Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) was never a good thing. There’s so much that was just plain wrong about that whole policy that it is sort of mind-boggling that it has lasted so long.

Let me be the first to say that I served with gay men (at least we all thought they were gay), and it didn’t make a damn bit of difference to me, or to anyone else. I was on a ship, too, so you would think that being in close quarters with a gay guy would make matters worse, but it didn’t. It might be different in combat, but my guess is that when you’re getting shot at you’re not really wondering if the gay dude in your platoon is checking out your ass.

So will allowing gay men and women to openly serve really hurt anything? No one on the JCS seems to think it will. Admiral Mullen thinks that everything will be fine, and even the top dog at the Pentagon said that there won’t be any problem.

Why? Because it seriously is not that big of a deal anyway. Not only is it not a big deal, but it was incredibly hypocritical to have DADT in place anyway. Think about it: we’re all about people pursuing whatever makes them happy so long as they’re not causing any real harm to others, and we wanted to tell gays that they’re not allowed to serve their country and defend that very right we all enjoy?

You cannot honestly believe in things like equality and egalitarianism while simultaneously denying a person the right to defend his or her country—and based on what, their morality? That’s laughable at best, because our service-members are anything but “moral.” Many of them are extreme promiscuous and adulterous. There are plenty of liars, cheats, and thieves among them. Hell, many of them are only in the military because a judge told them it was either that or jail. So are we to bar service to all but the most virtuous and moral of Americans?

A good soldier, sailor, marine, or airman is not determined by who he or she fucks. It’s determined by what that person is able to do under pressure in order to accomplish the goals set by the powers that be.

And I’ve known enough soldiers and marines to know that they are anything but homophobic. I don’t give a god damn how many people you’ve killed: tea bagging another dude, i.e. putting your balls in another guy’s mouth, is completely fucking gay. The moment your junk has voluntarily touched another dude is the moment you lose any right to gay-bash.

The fact of the matter is that everyone who is physically and mentally capable has the right to serve his or her country. No one should be denied service because of his or her lifestyle choices that have no harmful bearing on said person or on others.

For those of you who enjoy splitting hairs, I realize that gays have always been “allowed” to serve in the military, but telling the whole DADT thing was a logical fallacy anyway. The policy is that you can’t be gay and serve, although if you pretend that you’re not gay then you can serve, even if you are gay. So if you’re found to be gay, then you couldn’t serve. No matter how you slice it, gays were formally barred from service, and now it seems they won’t be.

I guess we can’t be too mad that DADT existed, I mean we do have a habit of making laws and regulations that are unconstitutional, right? My guess is, though, that we only bitch about constitutionality when it’s something we don’t agree with. Thank God we preserved our moral core for so long. Now I guess the whole country is going to die because we finally realized that it’s wrong to deny people rights based on sexual orientation.

What ever shall we do?!

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

i think we spoke breifly about this on sunday.

As i have not and will never server in the millitary, because im too much of a doughy pansy-ass, i can only offer my oppinon as a civilian.

First of all, if your gay, ebrace it! i have 0 issues with 2 doods holding hands walking down the street. What they do in their own home is their business and i truely wish them the best. I hope that they are happy etc.

Anyone who wants to serve and protect our country should be able to, i dont care if its Timmy from southpark, let him be a watter boy.. whatever helps. I dont think any unit should be separated or segrigated as far as duty goes.

The only issue i view as problem is barraks, shower arrangemnets. Maybe i have a misconception, but isnt it basicly a big open room, or do they afford the comfort of shower curtains?

I ask because i view close quarters nudity between people who would form a sexual relationship as an issue. especialy if it wasnt recipricated by one of the parties.

EG, Women should be able to serve along side men in any sittuation that they are capable, but i dont think they should be showering together...

i would think that any personal attack or PERCEPTION of a personal attack would undermine a units cohesiveness.

Im fairly sure this dosent make me a biggot... but if you know better than i please correct me.

Simple solution (in rainbow unicorn land)
mens showers
womens showers
gay showers

In my own mind, there is a VAST difference in phsycological reaction of an unatractive female's advances VS the most beutiful mans... i would just snear at the thought of a ton-o-fun or a 2bagger trying for my man-bits, but its not lasting, and can be ammusing. I think i have a literal wall when dealing with genuine male on male romance.. im litereally not programed for it. my eyes glaze over and then.... darkness...



