'Don't Ask' Repeal May Cause Troop Exodus

pineinthegrass wrote:

Residenttroll wrote: Here's some quick research for you to chew on.

Dr. Neil Whitehead and Briar Whitehead state regarding various cultures: "If homosexuality were significantly influenced by genes, it would appear in every culture, but in twenty-nine of seventy-nine cultures surveyed by Ford and Beach in 1952, homosexuality was rare or absent."[1]

Dr. Tahir I. Jaz, M.D., Winnipeg, Canada states: "The increasing claims of being "born that way" parallels the rising political activism of homosexual organisations, who politicise the issue of homosexual origins . In the 1970s, approximately ten percent of homosexuals claimed to be "born homosexual" according to a large scale survey....However, in a survey in the 1980s, with the homosexual rights movement increasingly becoming active, thirty-five percent claimed to be born that way.[2]

In 1980 a study was published in the American Journal of Psychiatry which stated that eleven former homosexual men became heterosexuals "without explicit treatment and/or long-term psychotherapy" through their participation in a Pentecostal church.[3]

In regards to homosexual couples and domestic violence, a recent study by the Canadian government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples".[4] Also, according the American College of Pediatricians who cite several studies, "Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples."[5]

Regarding homosexuality and promiscuity, in 2004 the Baptist Press reported the following: "A new study by a group of University of Chicago researchers reveals a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city's homosexual male population. According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago's Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners...As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland -- known as Chicago's "gay center" -- have at least one sexually transmitted disease, researchers said."[6]

In September of 2006, the Agape Press reported the following:
“ A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20 percent of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8 percent having had more than 300.
Unprotected homosexual sex is also a concern among health professionals. A survey in Ireland by the Gay Men's Health Project found that almost half of homosexuals said they were having unprotected sex....
The fact that many homosexuals appear to live their lives in sexual overdrive does not seem to concern leaders in the movement. In an editorial from the same issue (August 15) in which the survey results were published, The Advocate said: "[Homosexuals] have been proud leaders in the sexual revolution that started in the 1960s, and we have rejected attempts by conservatives to demonize that part of who we are."[7]


↑ My Genes Made Me Do it - a scientific look at sexual orientation by Dr Neil Whitehead and Briar Whitehead - Chapter 6
↑ http://www.flyfishingdevon.co.uk/salmon ... /tahir.htm
↑ E.M. Pattison and M.L. Pattison, "'Ex-Gays': Religiously Mediated Change in Homosexuals," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 137, pp. 1553-1562, 1980
↑ 2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005
↑ http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50
↑ Baptist Press, MARRIAGE DIGEST: New study: Homosexual men prone to promiscuity by Michael Foust (Posted on Jan 16, 2004)
↑ http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/9/152006g.asp

OK, you did admit it was quick research. I found it on my first search too. Why not at least link the site you did you selective cut and paste from? Or did I miss it?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_Statistics

The research is properly footnoted. I didn't discover the research on conservapedia. Are you trying to discount it because it happens to also be posted on conservapedia? If so, we need to start discounting all the research footnoted on wikipedia. Interesting, not a single mention of any of this research on Wiki. By the way, thanks for the conservapedia...many more research articles that I originally located. Nice job! :thumbsup:

Residenttroll wrote: The research is properly footnoted. I didn't discover the research on conservapedia. Are you trying to discount it because it happens to also be posted on conservapedia? If so, we need to start discounting all the research footnoted on wikipedia. Interesting, not a single mention of any of this research on Wiki. By the way, thanks for the conservapedia...many more research articles that I originally located. Nice job! :thumbsup:

To tell you the truth, I've never even heard of conservapedia before. That's just one other reason it would of been nice if you linked your source. And just asking, do you think a place called conservapedia is unbiased? And I didn't quote anything from wikipedia, but it seems you think they are biased? From what little I know, I'm guessing they both let their readers post info, with other readers doing the fact checking? If so, I'd guess a conservapedia would be biased to the right. But feel free to correct me.

Anyway your post didn't show all the sources (just 7 of 39 from the source you didn't link). The conclusions you showed had nothing to back them up without all the sources. So I thought it's strange you didn't post the link you copied from.

Anyway, now that the link is known, anyone is free to look at all the info.

And not that it matters, but I disagree with your opinion on the subject anyway. I don't see why sex should only be about procreation. Yes, that's the main object of it. But that doesn't mean it's the exclusive reason, and nothing else is allowed. That's your opinion.

Science Chic wrote: RT, you know, the way to a woman's heart is through her head! Thankyouthankyouthankyou for your reply - I can't wait to sit down and start reading and working on my response!!! You rock! Right now, I have a wayward knee that needs silencing, much to the dismay of my liver, but I'll get back to ya soon!

:thumbsup:

By the way, Pineinthegreens found more extensive research. It's great stuff.

Back to the crap (literally)...what makes it brown?

pineinthegrass wrote:
To tell you the truth, I've never even heard of conservapedia before. That's just one other reason it would of been nice if you linked your source. And just asking, do you think a place called conservapedia is unbiased? And I didn't quote anything from wikipedia, but it seems you think they are biased? From what little I know, I'm guessing they both let their readers post info, with other readers doing the fact checking? If so, I'd guess a conservapedia would be biased to the right. But feel free to correct me.

