Your right to your religion ends ...

[Salty]

Your thoughts about this letter to the Editior of the Stars and Stripes:

‘Don’t ask’ double standard



Stars and Stripes
Letters to the Editor, Friday, May 14, 2010
What I find so disturbing about "don’t ask, don’t tell" is that it is not applied equally. We expect gays and lesbians to not in any way reveal their orientation, and yet heterosexuals aren’t held to the same standard. Heterosexuals can put up pictures of their partners. They can talk about "hooking up."
Stop it. One standard: Either everybody can discuss their love life or nobody can.
Enough of this whole "survey the force." It’s an order: Either follow it or don’t. Either repeal the law or don’t. Integration of blacks and women wasn’t talked about this much. Why is this any different?
If "don’t ask, don’t tell" is repealed, what happens with bisexual or transgender people?
No one is saying that integration is easy, but the fact is that gays and lesbians are already serving and they’re still having sex. If you’re attractive, they’re still checking you out in the showers, whether you know it or not. Integration 2.0 is simply going to force the military to do the things it’s been saying it’s going to do for years: 1+1 living arrangements, even deployed; private showers. These things are going to have cascading benefits too numerous to name.
I’ve been a soldier for 13 years, and I respect leaders who can make a decision and see it executed. It’s time to make the decision and execute already.
And for those who can’t take it: Thank you for your service. There’s the door. The military isn’t right for everybody. It sure isn’t right for bigots.
By the way: Your right to your religion ends when it impinges upon mine. Hang up the cross and mind your own house already.

Sgt. Joshua Dery
Camp Arifjan, Kuwait​

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=69966

 

[billwald]

Good letter! Should be one rule for everyone. How many homosexual rapes have there been in the barracks? How many hetrosexual rapes?

 

[Zenas]

The premise of the letter is fundamentally flawed. It assumes that it's all right for women to be serving with men and there are so many things wrong with this premise it's hard to know where to begin.

First, women are physically smaller and not as strong as men. When heavy lifting is required, or in hand to hand combat, the woman will not carry the same load as a man serving in her place. In combat, she will likely need protection from the enemy and will divert other resources to that purpose.

In combat, it is the nature of men to want to protect women, so the woman will seldom be seen on the point of a patrol. Putting the woman in a protected position makes it more likely that the men serving arount her will get killed (sort of like playing Russian roulette with two bullets in the chamber rather than one).

Women who are captured are likely to be abused se*ually.

Women who are wounded in combat and left without limbs, eyes, etc. will not do as well as their male counterparts when back in civilian life.

Women are the objects of lust by men. Instead of concentrating fully on the mission at hand, the men are thinking about how to get it on with the women in their unit.

So I say let's segregate the women into noncombat duties and then abolish "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." We should go back to asking and telling, and excluding practicing homosexuals from military service.

 

[Trotter]

I'm all for "Ask and disqualify". If I were in the military I want to know that my friends in arms have my back, not that one or more of them want to "have" me at all. As it stands people have to wonder and worry about whether Corporal Harris is checking out their backside or if he just happened to be looking in their general direction. I know of at least three murders in the military that were sparked when a gay individual came onto a straight individual sexually.

I see homosexuality as a choice and a sin. It is not something someone is bron with and yes they can help it. It is depravity, pure and simple. As such those who choose to go that route are of an unstable mind and emotional state as they are going against God's ordained order.

 

[Zenas]

The premise of the letter is fundamentally flawed. It assumes that it's all right for women to be serving with men and there are so many things wrong with this premise it's hard to know where to begin.

First, women are physically smaller and not as strong as men. When heavy lifting is required, or in hand to hand combat, the woman will not carry the same load as a man serving in her place. In combat, she will likely need protection from the enemy and will divert other resources to that purpose.

In combat, it is the nature of men to want to protect women, so the woman will seldom be seen on the point of a patrol. Putting the woman in a protected position makes it more likely that the men serving arount her will get killed (sort of like playing Russian roulette with two bullets in the chamber rather than one).

Women who are captured are likely to be abused se*ually.

Women who are wounded in combat and left without limbs, eyes, etc. will not do as well as their male counterparts when back in civilian life.

