Limp-Wristed Military

"As Barack Obama prepares to be sworn in as commander in chief on January 20, homosexual-rights activists are gleeful about changes he will bring to the armed services.  Based on his campaign promises, Obama is expected to overturn the military's policy regarding sexual conduct.  Commonly referred to as "don’t ask, don’t tell," the military prohibits the service of openly practicing homosexuals.  This policy was created early in the Clinton administration after a long and divisive fight and the hard-fought compromise has drawn the ire of liberals such as Obama ever since.

"It's time to turn the page on the bitterness and bigotry that fill so much of today's LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender) rights debate," Obama said while campaigning.  "The rights of all Americans should be protected -- whether it's at work or anyplace else.  'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' needs to be repealed because patriotism and a sense of duty should be the key tests for military service, not sexual orientation."

Not reported in the media or discussed by advocates are the opinions of the men and women actually serving our country that would be affected by this change in policy.  A poll of some 2,000 active duty military taken in December by the Military Times found that 58 percent opposed a policy change. Of those polled, 10 percent said they would not reenlist, and 14 percent reported they would consider not reenlisting if the policy is changed to please homosexual activists.

Essentially, the United States military, the greatest fighting force ever assembled, has had a policy in place against homosexual conduct since its formation.  This policy annoys certain liberals who want to force their social agenda on the rest of the country and ignore those affected."
 
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm
 
My response:
 
 I was reading an article about the ban being lifted where you could post comments. Some military guy posted the usual response I read, something like, "I don't want some gay guy watching me in the shower." And I saw the typical response posted that I have seen too often, "What makes you think you're so good-looking that you would be getting checked out."
And I thought, yeah, too true. So, to go along with that arguement, let's allow people who are openly pedophiles to become school teachers!
"What makes you think YOUR kid is so cute that a pedophile would be checking YOUR kid out? Huh? Your kid is probably too ugly to attract a pedophile anyway, so why not let them teach kids?"
Wait! Let's let necrophiliacs work openly in morgues! "What makes you think your dead relative is so cute that a necrophiliac would be looking at his/her corpse?"
 
 Homosexuality is deviance for certain. The only reason we tolerate it as much as we do is because we assume the participants are consenting adults.
 
 Straight men who are forced to shower, change, and sleep, in the presence of gay men make them NON-CONSENTING eye candy. They become unwelcomed fantasy food to deviants.

 

    The subjects of visitation and custody fascinate and scare me. It's intriguing to see which things people take into consideration when complete strangers are legally allowed to determine what's best for another human being's offspring. Sometimes I side with the mother, sometimes I side with the father. Some instances are so completely mind boggling that I feel sorry for the judge, which is rare. 

    Recently I  read an article by Glenn Sacks and Mike McCormick on newswithviews.com. The bios describe them this way: "Glenn Sacks is a men's and fathers' issues columnist and radio talk show host. His columns have appeared in dozens of America's largest newspapers. His radio show, His Side with Glenn Sacks, can be heard every Sunday in Los Angeles and Seattle. Mike McCormick is the Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, the world’s largest shared parenting organization. "  I only know of the authors through the articles at this website.

    The authors were commenting on a new bill in Colorado which allows fathers to terminate child support payments if DNA evidence proves that the child is not his. Their article was arguing with a newspaper editorial that was against the bill. Sacks and McCormick argue that the bill gives men "bargaining power" to "preserve relationships" with these children that are not theirs. So money is a bargaining tool.

   So in cases like these,  the child is clearly not the man's child. But these guys want to use money to bargain for some time with this kid anyway. But you can't. It's not fundamentally possible. The ONLY possible next step would be to turn this into an adoption case. But no one is mentioning adoption. They haven't even suggested that the men ask the mother and biological father, if they can find him, if they can become legally responsible for this child. No, the authors want these men to have visitation because they've PAID for it.

    I've seen this before and encountered it personally. These are the types of guys that ask a woman out, buy her flowers, buy her dinner and a movie then stand there with their hands, and pants, open. "I paid money. I spent time. I invested in this date. YOU OWE ME", they think. They complain that after all the money they spent, they should at the very least get laid. But these guys don't want responsibility. It's a one night stand. They want the fun without the responsibility of a relationship. And here they are now: "I bought the kid a bike, I took him to the game, I paid for his medical bills, YOU OWE ME." After all the money they spent, they should at the very least get time with the kids. 

