Repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?

Despite the problems this social experiment will bring to our Armed Forces while we are at war, the issue for our country is much broader. Disguising it as a military service issue or a marriage issue only masks the basic question Americans must answer. Is homosexuality a normal behavior and should homosexuals therefore become a class protected by law?

Anyone who opposes repealing don’t ask, don’t tell is generally labeled a bigot (one who is intolerant of others and their views) by the moral relativists and supporters of open service by homosexuals. If I reject the behavior of a criminal who happens to be of a race different from mine, does that make me a bigot? Criminal behavior is abnormal and rejection of it does not make me a bigot. It is the behavior I reject not the person. If I reject homosexual behavior, it is the unnatural and abnormal sexual behavior that I reject, not the person. The same as I reject pedophilia and NAMBLA.

Military service is a piece of the issue, but only to the extent that it moves the society closer to accepting this behavior than would any other institution including marriage. Soldiers do not care who serves in the Armed Forces. What they care about is that the people who do serve alongside them are of good character, are competent and are willing to fulfill their duties without being a distraction or causing a distraction that could lead to mission failure and cost lives. Individual Soldiers probably do not care if homosexuals serve openly in the Armed Forces although it will create new and unnecessary problems and distractions for the leadership; like resolving the inevitable discrimination issues raised by the newest protected class, which they most assuredly will be. Military leaders have enough important matters on which to focus their attention. Adding another social engineering distraction atop those already in place will not help them or make them better at performing their primary leadership functions. But, repealing don’t ask, don’t tell is not about homosexuals openly serving in the Armed Forces just as homosexual marriage is not about marriage. It is about societal normalization of an abnormal and unnatural behavior – making acceptable a behavior that much of society views as unacceptable and even abhorrent. Military service, like marriage, is only a link advocates hope to add to the acceptance chain albeit a significant one – maybe the one.

Our country’s Armed Forces is one of our nation’s most trusted institutions. That means that the American citizenry is confident that the military will do what they are charged to do and do it professionally. Most Americans also perceive that don’t ask, don’t tell is a military policy instead of law passed by Congress to which the military must abide. Under the law, the military cannot ask (don’t ask) a Soldier or potential Soldier what their sexual orientation is. Also, once someone is a serving member of the military he or she cannot openly declare or practice (don’t tell) their homosexuality. The expectation is that like everyone else in society, except for maybe prostitutes and pornography stars, they are expected to keep their sex lives private.

I have listened to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense supporting open homosexual service. I do not support their positions, but we should expect the Chairman and Secretary who were appointed by to the President to support the President’s views. I have no reason to believe the views they express are dishonest. Men of integrity, as the Chairman proclaims to be, and of personal courage would not openly support a view with which they disagree. Would they?

Homosexuals openly serving in the military will kick the door wide open to societal acceptance of homosexual behavior as a norm. Homosexual partners will become military dependents, entitled to all of the benefits associated with being a military family member. Homosexual marriage will no longer be an issue. Repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell will make it a non issue. How could it be otherwise? One of our nation’s most trusted institutions does not do anything with half-steps. Using the same energy with which Equal Opportunity and Equal Rights laws and policies are supported and enforced (as they should be), the military will be the leader in bringing us Gay Culture and Gay History Month celebrations and gay affirmative action. There is no sarcasm in that statement. The military will lead the way toward making homosexual behavior normal and acceptable to the greater society and will be pointed toward as the example of how homosexuality should be accepted by everyone. The society, which holds its military in high esteem, will follow their lead.

Once homosexuality is normalized and accepted, what becomes of the arguments against other abnormal sexual behavior? What logical argument could you then make against any other sexual perversion?

The cornerstone of society is the family unit consisting of a male father, a female mother and their children. A society cannot logically accept homosexuality as normal and maintain that cornerstone.

So the question for Americans to resolve is not whether homosexuals may be allowed to openly serve in the Armed Forces or if they should be allowed to marry. The question to resolve is whether Americans want to accept homosexuality as a normal behavior and create from that acceptance another protected class.

© 2010

2 thoughts on “Repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?”

  1. As a veteran, it’s completely unthinkable that the homosexual policy would be overturned. Conditions in the military are different than in civilian employment. You’re forced into close quarters in the service. You’re forced into situations in combat or in an alert situation that make wondering about the mindset of your comrades unthinkable. The anti-American forces must be stopped.

  2. My first line of concern is the safety of those serving in the military – and as long as the DADT policy makes sense. Someone who feels that they have homosexual tendencies is informed that acting out those homosexual tendencies is contrary to good order and discipline and would be cause for discharge. (Most people can control their sexual urges – such as those who choose to wait until married …so it is not outside the realm of reasonableness that someone who felt that they were “made homosexual” could refrain from engaging in the act – and could serve in the military without violating any rules. BUT once the person engages in homosexual conduct, the person becomes more likely to become at risk for various diseases.

    I recently gave blood – and there were multiple checks/rechecks in the donation questionaire that conveyed the concept that if I had ever had sex with another male, I was precluded from donating blood. These checks are designed to protect the population; in the 1980’s, there were a number of people who got AIDS from donated blood, and this drove the blood banks to put into place the myriad of screening questions and to test all donated blood for AIDS and other life-threatening diseases. (But tests might not detect the viruses if the infection was recent, and therefore the donated blood could still give a recipient AIDS …hence the need for honesty on the questionaire – and the importance of not using donated blood from homosexual males.)

    I would suggest that anyone proposing the inclusion of homosexual males into the military be asked if they would mind receiving donated blood where homosexuals were allowed and encouraged to donate blood. If the person declined – and if they would not want their wife or child to receive possibly tainted blood – I would state that “CASE MADE”. (And BTW – STFU!).

    The military goes into harms way. Military personnel often end up where blood is splattered, and the guy next to you might end up giving you first aid, or you might be giving him first aid …and there is zero time to “gown up”, get on gloves, get on protective glasses, etc. The buddy system, relying on each other to provide emergency care is also predicated on the assumption that rendering aid won’t give AIDS!

    Also, I heard about a Culinary Specialist (food worker) at a Naval Base who was found to have Hepatitus….which he got by homosexual acts. There was a need to screen hundreds of sailors who ate at that galley. We don’t want people who handle our food to have serious diseases which could become life-threatening to others ….and it can take weeks or months from performing an unsafe act until the disease is detectable – yet the person might be able to infect others with that disease! Why add to the risk?

Comments are closed.