Who came up with the current policy banning practicing homosexuals from serving in the military? The media doesn't want to ask, the Democrats don't want to tell. The Democrats shouldn't be ashamed of the Clinton-era compromise. As I write in my column @ Human Events, the prudential law affirms that what we do in our bedrooms is a matter neither to ask nor tell about.
I remember reading at the time DADT was passed that the Army was working through a stack of complaints by female recruits against lesbian drill instructors for sexual harassment.
A soldier of my acquaintance once told me that "the army doesn't react; it over-reacts". Having even fairly small numbers of openly homosexual personnel will result, under a pro-homosexual administration, in the military spending inordinate amounts of time and energy trying to stamp out even the smallest of slights against homosexual personnel.
And it needs to be remembered that part of the motivational psychology of military training operates on challenging the recruits' manhood and masculinity. This may not work so well with significant numbers of open homosexuals.
A fair number of men enter the military thinking that they're going to spend their time shooting guns and blowing things up. When they actually get there, outside of training (and actual warfare), they find themselves engaged in busy work such as polishing shoes and belt buckles, painting rocks, sweeping walks, and painting trash cans. I have a suspicion that a certain kind of homosexual imagines that in military service he will find himself in the company of young and attractive men, and sexual opportunities beyond the dreams of lust. These recruits will likely find themselves similarly disappointed.
What makes our military work and consequently makes it the best on the planet, is hard fast rules, protocol and unbending adherence to a hierarchy.
The idea of allowing homosexuals to serve out in the open in full 'flaunt' mode undermines all of these principles.
If the left's aim is to destroy the only line of defense this country has against Global nasties (and it is), then an anything goes policy is a good way to do it.
I highly doubt it will end with this.
As probably one of the only activly serving members of the military here. I say repeal DADT now and uphold the US Constitution. Or you can be a hypocrite who "thinks" you know what the USC really means.
Christmas is coming soon,do you want to buy for your friend?With UGG Boots,you and your friend will nearly definitely be considered a entire whole lot additional design and health,be considered a entire whole lot additional design and warm,etc.Your friends will be happy to the UGGs you buy.Buy cheap uggs in our online store is your good choice!High quality sheepskin and discount ugg boots are waiting for you!
http://www.uggtodoor.com
asdf wrote,
"What makes our military work and consequently makes it the best on the planet, is hard fast rules, protocol and unbending adherence to a hierarchy.
The idea of allowing homosexuals to serve out in the open in full 'flaunt' mode undermines all of these principles."
Is there any supporting evidence for this assertion that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would undermine "rules, protocol...heirarchy"? I mean, do you have any empirical evidence or rational argument that justifies that statement, or is this more Beckerhead, Tea Bag speculative garbage?
Off the top of my head, I think the Spartans and the Athenians pretty much obliterate your ignorant notion, but I understand and am sensitive to the fact that Tea Bag Beckerheads have an extreme antipathy to facts and empirical historical ana1ysis before January, 2009.
I believe in 'don't ask, don't tell' not only in the military but in everyday life. The 'love that dare not speak its name' has turned into the love that won't shut up! And I really wish they would.
Most people, even if repulsed by it, kind of accept homosexuality as a slightly, if not completely, aberrant sexual lifestyle. But it will never be in the mainstream unless you live in San Francisco.
If there ever was a poster boy for not allowing openly gay people in the military, it would be Bradley Manning. Here's an emotionally unstable gay man who feels 'alone' and alienated. His solution - trap sensitive military information and release it, just to make a point.
Do we really want to trust our military security in the field or from an intelligence standpoint with the kind of personality that might not be adaptable to that environment?
"under a pro-homosexual administration..."
How absurd. You lose all credibility with your extremism. I'm imagine you refer to pro-choice supporters as pro-abortion, completely failing to even attempt to view an issue from another standpoint. Good job.
"I believe in 'don't ask, don't tell' not only in the military but in everyday life. "
So you are all for gay marriage then, huh? If YOU don't ask, there is no reason to impede matrimony between a couple. 'Conservative' big government does it again however. I'm starting to think 'conservatives' never learned what the words "big" and "small" really mean.
Nope. Because there can never ever be any such thing as 'gay (homosexual) marriage'. The two terms are completely at odds with one another. Advocates would love to mainstream the gay lifestyle. But it ain't.
"under a pro-homosexual administration..."How absurd. You lose all credibility with your extremism. I'm imagine you refer to pro-choice supporters as pro-abortion, completely failing to even attempt to view an issue from another standpoint. Good job.
In your mad rush to quibble over words, you have missed the point.
And second, it is not my obligation to explain and defend my entire belief system down to the tiniest detail in a combox post treating a single, discrete subject.
