-
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
Aaron Goldstein takes issue with the argument that repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will create unnecessary sexual tension in the armed forces. He writes: “But that argument is predicated on the assumption that because someone is gay thus he or she is automatically attracted to every single member of the same sex.”
Actually, the argument is not predicated on this assumption in any way. Every woman will not be attracted to every man, but introducing into the military women as a group ensured that some of the women will inevitably be attracted to some of the men (and vice versa) over time. It also ensured that men and women would be aware of the possibility of such attraction even where it does not exist. DADT repeal ensures that this element of sexual attraction and tension will be repeated in still more intimate settings and in combat situations.
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was an attempt — however flawed and unstable — to balance two competing realities: Many individual homosexuals serve honorably and effectively in the miltary even as, all other things being equal, open homosexuality as such is a disruptive force, just as individual women have served honorably and effectively even as their integration has in many respects been a disruptive force. Now instead of trying to avoid the incidence of sexual attraction within the armed forces, there will have to be myriad rules and regulations trying to cope with its consequences. And this latest social innovation will have even greater impact on the conservative Christians who make up a large share of the armed forces.
That said, the eventual demise of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was always predictable. People understand the principle of non-discrimination and sexual self-expression better than they understand the martial culture that best sustains a military force, just as public support for same-sex marriage rises as people increasingly understand non-discrimination and sexual self-expression better than they comprehend the purpose of marriage. The military will muddle through and the broader culture will probably do the same, leading the people who don’t understand why things were ever the way they were to confidently declare victory.
View all comments (34) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/19/rethoughts-on-dadt-repeal
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
mt| 12.19.10 @ 2:01PM
Exactly right. Though the demise of DADT was never a foregone conclusion really, it required 6 GOP Senators to break cloture in the last days of a lame duck session and a lack of passion and conviction by many of the remainder who, who with the noble exception of a military hero John McCain (really his finest hour I think. And another reason he would have been a better leader than Obama) gave up. Our veterans and those in the combat arms deserved better.
Probably means no left wing primary challenge to Obama and easier path to reelection. Perhaps a new Congress can do a few things to stop some of the bleeding from this change.
John Cuckti| 12.19.10 @ 3:52PM
Yes, maybe they can put pressure on Obama to replace Petraeus with James Dobson and Mullen can be replaced by Gary Bauer. Finally, General Allan Keyes can replace Gates, and we can all sleep a bit better at night, knowing that military morality has been preserved for time eternal.
Margie| 12.19.10 @ 5:59PM
I for one would certainly enjoy the sanity that would prevail if just one of the good men you mention were to be elected to office.
God fearing men are much more preferable to Socialist, destroying persons who have no idea about anything having to do with God, country, or their fellow man.
In fact these God fearing men are what's needed, (and always have been) to bring our country back to shining city on the hill again. Not that we still aren't but we are weaker now thanks to your man, Obama, who bows to the Communists and proclaims his alliance with his Muslim BROS.
I would remind you of what just one of the Founding Fathers said:
"“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams.
Obviously, you disagree.
C Bowen| 12.19.10 @ 6:06PM
I thought you were pro-military, Margie?
Has anyone actually looked at the published STD rates in the armed forces? I mean, the rate of HIV with the enlisted men was a bit of a pause moment, and lets not get started with the no longer published rates of female serving pregnancies out of wedlock--those rates were so embarrassing, and yet the STD numbers are still published.
Mr. Antle,
I am hesitant to mention it, but conservatives are asking the wrong questions, I assume, at the highest ranks, with the most cynical intentions, as the neocons seemed to support the repeal. Why do conservatives support the military, the most leftist institution in the country?
Margie| 12.19.10 @ 6:10PM
I thank God that I will never be able to understand the twisted logic of you anti-war what ever you call yourselves.
Wow.
Fr0sty| 12.19.10 @ 2:12PM
""Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was an attempt -- however flawed and unstable -- to balance two competing realities..." This sentiment sums the issue up nicely. While most Americans in general favor repeal, it's impossible to find survey results that reflect the same sentiments within the military, perhaps because they don't exist. It's seems very wrong to ignore the feelings of those who will be directly impacted.
