Sometimes this week, President Obama will sign the repeal of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy barring openly gay individuals from serving in the military. As I've been listening I've noted that most of the voices I listen to (both on the left and right) are missing the important points on the historical significance of this act.
There have been some fun things to come out of this (let's be honest, gay jokes are still funny). My fav so far is new ranks and existing ranks with new meaning. Not surprisingly, the Navy fares worst with both the Rear Admiral and the perennial failure in nomenclature that is Seamen. I'd look up more, but that means work, and it's too cold to do any work that doesn't involve moving. So let's get back to the point.
First of all, there is no "historical significance" to this act. It is significant to any homosexuals currently serving or considering service, because now they don't have to keep their orientation a closely guarded secret (as opposed to having to hide it intensely prior to DADT). But as for far-reaching consequences, it will be simply that this will be one less thing for the military to wonder about. This is a good thing, because the more time the military has to spend on the personal lives of soldiers, the less effective they will be at blowing up people and shit, which is the primary purpose of our military: Making shit into rubble and people into corpses.
And if anything, not worrying about who soldiers have sex with on their own time is a good step.
Also, I do want to clarify that this was an inevitable step. As in we were going to toss the antiquated rules out the window once the soldiers coming in were more tolerant than the prior generation. So the obsessive fear mongering on some parts of the right about having to cover your ass (in another way) in the trenches is outdated and stupid. After all, we are talking about professional soldiers who can separate between times to use their rifles and using their "guns" (Full Metal Jacket-style).
Now as for those on the left that are hailing this as something akin to integration in the Army. When did skin color and who you choose to fuck become equal? Now to clarify, I'm not talking about orientation, because you're born wired a certain way. Because there is a difference between being a guy attracted to guys (involuntary) and having nuts on your chin (and not in the eating dessert sense). Thankfully, this should no longer be an issue in the United States Armed Forces.
And it shouldn't change the behavior of gay servicemen (and women). While you may no longer have to worry about getting the boot if someone figures out you're batting for the other team, sexually, it doesn't change your purpose, your training, and your mission. So my simple advice (and advice I suspect most will follow) is to keep being who you are, serve your country, and don't make this into a political thing anymore. I really don't care. Most Americans don't as long as you are serving honorably and our military is primed to kick ass.
As for flaming agenda-queers (as opposed to a gay soldier), we don't need you in the military. The military is about honor and duty, not political agendas. So with the exception of Klinger from M.A.S.H., we don't want to see it. Besides, it can't get you thrown out anymore anyway.
So, now that this is passed, and the discussion is over, let's drop the celebration and lament and actually pay attention to stuff that matters a whole lot to the future of America.
10 comments:
The other interesting thing to note here is that the guy who leaked all the information about Iraq was gay and many people feel he partly did so because of the Army's refusal to allow him to serve openly.
And yes, gays in the military doesn't mean they are going to legalize shower orgies or anything like that. There are men and women serving on ships and elsewhere in the armed forces and sure, they will sometimes hook up but it isn't allowed and those people are harshly disciplined as will gay people if they have sex with each other in the shower.
And let's all admit that an actual policy called "don't ask, don't tell" is just fucking retarded.
Toad: Let's face it, if you want an idiotic term and and idiotic law, ask the Government!
Merry Christmas to everyone who visits Patrick's blog and to you, too, Patrick!
Toad: on the guy that did the leaking, he needs to be nailed to the wall (and not in a good way). I don't care what his agenda was. Leaking shit is leaking shit. And he needs nailed to the wall.
Pam: Amen.
Patrick, regarding the Wikileaker, what surprises me is the extent that the media and our politicians seem fixated on him, as opposed to the content and the underlying facts that the leaks present.
This is clearly a case of kill the messenger...
Have a great Christmas...
What I am saying is that if anything, DADT weakened the military due to shit like that.
And Toad, you are correct on this one. Unlike the one where you said that the national debt went down under Clinton.
Large numbers of good servicemen/women troops, sailors, etc were taken off the front lines by this.
Removed from the armed forces as surely as if they had been killed by the enemy.
Consider that during the years of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, DADT was doing the work of the terrorists, without the terrorists even having to set one bomb or fire one bullet.
Where I come down on this is why should the subject of sexual preferences even come up? I'd have the same problem with a soldier proudly announcing he's gay as with the military asking the question in the first place. I don't think such questions of a personal nature belong in the military and I have the same problem with people who ask too many personal questions at work which is a whole other blog:)
Toadbat makes a very persuasive argument for not allowing gay men and women into the service.
If at the slightest sense of any greivance they sell out their country then why let them serve?
What's next Toadbat... If gay marriage isn't made legal nationally immediately then will gay soldiers then feel empowered to disclose secrets or serve the enemy in other ways?
What about gay adoption? Same thing?
How about the soldier, gay or straight, who feels it is his or her personal right to dress or behave in whatever manner befits their desires? Should they now feel empowered to commit treason and put their fellow soldiers at risk and aid the enemy?
I have no problem with gays serving in the military. What I DO have a problem with is people using their sexual identity, race or some other characteristic to explain away their treachery.
As usual Toadbat, you're not half as clever as you think.
Morons:
I wasn't justifying anything. I was merely pointing out that there could be, and was, a backlash against that policy.
I mean, when you discriminated against blacks there were eventually riots (usually caused by whites) but still. It may not justify it but there can be a cause and affect relationship there.
What does gay adoption have to do with anything?? Gay adoption isn't illegal. Half the gay people in my neighborhood have kids.
Post a Comment