| Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell vs. The Land of the Free |
| Trey's Spaz Attack |
| Written by Trey J. |
| Monday, 01 February 2010 08:00 |
|
This marks the 17th year that the American military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding homosexuals in the armed forces has been in effect. That’s a really long time for such a stupid rule. With the stigma of homosexuality long diminished in the eyes of the modern world, it’s time for the military to catch up.
While this has been military enlistment policy since 1993, I never gave it much thought until it was brought up by President Obama at his State of the Union address last week. “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are,” he said. It was just one sentence in his 90-minute speech (50 minutes of speaking and 40 minutes of applause, anyway), but it was met with thunderous applause from everyone in the chamber (seriously, elected officials should really show some fucking restraint). Well, all sides but the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the President’s military advisors. For some reason, they didn’t budge at this proclamation. Maybe they were showing typical military discipline. Or maybe they don’t want to change “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Maybe they want to continue discriminating based on sexual orientation in this day and age. Maybe homosexuals are still victims of the government just like black people and women once were. Maybe America is not the land of the free, just the land of the free unless you’re openly gay and want to serve in the military. For a country that sees itself as setting an example for the rest of the world, it’s doing a pretty shitty job in this category. There are still places in the world where homosexuality is punishable by death, you know.
I guaran-fucking-tee you that no one in that squad right now gives a shit and a nickel about his comrades’ sexuality. But the military does, and that’s the crazy part. The military needs to focus on keeping the country safe and its troops alive, not wasting its time and resources on the sexuality of its members. It’s an insult to both the country it serves and the people it employs that the military even cares about something so trivial. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” represses homosexuals who want to serve their country, plain and simple. It lets a male soldier ogle the women in Playboy, but not the men in Playgirl. It is a policy that lets someone married to a member of the opposite sex live on a military base, but forbids same sex marriage in the military entirely. For a military that always needs more troops, they’re doing a great job of limiting themselves with this discriminating policy.
Homosexuality is not contagious, and not all homosexuals are limp-wristed flamers. Allowing them in the military will not turn our soldiers into a bunch of pussies. The military still needs strong men and women, so they wouldn’t recruit a pussy whether he was gay or not. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is an insult to what the United States stands for. If we can have a black man in the White House, then we can have a gay man in the military.
|
Comments
Maybe because they just didn't care. I'm perfectly willing to entertain that as a possibility. If you look at it from their point of view, it really doesn't matter. The Joint Chiefs probably will never meet a soldier who could be affected by DADT. In fact, they don't meet much army in general. The guys having to deal with it directly are way below that.
Quote:
It hasn't been for quite some time, really. It could be, but it would require some work.
Quote:
Trust the bloody foreigner: It is doing a pretty shitty job of being an example in pretty much every category you could possibly come up with. But with a bit of work, all of that could be fixed.
Quote:
Like that has ever stopped someone from falling in love and/or having wild sex.
Quote:
For a military force that has a combined strength of just a bit over 2 Million people, 1273 discharges seem to be... puny. That's a grand total of 0.0621141 et cetera percent. The fun thing? Statistics like these prove that these measures and policies are little more than paper tigers.
In a military environment, you need teams to function cohesively as a unit. If there's a romantic relationship or any kind of sexual tension within a military unit, that cohesion is lost, the morale drops, and the unit ceases to be effective. That's the other primary reason that DADT was implemented. I see no problems with either.
I think you, and many others, are really too quick to assume that a minority (less than 7% or so of the general populace; enough to be completely inconsequential ) group is being unreasonably discriminated against (there's nothing wrong with discrimination unless it's unreasonable) and not taking into account any rational reason for why such a system has been implemented.
I'm not defending DADT; I understand there have been plenty of problems with it. But I also realize it was put in place to protect as many people as possible. It's good to see that, during the Bush administration, discharges from DADT dropped significantly, whereas under the Clinton administration which implemented it, they showed no signs of stopping.
Dom made several points that I would have made, so now I don't need to.
Dom: You're right. America is in the shitter in the eyes of the world these days, regardless of its own opinion of itself. That's why DADT bothers me; it's just further proof of how deluded the country has become about its place in the big scheme of thing.
Sully: You make an excellent point. DADT probably protects more people than I give it credit for. But if that's the case, then the problem lies with the soldiers and not the Joint Chiefs, and that's even worse. Like I said, a soldier shouldn't give a shit and a nickel about his comrade's sexuality. Homophobia shouldn't be a problem in the American military, whether from the Joint Chiefs in the White House or the soldiers on the ground.
Because no one would ever lie about something like that.
RSS feed for comments to this post.