Washington Times: SF wary of DADT repeal
The Washington Times has an article this morning which declares “Special forces wary of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal” in which they interview several military members about their reaction to the repeal of the DADT policy. This statement is probably the prevalent view;
“If an open gay does his job, I think he’ll be accepted,” said retired Rear Adm. George R. Worthington, a former Navy SEAL. At retirement in 1992, Adm. Worthington commanded the Naval Special Warfare Command, the unit that mints new SEALs in a demanding qualification process.
“I don’t think there is going to be that many of them that want to sign up for SEALs anyway because of the closeness and the tightness of the training,” Adm. Worthington said.
“My opinion is that they’re probably more clerical oriented. Medical profession. Corpsmen. Stuff like that.”
Yeah, that’s the kind of stuff the gay community is looking for – something that makes them seem different from straight folks, which is true, but they don’t want anyone saying it outloud.
One Special Operations soldier echoed my concerns;
The first Green Beret commando said the military does not even know how many gays are in the active force, making it difficult to target education programs. “So is it worth the strains, is it worth the cost, especially at a period in time when combat soldiers are indeed stressed and the economy is in bad shape?” the officer said.
“My rhetorical question is, ‘Why couldn’t we have waited until a period of relative peace to implement these changes? That’s what we did with racial integration; that’s what we did to go to an all-volunteer force.”
The only reason DADT became such a huge issue this year was because of the political climate, it had nothing to do with readiness or national security, no matter how much Vote Vets said otherwise.
The Times included TSO’s and Blackfive’s favorite quote from the Defense Department’s survey;
“Anecdotally, we heard much the same. As one special-operations force warfighter told us, ‘We have a gay guy [in the unit]. He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay.’ “
I agree that if gays who join the military confine themselves to their mission, they’ll probably do fine, but if they step outside those confines and try to become culture warriors, like Dan Choi or Autumn Sandeen, they won’t be accepted and this will end as a costly experiment.
Category: Military issues
The impetus for this was wrong, the reasons were wrong, and the timing was wrong. Be that as it may, I highly doubt the more “precious” types will like up for SF. I mean Manning, is bitching about itchy blankets, so really how many do you figure. . .
I do take exception that they’ll be medical.
When I first read the headline, I thought it meant that San Francisco was wary of DADT repeal. Now that had me really confused.
Anyway, this whole repeal was a shitshow. But this genie can’t be put back in the bottle. It’s over. That’s all she wrote.
Too many people seemed to be afraid of the pissant homosexuals. Which is really funny, because that’s the literal meaning of homophobic–to be afraid of homosexuals. People call me that whenever the conversation turns to DADT or marriage or the “queering” of our schools. I’m “homophobic”.
I just laugh because I know I’m not. In fact, I might be the last person I know who ISN’T afraid of them! Everyone else cowers before them, bowing and scraping and giving them whatever they want.
Ben, just for the sake of argument, how does recognizing certain inequalities and addressing them equate to “Everyone else cowers before them, bowing and scraping and giving them whatever they want.”
And a second question, how exactly do you define homophobic?
Understand that I do really wish this whole non-issue had been shelved till there was something of a lull in deployments and our responsibilities around the globe, but aside from that I don’t see how fear plays a part in this. The ramming of the repeal down the military’s throat (please pardon the unintended visuals) was not driven by fear, but by political gamesmanship on the part of liberals making the most out of their current political currency.
Speaking of military cuts and the economy…. I saw in the Army times that one of the things the group that did recommendations for how to handle the repeal came up with was giving everyone housing benefits(and health) including committed same-sex and hetero couples. They don’t have to be married. So they are talking about cutting the military, but something like this is feasible. At least Gates said he was against this recommendation….. for now.
When I first read the headline, I thought it meant that San Francisco was wary of DADT repeal. Now that had me really confused. ========== That’s what I thought when reading the headline as well. I thought this was going to be an article about how the SanFran homosexual community activsts were now going to be sad, because they couldn’t hide their hatred and protesting of the military behind DADT. Too many people seemed to be afraid of the pissant homosexuals. Which is really funny, because that’s the literal meaning of homophobic–to be afraid of homosexuals. People call me that whenever the conversation turns to DADT or marriage or the “queering” of our schools. I’m “homophobic”. ========== Actually, I think “homophobic” literally means “to have an irrational fear of homosexuals”. I don’t know anyone who has an irrational fear of them. In fact, I don’t know anyone who fears homosexuals at all. “Homophobic” is thrown around by LGBT-agenda supporters as a negative term towards anyone who disagrees with the LGBT agenda. They use it like liberals throw around the “racist” accusation. To shut down rational debate of the issues. Someone brings up a valid concern about an issue regarding the Black/Hispanic/Mexican/etc community? No need to actually address it, just shout “RACIST!!!” Someone brings up a valid concern about an issue regarding the LGBT agenda? No need to actually address it, just shout “Homophobe!!!” The only thing close to a “fear” some have regarding the LGBTs is the overall agenda. With regards to repeal of DADT, some people had a very rational concern/fear that this was a stepping stone the LGBT activists would use in order to further their agenda to repeal DOMA and redefine marriage. Others had a very rational concern/fear that LGBTs would be treated as a protected class within the military now. And, reading the comments of military leaders and LGBT activist groups during the DADT repeal discussion and after the repeal, it seems pretty obvious that these concerns/fears were spot-on. The fact is that many activist LGBTs are bigots. And many who support the LGBT agenda —… Read more »
…giving everyone housing benefits (and health) including committed same-sex and hetero couples.
==========
Oh, that will work out really well. If I were in the military, and that was the policy, I’d just ask a good single female friend to say she was my girlfriend and then we’d get special housing and benefits and all the rest. I’m sure many others would do the same. How is the military going to prove whether people are actually in a committed relationship, if they’re not married?
Hell, with people making their own definition nowadays for what is a marriage — ie having ‘open’ marriages, etc — we could even get away with having actual boyfriends and girlfriends even after we declare to the military that we are in a committed relationship. If they catch us actually dating someone else, we can just say “we have an open relationship”.
Yeah, this is setup for disaster.
“I don’t know anyone who has an irrational fear of them. In fact, I don’t know anyone who fears homosexuals at all. “Homophobic” is thrown around by LGBT-agenda supporters as a negative term towards anyone who disagrees with the LGBT agenda. They use it like liberals throw around the “racist” accusation.”
“The only thing close to a “fear” some have regarding the LGBTs is the overall agenda.”
********************************************************
Some how I doubt you know of no one with a fear of homosexuals, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. I know a couple of people in my personal life that have an irrational fear of them, and while I never had any who did in any of my units, I still met plenty of people in the service who definitely had an irrational fear of them. The two biggest fears I seemed to come across are the idiotic notion that homosexuals are sexual predators that are waiting for an opportunity to physically rape someone, or that homosexuality is synonymous with pedophilia. Add to that the couple of times I’ve actually heard people state they think it could be contagious.
Just so we’re on the same page, if you ever see me use the term homophobic, it has nothing to do with support of the LGBT community and everything to do with my describing my personal perception of someone’s exhibited neurosis.
“Yeah, this is setup for disaster.”
I wouldn’t lose any sleep over this, I don’t ever see it happening.
Some how I doubt you know of no one with a fear of homosexuals, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. ========== Well, I’m sure I might know some people who don’t like/agree with homosexuality and may extend that to not liking homosexuals in general. But if that’s the case, they’ve never told me about it. I only talk politics with a very small group of people in my social/work circle. But I have a small group of friends and coworkers/friends as I don’t have much of a social life beyond playing with my 2 walleyball and 2 softball groups. Beyond that, I believe most people feel about homosexuals/homosexuality as they do about any “alternative lifestyle”. Personally, I don’t approve of my friends or family members who sleep around. I don’t “fear” them, I just don’t approve of their lifestyle. And I choose not to hang out with them socially beyond work or our sports teams, and I choose not to go to them for advice on anything to do with relationships. But, my disapproval of them does not mean I “fear” them. Similarly, just because someone disapproves, for whatever reason, of homosexuality or the homosexual community lifestyle does not mean they “fear” homosexuals. I also would not consider someone who is uncomfortable around homosexuals to have a “fear” of them. Personally, I’m uncomfortable when I am in a group of people who don’t share my views on things, whether social views or political views or religious views, etc. I’d feel uncomfortable being the only Christian in a group of Muslims. I’d feel uncomfortable in a group of partying drunk people in a bar where I’m the only one who doesn’t get drunk. I’d feel uncomfortable in a group of liberals where I am the only conservative. Does that mean I “fear” them? No, it just means I feel a little uncomfortable around people who don’t share my views. But I’ve been in these situations before (though not with Muslims, but with Baptists, when I was Catholic), because most of the people in the groups were my friends… Read more »
I wouldn’t lose any sleep over this, I don’t ever see it happening.
==========
Heh, you’ll have to forgive me if I ignore this. Go back to 2003 after Lawrence v Texas and people warned that the decision would lead to repeal of DADT, push for repeal of DOMA and redefinition of marriage, push for LGBTs to go into schools to teach that homosexuality was the same as heterosexuality, etc. The LGBTs told us the same thing: “Oh your paranoid slippery slope nonsense… Stop it. That won’t happen.”
And here we are, 7 years later…
I still met plenty of people in the service who definitely had an irrational fear of them.
Well, I’ll give you this… I bet the percentage of non-homosexuals who are “homophobes” is the same as the percentage of homosexuals who are “heterophobes”. I’ve met more homosexuals who consider anyone who is against the LGBT political agenda to be “homophobes” and “H8ters” than I have met anyone who has any fear of homosexuals. Those in my conservative political circle are against the LGBT political agenda, but don’t have a problem with homosexuals in general. Their “fear” is of the political agenda, not of homosexuals. If they fear anyone, it’s the activists.
So, yeah, I’ll grant you that there are probably people out there who have an actual phobia of homosexuals/homosexuality. But the term among political activists and those who support the agenda is not being used in that manner. They use it in the same manner that one is called a “racist” for opposing Affirmative Action or unending unemployment handouts.
#10
Had you asked me back in 2003 whether or not DADT was going to be repealed I would have replied it was destined to fail as a policy the day it was written. Common sense said it wouldn’t succeed long term, and my common sense tells me we’ll never convince politicians or the electorate to pay for a housing policy such as is described above.
Who knows, I’ve been wrong before, I’m sure it’ll happen again. 😀
Can I get that etched in stone, signed, and notarized, please?
Sure, I’m pretty handy with a chisel, send me an address, lol.
example of irrational fear: heterosexuals who were uncomfortable living/showering/sh!tt!ng with homosexuals, even though we already separate women and men based on ’sexual orientation’.
Why is this irrational? because gay service members are already there, living/showering/sh!tt!ng with straight people. The example isn’t based in reality and attempts to make it sound like gay people in the shower would be new instead of more of the same (not at all like adding women to mens showers- that would be a complete change). It shows a fear of gay people in the shower which is irrational because they are already there.
We don’t separate showers by sexual orientation. Mike just thinks that because he assumes every guy in the shower is straight. In reality we separate by sex. In grade school, in gyms and in the military.
@The Italian- 911 Heathen Ave. Hell, TX (but I repeat myself). I’ll trade you the slate for the Tullamore/Talisker Scotch-Irish car bomb cupcakes. Shipping is on you. 🙂
And pray tell, why would anyone have a fear of homosexuals, as opposed to a disagreement with same?
Also, J, are not individuals segregated by gender due to the propensity towards distraction based on attraction? As such, would the same not hold true and be applicable to homosexuals housed with the same gender?
@ J You stated that we are separated by sex or gender, but gay advocates claim in cases like the Prop 8 case that their gender differs from their heterosexual counterparts -thus it is gender discrimination. They say that a homosexual male is in essence a different gender than a heterosexual male. This is important to the equal protection case and gender discrimination, because as it stands male/female are treated equal under the law. So if they cannot have it both ways. Are they in fact different or the same? They can’t see to make up their mind. It seems to be whatever is convenient to make their case.
It shows a fear of gay people in the shower which is irrational because they are already there. We don’t separate showers by sexual orientation. Mike just thinks that because he assumes every guy in the shower is straight.
==========
I don’t assume that. The military prior to DADT repeal assumed that. The whole idea of DADT was to assume that all males were heterosexual and all females were heterosexual, because it made things easier. Now that we have repealed DADT, and homosexuals are serving openly, that assumption is gone and now we have different ‘sexual orientations’ of the same genders showering/living/sh!tt!ng together.
And there is a big difference between showering with open homosexuals and DADT-restricted homosexuals. It would be akin to having a peephole in the women’s showers for men to look in that women did not know was there. But then they find out about it and are paranoid about men looking at them throught the peephole. You could easily say it is irrational for women to fear men peering at them in the peephole, because it has been there all along and men were looking at them all along and they got along fine when they didn’t know about it, so nothing changes now that they do know about it.
But obviously, it does change things when you know about your surroundings. Women will definitely feel more uncomfortable knowing the peephole is there now. Just like men and women will feel more uncomfortable now that they know they are showering with homosexuals. To say that it is “irrational” or “fear” is ridiculous. It is natural to feel uncomfortable when you are aware of your surroundings.
Mike, both of the following statements are false:
“now we have different ’sexual orientations’ of the same genders showering/living/sh!tt!ng together”
“Now that we have repealed DADT, and homosexuals are serving openly”
It’s not “now”, it always has been. did DADT create a fairytale land where gays only are ok in the shower with you as long as you don’t know? That isn’t rational because there is no reason to think openly gay men in the shower wil be any different than closeted gay men, unless you have an irrational fear that open gay men will cause some kind of problem.
Also DADT isn’t repealed yet and gays are not yet allowed to serve openly. This whole thread, starting with the comment about gays being clerical, shows there are plenty of stereotypes and misinformation that will be destroyed once gay people do start to serve openly. if anything, it won’t be a big deal.