Fundie Freakazoid: Don't let 'San Francisco-style social experimentation' destroy the military

[marmar]

Fundies are obsessed with San Francisco



from the American Family Association, where Fundie whackjobs will always have a voice:

:crazy: :freak:



Don't ask, don't bleed
Matt Barber - Guest Columnist - 3/5/2010 8:00:00 AM


The U.S. military has always discriminated. There are a host of malignant behaviors such as illicit drug use or habitual criminality that can render a person ineligible to serve. As my father-in-law learned, there are also benign maladies such as vision impairment or flat feet that can bar an otherwise eligible applicant. Any number of behaviors or conditions with varying degrees of severity can dash one's hope of donning the uniform. (See related news article)

This is discrimination only insofar as "discriminating minds" with expertise in these matters have found that such restrictions are necessary to maintain excellence in our historically unparalleled fighting force.

In formal recognition of the long-established finding that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service," federal law – Section 654, Title 10 – objectively prescribes the following:

• The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise;
• Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion;
• The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service;
• The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability; and
• There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

Indeed, federal courts have ruled over and again that a prohibition against homosexual conduct within the ranks of the military is both constitutional and justified. ..........(more)

The complete piece (of sh*t) is at: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=925102

[arbusto_baboso]

1. Guess they're unfamiliar with the Theban Sacred Band, then.

Being gay doesn't make you unfit to serve.

I commanded a number of gay soldiers and they all seemed to work harder just to prove themselves.

That's right. We knew they were gay, and we didn't care.

[11 Bravo]

2. Hey, Matt, put on a green suit and then tell me what you think.

However, I've got to warn you, it may be a touch more dangerous than the brave work you do protecting our country from the gay menace while sitting at your keyboard.
FYI, the medic who applied a compression bandage to my sucking chest wound, under fire, in 1971, could have had a dick in his mouth, and I would have only taken it out long enough to kiss him. Same for the chopper jock who dusted me off.
So fuck you.

[Ardent15]

3. Kiss my Bay Area ass, fundies.

[IDemo]

4. The same upstanding organization that suggested stoning a killer whale to death

Did they shorten their name from "American Oxygen-Deprived Religiously Insane Nutjob Klan"?

[itsrobert]

5. They are in a full court press

"3/4/2010 11:58:53 PM ET
Repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell is a keystone of the far left's agenda to use the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution to defeat state laws opposing homosexual marriage and homosexual contact between adults and children. Originally the homosexual community pinned their hopes on homosexual marriage as the tool that would eventually crush state laws opposing homosexual marriage using the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Under the Commerce Clause all states are required to enforce the contracts made in other states such as any state's recognized traditional homosexual or future polygamous marriages. In response however communities across the nation have strengthened their stand against the homosexual agenda and 43 states now have defined marriage as between one man and one woman. So the left is VERY EAGER to push the military population to accept homosexual marriage.
William, Scott AFB"


http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123193205

[Tutankhamun]

9. Oh good lord. Allowing gays in the military is about allowing highly qualified,

skilled personnel to serve where desperately needed. It's not a sneaky way to allow gay marriage. Gay marriage is going to become accepted and allowed soon anyway. Fighting against gay marriage is like fighting interracial marriage a few decades ago. It's an unwinnable, ignorant battle.

[Caliman73]

6. So then...

Gang members in the military okay...
White Supremacists in the military okay...
People given the choice between military and incarceration okay...

Gay soldiers with no other declared allegiances or impediments to their service ... not okay?

It's not so much surprise, dismay, or even shock. It's just the dull ache of having to deal with such stupid hypocrisy.

[gratuitous]

7. Why does Mr. Barber have to rely on his father-in-law's experience?

It would bolster his "objective" argument considerably if he supplemented it with his personal military experience. I wonder why he didn't do that?

[JHB]

8. Freakazoid resents that remark...

:evilgrin:

[Tutankhamun]

10. How should we refute the "battlefield transfusions" argument the author puts forth?

The increased prevalence of HIV among gay men could simply preclude homosexuals from donating blood on the battlefield, except in conditions of extreme emergency. This is how I would refute the author's argument that the potential of HIV transmission through emergency battlefield transfusion should be reason to forbid the "homosexualization," as he calls it, of the military.

His transfusion issue is the closest thing he has to a reasonable argument. Second closest is his point that a small percentage of soldiers claim they wouldn't reinlist if the military were "homosexualized." "Second closest" doesn't mean it isn't a stupid argument, though. If we use this sort of survey to tell us how to create our military, we would also need to ask how many soldiers would not reinlist if blacks are not immediately categorically thrown out of the service. After all, conservatives were the dead set against the "Negroization" of the military before the "threat" of military "homosexualization" reared its head.

The author obviously did actually try to make a coherent case against gays in the military, but he clearly failed. His real accomplishment was to demonstrate that no matter how hard one tries, the position aganst gays in the military remains indefensible.

[Historic NY]

11. I don't think they do them any more....its the modern army with modern medicine.

they give clotting factors & plasma & various other protocols. A direct transfusing wouldn't happen in the field, the goal to to control bleeding and transport to a surgeon. This guy must be watching too much MASH. The use of unscreened blood & blood products has for the most part been discontinued. The biggest risk is Hepatitis C.

[EFerrari]

12. LOL. What an idiot.