John Cuckti| 12.19.10 @ 3:47PM
Yes, of course I don't understand, because I've never been in the military. Funny how the right can comment on the demise of education, pompously, even though the vast majorit haven't set foot in a public school since high school. But perish the though that a lifelong civilian comment on the culture or "battle readiness" of the military. I also take issue with the idea that openly gay people shouldn't be able to serve in the military, due to the notion this will make conservative Christians uncomfortable. Does the author believe that women with short skirts who walk into bars dominated by drunk horny construction workers should be banned from entering such establishments, or if they are sexually assaulted "had it coming?" I think we know the answer, whether the author would concede this or not.
CalMark| 12.19.10 @ 4:05PM
The sarcasm is as nasty as it is characteristic of liberals.
Yet another instance dishonest liberal invokation of "moral equivalency" to give himself standing in an argument.
W. James Antle III | 12.19.10 @ 4:39PM
So are you saying that the military is like a bar full of drunk, horny construction workers? Or gay soldiers are like drunk horny construction workers? Or are they like women with short skirts who walk into such bars? Or are those the conservative Christians?
In other words, are you just throwing around examples that don't really have anything to do with the matter at hand, smearing a person you don't know, and pretending that such tactics constitute a coherent argument? I think we know the answer, whether the commenter will concede it or not.
Mark Clemens| 12.19.10 @ 4:48PM
Dear John,
Yes, "women with short skirts who walk into bars dominated by drunk horny construction workers" are asking for trouble, and inevitably they're going to find it. I think you need a new argument.
MarkJ| 12.19.10 @ 4:53PM
Dear John,
You obviously haven't been in the military; otherwise, you'd have thought of this: experienced supervisors and commanders know numerous--and perfectly legal--ways to make your life a living hell. And you'd do well to figure out half of them.
Did you know that military members can still be charged under the UCMJ for offenses related to adultery and fraternization (Article 134) or even sodomy (Article 125)?
No, of course you didn't.
There are also a whole host of lesser, non-judicial means to deal with offenses breaching good order and discipline (aka Article 15 or "Office Hours", letters of admonishment and reprimand, &c.). For officers and higher-ranking NCOs, even a letter of reprimand is a career-killer.
What this tells me is that just because gays can openly serve in the military doesn't mean that the military won't find other, perfectly legal ways to separate them whenever possible.
Capisce, paisan?
Steve| 12.21.10 @ 8:15AM
You are correct: if these commanders want career-ending EEO complaints. By placing dysfunctional behavior as a protected EEO category: that changes everything. (Just as we have seen that the military has been unequal to the task of sorting out all of the heterosexual-related misconduct--and this will be even more disruptive.)
tatosian| 12.19.10 @ 5:22PM
There are studies, white papers, special "news reports" etc that catalog the public schools institutional failures. From the current students' lack of basic reading and math skills to violence and drug use.
Do I have to walk the halls at Fenger high school so as to comment on the bludgeoning death of a student there?
The failure of the public schools have necessitated remedial courses in local colleges so as to bring public school graduates up to the high school graduate level. I can't mention this unless I visit a high school?
As someone who never served, you can comment on the battle readiness of the military all you like. Just as I can discount your comment in favor of one who served or is currently serving.
For instance, I have a niece in the Army who said some lesbians in her unit began proclaiming their specialness as soon as that federal judge declared dadt to be unconstitutional. She said she, and a considerable number of straight women immediately sought changes in their current living arrangements. To get away from the lesbians.
As a civilian who never served, would that, in your opinion, contribute to battle readiness?
Homosexuals always make a point of disparaging and minimizing the beliefs of Christians. This is to be expected. On the one hand you have Christians trying to put sexuality in a place where it can contribute to the family and society while on the other, you have homosexuals insisting that their sexuality is everything.
Christians aren't evil or intolerant because they control themselves, and homosexuals aren't worthy of emulation because they don't.
By the way, did you attend any Christian houses of worship before your offered up your own pompous comments?
Just askin.
Paul Wellstone's Spirit| 12.19.10 @ 4:22PM
Wow, it's ashame you were unwilling to take on Cuckti's arguments on the merits, Cal Thomas, or whatever your name is. A. Why do people who haven't been in a public school in decades have "standing" to comment on their current state? B. Would you have been for school integration in the 50's and 60's? Because as we know, whites, the majority in most cases, were as a general rule very uncomfortable with the idea. So we should never make legislation or have a court decision that has the audacity to make the majority group uncomfortable. Rather than stereotyping all liberals or commenting on the manner by which he made his points, why don't you attempt to substantively refute them if you can. Not holding my breath.