Women are the objects of lust by men. Instead of concentrating fully on the mission at hand, the men are thinking about how to get it on with the women in their unit.

So I say let's segregate the women into noncombat duties and then abolish "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." We should go back to asking and telling, and excluding practicing homosexuals from military service.

One more thing, thousands of women in combat zones get pregnant and sent home every year. This is a waste of resources that are already spread pitifully thin.

 

[Salty]

One more thing, thousands of women in combat zones get pregnant and sent home every year. This is a waste of resources that are already spread pitifully thin.

Thousands?
Would appreciate a reliable reference

The reference I found listed a total of 2,711 (1.38%) were discharged for being PG. That is 2,711 too many, but not "thousands"

And now the Military is changing its policy on PG females

 

[Zenas]

Thousands?
Would appreciate a reliable reference

The reference I found listed a total of 2,711 (1.38%) were discharged for being PG. That is 2,711 too many, but not "thousands"

The information I had was actually about pregnant sailors on Navy ships.

The Navy Times reported last year that the number of pregnant sailors in deploying units had nearly doubled to 3,125. The Navy, which has 54,000 servicewomen . . . .

Source: The Washington Times, April 5, 2010. 3,125 women, just in the Navy, is "thousands." This is 6% of all the women in the Navy.

 

[Timsings]

I think that this is a good letter whether you're talking about his desire for equal treatment regardless of sexual orientation or the proper limits of one's religion.

Tim Reynolds

 

[Winman]

The rules about homosexuality were originally primarily about security. Years ago when it was considered very deviant to be a homosexual, it was thought that a homosexual that was discovered could be blackmailed and coerced into spying and other such security issues.

I am sure it was a morale issue as well, many men do not want to be around homosexuals. But now that homosexuality is accepted by most of society, these fears are not as great.

I believe they should keep don't ask, don't tell. I myself am not interested in learning about some other person's sexuality, and do not see why it needs to be such an open issue. If some want to participate in this activity, do us all a favor and keep it private.

 

[billwald]

>First, women are physically smaller and not as strong as men.

Then women should not be hired as police officers and fire fighters?

What percentage of military personnel are in a combat zone? anyone know?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

What is fundamentally flawed is the nation's acceptance of sodomites. It shouldn't even be don't ask don't tell. It should be not allowed and such behavior shunned and rejected.

As for the religion comment, it is a satanic idea.

As true Christians we should just go on preaching the cross and righteousness.

 

[RAdam]

What is fundamentally flawed is the nation's acceptance of sodomites. It shouldn't even be don't ask don't tell. It should be not allowed and such behavior shunned and rejected.

As for the religion comment, it is a satanic idea.

As true Christians we should just go on preaching the cross and righteousness.

Thank you. Sodomy is a sin, and a grevious one at that. God clearly states that sodomy is a sin that leads to further degradation in society. Instead of society being so accepting of sodomy, perhaps we could educate folks about how disgusting, wicked, and against the natural order of things it truly is.

 

[Salty]

>First, women are physically smaller and not as strong as men.

Then women should not be hired as police officers and fire fighters?

What percentage of military personnel are in a combat zone? anyone know?

Women who do not meet the standards should not be firemen! Standards should NOT be lowered!

When I went before a promotion for my Sgt stripes, a young female LT asked me if I believed in equal pay for equal work. I replied as long as I get equal work for that equal pay.

Several years ago, Rush showed on his TV program a video of female firemen trainees. They were having all kinds of problem trying to preform the training missions.
(if anyone can find the video - please post)

Total US strength (all branches)
Active 1,800,000
Res/NG 860,000

In Combat ( could not find the Stat)
and don't forget the troops in Korea

 

[billwald]

I would rather see woman in the military than in police and fire departments. Why? Because police and fire are suppose to save people with minimum damage. The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. Anyone who thinks women can't fight hasn't fought with woman.

 

[pinoybaptist]

The premise of the letter is fundamentally flawed. It assumes that it's all right for women to be serving with men and there are so many things wrong with this premise it's hard to know where to begin.

First, women are physically smaller and not as strong as men. When heavy lifting is required, or in hand to hand combat, the woman will not carry the same load as a man serving in her place. In combat, she will likely need protection from the enemy and will divert other resources to that purpose.

