Friday, November 30, 2007

# Posted 7:26 AM by Taylor Owen  

I KNEW HE WAS CRAZY, BUT...: "Most army recruits are conservatives with deep judeo-christian values – that’s why we can’t have gays in the military" - Duncan Hunter, YouTube debate. As CG remarks, where is Jon Stewart when you need him...
(18) opinions -- Add your opinion

I haven't read Oxblog in a while and was just wondering if Patrick B still writes for it.

Excellent statement by Hunter. It is about time someone fought back against the mindless drivel of the PC crowd.

I read in a blog the other day a comment from a serviceman (or someone who said they were a serviceman - should that be service person). he wrote that the problem is one of practicality. Would a woman like to be bunking in a room full of men. Men who may have sex on their minds. What is the difference between a straight guy sleeping in a room knowing there are gays in the room who may be thinking about sex.
Looks like the MSM marching orders involve promoting Huckabee endlessly. Ron Paul had 2-3 questions and limited time. He still crushed them all (how come every article forgets to include his comeback to McCain which mentioned that Ron Paul gets more Military Contributions than any other candidate?). Mitt is dead after desecrating the Confederate flag. Many Southerners died under that flag.
Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon, warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great nation.
How does book get banned fom Amazon?

bigotry, in your case homophobia, is not simply politically incorrect and therefore somehow fashionable. It's just bigotry. And you can't hide it behind judeo/christian values or conservatism or states rights or what have you. It is still just bigotry.

BTW, bigot originally meant superstitious religious hypocrite.
Anonymous said...

Strange. I provide a perfectly reasonable explanation from someone in the military and you call me a bigot.

Please, enough of the PC crap.

I would still like to know how you get a book banned from Amazon.
There goes Taylor again, with his hipster humour, talking about John Stewart....

Didn't we just go over this?
Well, What davod put up there isn't straight out bigotry (though his admiration of what Hunter said, goes there). But it _is_ stupid. Not least because he should know there's no way to know what Internet commenters are in fact military (which, for what it's worth, I am: in fact I'm active duty Army). And because those opinions are by no means monolithic, even among the military: so davod's observation can't be given any real meaning. An as for "mindless drivel" -- what, the argument that anyone who wants to carry a weapon to defend the country should be considered for service? In light of the fact that lots of other countries successfully do integrate gays? Maybe you could argue it's wrong, for some subtle reason: but if you think it's "mindless drivel" you're just an ass not to be taken seriously.

But what burns me here is, What Hunter and Davod say is grossly insulting to the good men and women of the military. My enlisted guys will go out and die, fer Chrissake, in order to obey the commands of the civilian government. They will lose their lives, their health and their time with their loved ones, to prosecute a war, whether they think that war was a good idea or crap (and for any conflict you'll find both opinions in the forces). And Hunter and davod want to say that all that stuff is less important to my men, then that they not have to hang out near some gay dude? Screw both those fools.
anonymous - I agree completely with your thoughts. I'd also like to point out Romney's completely insane remark about how we can allow gays in the military during times of peace but now that we're in a war we can't. (scratches head).
The three lowest occupations in the US are as follows: 1) military recruiter; 2) realtor; and 3) used car saleman. Recruiters are generally the laziest person in the military. That is why they put them in recruiting offices!

Take it from a military veteran!
"But what burns me here is, What Hunter and Davod say is grossly insulting to the good men and women of the military. "

A whole lot of officers seem to be risking their careers taking the politically inconvenient position of opposing gays in the military even when liberals are in power. You are insulting them in suggesting their sole motivation is discrimination.
even when liberals are in power.

Anon, hopefully that will happen next year, but that isn't the case just now.

Opposing gays in the military isn't politically inconvenient or simply politically incorrect. And it isn't stupid either. That would be letting you off too easily.

It goes to your value system: bigotry. It makes you feel better to hate someone for something they are.
There are honest and sensible explanations and justifications for the denial of the "right" to serve to homosexuals. But if good order and unit cohesion were incontrovertibly at odds with acceptance of the gay lifestyle, Anon (which one?), would you accept that? Or would it still not matter to you?

Plenty of people who could probably do the job are turned away by recruiters. I was. Do ulcers, flat feet, eyesight, overweight really matter for Signals jobs? One can make six figures in financial IT with such problems.

Or one can be gay in financial IT.

But not in the military.

Meanwhile, it would not exactly be a panacea to the much-vaunted recruitment problems to enroll gays in the military. And I don't recall much testimony that it would, the odd case of a clique of gay Arabic linguists here and there aside. It's just a question of what some people want.

Well, as a military man, you should understand that what people want isn't very important.

If you want a well reasoned argument opposing tolerance of gays in the military, I could post it, but I don't think that if I spoke with the tongues of men and of angels that you would come to agree. And you would accuse me of bigotry, which would just be too bad.
It is amazing that folk think it "obvious" that, for example, the equivalents of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar (both noted for their same sex dalliances) shouldn't be in the military.

And, of course, much the same arguments about "unit cohesion" were mounted against having racially integrated armed forces.

The number of Western militaries that do not allow gays to serve openly is dwindling. If the Israeli Army can manage, I suspect the US armed forces can too.
1) Israel has no choice, they need every warm body. Meanwhile their performance in the last serious conflict (Leb 2) does not show that having gays makes you a winner, now does it?

2) Racial issues were obvious crap. You tell me who are bigger "homophobes," blacks whites or Hispanics.

3) Caesar, Alexander, the Theban Legion, yada yada. Sure. Different times. You note these were chiefly the BOSSES and were dictators with the power of life and death. They made the rules.

