-
Who’s Politicizing Benghazi?
May 9, 2013 | 6 comments
-
A Tale of Two Teams and Two Stars
January 10, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Mitt Romney Just Got Himself Elected President
October 3, 2012 | 17 comments
-
Obama to Gays and Hollywood: Show Me the Money!
May 9, 2012 | 13 comments
-
Ruinous Obama Austerity
May 9, 2012 | 2 comments
The Spectacle Blog
A Washington Post article this morning about openly gay military service inadvertently reveals the intellectual intolerance and closed-mindedness of the Left. The article also exposes the Left’s true agenda, which is to stamp out real diversity and to force everyone to submit to its “progressive” agenda.
Think I’m exaggerating? Think again. The Post’s article is entitled, “The few. The proud. The problem: Can the Corps’ warrior ethos accept openly gay Marines?”
The article is written by an openly gay female instructor, Tammy S. Schultz, at the U.S. Marine Corps War College in Quantico, Virginia. The article is sympathetic to the Marines, but assumes that the Marines’ opposition to open homosexuality within the ranks is a problem to be solved rather than a virtue to be embraced.
But what Schultz calls a problem is, in fact, the Judeo-Christian ethic and martial code which underlies Western civilization. Same-sex sexual attraction and allure is simply incompatible with this code. It undermines good order and discipline within the ranks; and it destroys the esprit de corps necessary for male bonding and unit cohesion.
This doesn’t mean that gay men and women can’t serve in the U.S. military, because they can and do serve now, albeit discreetly and not openly.
But that’s not good enough for our ruling class elites and pop culture denizens. No, they demand that homosexuals be granted a special legal status which puts the full force of the law — the full power of the state — behind their preferred sexual dynamic.
In practice, this means that the rights of cultural traditionalists and religious believers will be infringed upon and, ultimately, stamped out altogether. After all, as the Washington Post explains, everyone must be forced to “accept” the new orthodoxy. Everyone must submit to the Left’s superior Rousseauian will.
Unfortunately, our ruling class elites and pop culture denizens are determined to force the U.S. military to accept open homosexuality within the ranks. They feel that history is on their side; and that it is only a matter of time before the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” compromise is ushered into the ashbin of history.
They may be right.
That is why I have urged policymakers to consider first a new compromise measure that would give the Left what it wants (openly gay military service) while simultaneously preserving and protecting the rights of cultural traditionalists and religious believers.
This new compromise measure would exempt the Marines from any requirement to mandate open homosexuality within the ranks. In this way, cultural traditionalists and religious believers would have at least one military service, the Marine Corps, that champions their values.
The Left, too, would have military services that champion its values. And then we can witness a healthy and instructive competition about whose values and traditions are better, more compelling and more efficacious.
Gay men and women could serve openly, just not in the Marine Corps. And we’ll see whether this gives the Marines any kind of edge — in recruiting, retention and military effectiveness.
If the Left truly believes that it is on the right side of history, and that most people embrace its values, then it should welcome and not fear this competition. But in truth, the Left knows that it is ultimately on the wrong side of history; and that most people shun its values.
Similarly, if the Left really believes in diversity, then it will welcome and accept this compromise. But in truth, the Left doesn’t believe in diversity; it believes in uniformity and in enforced compliance and acceptance.
Of course, we conservatives already know that the Left is closed-minded, dogmatic and intolerant; but not so most ordinary Americans who are uninvolved in politics and public policy.
That’s why, before surrendering to the Left on this key issue, conservatives first should call the Left’s bluff and insist upon true diversity. Exempt the Marines from the demands of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered agenda and let a thousand flowers bloom.
View all comments (93) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John R. Guardiano
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/11/21/washington-post-judeo-christia
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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
Alan Brooks| 11.21.10 @ 12:46PM
You're forgetting something:
outside of reinstating conscription, you are going to have to accept everyone fit who wants to enlist.
Eric Cartman| 11.21.10 @ 3:36PM
Um . . . No . . . We're not. And as it stands, being gay means unfit to serve.
