Conduct Unbecoming
When I first read this I honestly told myself that a retort was really not worth my time. I was torn. On the one hand, my retort would change nothing. On the other, I must respond! Really, Gen (ret,d) Frederick J. Kroesen makes this so easy, its almost not fun. Read the article first.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/12/risky-moves-in-the-military/
Where do I begin?
“The real issue involved is not the identity of homosexuals, it is the behavior of individuals who violate the law and are therefore liable for action prescribed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).”
No, you are homophobic and trying to hide behind the smoke and mirrors of feigned intellect and legal babble.
“Fellatio, sodomy and other practices generally associated with homosexuals are illegal, improper or “conduct unbecoming” and cause for command attention. The same is true of rape, incest and prostitution, generally thought of as heterosexual transgressions. All are punishable activities that can be cause for judicial attention and possible punitive reaction.”
“A policy change might allow homosexuals to serve openly if they so desire, but changes in the law are being sought by those who seek to make legal the practices that are banned now. It is those changes that I and most experienced commanders do not want.”
You admit that the acts (fellatio, sodomy, rape, incest and prostitution) are illegal. So if “practices generally associated with homosexuals” results in homosexuality not being accepted, maybe practices which “generally thought of as heterosexual transgressions” should mean that heterosexuality can’t be acceptable either. While we’re at it, let’s make bisexuality non-acceptable as well and any other –sexualities we can possibly think of, just to be on the safe side.
“The conduct of persons who choose to engage in such activities, particularly when they accost or force themselves on uninterested, uncooperative or unwilling victims, is almost always detrimental, impacting on morale and esprit de corps. Unit cohesion suffers, and the dissolution of a “band of brothers” cohort normally ensues. Either outcome affects readiness and the combat effectiveness of units whose mission is manpower-dominant.”
Here is list of countries which openly allow homosexuals to serve in the military (which I know of): Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Uruguay.
Soldiers from some of these countries fought (and died) alongside Americans in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Others which have not still have extensive combat experience in the very recent past. They obviously all suffer from a lack of unit cohesion. How un-American of them!
Now, stay with me here. So you are saying that ‘such activities’ which are forced upon by others affect unit cohesion, esprit de corps and moral. By “such activities”, do you mean fellatio, sodomy, rape, incest and prostitution or just homosexuality? So, are you saying that heterosexuals who commit these acts do not affect unit cohesion, esprit de corps and moral?
“I cannot predict the consequences of the changes being pursued by the homosexual community, but I can observe that edicts issued top-down by the ruling hierarchies of some of our long-established churches regarding tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality seem to be tearing them asunder. We must not chance the same kind of reaction in our armed forces. “
At least, sir, you admit to being a right-winged, bible-thumping, homophobic bigot. Good for you.
“I am a retired soldier. My service began in 1942 and ended in 1983.”
P.S., The world has changed since 1983. It’s actually 2010. That’s 27 years in the future. American society, heck, the world has changed. Heaven forbid that the military should change and evolve to reflect current thought and society. Some may argue that it has changed for the worse, but I won’t debate that here.
Shall I go on?
