Wednesday, February 3, 2010

GAY SOLDIERS

Trying to get to sleep last night, I turned on CSPAN, the reliable electronic sedative, there to stumble upon Senator Carl Levin and his minions of the Senate Armed Services Committee grilling the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and other military mucky-mucks on the titilating subject of gays in the military.

Triggered by President Obama's State of the Union call for the abolition of the so-called "Don't Ask. Don't Tell" policy, the Senators waxed poetic about gay rights, gay patriotism and gay heroism on the battlefield.

Got me to thinking.

The third edition of Roget's Thesaurus, published in 1995, calls the word "gay" an adjective and provides four classifications of synonyms:
1) jolly, jovial, merry
2) bright, colorful
3) homosexual, oriented toward one's own sex
4) licentious, dissapated, wanton

Since 1995, our dynamic English language has invented a noun, "gay," which generally means a homosexual or homophile, but carries the additional connotation of openness.

The distinction between the adjective and the noun is critical to the political issue, although none of the distinguished talking heads on CSPAN seemed aware of it.

If one is gay (adjective) he or she is oriented toward his or her own sex, but if one is a gay (noun) he or she is not only homosexual, he or she is out of the closet, overt, known, and acknowledged to be oriented toward his or her own sex.

The present "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy allows gay people to serve in the armed forces, and the witnesses testified that there are many such persons currently serving quite honorably in all the branches of our armed forces.

But that policy is not enough for today's aggressive homosexual community and their political compatriots. They want their fellow soldiers and sailors to know that they are oriented toward persons of their own sex.

Why?

Why in the name of all that is fair, decent and honorable would any man or woman want his or her fellow service men and women to know that he or she has a disposition toward felatio or buggery?

Do they really intend, by demanding abolition of "Don't Ask" to empower or even require the military services to inquire into every recruit's sexual orientation, and label or classify them accordingly?

Do they really intend, by demanding abolition of "Don't Tell" to require every recruit to disclose his or her innermost, personal, sexual feelings and urges?

I would be quite surprised if the introduction of females into the ranks of foot soldiers has meant that male and female troops now bivouwac together, shower together, or deficate in community facilities.

Military discipline often trumps the right of privacy, but there are some core personal matters that touch upon basic human dignity. Sex is one of them.

Do Senator Levin and his votaries contemplate constructing of a third and a fourth latrine on every army base and naval station?

Or do they intend to indoctrinate every recruit with the willingness to strip down in the presence of colleagues who openly view them as objects of sexual arousal?

If so, I would be one American who would not want to see his son or grandson among the few, the proud and the brave.

10 comments:

  1. So you were up at 3:42 a.m. blogging about falatio, buggary, and all things "gay"? This is ony possible if you are emotionally involved in the issue yourself. Nobody cares so deeply about an issue that does not affect him personally.

    You have unwittingly betrayed yourself. Is it YOU who struggles with his own repressed homosexuality? Or is it someone you pretent to love but loathe because you have corrupted your mind with religion? It is one or the other, and you are a liar if you deny it.

    Your pornographic musings are the product of a sick mind. Not because any act you describe is sick, but because your obsession with the sex lives of others is sick.

    Your writing is clever in a sophomoric way. But as my mother always cautioned me, "the devil has a sharp tongue."

    May you experience in the next life the pain you have caused others in this one.

    ReplyDelete
  2. From an old soldier,
    Recently, I was asked how I felt about gays in the military. Having spent 28 years in service to our country I immediately responded that I was comfortable with the don’t ask don’t tell policy.
    However, after a few minutes of reflection, I added that I would prefer that gays not be allowed to serve. In a line of work where your life can depend on the judgment and character of your foxhole buddy, you should not need to worry about the judgment and character of your buddy.
    Quite simply, I believe that a gay orientation is evidence of a character flaw and poor judgment. Sitting in my fox hole, I have more important things to worry about than the character of my buddy.
    When I decided to comment on the oldjudgesays blog, I had only intended to ask why he had identified the senior military officers testifying to the committee as “military mucky-mucks”. I am sure the oldjudge can pull out a benign definition of a mucky-muck, but the truth is, that in practice, the term is used to convey a negative connotation. My hunch is that this was exactly what the oldjudge had intended. Again, having been a senior military officer, I was taken aback by and quite dismayed by this generalization from oldjudgesays.
    Now that I have said what I came here to say, boy was I surprised when I read the stinging reply from ReasonVsEvil. Goodness – I did not see much reason in this diatribe from ReasonVsEvil. Perhaps ReasonVsEvil should change his or her name to Evil-in-bed-with-Evil.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Any discussion of gays seems to attract vitriolic commentary. I asked serious questions: Does anyone, gay or nay, want the army to ask recruits about their sexual orientation? Does anyone favor requiring every recruit to disclose their sexual orientation?

    Instead of a serious answer, I get a personal diatribe.

    Too bad. Rational dialog sometimes helps solve problems.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your questions are farcical. No one is asking anyone if they are gay or not. Do you understand what don't ask, don't tell meant? It meant if anyone found out you were gay they could fire you from your military job. Even if you didn't do the telling.
      Now that is not the case. People can find out you are gay, you can tell people you are gay, and you can't be fired for that.
      The repeal does NOT mean that people are going to go around asking if soldiers are gay.

