Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

CREWS: Homosexuals in the military demand special privileges

Posted by   + Show Post


Toleration doesn’t cut both ways

The American armed forces exist to defend our nation, not to conduct social science lab experiments in which our troops serve as human subjects. Try telling that to this administration.

The first anniversary of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Sept. 20, has come and gone. Now, there is mounting evidence that proves our warnings were not idle chatter. The threat to freedom posed by this radical sexual experiment on our military is real: It is grave and it is growing.

Activists inside and outside our government who pushed the repeal have deployed a smoke screen around the fact that once the military was forced to exalt homosexuality in the ranks, the all-too-foreseen consequence reared its ugly head.

Senior military officials have allowed personnel in favor of repeal to speak to media while those who have concerns have been ordered to be silent. Two airmen were publicly harassed in a Post Exchange food court as they were privately discussing their concerns about the impact of repeal. A chaplain was encouraged by military officials to resign his commission unless he could “get in line with the new policy,” demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint. Another chaplain was threatened with early retirement, and then reassigned to be more “closely supervised” because he had expressed concerns with the policy change, again demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint.

At an officer training service school, a male serviceman sexually harassed another male serviceman through text messages, emails, phone calls and in-person confrontations. The harassing male insisted the two would “make a great couple.” The harassed serviceman reported the harassment, but the command failed to take disciplinary action.

Service members engaged in homosexual behavior protested a service school’s open-door policy for all students that prohibited the closing of room doors for the purpose of hiding sexual behavior. The protesters claimed that they had a right to participate in sexual behavior with their same-sex roommates.

A senior chaplain was stripped of his authority over the chapel under his charge because, in accordance with federal law, he proclaimed the chapel to be a “sacred space” where marriage ceremonies would only be between one man and one woman.

The Navy has allowed sailors openly engaged in homosexual behavior to choose their bunkmates. Imagine in this new age of “tolerance” if a sailor asked to be moved from a close-quarters berthing area because of his concern about another sailor’s sexual appetites. We already know what would happen, because tolerance has never been a two-way street.

Obviously, the recent “study” (aka propaganda) claiming that the repeal went off without a hitch should be shredded post-haste. It has no connection to reality.

This is just the first wave in the first year of the assault on the constitutionally protected freedom of our service members. Remember, the groups that forced their sexual experiment on the armed forces represent the lesbian, homosexual, bisexual and transgender community. It’s only a matter of time before a man who claims to be transgender demands to be placed with women during training, in the showers and in the barracks. The women in the units will have no recourse, especially if their objection to living, changing, bathing and bunking with a man is based on sincerely held religious beliefs. They would have two choices: Either accept this outrageous imposition silently or be charged with bigotry, hatred, intolerance and every other name the advocates of this agenda can throw at them. Neither choice is acceptable. When “sensitivity training” is in full force, these women just might face discipline and punitive separation merely for speaking up and requesting a reasonable measure of privacy and protection of their religious freedom.

This outrageous social science lab experiment could have been easily prevented. The Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty has worked closely with members of Congress to enact legislation, which has already passed the House, to protect freedom of conscience for chaplains and those they serve.

Even more outrageous is that we have to ask Congress to protect freedom of conscience for chaplains and those who serve in the military. The fact that Congress excluded a religious freedom protection amendment (authored in partnership with Alliance Defending Freedom), to the repeal sends a clear message that our current leadership does not consider, much less respect, the constitutional implications of their actions while they bow in allegiance to the powerful and aggressive lobby of those who supported the repeal.

Col. Ron Crews, a retired Army chaplain, is executive director for Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty.

by on Oct. 2, 2012 at 7:04 AM
Replies (31-40):
SEEKEROFSHELLS
by Platinum Member on Oct. 2, 2012 at 8:56 AM
1 mom liked this

 LOL I didn't take it to be snarky or mean. The example of laying a gay person to rest and having the family sign off happened in the family. When my BIL died, the family had to sign off or his partner couldn't have anything to do with the funeral arrangements. Imagine losing your partner and having that smack you in the face? We were really surprised by it!  Believe me, I see the need for change and  protection for gays.

Quoting SilverSterling:

I was hoping it would come out right. I wasnt trying to be snarky or mean I was just trying to think of reasons kwim?

