Minority Rights Advocate

Fighting for the smallest minority: The Individual

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 25 other followers

  • Topics

  • Old Posts

  • Top Posts

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: It is Wrong… but not for the reasons the media and activists are touting

Posted by mrfixit on November 26, 2010

We are seeing an ever more aggressive push to end Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in the military, in favor of permitting openly gay people to serve in the military.  

It is wrong to have Don’t Ask Don’t tell as a policy, it does in essence suggest institutionalized dishonesty, no small wonder it was the brain child of the President known to have a problem with honesty: Bill Clinton, oh, and even more related to Bill: it is about sex!

At no point ever has the US military ever banned those who might have same sex attractions!  Yes, that may seem unbelievable, but it is not about attraction at all, it is about behavior, more specifically actions.

The military restricts all types of behavior, one must get special training to ride a motorcycle, they require safety gear for riding bicycles, they forbid riding in the back of pick-up trucks.  They put down orders on where you can and cannot go on liberty and mandate use of the buddy system as well.

The point is the military day in and day out specifically mandates certain activities, and bans others.  All based on calculated risk.  Part of military life is the surrender of civilian freedoms for the good order and discipline of the unit.

Here is where the ties in comes to homosexual ACTIVITY, especially homosexual male activity.

It is not the attraction that is the problem, it is the activity that comes with it.  That activity is risky, and even the American Red Cross (and every other blood bank) acknowledges this when prohibiting homosexual males from donating blood.  Again it is not that these people are dangerous by the attractions they might have, it is the activity they decide to engage in, that “activity” is in fact risky.

So if the military can mandate you not ride in the back of a pick-up truck, or make you take special motorcycle training to mitigate risk, then why can they not mandate you not partake in risky sexual activity as well?  

Just from a medical perspective, I can tell you there are countless conditions or risks that are considered when permitting service members to serve without limitation.  I’ve faced this first hand.  If I can be said to be too medically risky on the account of infrequent eye pain and back pain, but someone who has a very risky sexual lifestyle would be considered fit for full service, what is that!?  

Now dare I mention the huge inconsistency in the way we handle HIV cases.  There we have built in some extra special privacy concerns that don’t exist for other medical information, why?

Sure, some will make the typical monogamous homosexual relationship appear to be typical, or even common, but if that is so, it cannot explain the actual data…

Well, let us look as some data, this might begin to explain why it is correct for the military to end DADT and go back to an outright ban on homosexual ACTIVITY of military members.

CDC:  Male homosexual activity is clearly the most risky behavior leading to HIV:  If you do the addition and division it comes to 57% of all cases from a population of about 2-3% of the entire population.  That means you are 42 times more likely to get HIV by engaging in male homosexual sex.  That is just the cold hard reality.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#hivaidsexposure

In my earlier post about racial profiling in Navy GMT training I stumbled on some interesting data:

https://minorityrightsadvocate.wordpress.com/2010/11/20/so-we-are-told-not-to-racially-profile-but-it-is-ok-in-the-navy-for-gmt-to-profile-white-males-as-sexual-predators/

Here are some bits:

“Results of a 1997 study of sexual coercion within gay and lesbian relationships indicated that 52% of the total sample reported having experienced at least one incident of sexual coercion. 55% of the gay men and 50% of the lesbians in this study reported unwanted penetration. 33% of the gay men and 32% of the lesbians in this study reported unwanted fondling. “

http://www.stanford.edu/group/svab/myths.shtml

Here is something that should cause some pause:

“In 2003, 1 in every 10 rape victims were male.
2003 National Crime Victimization Survey. U.S. Dept. of Justice. 2003.”

A study of imprisoned sex offenders found that they committed sex crimes for an average of 16 years before they were caught.
Ahimeyer, S., K. English, and D. Simons. “The Impact of Polygraphy on Admissions of Crossover Offending Behavior in Adult Sexual Offenders,” Presentation at the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers 18th Annual Research and Treatment Conference, Lake Buena Vista, FL. 1999.”

Sexual assault is the violent crime that is least often reported to law enforcement officials. A 2000 study from the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that only 28% of victims report their sexual assault to the police.
Rennison, Callie M. Criminal Victimization 1999: Changes 1998-1999 with Trends 1993-1999. National Crime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice. 2000.”

http://www.lafasa.org/sexual-assault-statistics.html

Now take those stats and then look at these statistics:

The most exaggerated claims say 10% of the population is homosexual, but more likely the number is about 5% at most, 2% or less seems to be most common in various studies.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_Statistics

US Census data indicates about 5.6% of same sex “partner” households, but we have to allow that not all of these may be homosexual, even still that comes to a maximum around 5%

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-_lang=en&-state=dt&-mt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_PCT014&-format=&-CONTEXT=dt

So, let’s take the data and do some math if 5.6% are homosexual, and of that about half of that male homosexual, then we have 99% of all sexual predators are male (at least according to many “experts”, and that must be correct, right?), but 10% of victims are male…

Well that means about 2.5% of the population has within it about 10% of the REPORTED incidences of sexual assault.  Simple math says that is a 4 times the risk…

Now, in the statistics on sexual assault it is important to recall it is notoriously unreliable, since many crimes will go unreported, and I’d bet more male victims of other male perpetrators are at least if not more likely to keep it secret than female victims.  Men have a tendency to keep silent on all kinds things the might make them look weak, certainly being a victim of an assault would likely be something they’d not want to be known.

