Capt. Honors: First Sacrifice on the Homosexual Altar

image - USS Enterprise

U.S.S. Enterprise (Photo credit: Petty Officer 1st Class Todd Cichonowicz, U.S. Navy)

Word came today that the U.S. Navy has decided to relieve Capt. Owen Honors of his command of the U.S.S. Enterprise, the world’s first nuclear aircraft carrier and internationally recognized symbol of United States power.

It recently came to light that when Honors was second in command of the Enterprise in 2006-2007, he participated and starred in several lewd videos which were broadcast on the ship’s closed-circuit TV system. Ostensibly, they were intended to provide a few laughs for the troops and help morale.

Having served in the military for 10 years, I have no small understanding of proper military behavior and conduct.

While there is nothing in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the military’s law book, which says “commanding officers may not make funny videos,” leaders must always remember the importance of maintaining good order and discipline. This doesn’t mean our military folks can’t have a much-needed laugh from time to time, and it doesn’t mean leaders cannot joke and share a laugh with their subordinates sometimes.

But from what I’ve seen, while perhaps well-intended by Honors to help troop morale, Honors central participation in them may violate Article 133 (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer) and Article 134 (the “General Article” which includes “all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline” and “all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces”).

I believe Capt. Honors displayed poor judgment by starring in these videos, displaying silly behavior which could degrade respect for his rank and position.

But there are some other important facts concerning this controversy that must not be ignored.

If you are astute, you have probably noticed by now that the majority of the angst over these videos is over the “anti-gay slurs,” not their generally lewd nature or most importantly the appropriateness of such behavior from a commanding officer.

According to reports, this happened 3-4 years ago. Three to four years ago. And only now, within two weeks of our Leftist congress’ repeal of the 234-year prohibition against homosexual conduct in the military, does this come to light?

The timing is unmistakable. It can be nothing other than the inaugural sacrifice to the PC gods, as Daniel Foster at the National Review put it. This release and subsequent controversy is transparently designed to send a message: all will bow at the PC altar to render the required respect and admiration for homosexual behavior–with blasphemers cast into outer darkness.

While I don’t sanction the general use of slurs, if you think one man sticking his penis into another man’s anus is normal, morally upright behavior that should be defended, then you definitely have some mental and moral issues that desperately need to be dealt with.

Of course, none of this is a surprise to anyone knowledgeable of this issue.  In addition to the many practical problems we knew this would cause for our men and women in uniform, we knew it would end up bringing an assault on some of the most fundamental freedoms of many of our soldiers.  Chaplain foreign exchange programs with nations that have already lowered their standards revealed that military chaplains will have to choose whether to obey the gods of political correctness or the God they have sworn to serve.

Democrat politicians have also made it very clear that they would rather have immoral homosexual soldiers in the U.S. military than solders with a good moral compass, calling for soldiers who understand that homosexual behavior is immoral to be punished.  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has also made it clear that when it comes to a choice of soldiers who understand the proper use of their sex organs and those who don’t, those who don’t will be preferred.

And a Department of Defense working group has recommended that heterosexual soldiers be forced to bunk with and shower with homosexual soldiers.

It’s not like we didn’t know we were risking this when we put the morally bankrupt Democrat Party in power, either.  Bill Clinton tried to force open homosexuality on the U.S. Military back in 1993. He failed only because the moral character of our had not been sufficiently corrupted by our decaying culture and the “mainstream” media, settling for his asinine “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” compromise policy of ignoring homosexuals in the military as long as it didn’t come boldly out into the open.  Candidate Obama also made it clear in 2008 that he wanted to force open homosexuality on the U.S. military (as well as repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act which protects states from being forced by other states to call homosexual unions “marriage”), as did the 2008 Democrat platform.

Many certainly wanted our nation to aim for the lowest common denominator, but still others were naive enough to think it really wouldn’t come to this.  Still other conservatives were too lazy to make a phone call or send an email to their representatives, and allowed it to happen through their inaction.

If we refuse to put this prohibition back in place, we’ll have to live with the avalanche of consequences.  We’ll all have to live with the consequences of our sloth and moral bankruptcy as we watch our military become a place where immoral behavior is championed and morality is openly opposed, where privacy becomes a casualty, and moral chaplains are rejected in favor of immoral ones.

