The Consequences of Repealing DADT

The vote by the Senate this afternoon to repeal the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law will have little if no immediate effect. It will not create an influx of homosexuals into the military, because the law did not, contrary to claims of the advocates of its repeal, keep gays out of the military. It is unlikely to cause gays who were closeted in the military to suddenly ‘come out’ because if it was their intent to be open about their homosexuality it is unlikely they would have joined the military to begin with – and for those in the close knit fighting units, they won’t want to risk the social repercussions that will defy legal manipulation.

What will happen as a result of the repeal is the actual agenda of the gay lobby will be revealed. It will happen rather quickly, while Obama is still in office – a growing chorus of now open homosexuals will call for the military to make modifications to recognize and accommodate homosexual living arrangements and partner benefits. Like the faux ‘civil unions’ that were predicated on giving people certain freedoms but was in fact a stepping stone to allowing gay marriage, the repeal of DADT is an intermediary step not about freedom but official sanction of certain behaviors. Homosexuals are already free to have the relationships they choose to have, what they want is for everyone to be required to say those relationships are a societal good, and that not only should they be allowed but they should be promoted.

The effect on the military will be gradual but certainly erosive. Men and women of a definite moral character will begin to decline military service, particularly the sort that are inclined to volunteer for combat duties. The military, already expensive with burdensome mandates and regulations will become more bogged down with more bureaucracy and training which undermines their core mission.

And none of this will bother the forces that pushed for the repeal, because they are opponents of the American military to begin with. It’s a sad day for our country.

Advertisements

10 Responses to The Consequences of Repealing DADT

  1. nate says:

    If the medical review board hadn’t found me unfit for service my reenlistment decision certainly was going to include consideration of whether or not repeal was enacted.

    As it is I don’t have to worry about it. Lots of others do though. Now the question is:

    Now that gays can ‘express’ themselves and won’t be discharged, how many people are going to be discharged for expressing their displeasure about that?

    You have to want to express yourself in the liberal approved way in order to be protected.

  2. Justin says:

    Closely related to the points in the article, just wait until the first homosexual is passed over for promotion (for whatever legitimate reasons).

    This will open our military to more erosion from the inside as the homosexual sues the military.

  3. kenetiks says:

    If the medical review board hadn’t found me unfit for service my reenlistment decision certainly was going to include consideration of whether or not repeal was enacted.

    I keep finding these extremely enlightening tidbits everywhere. 🙂

  4. nate says:

    Well let me ask you this: Should the qualities of the people I would be serving with not play a role in the decision?

  5. nate says:

    And just what about that is enlightening to you?

  6. kenetiks says:

    Well let me ask you this: Should the qualities of the people I would be serving with not play a role in the decision?

    I suppose it would if only somewhat.

    Unless the quality to which you refer is something that is contained in the heart. Which really has no real bearing on your service.

    Besides, you would need to demonstrate your notion of quality as being something tangible and not contained solely due to your belief system.

    And just what about that is enlightening to you?

    The fact that you are completely ready to do something that may very well result in your death. Except if homosexual gives his life beside yours.

  7. nate says:

    Why would I have to demonstrate that? Everything people do is determined by their belief system. You don’t like broccoli or goats cheese, or maybe you can’t stand the color red. There is no logical reason why those things should be true, now is there?

    Now if you would just remember that disapproval of someones behavior, especially if you find it morally repugnant, its a pretty serious order. The choice of how you dress, how you speak, all has a bigger effect these days than race or any other immutable quality. While identity may (or may not) be immutable, behavior certainly is changeable or restrictable.

    The issue at hand is: “Should homosexuals have the right to openly speak about their sexual preferences while serving the armed forces, bearing in mind that uniformity saves more lives than anything else?”. I can smell the lawsuits already.

    Its easy for someone who has never served to say “its shouldn’t matter”, in fact you’re quite right, it shouldn’t and actually doesn’t matter….. On the individual level.

    On the group level dynamics are very different.

    If we were in peace time there wouldn’t be much risk involved here. Right now we are.

    So yes kenetik, I would choose not to continue where congress has just made a change that will inevitably create more stress, something that is hardly needed in a combat zone, for the sake of political correctness for no other reason than gays vote democrat, they don’t really give a shit about them.

    Your enlightenment is also not quite up to par. I was/am certainly willing to risk my life in the military. I’d prefer that no one gives their life if at all possible, barring that I don’t care, like I said before, this is not about whether or not they are gay, this is about the new ability to break with uniformity. That would put my life not in a lessor risk category but in a higher one. Simply because Obama needed a political victory, not because its the strategically right thing to do.

    That is not a good enough reason to increase the risk that so many undertake so willingly.

  8. kenetiks says:

    I appreciate your response nate.

    A few points though.

    The first is that my 1st SGT’s behavior was reprehensible and repugnant to me but that did not stop me from obeying orders or upholding my responsibilities. Nor did the fact that I knew well beforehand that DIs attitudes and behaviors would sometimes border criminal and this gave me absolutely no pause whatsoever.