Oldefarte| 11.21.10 @ 3:39PM
NO THEY DO NOT [AND ESPECIALLY NO I DO NOT, NOR WILL I EVER ACCEPT]! Homosexuality is IMMORAL according to the Natural Law [which you obviously are entirely ignorant of] which is the basis of all of man's laws ['Thy shalt not kill'====laws against murder]. We all should be accepting of homosexual as an immoral act between free consenting adults, but it is still immoral and those free adults will all be eventually judeged at their deaths as to their choices made in their lifetimes. Homosexuals should not be discriminated against, should be protected by laws, etc; but their actions are still immoral and therefore wrong. No one and no organization such as the armed forces should be forced into ACCEPTANCE of their immorality. Homosexuals are now allowed to participate in military service under DADT, and to force a political agenda [such as that of LGBT's] upon the military services will forever be incorrect and unjustifiable!!!!!!!!
Alan Brooks| 11.21.10 @ 3:50PM
Then you will eventually have to crank up the Draft.
Eric Cartman| 11.21.10 @ 4:32PM
Um . . . No . . . . We won't.
Alan Brooks| 11.21.10 @ 6:51PM
So you say.
Eric Cartman| 11.22.10 @ 5:32AM
Um . . . Yes . . . Yes I do.
Alan Brooks| 11.22.10 @ 9:20PM
"Um . . . Yes . . . Yes I do."
But you don't mean it, Eric: because you know the Services will have to take everyone they can, UNLESS conscription is reinstated-because the Draft would furnish a large genepool to choose from.
bmatkin| 11.23.10 @ 4:13AM
Allan: You are assuming that the 10% of the population is gay mantra is true. It isn't. In Canada, the census asks and demands by law that you answer the questions. The number of gay people in Canada came in at 2%. (Actually less than 2%) Of course, the PC police made up some nonsense about people lying on the census. (which is a felony). Gay marriage is legal in Canada and do you actually know how many same sex marriages there are? Check it out, if you can, the numbers are so low, it is actually embarrassing the establishment elites. I use Canada because the sigma is less than the US and provides a more accurate view than the propaganda currently thrown about.
Any organization can chop 2% and survive. The marines may even increase their enrollment. Do you honestly think that gays are lining up to serve? How many lefties actually join the military?
Doctor Right| 11.22.10 @ 10:56AM
If DADT is lifted, Alan, will you enlist?
Alan Brooks| 11.22.10 @ 9:17PM
I will enlist to fight you and your ilk.
Anthony| 11.22.10 @ 9:13PM
The opposit is true. If gays are allowed to serve openly, young Christian men will no longer enlist and we will end up with a shortage of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. Like my father before me and his father before him, I served proudly in the US Army, if the services become a bastion of gay rights, I would strongly advise my son not to serve and I'm sure there's a whole lot of other fathers who feel the same way.
Syd Chaden| 11.21.10 @ 1:02PM
I was in the US Army in 1949, when the US military was desegregated. That was a well thought out correction of a faulty policy, and the result was an enhanced military. In my opinion, it was a mistake to allow assignment of female military personnel to combat missions, because it did not improve any policy deficiencies, but rather, created them. I think that it is an even more serious mistake to allow cohabitation of openly gay or lesbian persons with military personnel. The purpose of the military is to have the capability to successfully wage war in defense of the country, should that become necessary. In so doing, the task is to maximize the fighting effectiveness of the military personnel. It is not to either advance or deter the sexual preferences of the military personnel.
Eric Cartman| 11.21.10 @ 3:34PM
Ding, ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! This is exactly the purpose of the military and its mission. That said, we have only one thing to remember: It is Liberalism that is the problem to be solved. And we have a good start with that right now.
Oldefarte| 11.21.10 @ 3:42PM
I wholeheartedly agree with you, and THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE to our country and to me!!!!!!!!!
NVA Patriot| 11.22.10 @ 7:26AM
Just for the record...Woodrow Wilson advocated segregation - the first progressive social engineering experiment - so lets see how that worked out?
Margie| 11.21.10 @ 1:03PM
The Kingdom of God is at hand. Christ told us this was going to happen. That it would become like Sodom and Gomorrah in the end times.
Homosexuals have become demanding and clergy (some) have begun accepting it. Soon it will be not only "hate" speech to speak out against it, but you will be thrown in jail for it. The preachers who preach will be persecuted "to the full extent of the law", et al.