Anthony| 12.19.10 @ 5:28PM
Was forced integration successful? Whites abandoned the cities in droves and even today white people seek school districts that are overwhelmingly white or send their children to private school. What happens when straight males and females abandon the all-volunteer military?
Oldefarte| 12.19.10 @ 4:41PM
This repeal will destroy our voluntary military, period! Homosexuality is immoral but allowable under the FREE WILL concept upon which humans were created. While discrimination against them should never be tolerated [and our laws prevent same], it will be a completely disruptive force within the military ranks. Homosexuals hopefully are now happy since they have destroyed not only the Catholic Church [and are in the process of others' downfall] but also our military!!!!!
Arthur Trafford| 12.19.10 @ 9:47PM
Gays in the military.
-
-
Lawyers and politician and their clients or constituents are keenly aware that the best way to have major changes in a society is to place any individual or group in the special category of "A victim" if you’re going to change any time-honored tradition in The United States of America!!!
-
The gay agenda has a progression of thoughts: First there is the "Don't ask, don't tell" that introduces the gay verbiage that implies undeserved "Shame" experienced by the gays; then the gays progress to the "Do ask, and do tell", which projects a more accepting view of the gay lifestyle; then they promote their interpersonal romantic gay alternative relationships as just as natural, normal, productive and healthy as the heterosexual lifestyle; and finally the gay community will demand that a law be passed making homosexual marriages legal.
-
One person compared the homosexual lifestyle as like being left-handed in a society of where 92% of the population is right-handed. However, two individuals, one writing with their left hand and the other person using their right hand both accomplish the same task of equally good penmanship. On the other hand, gays and lesbians can't produce or have a family. There are gays and lesbians Christian who would do a better job of raising children over some traditional male / female couples who are dysfunctional, spiritually or emotionally.
-
But males bonding with females will always be a more preferred and acceptable lifestyle for the majority because they produce children and grandchildren etc (a family unit)!
-
The naked truth is that all humans have relational problems, regardless of their sexual orientation; simply because we are all self-centered, ego-centric and put our self interest above all others. The point I am trying to make is that so many straight pious individuals (especially Christians) will condemn or make-fun-of homosexuals and their lifestyle; and completely ignore the fact that straight people also struggle with life, and straight people also offend God and others in what they think, do and say.
-
When homosexuals can't get total or unconditional acceptance or approval of their gay and lesbian lifestyle or marriage from their heterosexual family members, friends, co-workers, school mates or teachers, religious leaders, or neighbors; then this lawsuit against the U.S. Military opens a door to promote and encourage all Americans to accept the homosexual lifestyle as legal and have equal status of male to female lifestyle and marriage.
-
Sexual orientation is a non-work related issue: and the military should never give deference to race, religion or sexual orientation!
-
My hope and prayer is that The Government of the U.S.A. will continue to ONLY require that a person’s mental and physical abilities be up for consideration in order to determine whether a person is qualified to join any branch of the U.S military!!! This is a desperate attempt to accomplish homosexual’s future goal of sanctioned gay and lesbian marriages in all 50 states of the U.S.
-
Sincerely,
ArthurTrafford.com
J.C.Eaton| 12.19.10 @ 4:43PM
Paul W. you crazy, rollicking goof, simmer down! Cuckti didn't offer any arguments to respond to amigo. He offered glib asseverations draped in cloying sarcasm. Same as you actually. Actually, although I consider myself fortunate being the product of a number of very able private schools, I have taught for years in public institutions, sent my quartet of little nippers to oodles of public schools...with fair results, and have taught law and government to scads of public shool products. That enough experience for you insightful One? The product of the public schools has not been especially dazzling....lots of reasons for that. Too many to discuss with you, frankly. BTW, having retired from the military after over thirty years, I can unequivically tell you: we listen to a brother more than a kibbutzer. Have a nice day. I'm just kidding on the last point....given your stupid and cavalier resort to the race-baiting slur, I don't care how your day goes.
Spirit of Paul Wellstone| 12.19.10 @ 4:54PM
Of course there was no race baiting, merely an apt historical comparison. And of course you entirely missed the point. The point is that the right has every right to comment on the current state of public education. They do not, however, give the same respect to those who've never served in the military, who have the audacity to comment on military policy. On a side note, your resume is impressive. Your ability or attempts to refute my arguments, however, were nonexistent. Too bad, because you seem more than capable of debating this issue on the merits.
