26 Sep

One Year Anniversary of DADT Repeal

                                       

WARNING: This post is full of sarcasm and bloviation. It reflects my own personal opinions and does necessarily reflect those of this site or any branch of government. If you are prone to calling people who disagree with homosexual conduct “bigots” you may not want to read any further. Otherwise, I’ll call you a bigot for not respecting my beliefs. Bigot! Stick and stones may break my bones…yadda yadda.

Yippee! I feel like frolicking through the corn rows in those sexy Marine PT shorts and big, pink sash in celebration. I’m so excited that the military and our federal government is so focused on the sex lives of gays while we are falling apart at the seams. It makes me proud (no pun intended) to be a part of such a monumental social engineering and experimentation project gone wrong.

Yes, folks. September 20th marked the one year anniversary of President Obama signing the repeal of the so-called “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” law. The president was so overjoyed, he even sent out a press release to ensure that Americans were made aware of the sex lives of a super-small percentage of US troops:

A year ago today, we upheld the fundamental American values of fairness and equality by finally and formally repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ Gay and lesbian Americans now no longer need to hide who they love in order to serve the country they love. It is a testament to the professionalism of our men and women in uniform that this change was implemented in an orderly manner, preserving unit cohesion, recruitment, retention and military effectiveness. As Commander in Chief, I’ve seen that our national security has been strengthened because we are no longer denied the skills and talents of those patriotic Americans who happen to be gay or lesbian. The ability of service members to be open and honest about their families and the people they love honors the integrity of the individuals who serve, strengthens the institutions they serve, and is one of the many reasons why our military remains the finest in the world.

Isn’t that sweet? I just can’t wait until we’re allowed to celebrate the one-year anniversary of allowing fraternization, incest, and polygamy within the ranks and truly celebrate sexual deviancy in ALL its forms. After all, it’s okay for two men or women to get it on, but not an officer and NCO or me and my cousin. Odd. I wonder if it’s fraternization if it’s a gay officer and gay NCO? Then they could just claim they were targeted for being gay and not fraternization.

But, seriously, I take offense to this statement – “It is a testament to the professionalism of our men and women in uniform that this change was implemented in an orderly manner, preserving unit cohesion, recruitment, retention and military effectiveness.” Here’s the thing – I haven’t seen, heard of or met a single openly gay Soldier in the past year. I don’t see same-sex couples shopping at the commissary or PX. I don’t see them holding hands walking around the common areas or barracks. There is nothing “orderly” about forcing troops to accept deviant sexual behaviors (my opinion) or else face punishment.

In the past year, I have a seen a few stories about how “successful” the repeal has been. The Army Times recently quoted an independent report that said “the military has reported no substantial problems as a result of allowing gays to serve openly in uniform.” But, what it doesn’t tell you is that either gays are still staying in the proverbial closet or there really aren’t as many as we were led to believe that are hanging up their rainbows in exchange for camouflage.

While our media – including the tabloid-prone Military Times magazines – has gone through great strains to highlight people like Brigadier General Tammy Smith’s recent (legally unrecognized) marriage to her girlfriend, the fact is that most troops still are opposed to such relationships.

As Commander in Chief, I’ve seen that our national security has been strengthened because we are no longer denied the skills and talents of those patriotic Americans who happen to be gay or lesbian.” I continue to fail to see how someone’s sexual orientation strengthens (or weakens) national security at any level. For over 230 years, our military has opposed homosexual relationships and we’ve never lost a single war due to lack of homosexuals serving. All the realities paint a much different picture.

In a study by the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association titled “LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER HEALTH: FINDINGS AND CONCERNS,” we find that homosexual activity is actually MORE detrimental to national security since the health of our troops directly influences our ability to wage the nation’s wars. We call that “military readiness.”

The study points out that gay men and lesbians (why don’t gay men have a cool name like gay women get? Seems a bit sexist to me.) are at increased risk of getting certain cancers. Gay and bisexual men are at excess risk for anal cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and Hodgkin’s disease compared with heterosexual men. Nearly 10% of all males aged 15-22 that have sex with other men have HIV. While this is a disqualifier for military service, as well as a reason for discharge, we must assume that gay troops are not going to solely “date” other gay troops that are nearly guaranteed to be free of the disease, but will, in fact, mingle with the general, non-military gay population. This puts the military at increased risk of losing manpower due to HIV, AIDS or some other disease or ailment. With 10% of homosexual young men found to have the disease this isn’t a flawed argument. Read the studies.  I don’t make this up, I relay what’s out there.