Jesus is coming back soon. This earth is going to burn up and the sky is going to roll up like a scroll. If you don't believe it you will just be in the majority of people who refuse to love the Truth and so be saved.
There's only hope in Jesus and no other.
God bless.
Zeph. 2:9, Rms. 9:27-29, 2 Pe. 2:6, Jude 1:7, Lk. 17:28-30, Rev. 22:10-16.
Alan Brooks| 11.21.10 @ 1:15PM
White-trash eschatology is not of God, it is of the Beast.
And the number of the Beast is 666.
"Margie" has 6 letters.
Dean from Ohio| 11.21.10 @ 2:36PM
Racism does not become you.
Oldefarte| 11.21.10 @ 3:46PM
HONOR THY MOTHER AND THY FATHER; THY SHALT NOT COVET THEY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE [don't bend your ASININE moral philosophy to fit within the Natural law] !!!!!!!!!
Alan Brooks| 11.21.10 @ 3:59PM
Margie has belittled the Catholic Church,
which is bearing false witness on her part.
irish19| 11.22.10 @ 2:09PM
How do you figure she has belittled the Catholic Church? I may be thick or need more coffee (or a drink), but I'm just not getting that.
Oldefarte| 11.22.10 @ 3:48PM
I am a born, raised and educated [16 years] CATHOLIC, and I also belittle the Church with good reason. Their tolerating of homosexuals/pedifiles within their ranks for the sole purpose of church establishment maintenance is deplorable, immoral and dispicable. SO WHAT if Margie, etc also rightly critisizes them [since the Catholic Church deserves critisism]??????
Alan Brooks| 11.22.10 @ 9:23PM
Oldefarte, you are too senile to reason with.
Mimi| 11.21.10 @ 5:12PM
ALAN =4 letters=IDIOT!!! ....Also = DUMB!
For Gods sake Alan get real and apoligize to MARGIE
Alan Brooks| 11.21.10 @ 6:52PM
Tell Margie to apologize to the Catholic Church.
darcy| 11.21.10 @ 7:05PM
Martin Luther didn't, why should Margie?
Oldefarte| 11.22.10 @ 3:51PM
I will not apologize to the Catholic Church....it should apologize TO ME AND EVERY OTHER CATHOLIC for their immoral administration by its church leaders in not purging the homosexuals and pedifiles from its ranks. You, sir, can simply GTH!!!!!!!!
JmsA| 11.21.10 @ 10:04PM
How big of you, Brooks. Someone disagrees with you and you demonize her.
Alan Brooks| 11.21.10 @ 10:21PM
Margie disagrees with the Church and demonizes the Church.
Oldefarte| 11.22.10 @ 3:52PM
I do also, what are you going to do about it????
Alan Brooks| 11.22.10 @ 9:28PM
Send you some Alzheimer's medication in bulk?
Warrior | 11.22.10 @ 10:53AM
Great catch Alan. You know what, Brooks has six letters also. This is a fun game isn't it.
Alan Brooks| 11.22.10 @ 9:26PM
But notice:
you did not defend Margie in that comment, Warrior; are you writing "she is of Mammon, as you are of Mammon"?
as the Beast is of Mammon...
PattyMor| 11.21.10 @ 1:21PM
Your "solution" feeds right into the cultural/marxists left--policy implementation by increment. You see they are never satisfied and will eventually demand openly gays in the marine corps. Then on to church groups to make them accept openly gays or lose your tax exemption.
darcy| 11.21.10 @ 7:11PM
I know, PattyMor, and I agree with you. It is beyond belief that after such a promising beginning the author of this misguided proposal does not understand that we are being taken over, step-by-step, by godless ideologues whose one purpose in life is to wipe-out all vestiges of Christianity and Judaism.
How else can these treasonous sonsofbitches replace America and institute the one-world government they relentlessly conspire to create?
sarcasticfringe| 11.22.10 @ 9:15PM
If that's all a means to eradicating the massive tax shelters (on property and corporate activity, i.e. income) then I wholeheartedly support it. So-called religious organizations all over this country sit on vast tracts of land they can't or won't develop, and rake in untold (truly) millions in "donations" and in-kind support, and yet they lobby from the pulpit like any other PAC or political party. And that's not even touching on the public/private partnerships and other corporate entities and public institutions where clergy serve in a boardroom or advisory capacity.
