Saturday, February 13, 2010

Don't Ask, Do Tell?

Matt Kaufman over at had this quick post about Obama's recent desire to get rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

The other night President Obama renewed the call for Congress to repeal the military "don't ask, don't tell" policy on homosexuality. Which means it's also time to revisit why that's a bad idea.

The longstanding military ban on homosexuality has never been based mainly on the moral arguments over the issue. It's based on issues of troop cohesion and morale. The military cares less about whether homosexuality is bad per se than whether it's bad for the military.

If you know anything about military life, you know the answer. I don't want to get graphic here, but hey: You don't make soldiers share quarters -- and showers -- when sexuality of any sort is in play. Doing it with men and women would be a disaster. And throwing in homosexuality would just make matters that much worse. This is the reality of the situation, and military officials don't have the luxury of pretending otherwise even if they wanted to.

But then, the push to change the policy isn't really coming from inside the military. It's coming from gay activists on the outside. And it's hard to imagine that's because they believe the military needs gay soldiers. What's best for the military isn't their priority. Their priority is officially erasing all stigma from homosexuality and discrediting anyone who objects. If most soldiers don't like it, that's their problem; if they leave in droves, good riddance. (Presumably those who remain must be subjected to "diversity training" to purge them of un-progressive attitudes.)

Which tells us something about gay activists. It tells you that their cause overrides all other considerations, even national security. But politicians who indulge them ought to have higher priorities. Like keeping all of us safe.

---I think in these situations, it is important to be comfortable in these situations and I think Kaufman makes a good point with the consideration for taking showers and being in close quarters with folks who might find you sexually attractive. Obviously, just because you are gay doesn't mean you'll oggle everyone who has there clothes off.

But, just as I wouldn't want to be in the situation where women were showering next to me, I wouldn't want to be showering next to a gay man. I don't think that is unreasonable. Any thoughts?



Anonymous said...

Brim over I to but I think the post should secure more info then it has.

Cross Reference said...

Ditto my sentiments however, with the army finding itself in a man shortage [also increasingly short on Godly morals] only makes the way more easy for woman and gays to be excepted into it.

D.B. said...

Anon, I do think that many times, it is going to be difficult to say all there is to say, particularly about this hot button issue. (I know has some insightful articles on homosexuality and same-sex marriage)

Ken, I'm not aware we have such a shortage (though many folks have said they would leave if this policy is revoked).

One stat I heard was that homosexuals are only about 2% of the population (not the 10% that activists suggest), and most gays are not lining up to enlist, so I am not sure how many would be lost. We'll see, I guess.

Anonymous said...

Great blog you got here. It would be great to read a bit more about this matter. Thanks for giving that information.

Anonymous said...

It seems like D.B. makes anon comments on his own blog to add a faux reality to it. Like, you would ever be accepted into the military anyway.... you would be a section 8

D.B. said...

Ha. That would be funny, but I don't have the time for that. As far as your military comment, what does that mean?