It's time to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and allow gay troops to serve openly for the first time in history, the nation's top defense officials declared Tuesday, with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff proclaiming that service members should not be forced to "lie about who they are."
However, both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen asked for a year to study the impact before Congress would lift the controversial policy.
So, I'll ask again - who's ready to change the rules and allow me to shower with and sleep in the same barracks room as the females? Anyone? Anybody? Funny, because when I proposed that to a hard-core lesbian she flipped her lid and called me a sexist pig. And when I asked her why she had that reaction, she sputtered and squawked and called me several names, none of which were fit for polite company, and stormed off.
If you are going to demand that I live in close quarters with someone who finds me sexually attractive, I demand the same courtesy. I like buxom redheads, but a brunette will do as well.
Anyone getting that little "Uh, um, well...." voice going in their head yet? There are enough problems related to sex in the military as it is. Why in the name of god do we want to add MORE of it? The same group that says we have to allow open homosexuality in the Army can't deny that sexual problems are on the rise in the military. One woman who was shrieking about the rate of sexual assaults in the Army literally could not grasp the concept that adding yet ANOTHER sexual dynamic to the mix would result in MORE sexual assaults. In the comments to this post at KisP, TUA states:
Our barracks were practically co-ed anyway, what with all the hetero-humping going on.
I remember I had one barracks roommate who’d boink her boyfriend while I attempted to sleep in my bunk a mere 10 feet away.
Truly unbelievably piggish behavior.
So the cure for that is more sex? I can't buy that. Not at all. The solution is to get the barracks bunny to stop schlepping her boyfriend in the barracks. Or at least make it socially unacceptable to fuck someone while your roomie is trying to sleep. Back when I was PFC Ragin' Dave, if someone wanted to keep his roommate awake with his sexual activities, the roommate responded with cameras and flashbulbs. Unless the girl was a real freak, she normally objected to the audience and ended the fuck session. Swinging open the door and yelling down the barracks hallway "HEY EVERYBODY! SO-AND-SO IS GETTING LAID! CHECK IT OUT!" was also a good way to end the session and get some sleep.
Never once did someone say "Gosh, you know what would fix this problem? Allowing open homosexuality in the military."
Look, ever since I re-enlisted many moons ago, every time I've gone to a training, school, or deployment I've had open bay barracks or open showers. There's no privacy at all. The last thing that would make that situation better is the introduction of a sexual dynamic. Sex and the military causes problems. Adding another layer of sexual dynamics on top of it will not make those problems go away, and will make things worse. We need to go in the opposite direction if we want to improve things.
Or, let me bunk and shower with a buxom redhead. But that'll never happen, and we all know why. So why are we going to put me in the same situation as that buxom redhead, and tell me to just live with it in the name of "fairness"? Because in the end, it's not fair at all.
11 comments:
My dad was in Military Intelligence. He pointed out that the service requires a great deal of deprivation, lack of female companionship being the top of the list.
Granting gay soldiers the "right" to be openly gay not only grants them a unique privilege, of potentially having the companionship their fellow service men don't, but it also begs the question...
What does "openly gay" mean? What other special rights, privileges and protections will be required to provide for this indulgence?
And what... does any of this have to do with military readiness?
I still don't have an issue with it.
Off the wall question, and you don't have to answer.
How many gay and lesbian men and woman do you have as close friends?
Cause dude, the gay guys and girls? They have the best fag jokes, evah!
And yep, we've been hunting, in the boonies a few times. They're cool.
I'm aware of a number of service members who are gay, past and present service, in my battalion. The reaction to them has been mixed. Some have been exemplary soldiers. Some have been massive headaches due to their uber-dedication to PC principles (EO postions seem to attract pull more than proportional numbers of candidates). The main problem is this: sex (the schtupping kind) is a major force disruption on deployments and in duty environments. That's why I'm a neanderthal; I'm still opposed to females in any field environment outside nursing, and that MOS only grudgingly. I've witnessed far too many affair, fights, and unit cohesion issues to ever accept the equal rights/equal opportunity argument. The military is supposed to break things. Period. Sexual tension interferes with that. Sexual tension combined with revulsion, loathing, and misunderstandings won't improve things. What the military should be doing, can only be done properly by a small part of the population. Generally, the part that is willing to hurt, kill, demonlish, and inflict pain, while receiving the same in return. It's not representative of society as a whole. And if truly becomes such, it will no longer be effective for its purpose. The military is part of the citizenry; the part that agrees to do what much of the rest of it isn't willing or able to do.
