Monday, December 20, 2010

Because this was really, really important.

While our country fights a war against terrorism, a war I might add that liberals do not want us to win, it was a high priority to make sure that openly gay men were allowed to serve.  Unlike most liberals and definately unlike the chain smoking former coke addict President, I actually know people who have served in the military.  I know Korean vets,Vietnam vets, Desert Storm vets, vets from the current conflict and not one of them that I've asked has been in favor.  As a matter of fact, each person I've asked is adamantly opposed.  It's odd to me that with everything going on in the country and the world, that this was such a priority.  I can hardly wait for the lawsuits to come against the military when some twinkle toes gets his feelings hurt by a drill sargeant in basic.

Here's something to think about though.  If straight men are supposed to be "OK" with showering and serving with openly gay men, why can't we put women, straight men, and gays all together. If straight men are supposed to accept being in barracks with gays, shouldn't women have to shower, etc with straight men. Isn't that what "equality" really is?  Think of all the money it would save in operation costs. 


moi said...

I love ya, dude, but I disagree with you on this one. I wish to hell we could get to a point in this country where we didn't give a flip about someone's sexual preference. Because it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is ability and ability is the only criteria by which someone should be judged in the workplace. Nothing else, not gender, sexual preference, religion, race, shoe size, etc., has anything to do with it. Why should it be any different in the military?

You asked why women and men don't bunk or shower together. Simple. Women are, by and large, physically inferior to men. If a man wants to push his advances he will, and there is little a woman can do about it unless she shoots him. But a gay man and a straight man? Well, let's assume, for some stupid, highly unlikely reason, that a gay soldier is going to make a pass at his straight colleague (yeah, like all gay men are out there "recruiting" straight men). That's an even-Steven fight as far as I'm concerned. They can deal with it that way.

Which of course does bring up the ONLY valid oppositional argument to passing this legislation: unwarranted accusations against gays and lesbians. Let's hope our soldiers are better people than that.

Milk River Madman said...

I have no problem with DADT and neither does any soldier I've talked to. My point is that combat soldiers do not want to have or serve with openly gay men. As long as they don't know, they are fine with it.

Combat soldiers have the hardest job in the world and should have a little say with whom they have to work. DADT has been working fine and virtuall without incident for almost 20 years. My point was and is, why was it so important to change it?

You will see a lot of soldiers, officers, and NCO's not re-up because of this as well as a lot of men not even enlist because of it.

I don't care what your sexual preference is but this weakens the military and that's why it worries me.

The "unwarranted accusations against gays and lesbians" is a concern but I'm sure there will be as many coming from the other side. I, like you, hope our soldiers are better than this, but something tells me it's going to get ugly in the military.