In addition to the physical risks of homosexual activity, the report cites numerous studies that point to increased rates of mental and bipolar disorders among gay men. Depression is also a common factor. The study lists several potential reasons for this, including stigma and social introversion. But, it could also just be that since homosexual behavior goes against normal human nature, the minds of gay men are still at odds with themselves. I’m sure vegans also have the same problems since humans are carnivores! Someone should make a movie about a vegan caveman. I can see it now… But, I digress. Just because it happens in the wild, doesn’t make it normal.  Animals with homosexual tendencies also eat their young and others’ feces. I hardly think society would find that acceptable in humans.

Right now the military is in the throes of a terrible epidemic of suicides among its troops. No matter how we try to attack the problem, we seem to be engaged in a losing battle. We have already lost more troops to suicide this year than all of last year and we still have three months to go. While we won’t give up, we can’t ignore the fact that suicides are a major factor in military readiness and national security. This week, the Army is setting aside an entire day to focus on suicide prevention to address the problem. The federal government at large is also trying to stem the tide.

So, I fail to see how allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military helps national security when that population of society is at INCREASED risk of committing suicide, according to the study quoted above and others. The homosexual population is also at increased risk of chemical dependency and alcohol abuse.

All that aside, being proud (again, no pun intended) of allowing homosexuals to serve openly really presents more problems than it solves. Troops are REQUIRED to share rooms with homosexuals whether they are, themselves, homosexuals or not. Troops are not allowed to request room changes based on sexual orientation. And what about the transgendered population? Right now, I don’t think the military will accept transgendered recruits. If that is the case, I’m sure that there will be a hefty lobby to allow it. If they are allowed, how are they to be classified for physical training or housing? Will the military (re: taxpayers) be responsible for paying for transgender surgical procedures? Which uniforms do they wear? The see where this is going.

This all boils down to the fact that I think the general population has been mislead into believing that troops have overwhelming accepted the repeal.  The Army Times story noted in an unscientific poll that only “4.5 percent of troops said their unit was harmed when a fellow service member came out as gay.” What the poll fails to inform units of is what percent of units even reported having a fellow service member come out as gay to begin with!

In the past year, I have not met A SINGLE Soldier that has met or witnessed a Soldier that came out after the repeal. But, let’s keep spreading the “good news” that everything is peachy and national security is somehow “strengthened.”

To be fair, I will say that regardless of personal opinions in the military (including my own), there is something the President stated that I completely agree with. Our troops are professionals and are capable of separating personal opinion from the mission and responsibilities as Soldiers. There is no doubt in my mind that it makes no difference in the mind of the grunt sitting in a foxhole during a firefight whether or not the person protecting his flank is gay or straight. As long as his aim is straight, that is all that matters. But, this was never about the man in the foxhole. This is about the 95% of the time that a troop is NOT in combat and working in a garrison environment. Even still, our troops know how to be professionals and respect the private sex lives of everyone. This, however, does not mitigate my previous statements.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Army, the Department of Defense, or any branch of government or military unit. 

 

This entry was posted in Military. Bookmark the permalink. Wednesday, September 26th, 2012 at 2:30 pm
| 1,002 views

69 Responses to One Year Anniversary of DADT Repeal

  1. Tom Kratman says: 51

    Nonsense. Imagine – and it shouldn’t be all that hard – a virgin, gay, teenager. He never has engaged in homosexual acts. Therefore, in the eyes of, say, the Catholic Church (largest Christian denomination in the world, doncha know) he has not sinned. (And, George Carlin notwithstanding, nobody’s even been excomunicated over “wanna.”) It’s even easier that that, actually. Take someone who has indeed engaged in homosexual acts. He goes to confession and thereafter stops. Nobody Catholic will consider him to be sinning thereafter, at least as regards homosexuality.

    Would you like to know where idiocy crept into your position? It was in your presumption that gays _will_ always engage in homsexual acts, illustrated by the nonsense serial bank robber analogy. Try to work on that, won’t you?

