HONORABLE MENTION: Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, leader of the Republicans' xenophobe lobby, addressed at the Tea Party convention by calling for the return of Jim Crow-era voting laws. And Teabaggers wonder why anyone could possibly see extremism in their "movement."
WINNER: Georgia Sen. Saxby Chamblis, as quoted by The New Yorker:
“the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts” would be likely to create an atmosphere susceptible to “alcohol use, adultery, fraternization, and body art.”
Except in a few states, gays can't get married so they can't commit adultery.
And if you banned alcohol and tattoos from the military, you wouldn't have much of a military left.
Showing posts with label gays in the military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gays in the military. Show all posts
Friday, February 05, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
The purpose of the military
So with the president promising in his State of the Union to end the Don't Ask Don't Tell fraud, the policy is not back in the headlines.
I hate to be blunt but this needs to be said.
The sole purpose of the military is (in theory at least) to defend national security.
Not social engineering. Not religiosity. Not about making people feel comfortable or accepted.
The military is being asked to do a lot of things supposedly to do with national security. If those things are as important as claimed, the military can not arbitrarily exclude able and capable people and still pursue that very complicated task. It does not need gay people. It does not need blacks. It does not need women. It needs human beings who can do a needed job and do it well. The rest doesn't matter.
The military does not exclude blacks and Hispanics and Asian-Americans just because their presence might make bigoted soldiers "uncomfortable."
It does not exclude women because it makes sexist soldiers "uncomfortable."
And it should not exclude gays because it might make homophobic soldiers "uncomfortable."
It may not be politically correct but it's the truth: all soldiers need to get over their personal preferences and biases and realize they are there to serve the greater good. Let's be serious. If a GI cried that he didn't want to go to Iraq because hot weather made him "uncomfortable," do you think the Army would cater to his whining?
If the bigots or anyone else want to let their personal biases preclude them from dealing with people they deem inferior, they should not join the military. Soldiering is a profession where dealing with people different than yourself and taking orders from them is an absolute requirement of the job. You know this going in. If you're too weak to handle it, find another job.
Update: Joint chiefs' chairman Adm. Mike Mullen explained to a Senate committee why he supports Don't Ask Don't Tell's repeal.
I hate to be blunt but this needs to be said.
The sole purpose of the military is (in theory at least) to defend national security.
Not social engineering. Not religiosity. Not about making people feel comfortable or accepted.
The military is being asked to do a lot of things supposedly to do with national security. If those things are as important as claimed, the military can not arbitrarily exclude able and capable people and still pursue that very complicated task. It does not need gay people. It does not need blacks. It does not need women. It needs human beings who can do a needed job and do it well. The rest doesn't matter.
The military does not exclude blacks and Hispanics and Asian-Americans just because their presence might make bigoted soldiers "uncomfortable."
It does not exclude women because it makes sexist soldiers "uncomfortable."
And it should not exclude gays because it might make homophobic soldiers "uncomfortable."
It may not be politically correct but it's the truth: all soldiers need to get over their personal preferences and biases and realize they are there to serve the greater good. Let's be serious. If a GI cried that he didn't want to go to Iraq because hot weather made him "uncomfortable," do you think the Army would cater to his whining?
If the bigots or anyone else want to let their personal biases preclude them from dealing with people they deem inferior, they should not join the military. Soldiering is a profession where dealing with people different than yourself and taking orders from them is an absolute requirement of the job. You know this going in. If you're too weak to handle it, find another job.
Update: Joint chiefs' chairman Adm. Mike Mullen explained to a Senate committee why he supports Don't Ask Don't Tell's repeal.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Being in the military is not about individual rights
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Apparently, the question of gays in the military is again a topic for discussion. The solution is a no brainer: sexual orientation should not be a factor in determining a serviceman's (or woman's) ability to do his job. "Don't ask, don't tell" is a fraud and a failure.
Being a soldier is not about the culture wars. It's about putting your own personal biases aside and work for the benefit of the nation and the unit. To exclude competent and talented soldiers just because their sexual orientation makes small-minded colleagues uncomfortable is not in the best interest of the collective good.
The military has a shortage of Arabic speakers but is expelling Arabic-speaking service personnel who happen to be gay. How this advances national interests is incomprehensible. It's not just that they should have the right to serve, to be judged solely on their competence, it's that we need them to serve.
Soldiers need to put aside their personal prejudices, be it against gays, blacks, Latinos, women, intellectuals, left-handers or whomever, and focus on the success of the mission. Soldiers may have the right to not like gays, but they shouldn't have the right to expel them. Dealing with unpleasant people and situations is an inherent part of the job. It's not a profession for pansies.