Homosexuality has probably always been present in humanity; certainly it is well documented since classical times. As with other behaviors, it is not always acceptable. The military environment is not the appropriate place for it in our culture.
Not the popular view these days, but so be it. I personally feel tolerance is to be preferred, but that doesn't mean we should sacrifice efficacy in vital areas.
PS:
I really need to write on something with a spellchecker, then cut and paste.
how many gay and lesbian men and woman do you have as close friends?
Cause dude, the gay guys and girls? They have the best fag jokes, evah!
And yep, we've been hunting, in the boonies a few times. They're cool.
Here in Wisconsin? One. Well, he's bi. Back in Seattle? Quite a few. And that doesn't count the family members who are gay.
What, did you think I was some gap-toothed redneck? Scroggin' maw sister and hollerin' "DON'T YOU DARE LET DEM FAGGOTS INTA MY ARMY! IT AIN'T RIGHT!" Sorry to let you down.
Look, I'm not trying to say that a homosexual cannot be brave, or strong, or even a good Soldier as an individual. But sex complicates things, and everyone damn well knows it. The smallest unit in the Army is a TEAM, not an individual. If you insert a sexual dynamic into the military that did not used to be there, you're going to have more problems. I've dealt with the problems that a hetrosexual dynamic brings to a unit, and I cannot advocate for adding even more of the same.
Not just no but hell no.
"What, did you think I was some gap-toothed redneck? Scroggin' maw sister and hollerin' "DON'T YOU DARE LET DEM FAGGOTS INTA MY ARMY! IT AIN'T RIGHT!" Sorry to let you down"
Get real and lose the chip. Idiots can't type, or fuck up computers nearly as fast as you can.
Okay, what was DADT originally? If I remember correctly, it was meant as nothing more than protection for gays.
(from Wiki- don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass.)
If they repeal it, things stay pretty much identical, less now the gay folks in the service no longer need to fear being outed, correct?
As I see it, nothing is going to change, with the exception of a bit more openness.
Honestly, after serving with gay men and plenty of women (Pershing unit), I believe it's much ado about nothing.
With solid, consistent leadership from the squad up, it won't matter.
Just because the identification of sexual orientation would no longer be banned does not mean that the troublesome BEHAVIOR would no longer be banned.
You have, yourself, pointed out the disruption created by inappropriate behavior by heterosexuals. I ask you: were they violating any regulations? You bet your buxom redhead-loving ass they were!
I happen to be heterosexual. I've known people who happened to be homosexual. I do not believe it to be a free and voluntary choice. What IS a choice is whether or not one is a complete douchenozzle about his/her sexuality.
Beyond that, I don't think it really matters. Just like gun control, excluding homosexuals from the military is a hardware solution to a software problem.
It's not the gun, it's the criminal behavior.
It's not the homosexual, it's the inappropriate/disruptive sexual behavior.
Great post, Dave, you make very good points.
Brave of you to be so politically incorrect as well!
It's not just the behavior, Sergeant Mac. You don't require sexual activity in order to have an inappropriate sexual dynamic. If it were simply a matter of saying "Hey, don't do x, y, or z" then this issue would have been settled long ago.
As I pointed out at Dick's blog - where is the movement to allow me to bunk with the females, shower with the females, live with the females? Such a movement would get laughed out of the room, and rightly so. Yet the same people who would laugh at my request to shower with women in the Army as absurd have no problem telling me that I have to shower with someone who is sexually attracted to males. They want me to live with the same sexual dynamic that they would never allow if it were two hetrosexual people. That's not equality, that's insanity. And it's going to cause a hell of a lot of problems - problems that people aren't ready to face, because they can't even be honest about them.
Dave, it's quite possible that "equality" will be the very justification for making your coed shower a reality....
....or cause them to go back to the drawing board.
I've got news: chances are, you were bunking and showering with people who found your gender sexually attractive even BEFORE "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". And so was that buxom redhead.
Does your argument, ultimately, boil down to "ignorance is bliss"?
Quite possibly, but only because everything else has been taken away or removed from the equation. And more to the point, there's no way in hell that American society is going to allow me to stroll into the female latrine, strip down and start showering with the females.
Yet they'll demand that I shower with a gay man.
That's not equality.
Post a Comment