They made their own rules. You know what? Let me raze Fallujah to the ground, let me impale or crucify or burn alive every inhabitant of Waziristan, and I'll deal with a few hundred gays in ranks. Of course I'll deal with 'em rather harshly if they make trouble...
From Patrick O'Brian, The Commodore, Aubrey-Maturin #17:

'...Neither is in any way what you would call a happy ship; and both are commanded by men who are not fit to command them. The one is a sodomite, or reputed to be a sodomite, and he is utterly at odds with his officers, while discipline among the hands is all to seek; the other is a bloody tyrant, a flogger, and no seaman. If I did not continually check him, he would have a mutiny on his hands, a very ugly mutiny indeed.'
Jack paused, absently cut Stephen another slice of pineapple, and passed it over. Stephen acknowledged it with a bob of his head but said nothing. It was very unusual for Jack to speak in this way: the flow was not to be interrupted. 'I hate using the ordinary coarse word about Duff, whom I like and who is a fine seaman, and whether he is a sodomite or not I do not give a damn. But as I tried to make him see, you have to check it aboard a man-of-war. A girl on board is a bad thing: half a dozen girls would be Bedlam. But if a man, a man-lover, is an unchecked sodomite, the whole ship's company is his prey. It will not do. I tried to make him see that, but I am not a very eloquent cove and I dare say I put it wrong, being so God-damned tactful, because all that worried him was that his manhood, his courage, his conduct as we say, should be impugned. So long as he was happy to attack, whatever the odds, all was well. It is very difficult. His officers want to arrest him, to bring him to a court-martial, he having angered them so with his favourites. They are said to have witnesses - damning evidence. If he is found guilty he must be hanged: that is the only sentence. It is very bad. Very bad for the service, very bad in every way. I have done what I can in shifting his officers - with the inshore fever and the casualties there have been several promotions - but his ship is still. . .' He shook his head. 'And as for the Purple Emperor, who is not on speaking terms with Duff, by the way, and scarcely with me, he has contrived to gather a set of officers very like himself: not a seaman among them, and even the master needs both watches to put the ship about in anything like a Christian manner. It is the usual West Indies discipline - spit and polish all day long, and flog the last man off the yard, all combined with fine uniforms, brutal ignorance of their profession, and a contempt for bo'sun captains. Such a band of incompetents as I have never seen gathered together in any one ship belonging to His Majesty.'

(I quoted heavily to avoid any accusations of elision or context. I own all 21 of PoB's books on dead tree.)
Good order and unit cohesion, my word. I think you already have the tongue of an Angel: Gabriel.

First, gays are already in the military and I haven't heard of any stories, even on Fox, about bad unit cohesion. There's something about getting shot at that draws soldiers together regardless of skin color, gender, class or sexual orientation. Or even flat feet.

Second, why is this being brought up now? Oh, there's an election going on, or more particularly there's a Republican primary going on. So this isn't a real boots on the ground issue. It's just a political issue and this is just red meat for the right wing.

Third, pray tell why do you think that the presence of gay soldiers will reduce unit cohesion? You've conveniently assumed your conclusion there. When I was in a fraternity in college I had to deal with my first Jew. Doh! I could have complained about poor unit cohesion. Now I have a bunch of Jews for friends instead.
Anon (#n?), let me treat your #2 first. It's not my post, it's not my blog, and I would not have guessed the poster was involved (esp. supportively) in the GOP primaries. Therefore I do not understand your snark about the premise of this thread.

If for some reason I should not have commented, I could in theory apologize, but I feel sure that OxBlog prefers it when people comment on their posts. Two monologues do not make a dialogue.

Prologue: I appreciate your amiable tone but I confess I am not up on my archangel trivia. It would of course be superficial to conclude that you, of the two of us, were the right-wing fundie, and I won't, but irony is scratching at the bars of its cell.

#1: I don't think this is dispositive in any way, shape or form. I presume one didn't hear of Operation Overlord before June 6, 1944, unless one was involved in it. For that matter, how do you know there are gays in the military? Dating one? If not, then you assume.

You also seem to make the case that DADT suffices. In A-M 17 and elsewhere, the problem wasn't pederasty or sodomy as an inclination; you just had to keep away from the young foremast jacks.

#3: As a Jew chose not to blackball you, and as you freely chose to pledge a fraternity with Jews...not sure at all where u r going here.

But having given blood today, I am a bit woozy, so it could be my bad. Let me turn it around: if I can prove one case of harm to the war effort, will you withdraw? And then ask: How much harm would a policy reversal have to do before you would admit you were wrong? How many lives lost, dollars wasted, battles lost?

Finally I note that you have been somewhat unresponsive both to me and to Mr. O'Brian.

'That is Stately, the sixty-four,' said Jack. 'She was inflicted upon us when they took the Terrible away, as shabby a piece of favouritism and jobbery as the service has ever known.'
'Her captain is clearly a man of taste, however,' said Stephen.
'Well, I am no judge of taste: I am not a dilletanto. But if the Nelson checker was good enough for the great man himself, it is good enough for me.' Jack paused. 'And I tell you what, Stephen: I do not like saying anything behind anyone's back, but you are a medico, and that makes it different - you will understand. As you know, I hate the way sodomites are hanged or flogged round the fleet, and I like Duff: but you must not do it with the young foremast jacks, or discipline goes by the board. Duff is a pretty good seaman, and he does his best, but the Stately had taken all night to tow to her berth....'


He dined once in the Stately, and although he had shifted her first lieutenant, the most inveterate against Captain Duff and the man who had wished to arrest him, to the command of a brig, he was sorry to find a marked degree of tension at the captain's table: the officers ill at ease, and Duff, though a good host, anxious and wanting in authority. 'He is a good, kind fellow, and he handles his ship like a prime seaman, but he seems incapable of taking a hint,' said Jack on returning.
Post a Comment