Before long, our nation will be facing the consequences of producing a military no better than other mediocre nations in the world, and we had better be prepared to accept the cost in blood to our soldiers, and the cost in blood to the civilians that our military once uncompromisingly protected.

25 Responses to “Capt. Honors: First Sacrifice on the Homosexual Altar”

  1. Captain Honors is truly the first DADT casualty. More will follow. Homosexuals are a specially protected class of people–unequal under the law, or put another way, all people are equal, but some are more equal than others. This is a travesty.

    3 to 4-year old videos. Like you said, Bob, the timing is unmistakable.

  2. Captain Honors is truly the first DADT casualty. More will follow. Homosexuals are a specially protected class of people–unequal under the law, or put another way, all people are equal, but some are more equal than others. This is a travesty.

    3 to 4-year old videos. Like you said, Bob, the timing is unmistakable.

  3. Well said, Gina. Homosexuals are equal too, they deserve more rights. I agree. Soon they will be treated equally too.

  4. The homosexual agenda marches on, over, and against anyone standing in their way to marriage and minority status. Now with the official sanctioning of Queer Nation by Obama the military will be subjected to more and more official outings of straights against the homosexual lifestyle. In the end days men will call evil good and good evil

  5. Sorry, but you misunderstood what I said. You apparently did not recognize my take-off reference of a line from Orwell’s Animal Farm.

    NO, homosexuals DO NOT deserve MORE rights than any other people. Have you ever heard of equal protection under the law? Homosexuals ALREADY have equal protection under the law.

  6. The breaking of a woman’s hymen is a natural part of sex, and it happens once in her life. Unless you know something that contradicts voluminous anecdotal and clinical data, the behavior you’re defending is a regular item on the homosexual menu.

    When a man sticks his penis into another man’s anus, that is not remotely natural, normal or healthy. Simple common sense (as well as morality, science, biology and health statistics) tells you that just isn’t right.

    Apparently you have some mental and moral issues that desperately need to be dealt with.

  7. The fake “anti-bullying” campaign rages on, and, ironically, much more harm will come to adults and confused children who are affirmed in this destructive “identity.”

  8. Homosexual men are exponentially more likely to contract HIV and a host of other sexually transmitted diseases through – what? – kissing?

    Frankly, you’re an idiot if you are trying to contend that this deranged sexual behavior isn’t rampant among homosexuals. It’s their best-attempt “counterpart” to natural, healthy, life-producing man/woman sex. Unfortunately, for them, it’s also antithetical to what is life-producing, natural, and healthy.

  9. PeterB, I haven’t mocked homosexuals; I have described their irrational and immoral behavior.

    Also, you have just insulted black Americans even as you have broadcast your mindless ignorance. Black Americans have suffered the terrible injustices of slavery and harsh discrimination based on nothing more than the color of their skin–an innate, morally neutral physical characteristic. To compare an immoral and unhealthy sexual behavior with a physical characteristic is intellectually lacking as well as insulting to black Americans.

    Try thinking and being intellectually honest. It’ll be refreshing if you’ll just give it a chance.

  10. Nick & PeterB – Wow. Sorry, guys, but you’re really reaching if that’s the best you can do. I don’t know how someone can expect to be taken seriously when they (a) try to make natural sex sound unhealthy and unnatural; or (b) use that tired, long-since-refuted comparison between race and sexual preference.

    Bob – Are you deliberately posting only the weakest comments from homosexuality defenders? (Seriously, though, I have no trouble believing that these are the best arguments such people can come up with. Defenses of wrong behavior and false ideas can only be so strong.)

  11. As you’ve probably guessed, DCM, I only delete the ones that are mostly pure progaganda, or are so devoid of intellectual substance that they don’t merit wasting space on. (And I’m probably a little more generous than I should be, sometimes)

  12. I understand the psychology and use ‘ locker room’ humor, but after watching a 12 minute clip of one of Capt. Honors productions, I was surprised how silly and childish this commander of the U.S.S. Enterprise came across. Masturbating fake chickens and faking putting an anal probe in someone and showing girls in showers made me think of the guy who produces ‘ College Girls Go Wild ‘

    Can’t you just see Gen Washington showing the boys on the Delaware pictures of chickens getting mastubated by one of his officers just to better morale. Lets not get sidelined about DADT, but focus on how to teach Capt. Honors how to act like a commander and keep him in administrative roles sitting behind a desk until he can show that he can avoid using the judgement of some horny 17 year old.

  13. There apparently are actually some poor men who believe in the ridiculous term “homophobia.” It’s really irritating to try to explain to those lost people that we’re not “afraid” of homosexuality; we just know it’s a really, really bad thing in the eyes of the One who made us. And those of us who know Him also have the knowledge of how twisted and perverse that evil lifestyle choice truly is. It’s that simple. We’re not the ones who should be afraid, and we’re not.

  14. As if you would ever get on a soap box and tell pornography consumers the same thing…

    Americans have so much trouble facing how hypocritical and harmful society is concerning pornography.

  15. From what I understand, the dismissal is basically from many things including showing two women in the shower. Women complained and this was addressed in the video, and I quote ” Over the years I’ve gotten several complaints about inappropriate materials in these videos, never to me personally but, gutlessly, through other channels. This evening, all of you bleeding hearts…why don’t just go ahead and hug yourself for the next 20 minutes or so, becuse there’s a really good chance you’re gonna be offended.” He the uses the F word many times in the following video. The complaints came from female sailors. There was gay slurs, but it was basically calling Navy surface officers fags, while aviators, of which Honors was one. There was also a Donkey involved in some way. I got this information from the following :

  16. Listen closely. First off, were you there? I was, and I am a female nuke who during my entire time on the Enterprise(I just transferred in Sept) never known a single person(male OR FEMALE) who didn’t like CAPT Honors. Now I’m not saying there were people who didn’t, I’m saying that as far as the majority went, he was LOVED by his crew(including the gay ones that I knew). See what alot of civilians don’t realise is that when gay people get discharged from the military, ~90% actually WANT to get out. Do you really think people aren’t open about their sexuality in the military, I can tell you of this one ET who was flamboyantly(sp?) gay. He would talk about giving head and such, another chick who would talk about screwing her girlfriend with a strap-on. The only good thing about the DADT repeal is now they don’t have an easy out(and it’s not just gay people, because there were straight people who “suddenly realised” they were gay. As far as his disclaimers went, no one was forced to watch those skits, and anonymous complaints don’t really get you anywhere because people do put some crap in those inboxes, those females had something call a Chain-of-Command, either way as I’ve stated before, all they really had to do was not watch it. And to the poster who keeps comparing homosexuality to race issues, as a BLACK FEMALE I am offended you could even think that they are the same thing. I think you should be fired and your career ruined(see how stupid that sounds). I continue to support CAPT Honors 110%.
    P.S. Tell me, would you sacrifice the good morale of the majority just to appease a select few who CHOOSE to watch knowing they would get offended? It’s like watching South Park everday it comes on and then demanding comedy central take it off the air, even though you could have easily changed the channel.

  17. There is where you are dead-wrong on both counts.

    While I have no doubt that this came to light because of the recent decision of our government to allow open homosexuality in the military, Capt. Honors behavior was unbecoming an officer of any rank, especially that of an XO.

    It was inexcusable behavior for a command officer and unacceptable behavior in the military…just as homosexual behavior is prejudicial to good order and discipline.

  18. “..just as homosexual behavior is prejudicial to good order and discipline.”

    Sexual behavior, whether gay or straight, is private– or at least should be. Those who violate rules about conduct should be subject to discharge.

    There is no reason, however, for there to be two sets of rules: one for gay soldiers and one for everyone else. Public sex, harassment, fraternization rules should be applied the same to all. DADT did not do that.

    There was no justification for separate rules determining that only heterosexual soldiers could acknowledge that they were dating, engaged or married—while gay soldiers were told they had to pretend they were single –or dating/married to someone of the opposite sex– in order to serve their country.

  19. Proper sexual behavior is not prejudicial to good order and discipline. It is natural, healthy, moral, and causes no disruptions to good order and discipline in a military environment.

    Homosexual behavior is immoral, unheahlty, unnatural, and is disruptive in a military environment, especially under the close living conditions in which military members often have to live.

    We don’t house female soldiers with male soldiers for obvious reasons. Those reasons are equally obvious regarding homosexual and heteroesexual soldiers, nor should immoral sexual conduct be accommodated in the military. Military service is a priviledge, not a right, and it is extended only to those whose physical and behavioral qualifications ensure they will not disrupt the military mission, which is not to make people feel good about unnatural sex acts but to destroy the enemy as effectively as possible.