Winghunter| 11.21.10 @ 1:45PM
Homosexuals (Read: Deviant Sexual Behavior) goes much farther past Judeo-Christian morality, it's Biology 101! Religious teachings merely spell out, as is their purpose, what's obviously and inherently wrong with self-gratifying sex of the same gender. They also teach what has utterly failed in the history of mankind. Deviant sexual behavior represents both of these.
This is all about acceptance of a completely unacceptable behavior that they themselves will never fully accept. This isn't rocket science, people, wake up!
99% of the population instinctively cringe at the mere thought of participating in such a revolting behavior where the deviants have sold this to a mindless public as 'homophobia' - It's merely a sly lie for the gullible and there appears to be far too many who are.
"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube." - Ayn Rand
Penny| 11.21.10 @ 8:27PM
Is majority rule a figment of our imagination, or does it still have any relevance at all in this PC infested world?
Alan Brooks| 11.21.10 @ 10:23PM
TYRANNY of the majority in this case.
Oldefarte| 11.22.10 @ 3:54PM
Why are homosexuals so weird???????
Alan Brooks| 11.22.10 @ 9:29PM
...why are you so senescent?
bmatkin| 11.23.10 @ 4:29AM
Allan: As respectfully as I can, may I suggest that homosexuality is an action defined only by what one does with his/her genitals.
Brotherly love and male bonding should not be confused with sodomy and a misplaced lust of same sex. Acknowledging same sex relationship as normal and /or good would be the same as acknowledging any other action is equal in value to biologically normal interactions. An argument could be made that those who have any proclivity be treated in a special way. How about we elevate masturbate(rs) to a new social status. Polygamy is already going to be normalized because of gay rights.
I look at homosexuality as an aberration, but I don't treat practitioners in any other manner than anyone else. In fact, I am so friendly that my company is the local "go to" company for same sex couples. Religiously, I view homosexuality as any other sin and boy I am not casting stones here. The only problem and real problem I have with gays is that a certain percentage of them are trying to force an agenda on everyone else, this goes well past tolerance and becomes oppressive to the majority's rights.
Remember, if you have to strip a right from someone to make someone else feel good, then it wasn't a right to begin with.
Thank you for listening Allen.
sarcasticfringe| 11.22.10 @ 10:02PM
Wow, bully for whomever co-opted the word "deviant" from its statistical context to one of good vs. evil. Are we also to look down upon the vegetarians, the red-heads, the extremely old, the double-jointed and other various deviations from the norm we encounter in daily our society? How long is long enough for the deviant behavior to finally go away from society, because, looking back through the eras and cultures of mankind, homosexuals have clearly been persecuted and punished and hunted down and killed through the ages and on the various continents, and yet they are still among us.
You mention 99% cringing instinctively at the thought of participating in a homosexual act - a random, unfounded statistic, as an aside, since numerous studies point to anywhere from 4-12% of the modern population claiming to be exclusively homosexual, and that doesn't even address bisexuals and transgendered individuals - Who asked you to imagine yourself in that situation? It's weird to think that way, I think. I mean, when I hear about suicide bombers, my immediate inclination isn't to imagine myself walking into a subway station and blowing myself up, so why would I do that with something I find personally distasteful or immoral, unless I were experiencing some unusual feelings with regard to the subject matter. A broad definition of homophobia for the armchair pop-psychologist might be not accepting homosexuality, but specifically it is an irrational fear of (and by extension, an obsessive or morbid fascination with) homosexual behavior.
I tried to ignore the biology comment as well, but as much as one might think homosexuality is as genetically as it is morally deviant, somehow queer folk continue to be born into this world, sometimes (I am truly sorry to say) to such close-minded hate-mongering bigots as yourselves (you know who you are). Now there's a situation to put yourself in somebody else's shoes: what's a kid to think as he or she grows up queer, only to find out mommy or daddy is woefully intolerant, or even downright hateful of who they are? Is it biology for you to loathe your own offspring?
The Rand quote is puzzling - who is evil, the homosexual or those pushing this agenda of acceptance? How does this supposed evil deplete Good in any way? i.e. where's the problem with letting people love whomever their hearts tell them to love? Does that infringe or impair the right to life, liberty or property of others in some way?