    ReplyReply
  2. Tom Kratman says: 52

    Oh, and by the way? I’m religious and I really couldn’t give a good goddamned whether you burn or not, let alone what you believe about fine points of theological doctrine. Free will is part of the doctrine and you have my blessings in exercising yours.

    ReplyReply
  3. Tom Kratman says: 53

    Oh, and since it didn’t post last time I tried, go read this: http://www.baen.com/amazonsrightbreast.asp

    ReplyReply
  4. Tom says: 54

    @Smorgasbord,

    Congrats on you training. Very admirable indeed.

    Unfortunately, I see you’re getting a taste of how bigots treat those who dare to voice a tolerant attitude on how others’ choose to lead their private lives. Get used to personal attacks like these if you stick to your convictions. Get used to people implying you are gay if you stick to your convictions. You’re just the latest victim of self-described “religious” individuals who believe mean-spirited bullying and sanctimonious intimidation will somehow brings them closer to their god.

    ReplyReply
  5. Smorgasbord says: 55

    @Tom Kratman: #51
    All I am saying is that I accept people the way they are. I’ve been through this with others on FA. I believe that if a person believes that being gay is a choice, then being straight is a choice. I have heard of too many men who tried to live the straight life, but finally came out and admitted they were gay, and they say they were ALWAYS gay. They didn’t want to be “queer.” I’m not changing my mind, and your not changing yours. Let’s not try to convert each other.

    ReplyReply
  6. Tom Kratman says: 56

    Look, you made a statement that is simply both untrue and theologically unsound. Period. I’m not trying to convert you to anything. I’m simply saying that your statement was pure ignorant bullshit. Also, period.

    ReplyReply
  7. Smorgasbord says: 57

    @Tom Kratman: #52
    I’m not a religious person, but you will never hear me say a cuss word. I don’t like to hear them. I have heard parents BRAG about their baby’s first cuss word. I have wondered: Does God allow cuss words in Heaven?

    ReplyReply
  8. Tom Kratman says: 58

    You made a statement that is simply both untrue and theologically unsound. Period. I’m not trying to convert you to anything. I’m simply saying that your statement was pure ignorant bullshit. Also, period. And hiding behind verbal trivia is pitiful.

    ReplyReply
  9. Tom Kratman says: 59

    How grand for you. What’s worse, a cuss or promoting ignorant nonsense?

    ReplyReply
  10. Smorgasbord says: 60

    @Tom Kratman: #53
    I didn’t read the article because I see it was writeen by you, so I’m guessing it just goes along with your beliefs, and I have said many times to those who try to convert me, I formed my opinions over MANY years, and I ain’t changing them.

    ReplyReply
  11. Tom Kratman says: 61

    Oh, I’m sure.
    So you still believe that Catholics believe that being gay, without homosexual acts, is sinful? In which of those many years did you become convinced of that and what evidence was presented to you to convince you of that?

    ReplyReply
  12. Smorgasbord says: 62

    @Tom: #54
    I had a mother that didn’t say much about her religion most of us kids’ lives, until later in her life. She then seemed like she was making up for lost time and preached all the time. I finally told her that I didn’t want anything to do with HER religion if I have to preach to everybody. I believe you can win more converts to your religion by LIVING your religion and letting people see the diference.

    ReplyReply
  13. Tom Kratman says: 63

    No, no; ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. When did you become convinced that being gay, as opposed to engaging in homosexual acts, was sinful underCatholicism, the largest Christian demonination in the world? What evidence was presented? Who presented it? How did you fact check it?

    Or, in the alternative, you can just admit that you made your mind up firmly on no facts whatsoever. That being the case, I have some coastal land to sell you in Florida and you are not to believe it is swamp and you must believe it is worth whatever price I tell you it is…since facts and evidence mean nothing to you.

    ReplyReply
  14. Smorgasbord says: 64

    @Tom Kratman: #60
    You seem to be like my mom in the sence that if she and someone else disagreed on something, she was ALWAYS right, and they were always wrong. I have listened to her argue over the littlest things that the average person would just change the subject, but she would keep agruing until the other person didn’t want anything to do with her. She didn’t have very many friends. This is something you and I will always disagree with, and I am not commenting on it any more. I am sure nobody else wants us to comment on the subject any more either.