It boggles my mind that soldiers are expected to be mentally tough enough to face enemy snipers and IEDs trying to blow them to bits but are "uncomfortable" taking a shower near colleague who happens to be gay. These macho tough guy Heroes are single-handedly responsible for our freedom, so we're told, but are afraid of a few fairies? And the military's pandering to their bigotry at the expense of national security? Give me a break.
Can you imagine the military catering to a soldier who refused to serve in Iraq because he found the heat "uncomfortable"? The idea is ludicrous. Yet they ban talented soldiers to cater to the personal preferences of bigots.
If servicemen can't handle serving with talented comrades who happen to be gay, it's the homophobes who need to put aside their biases and adapt or quit.
Apparently, the question of gays in the military is again a topic for discussion. The solution is a no brainer: sexual orientation should not be a factor in determining a serviceman's (or woman's) ability to do his job. "Don't ask, don't tell" is a fraud and a failure.
Being a soldier is not about the culture wars. It's about putting your own personal biases aside and work for the benefit of the nation and the unit. To exclude competent and talented soldiers just because their sexual orientation makes small-minded colleagues uncomfortable is not in the best interest of the collective good.
The military has a shortage of Arabic speakers but is expelling Arabic-speaking service personnel who happen to be gay. How this advances national interests is incomprehensible. It's not just that they should have the right to serve, to be judged solely on their competence, it's that we need them to serve.
Soldiers need to put aside their personal prejudices, be it against gays, blacks, Latinos, women, intellectuals, left-handers or whomever, and focus on the success of the mission. Soldiers may have the right to not like gays, but they shouldn't have the right to expel them. Dealing with unpleasant people and situations is an inherent part of the job. It's not a profession for pansies.
It boggles my mind that soldiers are expected to be mentally tough enough to face enemy snipers and IEDs trying to blow them to bits but are "uncomfortable" taking a shower near colleague who happens to be gay. These macho tough guy Heroes are single-handedly responsible for our freedom, so we're told, but are afraid of a few fairies? And the military's pandering to their bigotry at the expense of national security? Give me a break.
Can you imagine the military catering to a soldier who refused to serve in Iraq because he found the heat "uncomfortable"? The idea is ludicrous. Yet they ban talented soldiers to cater to the personal preferences of bigots.
If servicemen can't handle serving with talented comrades who happen to be gay, it's the homophobes who need to put aside their biases and adapt or quit.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Shocker! Gays don't undermine military cohesion
In one of the less shocking stories to people with a bit of common sense, a new study reveals that the presence of openly gay members of the armed forces do not undermine unit cohesion.
One of the most common arguments against allowing gays in the military is that heterosexual soldiers who brave roadside bombs and snipers would be afraid to share a common shower with gay GIs.
However, the study, conducted by four high-ranking military officers, concluded that, "Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion."
It pointed to the presence of gays in the Israeli and British militaries, which have no effect on unit cohesion in those armed forces.
An officer interviewed for a 60 Minutes piece on the topic summed it up nicely.
Referring to a sergeant who told his entire chain of command of his sexual orientation, to the general disinterest of the brass, one officer explained: "[The sergeant] is in a critical field. He's a medic….his commander needs him. He's a known quantity….He goes above and beyond. Why do I want to lose [him]?"
The officers were pragmatic. They realized that in life and death sitautions, the most important thing about this soldier was his competence at his job, not the objects of his secret fantasies.
Eventually, the sergeant was fired for his sexual orientation. Hopefully this study will pave the way for common sense to prevail.
If American civilization is truly under threat by the supposed 'Evil doers,' then shouldn't we want to involve everyone possible in protecting it?
One of the most common arguments against allowing gays in the military is that heterosexual soldiers who brave roadside bombs and snipers would be afraid to share a common shower with gay GIs.
However, the study, conducted by four high-ranking military officers, concluded that, "Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion."
It pointed to the presence of gays in the Israeli and British militaries, which have no effect on unit cohesion in those armed forces.
An officer interviewed for a 60 Minutes piece on the topic summed it up nicely.
Referring to a sergeant who told his entire chain of command of his sexual orientation, to the general disinterest of the brass, one officer explained: "[The sergeant] is in a critical field. He's a medic….his commander needs him. He's a known quantity….He goes above and beyond. Why do I want to lose [him]?"
The officers were pragmatic. They realized that in life and death sitautions, the most important thing about this soldier was his competence at his job, not the objects of his secret fantasies.
Eventually, the sergeant was fired for his sexual orientation. Hopefully this study will pave the way for common sense to prevail.
If American civilization is truly under threat by the supposed 'Evil doers,' then shouldn't we want to involve everyone possible in protecting it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)