An Openly Homosexual American Military.

Vic Biorseth, Monday, December 20, 2010
http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com

The anti-American and anti-citizen political march continues in Washington, with the introduction of a new openly homosexual military for America. Our common American Judao-Christian ethos, morality and common sense has taken another hit, thanks to the anti-Judao-Christian program of Obamunism aided by the Democrat Party.

Billary Clinton’s infamous “don’t ask don’t tell,” let’s pretend they aren’t really there wink and nod at homosexual infiltration into all male combat units has finally born its evil fruit. The Senate repealed “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” on December 18, 2010, to the everlasting shame of this Christian nation. They did it with the help of eight (8) Republicans, whose names should forever live in infamy:

1. Richard Burr, North Carolina
2. Mark Kirk, Illinois
3. John Ensign, Nevada
4. Scott Brown, Massachusetts
5. George Voinovich, Ohio
6. Lisa Murkowski, Alaska
7. Olympia Snowe, Maine
8. Susan Collins, Maine

High-ranking yes-men – I mean officers – in the Pentagon, even with lots of stars on their shoulders, have even stated that unit cohesion will not be injured by the insertion of an open screaming queen or flaming faggot into a small combat team. “Unit cohesion depends upon unit leadership,” they say. Perhaps once the team leader himself is the screaming queen, they think everybody will then be happy. These high ranking jackasses never had to take a shower with a gang of open homosexuals, and they never had to sleep in a two-man pup tent with an obvious flamer, so they don’t even know what the hell they’re talking about.

This repeal is going to force decent heterosexual men into close living, sleeping, showering and eating company with flaming homosexuals who are there to seduce them, and who are there for the perverted thrill of living in such a manner with an all male captive audience.

Clowns who say idiotic things like “The last thing I’m going to worry about on the battlefield is if the guy next to me is gay” never served, will never serve, do not see service as any kind of duty or responsibility, or perhaps even as a national need. They know nothing whatsoever about the closeness and absolute inter-dependence of military life. All they know about military life they saw in movies or read in books, and all of that information concentrated on the smallest percentage of military life, which is to say, the battlefield.

They don’t even think to ask that sort of question around any issue of barracks life, such as the common showers, and common sleeping facilities. Or of any issue involving one or more month long field exercises, in which they would pair up with a sleeping buddy, and help each other take showers in the field. All they know about military life is the military life they see in the movies.

An openly homosexual American military is wrong for the same reason that it is wrong for heterosexual servicemen to bring their wives into the barracks and along with the unit. It is wrong for the same reason that it is wrong for men and women to serve in the same military units involving co-ed barracks. The military unit needs to concentrate on the military mission, without any sexual undercurrents or distractions, or any relationship problems, jealousy problems, break-up or make-up problems, or any such distractions from the mission. Every single member of the unit needs to commit himself to and be absolutely dependent upon ever other member of the unit, at all times.

Nothing good will come of this. I’m glad my service is done. But this has got to be changed, for the good of national defense. I predict that the best, brightest and fittest for service will have second thoughts about joining. Many of the best now serving will retire early, or leave service before they would have. The military will become more and more like Hollywood, which is to say, openly, publicly, flamingly homosexual, and publicly celebrating that fact.

We talked about the movement to normalize homosexuality and demonize the Judao-Christian ethos in the Homo-Nazi Front page.

We talked about the effort to instill the false notion of the homosexual as victim and hero in the The HIV=AIDS=DEATH Hoax page.

We presented our argument renouncing the infamous Sexual Revolution of the 60s.

We presented our argument refuting the notion of Open Homosexuality.

What more needs to be said?

Right and wrong are turned upside down here. Open homosexuality is seen to be a virtue, rather than a sinful, disgusting and shameful thing. Anyone daring to speak out against it is held to be immoral, of all things, and damned with the stigma of homophobia; a rhetorical invention aimed at labeling opponents as somehow mentally ill. There is no such thing as heterophobia; only homophobia. See? Ask anyone in show-biz, or in journalism, or in education. Or in high office.