    ReplyReply
  15. Tom Kratman says: 65

    You’re having trouble with some things arcane and rare that we call “thought” and “logic.” I truly don’t care if you disagree with me; you’ve written enough above that no one is too very likely to take what you say too seriously henceforth. That your mind is made up would be fine, if you had anything on which to base that firm opinion. You apparently do not. So please ANSWER THE QUESTIONS: When did you become convinced that being gay, even if one did not engage in homosexual acts, was sinful under Catholicism, the largest of Christian demoninations? What evidence was presented that gave you that opinion ? Who presented that evidence? How did you fact check the evidence that was presented?

    And will you agree that seven thousand dollars a square meter for that land in Florida is fair?

    ReplyReply
  16. Ann Morgan says: 66

    @Smorgasbord:

    Tom Kratman wrote: **I believe that if a person believes that being gay is a choice, then being straight is a choice. I have heard of too many men who tried to live the straight life, but finally came out and admitted they were gay, and they say they were ALWAYS gay.**

    The thing is, I have no recollection in my life whatsoever, of ever getting up one fine morning during puberty and thinking to myself: “Gee, should I be straight or gay? Gee, I guess I will be straight.”

    No straight person I have ever talked to has ever recalled ever making such a choice.

    So, the load of swill I am expected to swallow by those who claim that being gay is a choice consists of:

    1. All gay people apparently woke up one fine morning and were able to make a conscious choice in a matter which straight people were not able to make a conscious choice in.

    2. Having been (for whatever reason) given the ability to make a conscious choice in this matter, all people able to make this choice universally decided to be gay, rather than straight (since no straight people recall ever making a choice to be straight.

    3. Furthermore, all gay people, all over the world, even those who have never met any other gay people, are involved in a secret, universal conspiracy, to lie about the fact that they were able to make a conscious choice in this matter, and instead tell everyone that they didn’t actually choose to be gay.

    ReplyReply
  17. Ann Morgan says: 67

    Tom Kratman wrote: **No, no; ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. When did you become convinced that being gay, as opposed to engaging in homosexual acts, was sinful underCatholicism, the largest Christian demonination in the world? What evidence was presented? Who presented it? How did you fact check it?**

    It’s like this, Tom. Apparently the bible mentions homosexuality only 7 times (according to a website I read yesterday. Jesus never explicitly mentions it at all. However, the bible mentions being charitable to the poor over 2000 times.

    Only thing is, hate sells better than charity. Especially hate for a group that is in the minority, so that you can appeal to the majority (who by definition, will have more money to put in the offering plate. It’s very sweet to most people to get to hate and simultaneously get to feel self-righteous about their hate, and extremely difficult to talk them out of this mindset, as they would then have to (at the least) confront the guilt of hating people for no good reason, and (much more likely) confront the blood on their own hands, if they have acted in some way against the hated group.

    ReplyReply
  18. Ann Morgan says: 68

    Tom: As for whether it is a ‘sin’ or not under the Catholic church, I’d actually consider that question to be irrelevent. The answer to that question in regards to the US Military has been settled, for the time being, by the 1st amendment to the constitution. Those who disagree with the 1st amendment should move to a theocracy.

    More relevent, I’d say, is the fact that a certain act commonly committed by gay men is extremely dangerous with regards to catching and spreading disease. However, that same act can also be performed by a straight man, on a woman, and it is no less dangerous in a health sense. I’d regard it as appropriate to have military regulations against that act, whether performed by gay men or straight men, in order to help prevent disease.

    ReplyReply
  19. George Wells says: 69

    @Ann Morgan:

    I am generally in agreement with your logic, but your “support” for a military regulation banning (what I assume you meant to be) anal intercourse – regardless of sexual orientation, is a bit alarming. By the time HIV infection becomes detectable, all evidence of its route of transmission is long gone. The only way to effectively enforce the regulation you suggest would be to monitor EVERYONE, ALL THE TIME, and of course that is impossible. Even a selective intrusion into some people’s bedrooms to monitor “activity” would be outrageous. And since there are no STDs that are transmitted exclusively by anal intercourse, that “activity” cannot be assumed by the diagnosis of an STD. There is no future in promulgating unenforceable regulations.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site