I also have to add that anybody who thinks gay men are incapable of "male bonding" and contributing to "unit cohesion" are completely oblivious to the NUMEROUS gay men currently serving in EVERY branch of the U.S. military. Being a homosexual used to mean you couldn't get a security clearance. Why? Because there was a fear of someone blackmailing a homosexual by threatening to reveal his/her sexuality because homosexuals weren't allowed security clearances. Why? Because there was a fear of someone blackmailing.... You see why this was silly? Why hasn't anybody mentioned any of our NATO allies (22 of them anyway), for which homosexuality and military service are apparently not so mutually exclusive? The presence of gay men in a unit only threatens unit cohesion if the rest of the unit can't square away their personal issues on their own time.
carol| 11.21.10 @ 3:21PM
what folks also forget is the power of peer pressure.
I could care less if someone is gay. I believe in personal freedom. I also believe gays are a minority just a loud mouthed minority and when they can enlist openly they may just not.
Alan Brooks| 11.21.10 @ 4:02PM
Then the Draft will be reinstated; the Services need cannon fodder.
Chris| 11.21.10 @ 4:17PM
Part of the reason enlistment is down is the feminization and gays in the military. This will just further drive men away.
Rich Fisher| 11.21.10 @ 5:50PM
Alan, you need to check out your facts before engaging your mouth. When have the Marines ever had a problem filling their ranks with their strict standards? I'll tell you when, NEVER. We didn't need the draft to staff the Marines during Vietnam, every one of us was a volunteer, and we don't now. Don't just spew your ignorance, check things out. Talk to a Marine and find out why we joined. It was to be one fo the Few, not because of some idiotic Social Experiment by the Left.
Alan Brooks| 11.21.10 @ 6:55PM
That is what you SAY now. Later you may change your mind.
You might say not enough educated men (you don't appear to want women) are enlisting- and since gays are educated, you might decide to approve them.
Michael L. Hauschild| 11.22.10 @ 1:34PM
Sorry Rich, when I entered the service, one out of six was drafted into the Marines. I was one of the six till they called for volunteers and my paperwork was removed from the stack and put back in the Army pile. Every male in my family going back to WWI was in the Army except for that short period of about six minutes when I was a jarhead.
Bruce Berger| 11.22.10 @ 12:53PM
Alan,
Let me ask a hypothetical question. Assume that lifting DADT would result in 10,000 gays and lesbians joining the military each year that otherwise would not, but that the military would have 20,000 less "bigots" join each year as a result of same. Is the military better off? And wouldn't those numbers imply that a draft becomes more likely than under current law?
I am not saying that my hypothetical example is likely, but it is no less likely than your implied hypothetical that leads to a draft.
Alan Brooks| 11.22.10 @ 9:35PM
"I am not saying that my hypothetical example is likely, but it is no less likely than your implied hypothetical that leads to a draft."
IMO, Bruce, anyway you look at it, to obtain enough cannon fodder you will have to reinstate the Draft when the next big attack comes. And the Bushites told me another attack is coming-were they lying?
Oldefarte| 11.22.10 @ 3:55PM
Will you then come out of your closet and enlist?????
Alan Brooks| 11.22.10 @ 9:32PM
You mean for Civil War II?
danny| 11.21.10 @ 4:11PM
Margie, you are exactly right, and folks like Alan will find this out soon enough. Hang in there and keep telling it like it is.
Alan Brooks| 11.21.10 @ 5:10PM
I'm just an angry old homo.
Rich Fisher| 11.21.10 @ 5:53PM
Alan, and what are you angry about? That people are still free to find the homosexual lifestyle abhorant, deviant and destructive to society? Sounds like your argument is with God. You'll get your chance to argue your point one day. God's already told you what he thinks about homosexualtiy so I don't think you should be surprised at his answer.
Alan Brooks| 11.21.10 @ 6:58PM
I didn't write the comment. Not every comment with my name on it was written by me.
Oldefarte| 11.22.10 @ 3:56PM
Most immoral individuals are ANGRY!!!!
danny| 11.21.10 @ 5:59PM
Amen, Rich.
CalMark| 11.21.10 @ 6:53PM
Time and past time to ignore and condemn those who call on us to compromise with Evil (AKA the Left) because Evil will "inevitably" win. Like, for instance, the author of this morally odious post.
