« More on Arnold | Main | Hence the "Imaginary Center" »

April 08, 2005

The Gay Front

Pam and Shakespeare's Sister are right. Nothing shows how completely unprepared America is to fight a war better than our willingness to kick heroic homosexuals out of the service. Doesn't matter if they know Arabic, doesn't matter if they're the real-life manifestation of Rambo, doesn't matter if they shoot lasers from their eyes and make things explode through mental effort, if they prefer dudes to chicks the Army doesn't want them. And it doesn't need them at the exact same moment that it desperately needs more troops.

During Vietnam, the thirst for bodies superseded the country's casual bigotry and dudes in dresses were sent as surely as the conscripts who showed up in fatigues. We were fighting a war. Presently, we're forcing perfectly good, able, and willing fighters from advancing the national interest because they pursue a lifestyle that is in no way illegal. That point can't be overstated. Being gay is no less legal than being brown-eyed, or long-limbed. The Supreme Court, in fact, not only ratified the constitutionality of being gay, but of doing gay things. So neither homosexuality nor the sodomy that often comes with it is in any way contrary to the law. And yet, somehow, this wholly legal lifestyle is reason enough to be ejected from the Armed Forces.

Imagine that. The defenders of liberty, the toughest, strongest, most deadly-dangerous aspect of the world's superpower gets the vapors when gays ask to join. All these macho men, all these Navy SEALS, all these front-line defenders of freedom are, we're supposed to believe, rendered so queasy by the thought of dudes kissing that they could no longer protect the country. And the right accuses us of being unserious?

Actually, it goes far beyond seriousness. It hits straight at the heart of efficiency:

A recent congressional study on the impact of "don't ask, don't tell" said that hundreds of highly skilled troops, including many translators, have left the armed forces because of the rule, at a cost of nearly $200 million, mostly for recruiting and training replacements for 9,500 troops discharged between 1994 and 2003.

$200 million. So the soldiers tasked with defending our country will never be exposed to the danger of guy-on-guy action. You have got to be fucking kidding me.

April 8, 2005 in Terrorism | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d83457805a69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Gay Front:

» Gay in the Army? from Punning Pundit
Ezra Klein: The Gay Front Doesn't matter if they know Arabic, doesn't matter if they're the real-life manifestation of Rambo, doesn't matter if they shoot lasers from their eyes and make things explode through mental effort, if they prefer dudes... [Read More]

Tracked on Apr 8, 2005 7:02:34 PM

» Round the Reader Jungle Edition from ISOU
I am off to the Jungle again tomorrow so I will include all my weekend links in this post: The Commissar has a scary post about a new virus killing hundreds in Africa. Chris Short has a piece about an... [Read More]

Tracked on Apr 9, 2005 1:11:11 PM

» Round the Reader - Jungle Edition from ISOU
I am off to the Jungle again tomorrow so I will include all my weekend links in this post: The Commissar has a scary post about a new virus killing hundreds in Africa. Chris Short has a piece about an... [Read More]

Tracked on Apr 9, 2005 1:43:42 PM

Comments

If they are working with members of the Coalition of the, um, British, our military already serves on the battlefield along side out gays and lesbians.

It's even more galling that there is only even serious talk of lifting the "don't ask, don't tell" policy during this time of war. What part of a gay soldier's worth, bravery and sense of duty is diminished in peacetime?

Posted by: On Second Thought | Apr 8, 2005 3:49:35 PM

Yep, no gays because it damages 'unit cohesion'. Just ask Colon Powell!

/snark

Lets not get 'over-excited' though. There are LOTS of gays in the military services. If the medical corps of the various branches were stripped of gays/lesbians the 'withdrawal' from Iraq would have to start tomorrow. And not just in that speciality - but across the entire spectrum. But don't ask about that, and I won't tell.

Almost alone among the military forces of western countries, the mighty services of the US can't withstand the insidious influences of those gays/lesbians.

With the late Pope John Paul emphasizing that gays are 'intrinsicly disordered' and the theocons of the religious right 'whipping their members into a frenzy' while showing their 'naked' hated and fear of being 'penetrated', the US forces are being 'protected' (without condoms!).

/more snark

This particular gay man takes a different position on this issue: when the USA grants full equality under the law to gays and lesbians, then the US military will be good enough to accept the services of its gay and lesbian citizens.

And yes, I did serve the US in active military duty and have a 'honorable discharge' as well.

Long before 'don't ask, don't tell' there were gays/lesbians in the military forces. Few were asked, and few told.

And let me assure you that they didn't take a vow of chastity and observe it.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Apr 8, 2005 4:08:51 PM

I happen to agree that the 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' idea is stupid and that the idea that having gays in the military damages unit cohesion has been thoroughly debunked.

I do think though that the stressing that homosexual behavior is legal isn't horribly relevant though. I believe that the military code of conduct has all sorts of behaviors that though legal for civilians can get you discharged if you are a member of the Armed Forces. I also don't think that that is necessarily a bad thing.

Posted by: Dave Justus | Apr 8, 2005 4:27:13 PM

"Being gay is no less legal than being brown-eyed, or long-limbed."

...Or being flat-footed, nearsighted, or obese. But that's probably the point where the analogy breaks down.

Posted by: Grumpy | Apr 8, 2005 4:40:24 PM

Wasn't the Inspector General of the Revolutionary Army a gay Polish Count? George Washington didn't care.

Posted by: merlallen | Apr 8, 2005 4:54:19 PM

I can't wait to see how fast this would be required to change if they started a draft. Damn near every 19 year old in America would suddenly be openly gay.

And Grumpy, being gay doesn't prevent you from being able to do your duty. Nearsightedness, flat footedness, or obesity would. So yes, I'd say the analogy breaks down there.

Posted by: JoeF | Apr 8, 2005 6:04:49 PM

Yeah, I blogged on the same issue yesterday:

http://scorpio.typepad.com/eccentricity/2005/04/a_rock_and_a_ha.html

Posted by: Scorpio | Apr 8, 2005 6:06:42 PM

Thank you for the link, Ezra, and for addressing this issue.

Aside from the domestic (civil rights, national security, etc.) concerns, it also pisses me off because it makes America look like a backwards, bigoted joke. That the GOP can continue to assert that we're a leader in the world (not to mention the claims that we are a bastion of freedom), when we are clearly falling behind our allies on issues like gay rights, stem cell research, abortion rights, etc., is nothing less than ludicrous.

Posted by: Shakespeare's Sister | Apr 8, 2005 8:51:32 PM

Grumpy -- yes, but difference there is that they're physical infirmities which'd leave the soldier operationally incapable in certain situations. Homosexuality would only do the same if the soldier was trying to seduce a member of the opposite text. If the condition is legal, then you better have a damn good reason to bar those with it. Obesity -- sure. Homosexuality -- no.

Posted by: Ezra | Apr 8, 2005 9:00:57 PM

Here's a good perspective from a former soldier: http://me4president2008.blogspot.com/2005/04/dont-ask-dont-care.html

Posted by: John | Apr 8, 2005 10:59:35 PM

This somewhat bleeds back into your assertion that in the the American polity, the idea of the strict father is stronger than the idea of the nurturant parent.

Why is this so? More precisely, why is it the modern case that 'strength' is more acceptable than, say, 'analysis?'

Posted by: Ranty | Apr 8, 2005 11:09:51 PM

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘

托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘


托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

Posted by: peter.w | Sep 15, 2007 8:16:18 AM

Post a comment