Quoting SEEKEROFSHELLS:

 Uh Oh! Survivors Benefits! That is SOOOOO important. My mother has been recieving survivor's benefits for years as her late husband was a Col. She has a comfortable life in her retirement. That is a huge benefit gays are not entitled to and it is wrong. They are risking their life for their country. I know more states are letting gays marry. Without protection when a gay spouse dies ( in Texas, way) they cannot claim the body or make funeral arrangements unless the family signs off first. Imagine living with your partner for 20 years and then not being able to put your partner to rest! In civilian life no social security benefits either! We have a long way to go in this country. Thanks for the survivors benefits comment. THAT IS SO IMPORTANT!

Quoting SilverSterling:

To the bold and underlined the answer to that is as more and more states are accepting of Gays and Lesbians marrying those same states will give the rights and privileges marriage does.. The Military itself needs to revamp survivor benefits to acknowledge the same sex marriages but i think that is the hope and the point to permitting the clergy to marry everyone equally. Now most of this is an opinion and based on what i know.

Quoting SEEKEROFSHELLS:

 Well a senior chaplain was stripped of his authority over a chapel, and some others were encouraged to resign if they couldn't get on board with the party line.  Seems to me they were still negative towards the part of their flock that was "gay," If you are in the military you have to " echo the party line," That's the way it has always been. Look what happened to the career of General Patton. He was a great military leader, didn't echo the party line, and it affected his career.  I also respect religious men, they have different views. Who am I to come between a chaplain and his " God?" I can't tell a priest or a minister what to believe. I would hope they recognize ALL men as created from God and quit with the discrimination. Focus on the good of the men, instead of what they percieve as sins. I don't understand the issue of marrying gays. If they are not protected by a union in the states how can they expect the military to marry them? Very interesting post and it brings up a lot of questions. 





lancet98
by Silver Member on Oct. 2, 2012 at 8:59 AM


Quoting candlegal:

Who is it that is trying to forbid gays to serve?

I believe you might mean the Uniform Code of military justice.

Quoting lancet98:

Which constitutional right is it that forbids gays from serving in the military again?   I have the constitution in front of me and I can't seem to find it.


I think you missed  the point of my comment. 

This was very prominently stated in the article:

This is just the first wave in the first year of the assault on the constitutionally protected freedom of our service members.

I am asking what part of the constitution the author of the article is referring to.


Raintree
by Ruby Member on Oct. 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Oh! The moonie paper. No wonder it's so completely terrible.

Quoting rfurlongg:

Yep. I followed her source link. Washington times.


Quoting iamcafemom83:

Is this a real article?


LilyofPhilly
by Gold Member on Oct. 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM
1 mom liked this
LOL, yes, the ultra - conservative Washington Times founded by the Unification Church, and which has a history of being anti - GLBT rights.

Quoting rfurlongg:

Yep. I followed her source link. Washington times.





Quoting iamcafemom83:

Is this a real article?
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Veni.Vidi.Vici.
by on Oct. 2, 2012 at 9:16 AM
1 mom liked this


Quoting gsprofval:

Isn't it amazing, but still discriminatory that homosexuals can be protected (and that's ok), but people who believe it is wrong are punished? That's discrimination in the highest form.

I've worked with a military chaplain and he was truly a man of God; he should be allowed to have his beliefs and not be forced to comply with same sex marriage if he goes against his religious beliefs.

I understand your POV.

Do you disagree that every person should be afforded civil rights?

mikiemom
by Ruby Member on Oct. 2, 2012 at 9:18 AM
1 mom liked this


Quoting candlegal:

 

Toleration doesn’t cut both ways

The American armed forces exist to defend our nation, not to conduct social science lab experiments in which our troops serve as human subjects. Try telling that to this administration.

The first anniversary of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Sept. 20, has come and gone. Now, there is mounting evidence that proves our warnings were not idle chatter. The threat to freedom posed by this radical sexual experiment on our military is real: It is grave and it is growing.

Activists inside and outside our government who pushed the repeal have deployed a smoke screen around the fact that once the military was forced to exalt homosexuality in the ranks, the all-too-foreseen consequence reared its ugly head.