Your ilk would have surrendered at Tours and negotiated with Hitler. To hell with you.
Alan Brooks| 11.22.10 @ 9:39PM
If I do go to Hell, you will be there before me.
chizeled| 11.21.10 @ 9:51PM
I believe that homosexuals should have the right to die for their country. Homosexuals may very well take the place of a lot of Judeo-Christians on the battlefields.
Oldefarte| 11.22.10 @ 3:58PM
Or to suffer the same battlefield injury that Forrest Gump did!!!!!!!
Alan Brooks| 11.22.10 @ 9:37PM
Gump was smarter than you, Oldefarte.
chizeled| 11.21.10 @ 9:59PM
Romans 8:28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
Tim the Enchanter| 11.22.10 @ 12:18PM
How about "If you love Me, you will keep My Commandments". You cannot love God and disregard His commandments at the same time. Doublethink does not work with God.
Rich Rostrom| 11.21.10 @ 11:16PM
The religious prohibition on homosexuality is irrelevant. In any case the United States is a secular state and should never write any provision into law or policy because it is mandated by Christianity or any other religion. Law and policy should be determined by what is just and expedient, and any agreement or disagreement with any scripture is coincidental.
However - there is an obvious danger to good order and discipline of the services in the presence of overt homosexuals. Military life requires personnel to live in intimate contact with one another - sharing living quarters and bathing facilities. This would be intolerable if the persons so thrust together were potential sexual partners.
Male and female personnel can be separated, mitigating this problem. Homosexuals cannot be separated. Even if they were separated from heterosexuals, they could not be separated from each other.
Imagine what it would be like for female personnel if they were quartered with males, and what problems would arise. That is what it would be like for anyone quartered with homosexual personnel, including other homosexuals.
Oldefarte| 11.22.10 @ 4:03PM
You are incorrect ['The religious prohibition on homosexuality is irrelevant...'], since man/woman was created with what is known as FREE WILL. A base description of same is that they [including homosexuals] can do any thing in their life that they so choose to do, but the kicker is that upon death, THE JUDGEMENT OF GOD IS AT HAND!!!!!!!
Long Ben| 11.22.10 @ 1:37AM
To Alan and Rick : Just how big o a' old boys are ya'll
Long Ben| 11.22.10 @ 2:03AM
During the Battle of the Bulge , the town of Ambleve was surrounded by a far superior force of Germans , complete with tanks and artillery . The American General could have reasonably surrendered . But instead , what did he do ? He rounded up every support person , from mecanics , cooks , clerks , etc . and put a helment on every head and a rifle in every hand of them . And was thus able to hold out until until the cloud cover lifted allowing the U S Airforce to make short work of the German forces . This is an apt picture of the reason that weak sisters, both females and poofters should be disallowed in combat and to a lesser extent , te armed forces in general . To allow is to defraud the taxpayer of the best bang for the buck . Moreover to do so treats the normal fighting man as trash to be thrown away , so that gays and women can feel good about themselves .
Tim the Enchanter| 11.22.10 @ 12:25PM
Question- at the Battle, did they ask, and did they tell? Or was something more important on the table, like survival? This whole thing is just an exercise in mental gymnastics for people who have nothing better to do with their time. No one is forced to be "gay", just as no one is forced to be in the military; at least at this time. The military is not a vast playground for the latest social engineering fad; it has a definite purpose, and everything that detracts from that purpose should be eliminated. Don't they have enough to do without having this left-wing nonsense foisted upon them?
jamesmmm| 11.22.10 @ 8:24AM
A quick remark: where would we all be had our parents been gay? Or our grandparents...
matthew s harrison| 11.22.10 @ 10:05AM
Long Ben-HEAR HEAR! While I don't mind women in the military-those who are fit to fly, etc, I have a major problem with them as ground pounders-or anywhere where they may have to become such.
As for the others-while I have a bunch of gay friends-they are my friends because they don't rub their lifestyles in my face-ever-or they wouldn't be my friends.
Unit cohesion doesn't come when one group of men are discussing johnson size of their boyfriends and the other are discussing how they are going to take the next hill. And it takes only 5 minutes at a "gay pride" parade to know that pretty much what consumes them are sex, flamboyance, and grossing out we "breeders".
