Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together...

Well, "don't ask, don't tell" has been repealed and all those doomsayers that thought that those "damn queers" had no place in the military have been proven correct. As most of you know the ban on homosexuals in the US military was lifted as of the twentieth of September. I hope somehow, our country can survive our naive mistaken belief that homosexuals were just people like everyone else.

Since our fateful mistake, homosexuality in the military has risen an alarming five billion percent. This is largely attributable to the "gay radiation" that openly homosexual people are known to emit. There has been an alarming rise in the sale of pink camo fatigues due to now openly gay soldiers refusing to wear regular fatigues because "They are so last year. I mean, heloooo!". During combat there has been a significant rise in soldiers refusing to to fire on the more attractive members of the enemy. One soldier was quoted as saying: "I am sorry sir but I cannot fire on that man. He is gorgeous!" There has also been a dramatic rise in both turtle fucking and drive by makeovers the gay rays seep into the surrounding populous.

Despite all this, homosexuality between attractive females is still considered "hot".

Hey, wait a minute. None of that happened at all, except for maybe the lesbianism thing. Huh, go figure.

Some people have predicted that there will be a backlash against openly homosexual solders. In this I have to agree with them. I think there will be a lot of homosexual soldiers being on the receiving end of beatings. I imagine there will be an increase in the number of "friendly fire" instances. And I am almost sure we will see a good many deserving folks passed over for promotion for no apparent reason.

Despite all this, I still think lifting the band was the right thing to do. Change is difficult and there is always a price to be paid. When the change is of something that has been around for a very very long time, the price is even higher. Despite the initial cost of this particular change, I think this will, in time, make our military and country itself stronger. The people who say that the cost is too high and should not happen because of the danger to others need only set their wayback machines to when the armed forces were first integrated and the hardships involved in that. Was the cost too high then? Some people say that yes, the cost was too high and it never should have happened. Those people should not breed.

There has been some whining by Christians chaplain that now they will not be able to do their jobs as they will now have to censor themselves. Why? Because Christianity says that homosexuality is wrong? As a religion, chaplains will still be able to spout off their bigoted rhetoric as they have before. Organized religion has never had much of a problem getting across a message of intolerance.

There will be a great many growing pains but, in the end (insert joke here) history will prove that it was the right thing to do... as long as we watch out for those "gay rays"



Rant over... For now

In the Army Now...

The other day I was having a discussion with a few friends. Stop laughing, I have friends! The topic of discussion was gays in the military. Two of these individuals were former military themselves. One of them said that while he would have no problems serving in an open military there were certain positions that he would have a problem having homosexuals serve in. I asked him to elaborate and he mentioned a "flamer" in a command position. In this point I agreed with him but that was more a case of a personality ill-suited to a particular job. A flamer would indeed, in my estimation, be a poor choice for command but not all gays set off sprinkler systems. Personality is a different issue entirely than who one finds physically attractive.

A point brought up was by another gentleman was the practical concern of the hetero soldier on the ground's reaction to an openly gay soldier. He said that there would many possible instances of personal backlash against the gay soldier up to and including instances of "friendly fire". While I acknowledge that in many instances that could very well be the case, is that a reason to keep gays out of the military? There are many bigots in every part of society. Many people would like nothing more that to see their own personal prejudices reinforced by official policy. Is the fact that a bigoted individual will behave in a violent way when confronted with the object of his bigotry a good reason to condone the behavior? I submit to you that it is not. There was negative and often violent reaction to the integration of black soldiers into the military. Does that mean it should never have happened? Radical changes made to any social system are always messy and often bloody. That does not mean it should happen. There are military statutes that protect military personnel from being attacked by one another just like there is in the civilian world. A soldier attacking a soldier, in most cases, is a crime and is punished as one. The point was made that these statutes would be "selectively" enforced. I can not argue with that. How many black soldiers were brutally attacked with impunity during integration? Does that mean it shouldn't have happen? Sadly, a great deal of the "old guard" had to "die out" for the change to take root. And the same would most likely have to take place in this instance.

I am not now nor have I ever been in the military. This is a fact that is usually used by current and former members of the military to discount my opinion as being completely invalid. This is arrogance on a rather impressive level and is completely ridiculous. It would be on par with my pointing out that I am a writer and since someone else isn't his or her opinions on literature are completely invalid. This would be viewed, quite correctly, as a ridiculous idea. It is quite possible for a non-writer to studies literature and the various aspects of its creation and possess well thought out and valid opinions on the subject. Guess what, the same thing is true for the military and any other subject. We all have minds that allow us to logically form opinions on any subject. The out of hand rejection of another point of view simply because it comes from a different set of experiences than yours is false logic at best. Sometime a fresh pair of eyes can be a very helpful thing.

Another excellent point that was made was that was made was that when one enlists in the military they sign a contract that includes the wording banning homosexuality and so breaking the contract by declaring one's homosexuality they should rightly be incarcerated for this breach. I would agree with this statement if it were not federal law that a contract that requires one to commit an illegal act is non-binding. The sanctioned discrimination against a citizen of the United States clearly violates the fourteenth amendment and is, therefore, illegal. Don't forget, military personnel also pledge to defend the constitution. There is a reason "I was just following orders" is not a valid defense. If you signed a contract with me to kill my wife and then did not fulfill the contract, I could not then sue you for breech of contract. Despite the ridiculousness of that example, the principle holds true.

The practical result of all this is, as correctly pointed out by the gentleman, is that one would find themselves sitting in federal prison until the supreme court agree to hear the case. Given the stacked deck that is our current Supreme Court and our government's love affair with ignoring civil rights and locking people away without even the pretense of due process, the prospects of policy being changed in this way are dim indeed.

When you strip away pandering to the bigotry of others, I still have yet to hear even one logical reason why homosexuals are unfit for military service.



Rant Over...for now