J.C.Eaton| 12.19.10 @ 5:15PM
Paulie, you don't get any slack here. Either your gun-hand took the predictable lib-move to the racist schtick OR you made a generalization with respect to "most whites" that was intergallactically fatuous. Sure, the occasional Supreme Court decision can rankle a person's conservative sensibilities, but elections have consequences and we have to soldier on. I write simply to criticise your smug, shoot from the hip racially tainted pseudo-deep thoughts. You don't really want a polemic; you want to hector. Save it.
Spirit of Paul Wellstone| 12.19.10 @ 5:04PM
I mean think about it. The right. The majority of whom are not climatologists, can competently comment on the socialist plot that is global warming. The majority aren't economists, but they can competently comment on the wisdom of the Bush tax cuts. The majority aren't Border Patrol agents, but can competently comment on the flow of illegal immigration. I could go on and on. But when those liberal never having served in the military liberals have the nerve to comment on military policy they're way way out of their league. The point is we should always accord a level of respect to those who serve or have served in the aforementioned capacities. It should not, however, preclude those who have not from doing so and being taken seriously, provided they're schooled on the relevant facts in the debate.
Greta| 12.19.10 @ 9:45PM
There is something that is very unique about the military lifestyle in general and to those who make a career in serving our country in this way. That is what makes what they think and feel relevent to any decision to change it with some social experiment. Once they enlist, for the tenure of that enlistment, they are not free to live where they want, to do what they want, or to quit if they want. Their ass belongs to Uncle Sam. What we learned after Vietnam was that a draft with today's Americans has a lot of issues as we today are not really much like Americans during WWII. They are not willing to give over their lives to the military authority and do what is required of a soldier which can and recently has been to put their life on the line. Also we do not have wars like WWII as we have seen in Korea, Vietnam, or the gulf wars or war on terror. So we have the rare individual who sees his duty and honor and often his religious beliefs as a key component of who they are as people. Most of the major faiths still teach that the gay lifestyle is a perversion. So we have soldiers at very high stress levels with what the country is going through today, we just said we are going to give them the lowest raise since 1962, and now we are going to send in perverts to live openly with them in barracks settings. There is a lot of testoseron with most soldiers and mixing what they considered perverts into their barracks life is like throwing gas on a fire. The military better have a hell of a plan to insure we maintain our strength and our soldiers in these tough times. I know of no way that this could be done and do not have a clue why this was needed today except for political reasons of those who recently got their ass handed to them at the polls. When we need a draft in a few years, I hope that those drafted are those who supported this move. It would be justice for them to be called to serve with the gays they supported because we lost the great soldiers we have today.
USAF80| 12.20.10 @ 1:23PM
Good comment. I'm waiting for all the fireworks to fly myself. It's gonig to be interesting.
Spirit of Paul Wellstone| 12.19.10 @ 10:17PM
Those who politically had their ass handed to them? Hmm... I didn't realize Bob Gates and Michael Mulllen were politicians, although Barry Goldwater was. Also, polls showed 65-70% of those polled favored this. You remember how we should take into consideration the feelings of the citizenry, don't you? After all, we were lectured about this hourly in the health care debate. But in the end none of this is relevant, as it's a Fourteenth Amendment issue. You know, the Constitution, that document you allege to treasure, and lecture the left about not adhering to on an hourly basis. But then again, you guys have never believed in the Fourteenth anyway, except when it deals with that poor persecuted caucasian underclass getting smacked down by the insidiousness of affirmative action. Why don't you guys on the right, do us all a favor, tell us which parts of the document you actually take seriously and which ones you don't. We can then resume the conversation from there.
tatosian| 12.20.10 @ 1:55AM
Well, I guess two career military guys working out of dc can't strictly be called politicians. But beltway politics played a part in their appointments and continues to play it's part in their decision making process. That might not make them politicians but it sure makes them political animals.
Which health care "debate' was that? The one denied us in the feed- frenzy to pass a 2100 page mystery? The debate denied us by not posting the legislation so that we might read it and respond? The debate that is now finally taking place in Federal courts? That one?
Perhaps you're right. Certainly the 14th amendment would seem to guarantee the privileges and immunities of heterosexual American citizens against being forced to endure the endless details of this or that homosexual's last few dozen, um, relationships (and the subsequent swellings, leaking and trips to the clinic.) that forced intimacy would surely bring about. Just as it would seem to guarantee those same Americans the right to resist the demands of a strident minority.