In combat, it is the nature of men to want to protect women, so the woman will seldom be seen on the point of a patrol. Putting the woman in a protected position makes it more likely that the men serving arount her will get killed (sort of like playing Russian roulette with two bullets in the chamber rather than one).

Women who are captured are likely to be abused se*ually.

Women who are wounded in combat and left without limbs, eyes, etc. will not do as well as their male counterparts when back in civilian life.

Women are the objects of lust by men. Instead of concentrating fully on the mission at hand, the men are thinking about how to get it on with the women in their unit.

So I say let's segregate the women into noncombat duties and then abolish "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." We should go back to asking and telling, and excluding practicing homosexuals from military service.

Then I think women should start acting, thinking, talking, and behaving like women.
I don't like women with rippling muscles. I see a lot of them in the gym.
I like women who jog and do calisthenics and keep their bodies soft and smooth.
I don't like women who cut their hair too short.
I like women who used to have shoulder length hair.
I don't like women who talk boldly about "last night" like men do.
I like women who still know what "demure" means.

I've long ago stopped getting up and offering my seat to women, except the really older ones.
If they think they ought to have and be able to do what most men have and do, then they ought to do what most men do. All the way to combat.

 

[Don]

I think that this is a good letter whether you're talking about his desire for equal treatment regardless of sexual orientation or the proper limits of one's religion.

Tim Reynolds

Actually, it's not a good letter for a number of reasons; but the biggest is the last part about religion.

You cannot ask me to be tolerant of someone else's lifestyle and beliefs, and then tell me to "hang up" my lifestyle and beliefs in deference to yours. That's a double standard. If you're going to force me to accept your lifestyle, then guess what: You have to accept mine.

Shoot, now I gotta write a letter to Stars and Stripes...thanks, Salty! :tongue3:

 

[carpro]

Sounds like the pleadings of one who doesn't care for the natural order (read God's order) of things, so begs for the unreserved acceptance of the unnatural( read Satan's order).

He wants to do what he doesn't want others to do...force acceptance of his lifestyle choices on others.

 

[preacher4truth]

Your thoughts about this letter to the Editior of the Stars and Stripes:

‘Don’t ask’ double standard



Stars and Stripes
Letters to the Editor, Friday, May 14, 2010
What I find so disturbing about "don’t ask, don’t tell" is that it is not applied equally. We expect gays and lesbians to not in any way reveal their orientation, and yet heterosexuals aren’t held to the same standard. Heterosexuals can put up pictures of their partners. They can talk about "hooking up."
Stop it. One standard: Either everybody can discuss their love life or nobody can.
Enough of this whole "survey the force." It’s an order: Either follow it or don’t. Either repeal the law or don’t. Integration of blacks and women wasn’t talked about this much. Why is this any different?
If "don’t ask, don’t tell" is repealed, what happens with bisexual or transgender people?
No one is saying that integration is easy, but the fact is that gays and lesbians are already serving and they’re still having sex. If you’re attractive, they’re still checking you out in the showers, whether you know it or not. Integration 2.0 is simply going to force the military to do the things it’s been saying it’s going to do for years: 1+1 living arrangements, even deployed; private showers. These things are going to have cascading benefits too numerous to name.
I’ve been a soldier for 13 years, and I respect leaders who can make a decision and see it executed. It’s time to make the decision and execute already.
And for those who can’t take it: Thank you for your service. There’s the door. The military isn’t right for everybody. It sure isn’t right for bigots.
By the way: Your right to your religion ends when it impinges upon mine. Hang up the cross and mind your own house already.

Sgt. Joshua Dery
Camp Arifjan, Kuwait​

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=69966

All this letter shows is the fact that everything and everyone will be tolerated but the Cross and Christians.

Now if we Christians would stand up for Christ and His Word, like these are standing up for the immoral, and ungodly, well...

 

[play_smom]

I actually agree with a lot of this letter. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a double-standard if you think about it. It's not fair to tell homosexuals they can't be in the military if they're openly homosexual. Do we exclude sinners from the military? Of course not, we'd have no military. Allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military would only strngthen America's reputation as a place of freedom and equality.

 

[billwald]

How about an all homosexual division? Probably would be as heroic as the Japanese-American division in Europe.