Personaly i would really like someone who is actually homosexual to comment on this. i truely do not know if im being insensitive or not.

~Smitty

Jack Camwell said...

I think you bring up some valid points, but the thing is that I think the idea that gay men will suddenly start hitting on straight men is way overexaggerated.

If you're gay and serving in the military, would you hit on a guy that is clearly heterosexual knowing that it will likely offend the piss out of him and make him feel like he has to beat the shit out of you to maintain his honor? My guess is probably not.

Also, it would then be a sexual harassment issue, and sexual harassment is something that can damn near tank a military career. To be accused and found guilty of sexual harassment is pretty serious business.

As for the shower arrangement, no one should be looking at anyone's junk in the shower, even if you're not gay. It's common courtesy. Basically, we have to expect a certain level of maturity from our service members, maturity and dignity that any human being should have.

Harrison said...

We have Bill Clinton to thank for DADT. Besides, straight men hitting on women and raping them is a bigger issue than man-on-man love.

Anonymous said...

Woody, i dont know about you but if i was showering with a woman, and she was even mildly attractive, i would have a rageing boner....

Its my nature. no one should try and change that.

and woody, if i saw my ass in a shower, and i was gay... i would expect no less from a gay man... <.<

>.>

joking asside, im not saying that there would be any "sudden" hitting on of stright men by gay men. I think that allowing for the aknowledgement of sexual preference and making ACCOMODATIONS for them, as they had done for women, would be a positive step.

anywho
<3

~Smitty

Anonymous said...

best way to solve the issue is stalled showers. you mostly run in to the group showers at old posts or basic training. a lot of the quarters that are conus (stateside) there would not be a problem. in field operations fucking deal with it. In the past of any service member there was someone who had to deal with worse than "is that guy looking at my junk?" I served with a gay man in the past 3 years and i would rather have him on my side than some of the other options i had to choose from. The biggest problem i can see are the old timers.

Harrison said...

I guess that old phrase of drop your socks and grab your cocks will become passe now.

Maybe drop your socks and grab someone's cock instead?

Anonymous said...

......Darkness




~Smitty

Jack Camwell said...

Smitty, I'm going to have to agree with who I am assuming is Tim. Te only showers that were not stalled were in basic training.

But the thing is that gay men already serve, and in boot camp they have to use the same open showers that everyone else does. No boners pop.

Harrison: fucking hilarious =)

Silverfiddle said...

The DoD should have simply decriminalized homosexual acts by removing them from the UCMJ and been done with it.

The military already has regulations about when you can and cannot have sex (stateside yes, in the CENTCOM AOR, no), (in private yes, in public no), who you can have it with (Officer-officer or enlisted-enlisted not in chain of command OK, as is consenting between two single people.) (in chain of command or somebody married no)

There are also regulations against unwanted sexual advances and harassing behavior.

Damien Charles QC said...

It does raise some questions doesn't it.

For example, I would agree that if I was in a shower with even a pretty ordinary female it would be hard even in my old-age not to get a hard-on. So though such arragements do not exist in the military, how would you feel if the guy next to you in the showers gets a hard-one becuase of you?

Now as someone commented, it is not as if a gay soldier would be a raving pansy pinching backsides and demanding kisses, we are not talking nighclubs, transvestites and cross-dressers and I am certain that gay and lesbian servicemen and women are as dedicated and willing to sacrifice as straight, but again, how will it work?

Some argue that the concern is the safety and unity of the unit, what do people think?

(ps, I have never served other than as a Royal Navy Reserve Cadet up to when I studied at University).

Jack Camwell said...

Well, I can't speak for combat, but my guess is that when you're trying to not die, the last thing on your mind is "is Gary staring at my junk?"

As I said, it will take a lot of maturity on the part of our service members.

And I agree with you completely, Silver.

Anonymous said...

When someone is shooting at me, my mind wont be on my junk or who is staring at it, unless its on teh wrong end of a sniper scope.



~Smitty