Posted on 03/27/2010 9:48:37 AM PDT by DesertRenegade
As President Obama continues his campaign to undermine the moral fabric of our nation and American effectiveness on every front, the proposed repeal of Bill Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy regarding homosexuals in the military has once again become a hot topic of discussion.
To be clear, Obama is not pushing for a return to the pre-Clinton days when it was understood that homosexual behavior is incompatible with military service, period, regardless of whether the homosexual military member “told” or not. Obama is instead pressing for homosexuals to be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. Armed Forces.
A week or so I discussed why this is a bad idea on many levels. Many aspects were discussed about why homosexual behavior does not not fit in well in a military environment, and why for a variety of reasons homosexuals serving openly in the military would degrade military effectiveness. One article dealt with comments made by former NATO commander and Marine, General John Sheehan at congressional hearings on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the other examined the ACLU’s harassment of the Rapid City Police Department for doing its job according to standard procedure which ended up resulting in a female homosexual being discharged from the military at Ellsworth Air Force Base.
In those articles, I mentioned that, moral and health considerations aside, allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military would present logistical problems that would be costly to the taxpayers and detrimental to unit esprit de corps and military effectiveness.
(Excerpt) Read more at dakotavoice.com ...
Good post.
“introduce open homosexual conduct into the barracks”
Just imagine how the barracks will look with new and colorful designs, fabrics and motifs.
(wow! don't think about that phrase too much!)
This displays weakness and a lack of seriousness to our enemies. It’s a very foolish course. Our commander in chief is completely bereft of any leadership qualities, and this is a good example of it. It will result in untold damage.
Interesting. I remember when that happened but never heard why.
Most assuredly.
There were always guys in the military that you suspected were Gay but since it never accepted openly it was never a devisive issue.
Once it becomes open and accepted I can imagine quite a number of difficult scenarios not only within the ranks but when openly Gay soldiers serve in countries where homosexuality is illegal or when captured by enemies who may via torture or discovery of incriminating personal effects, tattoos etc. discern the soldier to be Gay.
In addition, me, as a heterosexual soldier, don’t I have a right to privacy from those who would look on me with lust in showers etc. Would they quarter men and women military personnel in the same quarters with the same bathroom facilities?
“Don’t ask, Don’t tell” is a reasonable policy for all, and there is no need to pursue witch hunts either. Let all who wish to, serve, but do so discretely.
Mony Python’s “Military Fairy” skit always comes to mind, alas...
“’Don’t ask, Don’t tell’ is a reasonable policy for all, and there is no need to pursue witch hunts either. Let all who wish to, serve, but do so discretely.”
I think the bottom line for most soldiers is that if some guy is erotically attracted to the waste elimination fecal organ of other males, he has no business anywhere near our military.
DADT is a social pattern “gays” themselves are first to learn, first to apply to themselves, and first to maintain, beginning with puberty, or once they have already self-identified as “gay”, and it is continued, generally throughout adulthood.
Why? Because in spite of same-sex attraction, they are no different than everyone else in wanting NON-SEXUAL, NON-ROMANTIC good relationships, including friendships, with members of their own gender. They don’t WANT to stand around gawking at everyone else in the showers after gym class BECAUSE they want the same NON-SEXUAL, NON-ROMANTIC relationships with 99.99% of the same-gender members among their classmates. THEY KNOW that breaking their own silence is not just difficult for themselves, but difficult for any honest non-sexual, non-romantic same-sex friendships they already have; difficult for THOSE friends and an UNNECESSARY “affirmation”.
Why?
If a group of young high-school girls are in a common open shower together after gym class and a young man walks in, then when they holler for him to leave and scramble to “cover-up”, are they demonstrating some sort of “phobia”, a “hetero-phobia” maybe? No. They are in a very open, vulnerable and intimate environment in which sexual interest is considered to be NOT present, and thus permitting their open nudity with each other. Thus, there is no phobia present when a heterosexual with someone of their own gender, together in such a situation would prefer them to keep their same-sex attraction to them self, if that was the case. Why is that point hard to understand?
On the other side, it also true that if a solid friendship is already formed, and has been for some time, between two people of the same gender where one is openly known to the other to be “gay”, some of the “intimate quarters” issues are not problems between the two of them.
BUT, back again to the first side, that doesn’t necessarily make it as unproblematic for all their other friends. A unit commander can still have concerns if DADT is broken.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.