    If the mother and the biologial father do not agree to the adoption, then the guy is screwed. Sorry, it's a cruel world. You are not the child's father, you are not responsible, you don't get see him and you, natually, are not responsible for child support. These guys say, "what if we voluntarily pay child support? Can we demand visitation"? No, it's not even conected. You paid when the kid was yours. You saw the kid because he was yours. He's not yours, you have no right to see him. Now, one would think the adults could work it out and that the kid could be with whomever he prefers. But the nonbiological, non adoptive "father" has no rights to the child. 

   Money does not equal responsibility and child support does not equal visitation. Genes and adoption make a man responsible for the child and thus able to enjoy parental rights and visitation. Other wise, you are having a one night stand with someone elses' child (no pedophilic connection intended).    

 

No, really. I really want to know. I want somebody to please tell me what reproductive rights men have. I can’t find a man who knows an answer for that question.

I've had my reproductive rights shoved down my throat at college for the past few years. As a female, I know exactly what my reproductive rights are. I have the right to birth control which prevents a fertilized egg, a zygote, a unique strand of DNA that can never be recreated ever again, a baby, from implanting on the wall of a uterus, sentencing it to death due to inconvenience. I have the right to kill my child while it's still inside me, for no reason whatsoever, without having to consult with anyone. Oh, and I have the right to be educated about all the ways that excuse me from being responsible for myself and my child. But I couldn't find anyone to tell me what rights a male has.

Fortunately, in some small print of one or two of the almost 400,000 hits I found on my internet search for the phrase, it does say that men have reproductive rights, too.

No really, I'm not making this up. Are you ready to hear what your rights are as a male?

Is it the right to ensure that your voice will be heard or considered before someone kills your child before it is born?

Well, um, no.

Do you have the right to charge your child's mom with child endangerment by doing stupid things like smoking, doing drugs or not wearing a seatbelt while carrying your child?

Well, um, no.

BUT, you DO have the right to affordable contraceptives and the right to not be forcedly sterilized.

THAT'S IT!?

Yep. It says nothing about a man’s right to prevent a woman from neglecting, endangering, or outright killing his child before he or she is born.

Now don't you feel all warm and fuzzy and content with a world that recognizes your rights as a human being to reproduce? You're happy with just that, right?

When I ask guys how they feel about abortion, they tell me that it is a 'woman's issue" and that they don't get involved and feel they have no right to have an opinion.

Wow, it's as if that egg got fertilized all by itself. Will Planned Parenthood form support groups for grieving men whose babies were killed to support female reproductive rights? Can you use taxpayer money to fund a surrogate uterus to carry your child for you before birth?

Spermcenter.com says that, “Overall, you can expect to pay around $200-$600 per insemination for sperm, including shipping.” Well, of course you have to factor in shipping. So a woman can get sperm for cheap, and get free health insurance while she’s pregnant and government assistance in feeding, housing and providing daycare while protecting her right to reproduce. But men get shaft…., um, they are not awarded the same benefits if they wanted to reproduce without a willing female.

Sure, it's not fair that only women can carry a child. And I mean that it’s not fair to men. A man is helpless when it comes to bringing his child into the world (well, you could still pump the frickin’ gas for me, jackass). But this is the way it works. There are a lot of processes carried out by my body that I'd rather do without and I’d like to control. It's MY body. Therefore, I have declared that I have the right to not age. I have the right to not form cellulite on my ass. I have the right to have perky boobs when I’m 65, no matter how gross that image seems now that I am thinking about it.

As women, we have gone way overboard in declaring our rights. We want equal rights, right? We want the same rights as everyone else in America, regardless of gender, right? We got all that and more. But, men do not have the same rights that we have. Men do not have the right to “choose” if their children live or die. Men do not have the right to be a truly single parent. Men do not have any reproductive rights at all. But, in my life, I have never heard a man whine about his reproductive rights or even spoke to a man who realized that as a human, he did, in fact, have the right to reproduce.