I think it is safe to say that the gays want one thing-that is to take over our world-a world that is 95% heterosexual and oddly enough the left are all for that.....could it be that the entirety of the left are poofters? Sort of reminds me of a line in a shakespeare piece I did a few too may moons ago....."The lady doth protest too much"
Yosemeti Sam| 11.22.10 @ 10:59AM
"Washington Post: Judeo-Christian Ethic Is a 'Problem' to Be Solved ...."
The question is rather will there be SOLIDARITY
amongst GOD-fearing BIBLE-read
GENERATIONAL-believing Christians
as a natural bulwark against this relentless
push by Sodomites qua their Leftoid fan clubs to
portray themselves as simply an alternate
form of kiss kiss - Flower Children.
P.Smith| 11.22.10 @ 11:10AM
The effects of lifting the current policy are that the military will push out all of those who do not accept the new policy. The first small wave will involve those who resign commissions, enlistees who do not reenlist over time and civilian personnel who resign. Chaplains who do not agree with this policy will also be muzzled, or will be forced out. There will not be a religious exemption, and if by chance there is… it will soon be dropped. Also, those within the military, who have let those around them, know how they feel about the situation, will either be required to shut up, or will be forced to resign.
The second wave will be the personnel who are forced out because they are no longer deemed fit to serve by making some type of politically correct mistake or beating the hell out of some guy who proposes to them. There also will be many young men who decide to never serve because frankly they don’t go in the military so they can watch men sodomize each other, or try to learn new tricks to defend themselves in the shower; they go in the military to become men. Many children, including mine, will not have their parents blessing to go into the military.
When this current policy is dropped it will not be a situation where the military now simply accepts homosexuals, no, the military will forcibly try to make everyone think “correctly” about the issue by having town hall meetings , training/development classes and some kind of homosexual appreciation day/week/month once a year. It will be a nightmare for the military, and in the end will turn into a nightmare for our country.
Tim the Enchanter| 11.22.10 @ 12:29PM
You're wrong. It won't be a nightmare for our country- it will be the end of our country. Cf. ancient Greece, Rome, and all other nations that decided to abandon basic morality and give in to their base passions.
P.Smith| 11.22.10 @ 1:47PM
Wouldn’t the end of the great and wonderful United States of America be nightmare for you,... Believe me it would be a nightmare more than we realize, because the Chinese would quickly attempt to step into the vacuum left behind, and the rest of the world would tremble.
Al Adab| 11.22.10 @ 1:51PM
Instead of using the military for social engineering experiments, would we not be better off if we armed them and trained them to defend our nation and our freedoms?
Hank| 11.22.10 @ 1:52PM
A recent report suggested that upwards of 70% of enlisted military approve of lifting DADT.
irish19| 11.22.10 @ 2:16PM
Link, please.
Bruce Berger| 11.22.10 @ 2:24PM
Hank,
Does that mean 30% don't approve? If so, what happens if those 30% don't re-up if DADT is repealed? What if 30% of potential new military recruits don't join in the event DADT is repealed? If that happens the military has a huge manpower problem. To me the crux of the issue is whether repeal will have a positive, negative or neutral impact on the quantity of volunteers. I'm not sure the Pentagon has a good handle on that question.
Hank| 11.22.10 @ 3:58PM
These are good questions, Bruce. Even 15% would concern me. 15% opposed to a policy strongly can be a lot more of a problem than a much larger number being "ok" with a policy.
My point is just that it isn't as though the people who are opposed to DADT represent some tiny minority of frothing liberals in San Francisco. There's a genuine, honest to goodness debate to be had. I think all this talk about trembling foundations of western morality is a little childish too. We live in a secular, free society. Our allies all except gays in the military. Of course none of this means we HAVE to, but I think things are just a little more complicated than the author above suggests.
Hank| 11.22.10 @ 3:59PM
There's a funny mistake. Our allies accept gays in the military; they don't "except" them.
Bruce Berger| 11.22.10 @ 4:38PM
Hank,
When looking at our allies, one has to distinguish between those that have all-volunteer forces and those that have conscripts. Assuming we want to continue to have a volunteer force we need to look at the experience of the countries with the same. Looking at countries that draft military personnel wouldn't be particularly useful, in my opinion.
