Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal-

Much ballyhoo over nothing.

I have paid little attention to "don't ask, don't tell." I dealt with that issue long ago. It was easy. Like all things the libertarian way.

Years ago, I hired an openly gay man. Not because he was gay, but because he was the best man for the job. The macho guys, and the homophobes, gave me a fair amount of ridicule. I think the funniest part was watching them walk by my office with their hands covering their backside. They thought that shit was funny and it was. Lefties might gasp here.

I had a feeling it would stop when he came on board. It did. He turned out to be an excellent cop, nobody was molested, and the world didn't stop turning. I never had one complaint about the guy. When public servants serve together a weird thing happens. Battles, in any theater, tend to have a unifying effect on people. The small shit gets forgotten quickly. He only stayed with us a year or two and he moved on to a more lucrative career as a stock broker. The people that ridiculed him on the front end, missed him when he left. I saw that personal growth first hand.

I think Obama got this right. From the libertarian perspective, letting people live their lives, was the only way to decide the issue. In fact, having been forced to deal with this issue long ago, is probably one of the reasons I became a libertarian. The "Christian" right will just have to let the creator make the final analysis. I'm ok with letting God handle that. I got too many other things to do. 


rawmuse said...

The character of homosexuals (just like heterosexuals) is not monochromatic. You have to judge the person. Sounds like that is what you did, Chief.

Anonymous said...

I'm just glad this DADT business is over with. I'm tired of it. I confident our military can deal with this issue without any help from politicians.

Wraith said...

Well, I guess we have to deal with gays serving openly now, but it could be least we don't have Blacks and Whites in integrated units!


Dedicated_Dad said...

Your analogy is specious.

The .mil is not "civil society" - not even close.

In civil society, nobody is forced into a position of intimacy with someone who may have a sexual interest in them. Nowhere else are quarters so cramped, so many people jammed into such small spaces, so much nudity, etc. Adding a homosexual element will be bad enough among peers, but when one considers the rank issue it becomes a very real problem - mostly for the straight majority.

If I were to suggest that women in the .mil be forced to shower/bunk with men, we'd all know why that was ridiculous. If I then claimed "discrimination" because I wasn't allowed to shower/bunk with women, you'd laugh - but it's not funny. This is EXACTLY what we're now doing to normal soldiers.

DADT didn't keep homosexuals from serving, nor "make them pretend" anything. There were (are) plenty of them serving, and for the most part all those around them know who they are. So long as it's not a problem, it's not a problem.

What DADT did was provide a method for dealing with the PROBLEM cases -- mostly those who couldn't keep their eyes or hands off of others.

Repealing DADT not only removes the method for dealing with these problems, it gives them the same status they now enjoy in "civilian" life -- that of "Officially Sanctioned Victim Group."

The .mil already has enough problems with its current list of OSVs, but there are ways around the rest of them. Not so with homosexuals.

This WILL have a serious effect on morale, discipline, enlistment and retention - and for no good purpose other than allowing a very vocal minority to "let their freak flag fly."

No way the end justifies the harm. No way.

I hope and pray I am wrong, but I doubt it.

Brian said...

I disagree. This is why.

First and foremost, I have several friends who are gay. They know who is and who isn't. They do not spend time hitting on heteros. I know of absolutely no cases where gays hit on others who were not so inclined...and having been rejected...they continue to advance.

The same standards exist up and down the corporate world, on football teams, in gym class, any workplace. Sexual harassment is serious stuff. It can get you canned, sued, or prosecuted. The military should be no different perhaps even harsher. There are legal remedies for this type of conduct.

They still hold blanket parties. In fact, I would fear more for gays. Not seeing the morale issue either. I do see the victimology piece.

Interestingly enough, among my military friends, and I have a few of them, all of them thought all of this was just so much BS and a waste of time. Gays did not suddenly appear overnight. They have always been a part of this fabric...right on back to Plymouth Rock. We've been dealing with the issue long before DADT which interesting enough, a strategy President Clinton devised and used with G. Flowers, M Lewinsky, and broadcast to a nation.

Have a feeling the Clintons' still practice the DADT theme in their personal lives.

Love to hear from some of the troops on this although the thread is a bit old. I appreciate your views DD...and respect that it's ok to disagree on the issue. Prob we meet somewhere in the middle.