-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
When it comes to issues like “don’t ask, don’t tell,” part of the problem is missing context. As Robert Knight notes, the moral case against homosexuality is part of a broader sexual ethic. But upholding that traditional sexual morality implicates the behavior of a lot of heterosexuals, so it is easier to single out homosexuals. By singling out gays, however, it offends a lot of people’s sense of fairness.
Consider don’t ask, don’t tell. I believe the strongest argument against allowing homosexuals to serve in the military is it is simply a bad idea to introduce sexual tension into the armed forces (John Guardiano goes through some of the reasons why this is a bad idea). But we already let women serve, though we don’t yet let them bunk with men. The ban on gays in the military makes sense as part of a broader effort to uphold a martial culture. But if that culture is already being undermined, is there still value in singling gays out?
View all comments (12) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/06/08/context-fairness-and-gays
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- The (Real) Great Divide
- Razing Reagan
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Tony S.| 6.8.10 @ 2:44PM
It's a good point in relation to same-sex marriage as well: why single out homosexuals when no-fault divorce or pervasive adultery already cause more problems than SSM ever will. "Singling out" probably isn't the right way to put it, though. Same-sex marriage and DADT are issues because cultural and legal changes are being proposed, not because people randomly decided to be unfair to homosexuals.
The real question seems to be how a conservative/traditional culture (or platform) can be made relevant without recourse to these rear-guard sort of political fights.
Alan Brooks| 6.8.10 @ 4:47PM
Sure, why not? We let adulterers serve; let polygamists serve as well.
JP| 6.9.10 @ 8:11AM
And adultery is a court martial offense. When I served in the military, I knew of 3 servicemen who were indicted for adultery -one being a Captain.
Noah David Simon | 6.8.10 @ 2:50PM
with the age of sexual hysteria and lawsuits I'm not sure why the military is tolerating sexuality interactions at all.
Tim| 6.8.10 @ 4:13PM
You're dangerously close to being accused of being an intellectual Mr Antle...
kingsmill| 6.8.10 @ 4:39PM
Antle made a better case for fake conservative MA gubernatorial candidate, Tim Cahill.
W. James Antle III | 6.8.10 @ 5:26PM
I'm not making a case for it. I'm just asking if perhaps the damage has already been done.
JP| 6.9.10 @ 8:20AM
Your point is well taken. One may ask how could the military remain a bedrock of conservative values while our society continues to drift towards some nihilistic, hedonistic framework. This isn't 18th Century Prussia, where the military was a society unto itself. Perhaps we are more like 5 Century Rome -a society at war with itself. On the one hand, Rome could still count on its fine military (albeit in smaller form); on the other hand, the city of Rome was more interested in its own gossip, entertainments, and intrigues than in the maintenance of its empire. Provinces, farms, and outpost slowly but steadily fell to the Huns, and Germanic tribes. Even the Gauls could not be conted on. In the end, Rome's fine military counted for naught.
So, perhaps we should just let the gays, TVs, and cross-dressers have thier fun. And as I posted on another thread, perhaps we will just outsource our nation's security to mercenaries, the CHICOMS or even the Revolutionary Guards of Iran.
Alan Brooks| 6.8.10 @ 4:52PM
The real position of libertarians is: "we don't like the war (s)."
Gays in the military means nothing to them.
But you call them on that, and they go ballistic. Hell hath no fury like a shouting libertarian: "Do your own research!", they say.
ncatty| 6.8.10 @ 6:02PM
How about separate units for men, women, gay men, lesbians, transsexuals, cross-dressers, Democrats, Republicans. Add your own lists.
ncatty| 6.8.10 @ 6:04PM
....Methodists, Sufi Muslims, Prebyterians, Shiites, Sunnis, Moravians...