FRR Feb 2010 — Gays in Military = Sex in Barracks

If homosexuals are allowed to serve in the military, they will be recruiting in the showers, having sex in the barracks, and straights will undergo sensitivity training. Before long, the U.S. may be defended by the sex-obsessed and those who can tolerate kowtowing to them.

These are the truths that no one will speak.

Forget about ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ (DADT). The issue is NOT about whether those engaging in homosexual sex are, or are not, asked about their ‘sexual preferences.’ The real issue is whether the federal law against sodomy in the armed forces will be abolished either by statute or practice. If the law is abolished, not only will there be open homosexual sex in the barracks, but regulations against hostility to it will be enforced with vigor.

Of course, almost no one else is saying these things. So how can FRI be sure they are true?

It is the ‘nature’ of most homosexuals to ‘do their thing’ — and the more public the better. This characteristic has been noted throughout history. Sex, to the homosexually addicted, is close to the be-all and end-all of life. Why else have 300,000 male homosexuals died of AIDS, even though the mechanism — penile-anal sex — has been known since 1983? Why else do so many homosexuals engage in public sex? Why are there ‘gay pride’ parades?

How else to explain Adam Lambert? Instead of becoming just another rich ‘star,’ on November 22, he performed at the American Music Awards, broadcast on ABC. During his number, he proceeded to grind one of his dancer’s faces into his pelvis, grab the crotch of another, and passionately kiss his male keyboardist1. That “performance is something I’m extremely proud of and I wouldn’t change a thing. I am glad it facilitated a conversation about what kind of double standards there are out there.” Read more »

  1., 2/8/10

Feb 2010 | Gays in the Military — The Sordid Facts

President Barack Obama has called for repeal of the current Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) ban on homosexuals serving openly in the U.S. Armed Forces. As of February 2010, he has commissioned the Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff to find a suitable way to eliminate the ban, perhaps within the next year. FRI has published previous research indicating the problems associated with homosexuals serving in the military, based on surveys of veterans.1 We have also critically examined the Humphrey-Studds study,2 which set out to show that the military ban was unnecessary, but upon closer examination proved just the opposite.3

Despite the evidence, President Obama seems determined to get rid of DADT. But at what risk to the U.S. military? This report examines very recent data on sexual assault reports in the military, as compiled by the Department of Defense (DoD),4 as well as telling and relevant testimony from eyewitnesses who have served. None of the evidence suggests much has changed since DADT was enacted, or that there is any justification for removing the ban on open service in the military by homosexuals.
Read more »

  1. Cameron P, Cameron K, & Proctor K (1988) Homosexuals in the armed forces. Psychological Reports, 62:211-219
  2. Humphrey MA (1990) My Country, My Right to Serve: Experiences of Gay Men and Women in the Military, World War II to the Present. NY: Harper-Collins
  3. Gays in the military: redux (2005) Family Research Report, 20(4):1-6
  4. Dept. of Defense (2008) FY07 Report on Sexual Assault in the Military; Dept. of Defense (2009) FY08 Report on Sexual Assault in the Military; Dept. of Defense (2010) Fiscal Year 2009 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military

Feb 2010 | Our Take on the Prop 8 Trial

Christianity – as the wellspring of ‘animus’ against homosexual activity – is being attacked as full of bigotry, but empty of factual content. This mode of attack worked with Colorado’s Amendment 2 in 1994, and was an integral part of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision. Yet 99% of the empirical evidence regarding homosexual activity supports the Christian appraisal of it.

Nevertheless, here we are with a distinct possibility of losing the Prop 8 trial in California. Why? Largely because many on the pro-family side of the aisle want to win only if they can show positive advantages to heterosexual marriage while simultaneously not criticizing homosexuals, their unions, or their actions. The Wall Street Journal quoted Andrew Pugno, general counsel for, as saying “We do not have to show that same-sex marriage would harm traditional marriage – but just that traditional marriage is a reasonable tool to promote the public’s interest.” (WSJ, 1/22/10, A5)

David Boies, co-lead attorney for the homosexual plaintiffs “said he set out to prove that marriage was an important right, that gays were harmed by being denied that right and that marriage wouldn’t be hurt by extending it to same-sex couples,… ‘We’ve proven all three of those.’ In response, defense lawyer Pugno said his side would present evidence from experts that traditional definitions of marriage between heterosexual couples have special benefit for children and for society.” [WSJ 1/23/10, A3]

In our view, there are essentially three strategies in any trial about social policy. You can demonstrate that: 1) what you are against is harmful to society; 2) what you are for is harmed by what you are against; and/or 3) what you are against is inferior to what you are for (or that what you are for is superior to what you are against). Read more »

Dec 2009 | The Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill

The Ugandan bill criminalizing homosexual activity is getting world-wide attention. It has been condemned by certain evangelical Christians such as Rev. Rick Warren, Professor Warren Throckmorton of Grove City College, and a host of ‘ex-gays’ — even a few folk who might be expected to to be supportive, since they claim to be traditionalists. Little wonder that Hillary Clinton has added the State Department’s voice to the chorus, along with various European leaders.

All the homosexual activists, Western political leaders, and critical evangelicals seem to be up in arms over the fact that the Ugandan bill would imprison (perhaps for life) anyone found guilty of engaging in homosexuality and would potentially execute someone found guilty of “aggravated homosexuality,” the latter of which would include performing homosexual acts upon a minor or when the offender was in a position of authority (e.g., parent, teacher, etc.) or if one knew they were HIV-positive at the time. The bill also explicitly prohibits promotion of homosexuality by any individual or organization and further equates same-sex marriage with the offense of homosexuality.

Generally, according to FRI’s analysis, this is a good bill for those of a traditionalist bent. While no law can end a particular kind of crime, the proposed law makes clear what is not acceptable and should discourage some from acting on their same-sex desires. Interestingly, only acts (not ‘desires’ or ‘orientation’) are condemned, and only rape, especially of children, or recidivism can lead to a death sentence. And those carrying HIV/AIDS have no business engaging in and no right to engage in activities that could infect others.

Read more »