Anyway your post didn't show all the sources (just 7 of 39 from the source you didn't link). The conclusions you showed had nothing to back them up without all the sources. So I thought it's strange you didn't post the link you copied from.

Anyway, now that the link is known, anyone is free to look at all the info.

And not that it matters, but I disagree with your opinion on the subject anyway. I don't see why sex should only be about procreation. Yes, that's the main object of it. But that doesn't mean it's the exclusive reason, and nothing else is allowed. That's your opinion.

Thank you for the link. I have heard of conservapedia; however, I would never use a footnote from conservapedia. The libtards on 285bound would never accept it as a formal research site. Is it biased, I don't know. But, it's interesting that on this topic, not a single mention of this research is listed on Wikipedia. I am going to try to post the research on Wiki.

I am not arguing that sex should only be use for procreation. I am arguing that putting a penis in the anus is about as normal as sticking a screwdriver in an electric socket. Yes, the screwdriver fits...but for enjoyment if I like to see sparks fly there is a better way to achieve it - than sticking it in an electric socket. To woman having sex is like trying to screw two lightbulbs together.

Let's face it...only a man and woman can have sex....anything else is just a fun and games. Let's call it that...fun and games and not sex.

outdoor338 wrote: WASHINGTON (Dec. 2) -- Senate Republicans, led by Arizona's John McCain, today raised the specter of a mass exodus of offended troops if gays are allowed to serve openly in the military.

In a preview of a debate McCain hopes to keep from reaching the Senate floor for a vote this month, opponents vehemently rejected a 10-month Pentagon study that found there would be minimal disruption in the ranks if Congress repealed the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, they told Pentagon leaders they did not take seriously enough resistance from Army and Marine Corps combat and special-operations units. They also questioned whether the Pentagon survey of 115,000 troops was large enough to be representative.

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/p ... l/19741579

I'm going to suggest they are projecting and way overestimating. You don't live that close to other guys without learning some intimate stuff about them, including sexual preference.

I hope the Senate takes its time on this one. Despite a push from the Secretary of Defense, it appears that most of the Service Chiefs are NOT in a hurry to repeal DADT and would rather take some time to prepare the force for a gradual transition through thoughtful policies, training and preparation. Makes sense to me.

Three of four service chiefs oppose prompt DADT repeal
By Leo Shane III
Stars and Stripes

The chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps and Air Force do not support a repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, telling lawmakers Friday that such a move could add unnecessary stress to the force.

The chiefs spoke during the second day of hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee, one day after Defense Secretary Robert Gates urged the same lawmakers to act now on a repeal. On Tuesday the Pentagon released details of its review of the issue, recommending a slow but deliberate pace of training and policy changes to allow gay troops to serve openly.

But the Army and Marine Corps leaders in particular said they did not agree with the assessment that a dramatic policy change would have only limited impact on troops’ morale and mission effectiveness. Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said a repeal would “add another level of stress to an already stretched force” and “be more difficult for the Army than the report suggests.”

http://www.stripes.com/news/three-of-fo ... l-1.127375

This is from a newspaper that soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen read every day in the war zone. Between the four service chiefs there has to be at least 120 years of collective military experience....so I hope the lawmakers and Secretary of Defense were listening towhat they said as tactifully as they could under the gaze of the boss, the Secretary of Defense.

It comes down to a choice between the readiness of a fighting force in the middle of a shooting war and the need to meet a campaign promise based on social engineering. We will see if logic wins out here. The force is under enough stress after ten years of continuous war. Let's not pile on another good idea right now. This American thinks the readiness NOW is important and the feel-good stuff can wait until the shooting stops.

I think an easy compromise to the DADT is to start a new branch of the military. Call it the Gay Brigade or Gavy, Garmy, Garines, or Gay Force.... We will base them out of Treasure Island in San Francisco.

Residenttroll wrote: I think an easy compromise to the DADT is to start a new branch of the military. Call it the Gay Brigade or Gavy, Garmy, Garines, or Gay Force.... We will base them out of Treasure Island in San Francisco.

That's why I think the Queen Berets might work. They can be a rapid reaction force ready to move on a moments notice....because their stuff is ALREADY packed right?

Now all you have to do is get them all to agree on the color of their uniform and beret. Let me know how that goes. rofllol

A Marine’s point of view:
Maybe a bit off topic: but I thought the Army had already eliminated DADT when they adopted the berets as part of the uniform. The Green Berets were OK with their berets, they are a specialized unit and deserve special status. But a whole army of black berets, reminds me of the French Army. Sorry I don’t mean to offend my Army friends.

lionshead2010 wrote:

Residenttroll wrote: I think an easy compromise to the DADT is to start a new branch of the military. Call it the Gay Brigade or Gavy, Garmy, Garines, or Gay Force.... We will base them out of Treasure Island in San Francisco.

That's why I think the Queen Berets might work. They can be a rapid reaction force ready to move on a moments notice....because their stuff is ALREADY packed right?

Now all you have to do is get them all to agree on the color of their uniform and beret. Let me know how that goes. rofllol

I think Pink is the official color of the beret. Uniform would be standard issue - as they are normal folks - don't you remember?
The battle flag is the rainbow flag.

Their duties? They work exclusive with international UN forces and keeping their @44es in order.