issue, but I don't share your opinions.

Unfortunately, every civil rights movement has its radical fringe elements. The largely peaceful African-American civil rights movement of the 1960s had its Black Panthers. Apparently, the Gay Rights movement also has such elements.

I really don't think that this means that DA-DT should stand. Neither do I think that it's fair to condemn or punish an entire class of people for the heinous acts of a few. I know quite a few people with racist beliefs/feelings/thoughts based on their personal or second-hand experience with one or a couple or a few members of a certain minority group (ag. "My cousin got murdered by a black man."). These poor folks are basing their entire world view on a tiny, tiny, tiny sample size. They are quick to point out examples of bad things done by people belonging to said minorities, while ignoring anything good or noble done by others. And these poor folks ignore the benign nature of the vast majority of the minorities they villify. It's a logical fallicy.

I also don't quite understand that argument that the repeal of DA-DT will somehow encourage radical gay military men and women to disrupt military operations by conducting mass acts of moral terpitude or whatever. Even if a couple of instances of such behavior by gay members of the military occurs (which I seriously doubt), does that mean that all gays should be closeted or even banned in the U.S. armed forces. If a couple of white supremisists in the U.S. military commit a violent crime, should all white people be banned? If a straight a few straight military men commit a sexual assault on a female military woman, should all straight men be banned? It's just not logical or rational.

Also, the article you posted seems to describe an event that took place 18 years before DA-DT was repealed. I'm not sure how it's germaine to the debate here.