    The second is to only restate a somewhat issue in somewhat the same terms: “Should heterosexuals have the right to openly speak about their sexual preferences while serving the armed forces…”

    Thirdly the real issue: “… bearing in mind that uniformity saves more lives than anything else?” This is the only real issue outside of what I was pointing out and is what all the fuss is about in the first place. Uniformity only somewhat makes a fighting force but does not build the trust with your fellow soldiers. All in all, I would say only time will really tell the outcome of what is going to happen. Even I wouldn’t dare attempt to predict the future on this one. I can say in my opinion however, if there is going to be any fireworks; they’ll most certainly be before any deployment into the field. When the whistling and reports start however, I seriously doubt anyone will be actually wondering if their “rear” is being “checked out” and by who.

    Fourth. We’re forgetting something here: There already are gays in the military and up until this point when the service branch finds out, they are unceremoniously thrown out and adding insult to injury, loosing all of their benefits in the process.

    Fifth. Obama. You seriously dropped the O-Bomb….again. What is it with everyone and Obama? Everyone’s favorite new punching bag is it? I hear this utter nonsense nearly everywhere I go. “My daughter’s best friend stubbed her pinky toe! If Obama’s socialist, communist, marxist, death panel, anti-american, un-americans, left wing, liberal, no birth certificate, anti-christ regime wasn’t in power this wouldn’t have happened!“.

  9. nate says:

    Hope you had a good Christmas!

    1. All first Sgt. are evil, that’s their job, after all.

    2. No they shouldn’t. If I stood up and said “I am sexually attracted to women” the chances are fairly good that I would get in some trouble. Talking openly about your sexual preferences is a fairly common source of sexual harassment cases.

    3. You’re right to a point. A “damn the torpedo’s, I’m different, accept me attitude” is extremely damaging to trust though.

    4. I never said any different. Sexual orientation has very little or nothing to do with individual effectiveness when you do anything, but the attitude I mentioned above, held by even a few, is enough to cause unneeded and dangerous problems. Also a general discharge is what was typically given except under special circumstances. In the case injuries are still covered by the VA and you don’t give up all benefits.

    5. Since when is the commander and chief, the executive not a punching bag? He is responsible for what he signs and the motivation behind it is almost universal. Political gain. The next president will get the same treatment from me, just as bush did, when he did something I didn’t like he got called for it. Obama doesn’t get special treatment because some democrats believed he was evidence of the second coming.

  10. kenetiks says:

    Hope you had a good Christmas!

    Pretty good and you?

    1. All first Sgt. are evil, that’s their job, after all.

    This one went “above and beyond”.

    2. No they shouldn’t. If I stood up and said “I am sexually attracted to women” the chances are fairly good that I would get in some trouble. Talking openly about your sexual preferences is a fairly common source of sexual harassment cases.

    Then the point is moot. You shouldn’t then have a problem with them openly admitting their sexuality when asked.
    But I don’t agree with anyone being episodic about their sexuality for any reason.

    3. You’re right to a point. A “damn the torpedo’s, I’m different, accept me attitude” is extremely damaging to trust though.

    Not really. Everyone is just being honest. That instills trust for me.

    4. I never said any different. Sexual orientation has very little or nothing to do with individual effectiveness when you do anything, but the attitude I mentioned above, held by even a few, is enough to cause unneeded and dangerous problems. Also a general discharge is what was typically given except under special circumstances. In the case injuries are still covered by the VA and you don’t give up all benefits.

    If it has nothing to do with job effectiveness then what’s your point?

    On discharges I have to call you on. If you admitted being of any sexual orientation other than heterosexual you got discharged. I’ve seen it myself. DADT only stopped the services from openly asking but after it was out, you were thrown.

    5. Since when is the commander and chief, the executive not a punching bag? He is responsible for what he signs and the motivation behind it is almost universal. Political gain. The next president will get the same treatment from me, just as bush did, when he did something I didn’t like he got called for it. Obama doesn’t get special treatment because some democrats believed he was evidence of the second coming.

    I don’t really care about the jokes or anything that is factual.

    What I don’t care for is this “blame Obama for everything that happens” attitude that everyone has seemed to develop.

    I’ve never heard the public so incensed over any president like they have been for him. And the big issue with me is everyone is just making crap up.

    Nearly every day I hear at least one of the following if not all of them.

    Obama has/is/was/

    Kenyan.
    not an American Citizen.
    a Muslim.
    African.
    a Socialist.
    a Jew.
    a Communist.
    the Anti-Christ.
    an Arab.
    a Marxist.
    a Somalian.
    Indonesian.

    And these are said, in complete seriousness. Some people actually state that he’s a Kenyan born Arab muslim communist from Indonesia. Someone ACTUALLY said this to me.

    Indeed I fear when my fellow humans are really this ignorant.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: