Four Retired Generals wrote an editorial in the Post claiming that the U.S. Military should not overturn the ban on homosexuals in the military….from what I could read there’s two reasons for this that they put forth:
First, being out in combat necessitates situations where you are in close contact with your fellow soldiers. To be blunt, what the authors of this article believe is that, if you’re gay you might be tempted to kiss the dude you’re placed with in that tank when things get rough and you have to be in closer quarters.
What kinda douche do ya gotta be to believe that? I don’t know about you but I go on full “mrowr-hiatus” whenever I have bombs or missiles being shot at me. There’s a certain je ne sais quoi to grenades and knives in my ribcage that just kind of put me out of the mood. The smell of napalm might wake some jarheads up like coffee does for most people, but it definitely makes me go….well…flaccid. I imagine my only thought in a moment like that would be “run muhfuckah RUN!” not “damn that is one nice piece of camoflauged ass.”
But that’s clearly beside the point because the authors’ thesis essentially discounts any separation between sexual arousal and professionalism that ALL people, gay or straight, deal with every day at their jobs. If you’ve committed to getting shot at by foreign armies in the name of fighting for your country and the ideals that it stands for, then you’re probably not the kind of person who doesn’t know that as an adult we all have responsibilities and duties.
Second, the authors claim that a study done by the Military Times newspaper concluded that 10% of enlisted recruits would not rejoin the military and up to 14% would even consider terminating their careers after having finished their obligated tours of service.
What kind of methodology did this newspaper use? It just says “a study was conducted”……well I’ve got another study that was conducted, by me, and I’ve concluded that 94.6% of the writers of Military Times are douches.
Everyone knows that reporting errors can happen in newspaper administered studies for many reasons….were these surveys done on the phone, in public, with specially designed questions?
Again though, that’s not the point…..who cares if those 10% bounce from the military? Chances are they mostly made up of the new class of sub-par GED-recruits that the military has been forced to sign on because of unpopular wars (although to be fair…recent studies have shown military recruitment is up because of the weak economy…go figure). I think I would have to challenge their competence to even be holding the gun. If you cannot understand nuance, then maybe you’re not the person to send into a neighborhood to root out insurgencies.
The second you announce that our armed forces are open to all Americans, gay or straight, I bet you that we’d make up for a lot of that shortfall with people who have abstained from the armed forces in protest or out of fear.
The editorial also fails to emphasize the 71% percent of survey respondents who said they would continue serving and that the choice to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” wouldn’t affect them in any way.
Oh yeah….not to mention this:
“The Pentagon has discharged nearly 12,500 service members since the law was implemented in 1994, including 800 “mission critical” troops such as Arabic linguists, medics, pilots and intelligence analysts, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a nonprofit group dedicated to lifting the ban.” (my emphasis added).
It’s time to end the ban against gay Americans in the military.
Original Article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/14/AR2009041402704.html?referrer=emailarticle
Military Times Article: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/12/122908_military_poll_DADT/
About Army Lowering Recruitment Standards: http://www.slate.com/id/2133908/
People gave up a lot of things for lent. But seriously, you can’t un give up something. You know, God knows, and well, all those other people know (wink wink) - “You only [give it up] once!”