Senior military officials have allowed personnel in favor of repeal to speak to media while those who have concerns have been ordered to be silent. Two airmen were publicly harassed in a Post Exchange food court as they were privately discussing their concerns about the impact of repeal. A chaplain was encouraged by military officials to resign his commission unless he could “get in line with the new policy,” demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint. Another chaplain was threatened with early retirement, and then reassigned to be more “closely supervised” because he had expressed concerns with the policy change, again demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint. Yes, if service men and women can't get on board with the current policies they need to get out of the service, this goes for all rules.

At an officer training service school, a male serviceman sexually harassed another male serviceman through text messages, emails, phone calls and in-person confrontations. The harassing male insisted the two would “make a great couple.” The harassed serviceman reported the harassment, but the command failed to take disciplinary action. This is uncommon even for heterosexual people. The military actually taking action concernign sexual harrasment of any kind continues to be a problem across board, this is not exclusive to same sex harrassment

Service members engaged in homosexual behavior protested a service school’s open-door policy for all students that prohibited the closing of room doors for the purpose of hiding sexual behavior. The protesters claimed that they had a right to participate in sexual behavior with their same-sex roommates. I was never in a unit with an open door policy, that seems to violate a whole host of privacy rules.

A senior chaplain was stripped of his authority over the chapel under his charge because, in accordance with federal law, he proclaimed the chapel to be a “sacred space” where marriage ceremonies would only be between one man and one woman. too bad so sad, again if the man can't get on board wtih current policy.

The Navy has allowed sailors openly engaged in homosexual behavior to  choose their bunkmates. Imagine in this new age of “tolerance” if a sailor asked to be moved from a close-quarters berthing area because of his concern about another sailor’s sexual appetites. We already know what would happen, because tolerance has never been a two-way street. I work with sailors, who just got off ship, I have heard of no such complaints.

Obviously, the recent “study” (aka propaganda) claiming that the repeal went off without a hitch should be shredded post-haste. It has no connection to reality. It has I work at the Pentagon and other military sites, it is not propoganda.

This is just the first wave in the first year of the assault on the constitutionally protected freedom of our service members. Remember, the groups that forced their sexual experiment on the armed forces represent the lesbian, homosexual, bisexual and transgender community. It’s only a matter of time before a man who claims to be transgender demands to be placed with women during training, in the showers and in the barracks. The women in the units will have no recourse, especially if their objection to living, changing, bathing and bunking with a man is based on sincerely held religious beliefs. They would have two choices: Either accept this outrageous imposition silently or be charged with bigotry, hatred, intolerance and every other name the advocates of this agenda can throw at them. Neither choice is acceptable. When “sensitivity training” is in full force, these women just might face discipline and punitive separation merely for speaking up and requesting a reasonable measure of privacy and protection of their religious freedom.

This outrageous social science lab experiment could have been easily prevented. The Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty has worked closely with members of Congress to enact legislation, which has already passed the House, to protect freedom of conscience for chaplains and those they serve.

Even more outrageous is that we have to ask Congress to protect freedom of conscience for chaplains and those who serve in the military. The fact that Congress excluded a religious freedom protection amendment (authored in partnership with Alliance Defending Freedom), to the repeal sends a clear message that our current leadership does not consider, much less respect, the constitutional implications of their actions while they bow in allegiance to the powerful and aggressive lobby of those who supported the repeal.

Col. Ron Crews, a retired Army chaplain, is executive director for Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty.


Veni.Vidi.Vici.
by on Oct. 2, 2012 at 9:22 AM
3 moms liked this


Quoting SilverSterling:

They aren't forced too preform anything against their beliefs just like churches arent being forced to marry anyone they dont want too No matter how raciest or bigoted they might be (remember the white church that wouldnt marry a black couple who belonged there?)

They are forced to keep their bigoted thoughts to themselves and no longer permitted to voice a hateful hurtful position. They just don't like loosing control.. They bitched when the arm forces were forced (for lack of a better way of putting it) other faiths and beliefs. Some Christians have a problem with not being the center of attention. I think in some cases that is the problem in a nutshell. No one is taking away anyone Beliefs.. You can Believe what ever you want However You can not enforce or force your beliefs on anyone else nor can you act upon your beliefs.