Now, let’s take a look at the Red Cross restrictions on blood donors.  Male homosexuals are not permitted to donate, the reason is clear; it carries the risk of HIV for starters as the information already provided makes very clear.

Red Cross:

“You should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV.

–          are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977”

http://www.redcrossblood.org/donating-blood/eligibility-requirements/eligibility-criteria-topic

So how does it work in combat with injuries and people deemed so risky by the Red Cross to not be eligible as blood donors, is this not a valid military concern?

Ahhh…Wait!  It is not only the Red Cross; it is actually the FDA that forces the Red Cross to hold this standard!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/23/health/main2842953.shtml

(On a side note, they also “discriminate” against people who lived in the UK from 1985- 1989 on account of possible mad cow disease exposure, but I don’t see any effort mounted to end that ban, but there is for the homosexual community, why?  They want to deny there is any notable risk or consequence for their sexual activities, which is why).

And it is not just men, apparently even oral sex is now being found to cause massive increasing rates of oral cancers (250 to 750% increases):

http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/hpv-genital-warts/news/20090729/oral-sex-cause-throat-cancer-rise

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ReproductiveHealth/hpv-oral-cancers-rise-oral-sex-popular-spread/story?id=11916068

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=104215

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11819-oral-sex-can-cause-throat-cancer.html

And my prior post on risky behavior and its consequences:

https://minorityrightsadvocate.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/is-it-coincidence-that-some-behaviors-always-seem-to-end-up-with-horrible-consequences/

So, if you are still not convinced that open gay service is wrong and incompatible with good order and discipline that is vital in the military, then consider this:  How are they going to arrange berthing and bathroom facilities?  If we maintain only a male and female set of facilities, then we do this on what basis?  If it is OK for a male who has open preference and sexual motivation upon other males to share with males who do not share that view or same for women with other women, then why not let the males and females share as well?  If a homosexual can berth with another of their sexual preference, then why not let the heterosexual do the same?! 

Are you seeing how out of control this would be?  We already have way too much fraternization and inappropriate sexual interactions amongst the members of the military as it is, we don’t need to add even more dimensions to it.

But, if you are one that does not really like the military, and don’t care if it is effective, the pushing open gay service makes perfect sense!  Tear us down from the inside, death by a thousand paper cuts.  Make no mistake this plays right into that agenda.

In fact that is the REAL motivation here; even the gay community is being manipulated and fooled into pushing this agenda that will ultimately set back the massive gains they have made in getting widespread tolerance.   This will push too far and actually inflame many who are tolerant now, but will be much less so when faced with the aggressive push to forced acceptance, and that is what this is. 

Those really behind this hate the US Military, and US dominance in the world.  They see the US as the problem and the military as our last great stronghold of patriotic Americans.  They have no qualms with throwing the larger Gay agenda of tolerance under the bus to further the even larger goal of dismantling the effectiveness of the US Military. 

That is what is really going on here.

More:

Don’t count on this, they’ll push it, because many of our progressive left is in line with George Soros, seeing the US as the obstacle to their internationalist goals and dreams, and the US Military is an obstacle.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sen-graham-no-quick-end-to-dont-ask-dont-tell/

Update:

Slanted survey conveniently fits the agenda!  You have to look at the internals to find out the REAL war fighters are clearly saying NO, but the ever growing bloated bureaucrats and support staffers are skewing the numbers to give a completely slanted and distorted outcome.

I can think of very few that would think that open service is not going to be a massive problem, and the real front line fighters know, and I will call this, they will be ignored, as usual, the US military will suffer, again, but it fits the agenda of destruction of US power in favor of a new Global system.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/30/front-line-fighters-wary-of-repealing-dont-ask/

If we don’t wake up, this will continue, and it will get much worse.  This all needs to stop and sanity needs to be restored, our founding principles need to be resorted, and we need to again understand that our founding principles ARE superior.  We need to be a leader and beacon to free others, not a new slave state punished for its past success.

MORE:

McCain is right, or at least partly right on this.  If the truth is told, there will never be a time to end a ban, the behavior is truly incompatible with good order and discipline.  Has been since the dawn of time and will always be.  Too bad he was not able to teach his own daughter or wife about the incompatibly homosexual BEHAVIOR and military service.

