Thursday, November 29, 2007

Don't ask, don't tell

The insistence of liberals to pander to the sub-critical minority that is "alternative lifestyle" partakers -- also known as gay, lesbian and transgendered folks -- continues to irritate me.

Their latest pushing point to get the same-sex and same-sex sympathizer vote is a huge push to get rid of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. The usual tagline is that our men and women are professional enough to deal with homosexuals being around them in their jobs.

To me, this is a totally and completely irrelevant statement. Our soldiers are professional enough to deal with a lot of things. They've gone without food, showers, basic necessities, seeing their loved ones. They've lost blood, limbs, sweated, cried, and died for this country. Can they deal with a gay man showering next to them? Of course. Would it destabilize our military to the point of collapse? No, assuredly. But that isn't the point. They're professional enough to deal with water rationing, too -- but that doesn't mean we should go ahead and do that.

There's two main problems with the idea of gays in the military. And by that I mean active, openly homosexual people. For one, it is an unnecessary strain one people who don't need more stress, and one that they are subjected to unwillingly. I don't care how non-homophobic you are, showering with a guy who you know is turned on by the sight of male genitalia is awkward. And it's something that someone who has no choice about where they live, fight, shower, eat and sleep shouldn't be subjected to. People in civilian life can choose to live in a "gay friendly" area. If they don't like the sight of men holding hands or kissing, they can leave, or move. It's their choice. Our men and women in uniform have no such luxury.

I've seen people get cute and say "oh, they can shower at different times" and "they're pros, they can deal with it". But would we let a homosexual male shower with the females? I doubt it. I doubt that our female soldiers would enjoy that particularly. But that would make "more sense" than having (letting?) them shower with men. Or if we did set them up by "gender" rather than sex...what about lying? Would the average 18 year old lie about being gay to shower with a girl? Perhaps not -- but would the occasional one? Have you ever met an 18 year old male?

Secondly, it potentially disrupts the cohesion of a fighting team. In the critical moments of combat as a commander I would want absolutely zero hesitation between private Jones and private Smith if I tell them to do something. I don't want private Jones, the stupid hillbilly he is, to even halfway start to grouse about being paired up with the Smith because Smith is gay. Furthermore, I don't even know what would happen if a homosexual relationship occurred in the barracks. That sort of thing is bad business, whether it's between a guy and a girl or two guys or two girls or whatever.

Currently the military doesn't mix quarters or (I believe) units by sex. I see no reason that this wouldn't be extended to sexual preference, as the case would become. I hate to be snide, but I can't help but imagining the homosexual unit passing in review. Parade would take on an entirely new meaning. The point being, having openly gay people in the military requires, essentially, that you provide new, separate facilities for them. It's impractical and a gigantic waste of logistic effort for a small minority to whom the question is almost entirely academic.

Finally, if our military is so dang professional, then there isn't a problem to begin with. If a gay man wants to serve, no one is stopping him. He just has to keep his mouth shut and do his job, and no one will say a thing to him. They can't even ask if he's gay (that's the first part of the rule, after all). Discretion is the better part of professionalism. If their patriotism is as fired up as their political views, then they can refrain from turning the military into yet another gay-rights battle, and leave it to do it's job.

Read the rest.