Hank| 11.22.10 @ 6:46PM
You're right. Israel allows gays, but then again, everyone has to serve, so it is different. You make good points. And I don't think the military should be subject to the same kinds of democratic pressures as other institutions.
(I believe -- unlike I guess just about everyone -- that WE should have a draft. If we're going to fly soldiers all over the world invading countries, then senators, college presidents, hedge fund managers, and everyone else ought all to consider what it would mean for their son to be chosen to fight. Maybe we'd have a more serious conversation on wars then. And besides, men in their late teens and early twenties could USE a hitch in the military. It would do them good and teach them discipline and an appreciation of the greatness of their country.)
Bruce Berger| 11.22.10 @ 8:47PM
Hank,
As comments often do, this is veering into a different realm. The issue of a volunteer vs. conscript fighting force is interesting.
I haven't spent any time analyzing numbers but my intuition tells me that by virtue of having a volunteer military, we, through our military command, value labor, and thus life, more highly than we would under a draft regime.
If one thinks about the history of war, the ratio of capital to labor has changed significantly over the years. That is a result of technological progress (think of the soldier in the Roman legions vs. our soldiers in Afghanistan today) primarily, as well as a secular, as opposed to cyclical, trend to valuing human life. But I think the all-volunteer force reinforces the move to substitute capital for labor in war.
Let's think about how our military commanders would have prosecuted the Afghan and Iraq wars differently if there had been a conscript force instead of a volunteer force. Would the commanders have valued the soldiers under their command as highly? I don't want to be cynical, but it is not out of the realm of possibility that a commander would prosecute the war differently if he had human assets that were larger in number, less well-trained, less motivated and there by order (draftees) than if the soldiers were smaller in number, very well-trained and there on their own accord (volunteers). I have watched enough WWII history to know that stupid mistakes by commanders resulted in many more American casualties in one battle than total American casualties in the Afghan and Iraq wars. Part of that was the inevitable dilution of talent at the command level in such a large-scale enterprise such as WWII. In addition, the Afghan and Iraq wars are a totally different kind of war than WWII, but one also gets the sense that commanders today view soldiers as extremely valuable assets, and not a bunch of meat to be thrown into battle, as perhaps was more prevalent in wars past.
Now, this argument for a volunteer military doesn't address your fundamental point that re-instituting the draft may decrease armed conflict altogether, but I do think that assuming conflict is inevitable, it is better to have a volunteer force until such time as the personnel needs go beyond that which can be reasonably recruited.
Hank| 11.23.10 @ 4:46PM
I like your point about how commanders may have acted differently had their been a draft. I hadn't thought of it.
My desire for a draft is almost more of a cultural stand. I think civic spirit in this country is faltering. I think trust in institutions is very low. That's in part a good thing. Nothing is more American than being skeptical of institutions, experts, and the government. However, healthy skepticism can turn to jaundice and cynicism, making us ripe for exploitation by demagogues.
I also think we would have a better debate about this country's foreign policy if all levels of society had more skin in the game. I may be getting a little cynical, but so long as the military is at least in part a ticket to the middle class and a jobs program for sons of working families, our national debate is skewed. (This is not to denigrate soldiers' service; but there can be no question that people choose the military for more reason than one.)
I learned a lot in the Army. I was in during peace time and didn't have to sacrifice the way they do now. I respect and honor their service, and if nothing else my experience in the military taught me how to respect and honor their service.
Anthony| 11.22.10 @ 9:09PM
As a former member of the US Army I'm a little offended by this argument. We don't need homosexuals in the army either. Not only would they be bad for morale, once a homosexual gained rank he could use that against lower ranking individuals. All gays are noble, I know, but I saw officers take advantage of lower ranking females and it would be bound to happen with gays. The argument against gays in the Marines, is equally valid in all other branches of the service.
Craig Goodrich| 11.23.10 @ 2:26PM
There is also the problem -- which likewise occurs in units containg both sexes -- of sexual attachments and rivalries interfering with unit cohesion and discipline. I would think that that would be the principal argument against the openly gay serving, at least in combat units.
Daniel | 11.24.10 @ 4:10AM
This is a very informative article, keep the great blogs coming!