The Origins of Homosexuality

Status
Not open for further replies.
deafskeptic said:
I think I have heard about Commander Jones but I am also at loss as what it has to do with soldiers being trained to demonize and dehumanize the enemy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was just a guy whose little bit of power went straight to his head. But it does kind of speak to the mind set.
 
Now, how about those gay and lesbian soldiers?
 
jillio said:
Exactly. All this romanticizing and claiming honorable and only honorable actions during war is just more evidence of the indoctrination process.

My father fought in WWII, My deceased husband the Korean War, and several family members and friends in VietNam. It was not romantic, and they will all suffer the consequences the rest of their lives. At least they are wise enough to understand what was done to them to get them to kill. The ones that don't grasp it are the ones that are still dangerous.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately. Since my dad never fought on the front lines, he still has a great deal of admiration for war. Once he took my little sister, my mother and me to MacArthur's sarcophagus in Norfolk, VA many years ago.
 
deafskeptic said:
Unfortunately. Since my dad never fought on the front lines, he still has a great deal of admiration for war. Once he took my little sister, my mother and me to MacArthur's sarcophagus in Norfolk, VA many years ago.
Click to expand...

Had he been on the front lines, I'm sure his attitude would have been very different.
 
jillio said:
Now, how about those gay and lesbian soldiers?
Click to expand...

Wow, we could split this thread and the Military topic would be the longest "on topic" that was actually on-topic- if it were split out to its own topic.
;)

@Jillo (and scarcastic/good natured) Do you think Military GLT should be treated better then civilian GLT?

(J/K)
 
jillio said:
There were just as many PTSD cases in WWI and WWII. They just did not call it PTSD at that tme.
Click to expand...
Those wars didn't last as long as our current one, so obviously the longer and more repeated deployments are taking greater tolls.

Oh, yeah. These vets are making it up. Nice loyalties to the men that have served on the front lines. The VA hospitals are full of men who are making this stuff up. To what end?
Click to expand...
Are you saying that all the men are in the VA hospitals because of illegal indoctrinations by their officers?

Forty five years of military service just tells me what your mind set is at this point in time. Protect the name of the military, and sacrifice the men.
Click to expand...
You know, your attitude is getting really ugly and tiresome.

The men are the military. The large majority of them are honorable people serving their country. There are a few men and officers who are not so honorable for a variety of reasons, in a variety of ways.

I don't see how you can say TCS and I sacrifice the men to protect the name of the military. We told you just the opposite. We told you that any officers going against policy by using indoctrination methods to dehumanize Iraqis should be removed from their commands and punished. We want the troops supported by getting rid of the officers who are leading them the wrong way. Why are you having such a hard time understanding that?
 
jillio said:
What does that have to do with soldiers being trained to demonize and dehumanize the "enemy"?
Click to expand...
It shows that the military does take action when senior officers do wrong. If those officers are training soldiers to demonize and dehumanize the enemy, then action should be taken against them.
 
jillio said:
Exactly. All this romanticizing and claiming honorable and only honorable actions during war is just more evidence of the indoctrination process.
Click to expand...
Who is doing "all this romanticizing and claiming honorable and only honorable actions during war?" Where?

My father fought in WWII, My deceased husband the Korean War, and several family members and friends in VietNam. It was not romantic, and they will all suffer the consequences the rest of their lives. At least they are wise enough to understand what was done to them to get them to kill. The ones that don't grasp it are the ones that are still dangerous.
Click to expand...
My dad, his two brothers, his sister and her husband served in WWII. My dad's father served in WWI. My mom's brother served in Korea. My cousin served in Vietnam. Several of my other cousins, TCS, and I served during the Vietnam and Cold War eras. My nephew serves now. I don't know of any who said it was "romantic."
 
jillio said:
Yeah, that was just a guy whose little bit of power went straight to his head. But it does kind of speak to the mind set.
Click to expand...
CDR Jones is a woman.
 
FireTiger said:
Wow, we could split this thread and the Military topic would be the longest "on topic" that was actually on-topic- if it were split out to its own topic.
;)

@Jillo (and scarcastic/good natured) Do you think Military GLT should be treated better then civilian GLT?

(J/K)
Click to expand...

LOL. I certainly believe they should be treated the same. And, thanks to Obama, they no longer have to hide who they truly are when in the service of this country.
 
jillio said:
Now, how about those gay and lesbian soldiers?
Click to expand...

What about them? I knew about and who was homosexual back in the 70's and 80's where I served. If they went about their business. No problem. They were left alone. If a sailor sexually assaulted or propositioned another, the sailor was given an other than honorable or general discharge. They were removed from their unit/command immediately. We lived together in close conditions. Especially ships and submarines. Regulations forbid it.

It was no different than an officer/enlisted romantic relationship. Regulations forbid it. One or both were usually reprimanded, sometimes administratively discharged.

I cannot speak toward lesbian service members. I never saw or processed any.

The new regulations allow openly homosexual service members. They can tell anyone that they are and have a relationship with another. They are still forbidden in an officer/enlisted relationship. It still does not give them the right to assault or touch inappropriately another service member. Only the right to "be who they are" and not be discharged or discriminated against.

The regulations originally came about many, many years ago as some service members were blackmailed into stealing military secrets: A heterosexual act with a person not their spouse, usually foreign (adultery), a homosexual act with a foreign agent (since homosexual activity was illegal). It was easier to discharge than not. Sometimes if the service member confessed, they were used to "set up" a foreign agent and then give the service member a second chance. Most second chances were controlled: No access to classified material ever after.

The officer/enlisted relationship ban exists because of favoritism and control, especially if one works for the other. Others find out and cause dissension in the ranks and refusal to obey orders....which in turn causes more problems which you can probably guess.

Soldiers/Marines living from foxhole to foxhole crammed tight together just want to do their job and stay alive. They probably never think about the new change unless politics or press bring it up.
 
Reba said:
Who is doing "all this romanticizing and claiming honorable and only honorable actions during war?" Where?


My dad, his two brothers, his sister and her husband served in WWII. My dad's father served in WWI. My mom's brother served in Korea. My cousin served in Vietnam. Several of my other cousins, TCS, and I served during the Vietnam and Cold War eras. My nephew serves now. I don't know of any who said it was "romantic."
Click to expand...
My parents were only children and too young to fight in WWII. I don't think my grandmother Price had any grown brothers. My grandfather didn't serve in WWI but I have no doubt some of his brothers did serve in WWI. Grandaddy Smith was the youngest of 12 siblings.
 
If the change had no practical impact on the military, why not acknowledge it?
 
jillio said:
Then why the need for "DADT?"
Click to expand...

I guess you would have to ask President Clinton. He signed the bill which went into effect December 1993.

It did not affect me. I retired September 1993. :bowdown:
 
Clinton did some other things of which I did not approve, as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top