What kind of a people are we? What kind of a nation is this?

Our government – our elected government – opposes us, and is against everything we stand for. It opposes our religion. It opposes our common decency. It opposes our morality. It actually opposes our national existence.

It is just so hard to believe that so many in high office could be so irretrievably, irreconcilably, irrevocably Democrat. I mean stupid.

Pray for America, and put on another kettle of Tea.

Reference Material

Return to Web Site Log (Blog) page

Return to HOME PAGE

Build/Host/Maintain Your Own Personal Website using SBI! (Advertisement)

Date: Mon Feb 14 10:47:49 2011
From: Frederic Jose
Email: fredericjose85@gmail.com
Location:
Comment:

You state that crude and vulgar speech has no place in comments, fair enough ... but the language that you use in your article itself does not set the absolute pinnacle of decency either. Homosexuality is a very contentious issue that can be argued both ways, but calling homosexuals "screaming queens" and "flaming fags" etc. do not contribute to a sane discussion of the topic. This is one problem that I have detected in all these discussions involving homo life or abortion issue. Liberals think (and call) conservatives bible-thumping morons with IQ around 70 or so, and conservatives return the favor in equal measure. Unless the name calling stops, we will never resolve these issues as sane adults in a democratic country.

Date: Mon Feb 14 18:03:06 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Frederic Jose:

I’ve been over this ground multiple times in multiple pages. I tried to lay out some of the ground rules in the Ethics of Language page, with the navigation-button sub-title “It’s not my language!” But I guess it is my language, since it is what I use. Let me try to lay out my ground rules as applied to homosexuals.

1. A homosexual is what a homosexual does. What that means is that if someone has homosexual tendencies or temptations and is resisting them and not doing homosexual things, then that person may not truly be called a homosexual, any more than I might be called an adulterer or a single man might be called a fornicator.
2. An active homosexual who is not public about it is a homosexual.
3. An active homosexual who loudly proclaims and publicly celebrates the homosexual condition may be referred to as a flamer or a faggot, and, if appropriate due to behavior, a screaming queen or a tattooed butch.

Look at the language the screamers and the flamers use against the rest of us and tell me why I should hold my tongue when speaking to or about them. Opposing homosexuality is not immoral. Supporting homosexuality is immoral. Those who support open homosexuality have rejectied Judao-Christianity and adopted the moral standards of BMDFP and Clintons.

I take very strong exception to anyone touting and promoting the legalization, normalization, social acceptability and even non-sinfulness of any form of sexual license and/or perversion. I follow the Judao-Christian ethos and the morality that comes out of the Judao-Christian religion upon which this nation was founded, and which represents the clear majority of her citizens.

Re the need to “resolve these issues as sane adults … “ There is no problem to resolve if the sane adults follow the Judao-Christian ethos of America. What other moral norm would you have us follow? That of Sodom and Gomorrah? Is that to be our new basis for civil law, civility and moral norms? If so, I reject the idea outright.

By what right does the homosexual tail seek to wag the heterosexual dog?

Regards,

Vic

Date: Tue Feb 15 09:45:43 2011
From: Frederic Jose
Email: fredericjose85@gmail.com
Location: Mumbai/Maharashtra/India
Comment:

Dear Vic,

I think you have misunderstood my point completely. First of all, let me state this clearly that I do not support homosexual lifestyle. I am straight, and have always been so. And the problem of homosexuality is not uniquely American either. Here in India, we recently had the Supreme Court rule that homosexuality is valid. I work in a group that tries to prevent youngsters opting for a homosexual lifestyle. The only point where we differ is how to deal with this. Screaming about Judeo-Christianity to them does not work any better than throwing Frisbees at them. The only way you can convert young people from this perverse lifestyle is by having a sane, healthy discussion with them. Outright condemnation in the strongest possible language simply alienates people, who then will never listen to you or the valid points you have to say.