      Delete
  4. I think it is great that all you old guys who fear and reject homosexuality and homosexuals will be dead soon. Unless we invent some life extending medical treatments I figure a guy your age has, at best, 10 years or so of life left.
    You are the reason gay people were beaten if they were out, and treated as outcasts if they were found out.
    You are the reason that gay couples can't get the same benefits and legal protections for their families as straight couples.
    You are the reason gays in the military USED to fear for their jobs if they were found out.
    You are the reason for gay self-loathing.
    But when you die you will leave behind a world that rejects your intolerance, rejects your fear, and rejects your hatred. You will leave behind a world where gay men and women don't even think about "coming out", as their sexual orientation will be just as accepted as heterosexuality.
    When I am old that is a world I will be happy to die in.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think it is great that all you old guys who fear and reject homosexuality and homosexuals will be dead soon. Unless we invent some life extending medical treatments I figure a guy your age has, at best, 10 years or so of life left.
    You are the reason gay people were beaten if they were out, and treated as outcasts if they were found out.
    You are the reason that gay couples can't get the same benefits and legal protections for their families as straight couples.
    You are the reason gays in the military USED to fear for their jobs if they were found out.
    You are the reason for gay self-loathing.
    But when you die you will leave behind a world that rejects your intolerance, rejects your fear, and rejects your hatred. You will leave behind a world where gay men and women don't even think about "coming out", as their sexual orientation will be just as accepted as heterosexuality.
    When I am old that is a world I will be happy to die in.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mr. Brennan, I can not believe you actually believe this false dichotomy you espouse. Repealing the DADT simply means people don't have to keep their personal lives secret.

    Surprised as you may be, yes even enlisted people talk about their private lives when not shooting guns. It's what normal people do all the time. No service of any kind would have to ask any new question about anyone's sexuality anymore than they would have to ask one of their employees what their favourite colour is, unless the armed services are interested in employees colour choices, or what they do in the bedroom.

    That this non-thought-out line of "no reasoning" is trounced out all the time is poor reflection on one's intellect, or lack thereof. Are seriously asking people to try to think around this non-argument? Come on!!

    And OldBuggeredSolider, just shut your trap. People of all kinds make up a society--character flaws and all. These same people are enlisted, save and take lives, and work in all lines of society. Being gay isn't a character flaw, judging someone for who they love is.

    And to the both of you, now that this has been repealed, these arguments are moot and the world is still turning. Happy now?! (Probably not, good thing your opinions are moot too.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mr. Brennan, I can not believe you actually believe this false dichotomy you espouse. Repealing the DADT simply means people don't have to keep their personal lives secret.

    Surprised as you may be, yes even enlisted people talk about their private lives when not shooting guns. It's what normal people do all the time. No service of any kind would have to ask any new question about anyone's sexuality anymore than they would have to ask one of their employees what their favourite colour is, unless the armed services are interested in employees colour choices, or what they do in the bedroom.

    That this non-thought-out line of "no reasoning" is trounced out all the time is poor reflection on one's intellect, or lack thereof. Are seriously asking people to try to think around this non-argument? Come on!!

    And OldBuggeredSolider, just shut your trap. People of all kinds make up a society--character flaws and all. These same people are enlisted, save and take lives, and work in all lines of society. Being gay isn't a character flaw, judging someone for who they love is.

    And to the both of you, now that this has been repealed, these arguments are moot and the world is still turning. Happy now?! (Probably not, good thing your opinions are moot too.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Old Soldier will no doubt recall the days when recruiting officers did 'ask.' Homosexuals were not welcome in the military service, and the pre-induction physical examination included an assessment of abnormalities in sexual behavior or disposition.

    Servicemen who engaged in homosexual behavior were typically given a 'section eight' discharge and separated from the military.

    "Don't ask, don't tell" was regarded as a liberalization of the policy. No longer did recruiters inquire about sexuality. So there was no prior screening. Still, the policy remained in place that homosexuals were not regarded as fit for military duty.

    Mash's Maxwell Klinger, played by Jamie Farr was always trying to get himself a psychological discharge under section eight.

    Abolishing "Don't Ask Don't Tell" did not return the military to its prior policy. On the contrary, it involved a further liberalization in that it prohibited the military from discharging known homosexuals under section eight.

    Which suggests the further question as to whether the military still discharges people for homosexual behavior, as opposed to merely acknowledging disposition or status.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One would assume that it depends on what the nature of that behavior is. If it's in the workplace, I would assume workplace rules and discipline would apply, just in the context of the military. If two platoon buddies want to fool around on the military's time, then they should be disciplined for it just as we would expect if the intercourse were heterosexual. Ironically, more openness about orientation will probably lead to LESS homosexual intercourse because once it's normalized, people are more likely to follow rules of common decency. Your bunkmate has more room to protest bringing your boyfriend over if the argument is over the appropriateness of the time and place and has nothing to with approval of behavior overall and he knows you won't be discharged for being gay but instead for being an idiot.

      Delete