There is NO need to have certain sexual behaviors and be able to OPENLY serve with that publicly known!  Again it is not about attraction or preference or even “orientation” it is about behavior! 

Here is a quote of a man that I feel is admitting he has no PERSONAL honor, he must find honor in a collective, which is NOT what our Declaration of Independence or Constitution is designed to produce. 

“”I would not recommend repeal of this law if I did not believe in my soul that it was the right thing to do for our military, for our nation and for our collective honor,” Mullen said.”

In a part he is correct, as I stated, the DADT policy is wrong, but open homosexual service is MORE wrong -It FORCES acceptance of certain behaviors.  I know, someone will say: “But we force acceptance of heterosexual relationships and marriage” Yes this is true, but without that you would not be alive to voice that inane point of view!   Oh, and we do NOT look favorably as a society on ALL heterosexual interactions, quite the contrary.  So it is not universally accepted either!

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B134T20101202?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Oh, but there is more!  If you don’t want to be cohabiting with others who openly express their sexual BEHAVIOR is for people of your gender, well YOU are to leave, it is YOU that have a problem, and that appears to be over 60% of the front line troops, and I’d bet it is even higher than that!  I hear only 30% responded to the survey.

Now, why can’t we propose that as an open ADVOCATE to change the EXISTING policy set forth by congress, why can’t HE LEAVE!  We little people are to respect Congress, but he can dismiss their will and the current, albeit flawed, law/policy?!  This man gets no respect from me: When they jammed women into male submarine crews with no cohesive of fair plan to make it actually work, it was very clear he is a pawn.  Secretary Gates et. al. they are all pawns of the progressive anti-America agenda. They either have NO CLUE what they are doing, or if they do it would be much worse. 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/02/mullen-troops-balk-change-gay-service-policy-job/

What if the troops did as this man proposes?  What if we lost 60% of our battle tested seasoned, front line troops and all in a short period of time?   What would that do to the effectiveness of the US Military?  Well, as I mentioned before, it obviously would severely damage it!  And that is exactly the goal of those who push this agenda!

Action:

http://www.frcaction.org/index.cfm?i=WC10K01&f=AL10L02

More:

Not about tolerance, it is about FORCED acceptance.  Expect similar actions force on the troops if open gay service is thrust upon them:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=236913

More:

They REALLY, REALLY want this:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/08/5611739-senate-to-take-up-dadt-tonight-procedural-measure-expected-to-fail

A brave man, and confirmation of the CDC data!  Homosexual activity is what infected this man with HIV, and note that the Gay porn industry does not bother to even test actors for HIV, buried in this story.

Despite his poor choices, this guy has now made a courageous stand and came out to expose the real dangers of an industry that entices and seduces victims into a lifestyle that ends up being very destructive.  So, why are we going to let open homosexuals who by definition feel compelled to ID themselves by sexual BEHAVIOR to serve in the military?

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-me-porn-hiv-20101208,0,5306958.story

More:

See who the ignorant politicians are.  Contact those foolishly supporting open gay service and military abortions on demand and tell them of your strong opposition.  They seem determined to jam this horrific policy upon the troops, despite the overwhelming objection of our front line elite troops. 

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/132745-senate-fails-on-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell

Related:

https://minorityrightsadvocate.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/ivy-league-%e2%80%9crespected%e2%80%9d-progressive-political-science-professor-is-%e2%80%9ccharged%e2%80%9d-with-3-years-of-incest-with-his-own-daughter/

Advertisements

10 Responses to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: It is Wrong… but not for the reasons the media and activists are touting”

  1. Dave D. said

    Very enlightening insight.

  2. […] https://minorityrightsadvocate.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/don%e2%80%99t-ask-don%e2%80%99t-tell-it-is-wr… […]

  3. […] https://minorityrightsadvocate.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/don%e2%80%99t-ask-don%e2%80%99t-tell-it-is-wr… […]

  4. […] https://minorityrightsadvocate.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/don%e2%80%99t-ask-don%e2%80%99t-tell-it-is-wr… […]

  5. […] https://minorityrightsadvocate.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/don%e2%80%99t-ask-don%e2%80%99t-tell-it-is-wr… […]

  6. […] https://minorityrightsadvocate.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/don%e2%80%99t-ask-don%e2%80%99t-tell-it-is-wr… […]

  7. […] https://minorityrightsadvocate.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/don%e2%80%99t-ask-don%e2%80%99t-tell-it-is-wr… […]

  8. […] https://minorityrightsadvocate.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/don%e2%80%99t-ask-don%e2%80%99t-tell-it-is-wr… […]

  9. […] https://minorityrightsadvocate.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/don%e2%80%99t-ask-don%e2%80%99t-tell-it-is-wr… […]

  10. […] https://minorityrightsadvocate.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/don%e2%80%99t-ask-don%e2%80%99t-tell-it-is-wr… […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: