{"id":39344,"date":"2016-12-27T00:15:41","date_gmt":"2016-12-27T03:15:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/?p=39344"},"modified":"2016-12-27T02:56:19","modified_gmt":"2016-12-27T05:56:19","slug":"general-david-haight-demoted-retired-for-swinging-lifestyle","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2016\/12\/27\/general-david-haight-demoted-retired-for-swinging-lifestyle\/","title":{"rendered":"General David Haight Demoted, Retired for Swinging Lifestyle"},"content":{"rendered":"

US Army Major General David Haight was demoted to Lieutenant Colonel and retired<\/a> after an investigation<\/a> into\u00a0his decade-long swinging sexual lifestyle:<\/p>\n

An Army spokesman says Maj. Gen. David Haight was demoted by three steps to the rank of lieutenant colonel, a steep and rare downgrade for a senior officer.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The official cause, as summarized by the Associated Press:<\/p>\n

An Army inspector general investigation concluded that Haight had an inappropriate sexual relationship with a woman who was not his wife, and that he misused government resources, including a department cell phone and computer, for a “high volume” of personal calls and emails.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Given that “misuse” of a government cell phone and computer — as determined solely by volume, since personal calls and emails are explicitly permitted — is a relatively minor offense, it seems clear the “steep and rare downgrade” was for his preferred sexual lifestyle — which the Army deemed “inappropriate” — not any particular criminal act. Thus, the original question remains: Why would the US Army prosecute a long-serving, sacrificing, combat-experienced officer simply for who he loved<\/a>?<\/p>\n

\"haight\"Given the silence from the neo-sexual movement with regard to now-retired LtCol Haight, it remains fascinating that a cultural norm seems to exist that “swinging” is unacceptable sexual behavior and deserving of discharge from the military. And it is clearly an issue of cultural norms, given that the US military doesn’t really have a\u00a0moral<\/em>\u00a0ground upon which to stand when it comes to\u00a0judging sexual behavior.<\/p>\n

In fact, the US military annually celebrates sex as part of “LGBT pride” — without regard to marriage status or number of partners. How can the military celebrate sex on one hand while prosecuting it on the other?<\/p>\n

The\u00a0issue is even murkier. After all, the US military did not<\/em> prosecute a military officer for participating in a\u00a0sexual orgy a few years ago, after he was acquitted of sexual assault<\/a> related to the same event.\u00a0 Notably,\u00a0that particular officer happened to be homosexual.<\/p>\n

That makes it all the more interesting, then, that outgoing Secretary of the Army Eric Fanning (himself a homosexual) has initiated a “review” of “the burgeoning problem of sexual misconduct among senior officers<\/a>.”\u00a0\u00a0It’s a “problem” that was easily predicted: When there is no line, how can people be expected to — or even be able<\/em> to — toe the line?\u00a0 But the changing social mores about sexuality (which also\u00a0led to the repeal of DADT) have had no negative impact on the military or its readiness…right?<\/p>\n

The Army should also consider talking to the US Navy, which already looked into a similar\u00a0“Bathsheba Syndrome” plaguing its own senior officer corps<\/a>.<\/p>\n

So, for those who do not deign to uphold the moral and religious virtues<\/em> of reserving sex for lifelong marriage between one man and one woman, what is the limit after which the US Army will prosecute their sexual behavior?<\/p>\n

Maybe the Army needs to put out an “explicit”\u00a0policy letter detailing which sexual behaviors are “appropriate” and which are not.\u00a0 Guarantee that’s one ALARACT everyone would read.<\/p>\n

It’s amazing\u00a0how complicated life is when society abandons reasonable boundaries — and Truth.<\/p>\n

Because when the moral “standard” is a sliding scale, anything is possible.<\/p>\n

As previously discussed<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

ADVERTISEMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n