    There always has been one set of rules for homosexual and heterosexual soldiers: neither of them have been (until congress decided to cater to the lowest common denominator last month) allowed to engage in homosexual behavior.

    If homosexuals truly cared about the defense of our nation, they would restrain themselves from this behavior in order to serve, just as the drug user must do so, as well as many disruptive behaviors. The fact that for some of them, openly engaging in homosexual behavior is more important than the military mission makes it clear that they are not fit for military service. Only those who are willing to put the mission ahead of their personal proclivities are suitable for the important job of defending our nation.

  20. Obiously they don’t care more about our nation’s military effectiveness than their desire to sodomize each other. If they did, they–like those who enjoy doing drugs or engaging in other behaviors not conducive to military effectiveness–would would restrain themselves and not engage in these behaviors.

    While you may respect the act of one man sticking his penis in another man’s anus, I cannot under any circumstances respect that act, and anyone who does it and insists it is normal or noble makes it very difficult to respect anything they say or do.

    And no, I am not confusing sexual behavior with being homosexual. If one does not engage in homosexual behavior, one is not a homosexual. One might have homosexual inclinations, but one is not a homosexual if one does not give in to that temptation. I used to be a drunk. I was a drunk because I got drunk a lot. I quit getting drunk and haven’t been drunk in over 18 years. I’m not a drunk anymore. Homosexuality is a behavior, and until a few weeks ago, no one in the military was allowed to engage in that behavior, so your confusion or attempt at deception regarding “appplication to all” is invalid.

    It is disgraceful for a soldier to commit adultery. It is disgraceful for a soldier to engage in prostitution. It is disgraceful for a soldier to engage in illicit drug use. Should they “have to pretend” not to like committing adultery, engaging in prostitution, or doing drugs? That depends on whether they want to serve in the military, and consider military service more important than their inclinations to commit immoral behavior. The homosexual has that same choice; unfortunately, some consider it more important to be able to openly sodomize others than to behave in a manner which maximizes military effectiveness.

    Someone who sodomizes another person or allows another person to sodomize them has an uphill battle to be considered honorable. Homosexual behavior is an unnatural, immoral, and very unhealthy act, and to consider that more important than the morale and unit cohesion of our military forces is contemptable. While some of their acts may be honorable, bringing such dishonor on our military with their open sexual immorality negates most if not all of that honor.

  21. “And no, I am not confusing sexual behavior with being homosexual.”

    With respect, yes, You really are.

    And you are confusing someone who is honorable –just not single– with drug addicts and worse.

    Your claim that someone who isn’t single cares “more” about the love of his or her life than the country they are willing to die for makes no more sense in the case of a gay person than it does in the case of a heterosexual who is engaged or married.

    The problem is that you only expect the gay soldier to have to make that choice.

    Sorry. You don’t get to do make other human beings make that false choice. And, now that DADT had been lifted, neither does the U.S. Military.

    And I for one think that’s a wonderful move in the right direction.


  22. No, I am not. Homosexuality is directly related to sexal behavior, specifically having sex with someone of the same sex. It’s really quite simple.

    And no, I am not confusing honorable persons and actions. Actions define us, they give meaning to whether we are honorable or not. Sodomizing another person or allowing someone to sodomize you is not remotely honorable behavior. Further, prioritizing homosexual behavior ahead of the morale and unit cohesion of one’s military fellows is not remotely honorable behavior. Rather, both are dishonorable. If you look up the word “honor,” you will find that it means behavior that merits respect or superiour standing. Sodomy and putting one’s sexual proclivities ahead of the good of the military is not honorable behavior.

    I do not claim that someone who isn’t single cares more about their loved one than their country. You will not find that I said that anywhere. I said that someone who considers it a greater priority to indulge unnatural sexual urges than to restrain their behavior in the interest of good order and discipline has put their own pleasure ahead of the good of the military and the good of the nation. Neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals have been allowed to engage in behaviors that are prejudicial to good order and discipline.

    Sadly, we will pay a price for lauding immoral and unhealthy sexual behaviors over morality and discipline. I’m afraid that price will soon be in the quality of our military force (somewhere between 20% and 40% of those asked in the DOD survey indicated they would leave the military, encourage others not to enlist, etc. if open homosexuality was allowed in the military) eventually be in blood.