I asbolutely believe that for some people being forced to be in the presence of any person who outwardly has a different and/or opposing view is the spark that ignites the fire. I am convinced that many people in all different walks of life and religion cannot fathom that other people believe differently. Because if they did they would be forced to consider their way of life may not be the one and only way to live. It's absurd to me to think that some people have so much conviction that it completely blinds them.

TheStepMonster
by on Oct. 2, 2012 at 9:47 AM
1 mom liked this

FTR...I have always been pro-gay military service.  I was opposed to the repeal of DADT the way they went about it, out of fear for homosexuals serving in the military.  Article 125 is still there, is it not?  And by participating in homosexual acts, purely by the way the UCMJ has sodomy defined, US Military personnel are going against their enlistment oath.  Which, in and of itself is court martial offense.

I think DADT should have been appealed - I just think they went about it way too fast, and did not address some of the concerns that have been addressed in this article, which needed to be addressed prior to.

Quoting mikiemom:


Quoting candlegal:


Toleration doesn’t cut both ways

The American armed forces exist to defend our nation, not to conduct social science lab experiments in which our troops serve as human subjects. Try telling that to this administration.

The first anniversary of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Sept. 20, has come and gone. Now, there is mounting evidence that proves our warnings were not idle chatter. The threat to freedom posed by this radical sexual experiment on our military is real: It is grave and it is growing.

Activists inside and outside our government who pushed the repeal have deployed a smoke screen around the fact that once the military was forced to exalt homosexuality in the ranks, the all-too-foreseen consequence reared its ugly head.

Senior military officials have allowed personnel in favor of repeal to speak to media while those who have concerns have been ordered to be silent. Two airmen were publicly harassed in a Post Exchange food court as they were privately discussing their concerns about the impact of repeal. A chaplain was encouraged by military officials to resign his commission unless he could “get in line with the new policy,” demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint. Another chaplain was threatened with early retirement, and then reassigned to be more “closely supervised” because he had expressed concerns with the policy change, again demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint. Yes, if service men and women can't get on board with the current policies they need to get out of the service, this goes for all rules.  When DH served in the Navy - he wasn't allowed to speak out - ONE WAY OR ANOTHER about ANY of the US Armed Services policies.  That is the issue. 

...

Service members engaged in homosexual behavior protested a service school’s open-door policy for all students that prohibited the closing of room doors for the purpose of hiding sexual behavior. The protesters claimed that they had a right to participate in sexual behavior with their same-sex roommates. I was never in a unit with an open door policy, that seems to violate a whole host of privacy rules.  There may not have been an open door policy because chances are, women and men were kept separate - therefore not a need to have an open door policy.  

A senior chaplain was stripped of his authority over the chapel under his charge because, in accordance with federal law, he proclaimed the chapel to be a “sacred space” where marriage ceremonies would only be between one man and one woman. too bad so sad, again if the man can't get on board wtih current policy.  I guess if the US Military wants to have run over chapels (churches), then we need to do away with the whole "separation of church and state" that so many love to declare there is.  Can't have it both ways.  And yes, to be a Chaplain in the US Army, you have to be a clergy-person in your declared faith.  They should not be required to perform ceremonies that go against their faith.  

...

Obviously, the recent “study” (aka propaganda) claiming that the repeal went off without a hitch should be shredded post-haste. It has no connection to reality. It has I work at the Pentagon and other military sites, it is not propoganda.  Apparently it is - because there are hitches.  People losing jobs, etc. 


Col. Ron Crews, a retired Army chaplain, is executive director for Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty.



grey ribbon

During the month of May, I wear my gray for Brain Cancer Awareness in memory of my momma (BM).  She fought her battle from May, 1988 - October, 1998.  Love and miss you much.

gammie
by on Oct. 2, 2012 at 9:52 AM
1 mom liked this

People have always known who was gay or not. They all adjusted back than they will all adjust again.

Homosexuality is not new in the military.

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/156571_429222273803425_1697594787_n.jpg

CDMelty
by Member on Oct. 2, 2012 at 9:53 AM
1 mom liked this

Ok first, it's tolerance, not toleration. That just speaks volumes about the author there.

Second, HATE is not something to be tolerated. Do you get upset when racists are silenced? When they don't bring the KKK on TV to give their opinion along with the NAACP? Does it bother you that racism isn't tolerated along with black people? Same thing.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)