| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Military Issues New Homosexual Indoctrination Doctrine |
| 2011-03-24 |
| Four branches of the military have begun sending training material to 2.2 million active and reserve troops as a prelude to opening the ranks to homosexuals. The briefings first target commanders, who will have to enforce the new law and deal with disputes, and then the entire force. The slides, vignettes and talking points by the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps are similar. The Marine Corps, which a Pentagon survey found holds deep opposition to lifting the ban, plans to publicly release its training material April 1. Soldiers may not seek an early discharge because they do not want to live or serve with homosexuals. Same-sex partners of service members do not qualify for medical, housing or travel benefits. What is not written down is that under no circumstances will the murder of a homosexual be officially because of their sexuality. Any other motive will do. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose |
| #13 I saw an allegation that during WWII, the US Navy used the light cruiser San Juan (cl-54) as a dumping ground for homosexuals. Whether true or not, it would seem to be true to form, for the period. That is, two ships were also supposed to be for mostly black crew. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2011-03-24 19:44 |
| #12 It was all about trolling for votes by BHO. Another vote pool to try to snag before 2012--at the expense of the military. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2011-03-24 13:51 |
| #11 It's all part of the progressive plan. Destroying the country, institution by institution. |
| Posted by: Hellfish 2011-03-24 13:42 |
| #10 Or worse, killed. Once it has happened enough, any unmarried personnel will be at risk from the accusation, with potentially severe damage to unit morale and cohesion. This, and all the other things you mention are the desired result. At what point, just for the sake of survival, do we acknowledge the necessity of purging this country of the Leftists? |
| Posted by: Jack Ulugum3834 2011-03-24 13:24 |
| #9 What this amounts to, in effect, is a protocol to murder homosexuals in the military. The problematic part is the "open season" on declared homosexuals, vs those individuals who are *suspected* of being homosexuals, so whose lives are at risk. Since no major unit commander will permit the murder of a homosexual to be classified as such, to protect his unit from persecution, there will be an overall increase in homicides for other reasons. Even the murderer will be told that he will get a lesser sentence if he provides a different, any different, motive than the victim's sexuality. Because the *accusation*, likely malicious, that someone is a homosexual, could result in their murder, previously, if true, that individual would be shipped out promptly for their own protection. However, it can now be used as an effective means for disgruntled subordinates to get a disliked superior transferred. Or worse, killed. Once it has happened enough, any unmarried personnel will be at risk from the accusation, with potentially severe damage to unit morale and cohesion. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2011-03-24 13:11 |
| #8 There are 2 major problems that these "politically correct" idiots ignore: 1) Soldiers live is very cramped conditions (by civlian standards). Therefore, what would be a private moment in civilian life will be shared with everyone in your squad: If a gay soldier has a craving for your derriere or your p*n*s, he's going to be able to look at it several times a day. You can read what it's like at Guantanamo where prisoners masturbate while staring at the prison guards. Only now it'll be your squad mate instead of someone behind bars. 2) People in the chain of command have much more authority over subordinates than in the civilian world. The problem will be when a gay sargeant or officer has to deal with someone who's screwed up for the fith time. "Do you want a court martial? Or maybe we can work something out." During both world wars the British, French, German and Japanese armies all had these problems. In many units the smallest/weakest/dumbest one in the platoon became the sexual receptical for the other men. Muslim armies still have this problem today. Google "Manlove Thursday Afghanistan" if you don't believe me. This is what our military will be like if we don't watch it. |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2011-03-24 12:24 |
| #7 This is a F****ng nightmare. S-3, please pen me in. I will find you some training ammo and a parachute. This is going to wreak havoc on our Military, and will waste more time in needless EO classes waisting yet more training and prep time on the political follies of a federal government far removed from the realities of the world. |
| Posted by: newc 2011-03-24 11:00 |
| #6 Brace for the discrimination suits: real, trivial, bs, and retro. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2011-03-24 10:13 |
| #5 Same-sex partners of service members do not qualify for medical, housing or travel benefits. ...See, this was the POINT of the whole damned effort. When a same-sex military couple gets married in DC (where it's legal)and then takes their marriage license to the Pentagon, they're going to get housing, medical, and everything else, and they gay marriage debate will be over. Once the first same sex couple gets full bennies on a military base, it's legal everywhere and that's that. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2011-03-24 09:16 |
| #4 Same-sex partners of service members do not qualify for medical, housing or travel benefits. Oh really. Show up with a marriage certificate from a state and you stand in violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. For those too young to remember, at one time the services denied 'equal' benefits to female service members who married. That went to the federal courts and the services lost. Who ever sold this line to the 'leadership' lied through their teeth. This is the 'get out of the barrack' opportunities for all service members. Just when did you discovered you lost control? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-03-24 08:40 |
| #3 glad i'm retiring......maybe ya'll can put up with shit but i can't. |
| Posted by: armyguy 2011-03-24 08:27 |
| #2 Soldiers may not seek an early discharge because they do not want to live or serve with homosexuals. The conditions of contract, at the time of signing, have been broken. When a contract is broken, either both parties must reach a new agreement or the contract is no longer binding. Whose civil rights are now being violated? So much for 'get a new job' as the Chairman articulated. So much for the lie that it would not effect military readiness or cohesion. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-03-24 00:58 |
| #1 American Forces Radio and Television Service (AFRTS) has been in the forefront, blazing the homosexual trail for quite some time. Seldom seen or heard from is the rough, barrel chested RANGER or Special Operator (men doing the real work in Afghanistan). Effeminate girlymen are seen on most broadcasts. If not girlymen, then a story about a heroic female fighter pilot. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2011-03-24 00:16 |