"If you can't go around it, over it, or through it, you had better negotiate with it." I did not say this, someone much wiser than me did, but valid point huh??

Regards,

Frederic Jose

Date: Tue Feb 15 18:59:59 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

Frederic Jose:

Points well taken; however, I very seldom scream, and just about never at youngsters. The language I use that you took exception to is not directed at people struggling with the problem of homosexuality, or even at those homosexuals who do not seek to impose pro-homosexual laws upon me and my nation. The championing, sponsoring and promotion of open, public, in-your-face homosexuality is what I refer to as the promotion of public faggotry. That is the problem I address. I attack public faggotry just as directly, openly and boldly as the opposition champions it.

The problem you address is how to help those tempted or controlled by this problem to be able to properly deal with it, and that is an entirely different problem. I see it primarily as a two-sided problem, related first to a problem with morality, and second to a problem with self control. In our culture the best place to start is with a priest, minister or rabbi.

What I am working against is the continued degeneration of America in particular and Western Culture in general. In America, we like our laws to be representative of the people rather than dictated to them from on high. We conservative Americans are kind of funny about that sort of thing.

Regards,

Vic

Date: Thu Aug 04 18:48:13 2011
From: AllWellAndGood
Email:
Location:
Comment:

I won't really get into your use of the slur "faggot" because you've already explained your point, but I felt the need to just say that regardless of ones position on a subject, hateful name-calling is usually the worst way to present your opinion and I would say the same to anyone who argued their point by aiming that sort of speech at you.

However! I already spent more time on that than I wished too. I'd like to tell a short true story and then pose a hypothetical question.

As a freshman in high-school (I went to a boarding school) I had been given a "double" meaning I would have a roommate. He was an extremely insightful and smart guy. He enjoyed philosophy and took a few theology classes during his time in high school. However more important than that, he was a very caring individual that was always willing to help a friend or stranger. By the end of freshman year we had become close friends, probably my best at the time. He now lives close to 600 miles away from me however we keep in contact as much as possible because he still is one of my closest friends. Two years ago he came out to me. Since he was about 13, he told me, was when he knew that he was gay. All through middle school, all through high school, all through college he kept it a secret because he was afraid of how people would treat him differently, but more importantly he was afraid of the shame it would bring to his parents. I would like to point out that he in no way acted "gay" when I met him and he still doesn't act "gay" now. In fact, if you didn't know it you would never be able to tell, especially because he doesn't throw it in your face. However he will tell you he is if you ask him a question that would warrant that response. He is no different of a person than he was when I met him and I am proud to call a guy with such a caring and insightful manner my friend.

Now I ask you, put yourself in my position. If your best friend of years and years came to you because he trusted you and told you his biggest and most fearful secret looking for understanding and compassion, would you never shake his hand again because you would fear his disgusting feces covered extremities? Would you never hug him again because you would be afraid that he would become sexually aroused at the mere touch of another man? These are things you have brought up in several other articles and I'm just wondering if that would change given the circumstances?

Date: Fri Aug 05 07:32:09 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:

AllWellAndGood:

Homosexuals and other perverts, like fornicators and adulterers, are what they make themselves. None of them are “born” to commit the sins they commit. Unless they suffer from some serious psychosis, they are what they are by their own free will. The fact that a surrounding society, such as Sodom and Gomorrah, might approve of and even actually encourage such sin does not change the fundamental nature of the sin.

I am indeed in that situation. I encourage chastity, in accordance with one’s state in life (married; single; religious,) to everyone. There is no reason that a person with homosexual tendencies cannot avoid un-chastity as well as a person without that particular temptation. I avoid physical contact with known homosexuals, but not to the point of being rude or obvious. There are always opportunities to wash one’s hands.

Regards,

Vic

Please note the language and tone already established in this Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, your comments must meet our standards of logical rigor and of civil discourse. We will not participate in trading insults, and we will not tolerate participants trading insults with each other. Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, please keep it civil. We apologize to religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say these things.