4th and 6th Amendment? What? Are you incarcerated or something?
Certainly the 8th protects heterosexual Americans from cruel and unusual punishment. (See trip to the clinic above) so thanks for pointing that out.
As for what parts of the constitution we on the right take seriously, well, all of it.
What do you on the left take seriously? Besides immediate gratification I mean.
Greta| 12.20.10 @ 12:35PM
Where in the 14th amendment does it say that people have rights to serve in the military? I have no right because of my age and we have age discrimination. I have no right because of my weight and health. Is this discrimination in the 14th? It has long been recognized that the military has the right and duty to put together a fighting force and that means also being able to eliminate those who would cause it a problem. Women are restricted in areas they can serve. Women were also restricted because of the close living conditions and the disruptions they would bring and the rash of pregnancies has shown this is indeed a concern. Women have to have seperate living quarters. They do not live in barracks and shower with men. Why not if the issue is the 14th amendment. Where does that say that one person has to have separation of showers and bunks. Why do we do this? Because of sexual attraction and the problems with unit cohesion. So now we introduce those who have a perversion where they are attracted to their own sex. Why are they not put in separate quarters like the women? If they can bunk with the guys, why not the women since both are attracted to guys? Where is my civil rights as a woman in the military? This is the problem when you want to make a perverted lifestyle a civil right. Why not set up those with the weakness for stealing with civil rights as well?
USAF80| 12.20.10 @ 1:25PM
This was planned a few months ago. The survey was a sham because not everone recieved it. With any other DOD survey they do 100% and you are constantly reminded by email and word of mouth to complete them. This one was not like that.
Spirit of Paul Wellstone| 12.19.10 @ 11:49PM
I'm not Italian, (Paisan) nor am I Christian. Nor did I say Christians are intolerant. Actually the author implied that. Additionally, I stated I've never been in the military. Based on your steadfast belief that only military personnel have the right to have a voice on this issue, then one could only surmise that you disagree with the civilian Commander in Chief heading our armed forces, per your beloved Constitution. So so far we have the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Eight and Fourteenth Amendments for which the right takes issue, as well as the civilian President being Commander in Chief. Selective at best adherence and allegiance to the Constitution.
Spirit of Paul Wellstone| 12.19.10 @ 11:51PM
And for the guy who disagreeed with the 9-0 Brown V. Board decision, all I can say is that while you're beyond pathetic, you are at least honest.
Wellstone is DEAD| 12.20.10 @ 1:43AM
Burned to death in a small plane crash after suffering the panic and fear of a worthless life. Like you buddy.
J.C.Eaton| 12.20.10 @ 10:31AM
Spiritguy, Up at obscene hours of the day firing on all cylinders. Well, at least your doing something. Noticed how you began your witless criticisms by admonishing someone to address Coukoo's sophomoric twaddle....finding arguments where there were none. Then you hurl a tantrum[using your ever-reliable racial schtick....again]at a fellow who dared think Brown v. Board was , in some ways, problematic. See, I 'm willing to consider points made might be made without racism at their heart. You apparently cannot, or will not. You are a liberal, Paulie.You "argue" like one, which is to say:you scold. Normally, one contribution per thread is my limit, but for you...well, once is not enough. Your handle is apt, fella.
MikeBee| 12.20.10 @ 9:44AM
Nobody seems to get it. 1) The folks in the military are trained killers. For example, marines who have gone through basic know over 100 ways to kill a person, all of which do not involve a firearm. 2) The folks in the military sleep in VERY close quarters to one another. One man is only an arm's reach from another, in many circumstances. If an openly gay person, even in his sleep, begins touching someone who is not gay, rousing that person from a deep sleep, someone could be killed very quickly. THIS is the order which people from the military claim would be interrupted by allowing gays to serve openly in the military. It's not a gay rights issue; it's not an issue of homophobia; it's simply a matter of trying to protect some folks from death.
William Simpson | 12.20.10 @ 12:07PM
This is just another observation of what the proponents of this political movement won’t tell you…
Amidst the government’s endorsement, the media’s coverage, Hollywood’s propagation of, the churches compromise on moral truth, and the evidence of successful lobbying by the proponents of the homosexual agenda, there is still a voice of caution.
http://wsimpson.wordpress.com/.....th-or-lie/