Category Archives: Military

Women Can Fight Now, And That’s Bad, Apparently

If you haven’t heard, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has lifted the military ban on women serving in combat.

And judging by people’s reactions, you’d think he started shooting people in the face for fun.

As you may know, in America, women have been allowed in the military for several years at this point, but there has been a ban on women being allowed in special forces units and front-line combat units. Of course, unlike in wars before Vietnam, “front-line” is now a bit of a more obscure idea than an actual thing you can point to. The theater of war has spread in a far more chaotic, guerrilla style. So there have been, for some time, women that have had to fight for various reasons, as well as women that have died in combat.

So, you start to wonder what the heck everyone’s going crazy over with this ban being lifted.

Allen West, the now civilian that gets the Sarah Palin “for some reason we think what you have to say means something” treatment, thinks that women serving in combat will destroy the military, basically. The irony there is that West is black. I recall people complaining about the dissolution of unit cohesion and disparaging the state of the military when it was desegregated, or so my history teachers informed me. Yet, our military still stands. Then there was that thing about how gays would destroy the military… which also hasn’t happened yet, oddly enough.

If you want to see just how idiotic and ridiculous the arguments against women serving in combat are, you can just take a look at this excellent “Daily Show” bit that covers it quite well.

Is it going to be a smooth transition? Probably not. Change doesn’t always go smoothly. Are there going to be problems? Possibly. Sexual assaults might increase. We’ll have to increase diligence in stopping and prosecuting any instances of sexual assault, something we should have been doing already. But the argument that suddenly men and women will be too overcome with lust to do their job is ridiculous. They tried the same argument with openly serving homosexuals… and yet no news of men randomly shagging in the desert mid-gunfire.

The argument that women won’t be able to perform physically as well as men is also stupid. Yes, statistics show that women are not, on average, as physically strong as men. However, in the military, they have these physical performance tests, minimum requirements soldiers have to meet. Physical requirements that I’m pretty certain women have been meeting for some time now. Being that there are women in the Marines, and the Marines are generally considered to be the toughest branch of the military, I should think these women can hold their own, and possibly someone else’s at the same time.

There’s the argument about men being embarrassed… Is it wrong of me to say get over it? When you’re in combat, is embarrassment really the thing you should be worrying about? And isn’t that something you can, you know, get used to and get over? I don’t know about you, but “dropping trou” in front of other men isn’t something I’m super keen on. It seems like soldiers manage to get over that eventually, though, so why not with women?

And then there’s all the severely sexist and ignorant arguments. One guy started yelling about how women were wives, sisters and daughters and who would want to put them in harm’s way and subject them to torture? At which point, my response has to be the same people that want to put husbands and brothers and sons into harm’s way and subject them to torture. So, in my opinion, I don’t want to put anyone in danger. But women in the military have always been in danger. Some have been captured and, I bet, tortured. The whole chivalrous thing is just insulting to the men that are in the same position, deeming them as expendable.

Women can fight in combat roles now, officially. Good for them. People that want to complain? Get over yourselves.

Advertisements
Tagged , , ,

Remembering The Fallen This Memorial Day

Today is Memorial Day, the day Americans are supposed to set aside to remember their fellow countrymen who have served in the military throughout the years, particularly those that have died doing so.

Soldiers are ordinary people. They have families and histories outside of their military service. There are good people and terrible people in the armed forces, just like there are outside of them.

My father and my mother’s father were both in the military. My father was a Major in the Army, worked with the Explosive Ordinance Disposal during his time and was serving during Desert Storm. My grandfather was in the Air Force and, I believe, fought during the Korean War (though I admit I’m not exactly positive on that front). Me, it’s massively unlikely that I’ll go into the service. It’s not exactly my thing.

To me, it’d be great if we weren’t sending soldiers all over creation, to Iraq and Afghanistan and wherever else America decides we need to have a “chat” with a foreign regime. Ideally, militaries would never be needed.

But we don’t live in an idea world.

Whether you agree with what our military does or has done… whether you think our nation is too gratuitous in the use of the armed forces… or you perhaps think we don’t use it enough… People have died for America. People have fought and died all throughout American history to protect America and its ideals, even if people on the home front haven’t been able to keep up with those ideals (I’m looking at you, Congress).

Soldiers are ordinary people that voluntarily put themselves in danger and the potential of being apart from their families and loved ones for years at a time, perhaps never getting to see them again, should they die in the line of duty.

They may not all be heroes… but their service and voluntary risks makes them extraordinary, and people that should be thanked and honored. So, while you’re out celebrating this holiday in whatever way you happen to be doing that… Remember the reason behind this holiday. And maybe try to send some good vibes or prayers toward those currently in the path of danger.

Tagged

Should Afghanistan Try The Citizen-Killing American Soldier?

As you may have heard before, Staff Sgt. Robert Bales of the United States Army has been pegged as the soldier responsible for the murder of 16 Afghan civilians. It is, of course, a tragic story and, having happened in a country we have invaded and occupied for a decade, it is also a bit of a powder keg.

That powder keg certainly hasn’t been helped by the removal of Bales from the country and the general lack of Afghan inclusion in the investigation. The anger seems to have been boiling over, initially causing riots. Now, it seems, Afghan soldiers may just be killing allied forces in frustration. That may perhaps be a stretch, but the general populace of Afghanistan certainly hasn’t seemed to take the entire course of events too well.

Yet, when the suggestion to allow Afghanistan to assist in the investigation or perhaps even try Bales comes up, Americans tend to react negatively, based on my experiences. When I mentioned the possibility to my father, his reaction was extremely negative, citing an argument along the lines of, “Sure, it’s tragic, but when they kill and decapitate their citizens every day, I think they’ve lost the right for us to give a crap.”

Note, that was paraphrased, but I believe I’m getting the basic point across. And that sentiment seems… flawed to me.

America is no golden child. No perfect country. Everyone agrees until someone says it, and then it’s all, “USA, GREATEST COUNTRY EVER WOO!” But we have our flaws, and a lot of them. Are we better than Afghanistan? Probably. Are our laws more focused on equality and fair treatment? It generally seems to. But both of our countries have the death penalty. Sure, you may think their methods are less civilized than ours, but a death penalty is a death penalty. And, sure, the things that cause the death penalty in Afghanistan may seem wholly unfair to Americans, but our system has sent its fair share of innocents to the chair. No, we shouldn’t be like Afghanistan. Yes, some of their laws are archaic and need updating and human rights considerations. But let’s not forget the plank in our own eye. If you want death penalty reform, point that gun at America, too.

So, the idea that they “kill citizens” is an argument for not letting them participate in the investigation or try Bales seems a bit silly to me. We kill them, too. Often times because they deserve it. But that doesn’t necessarily make us better. And that’s not the only reason I’m a little put off by the idea.

When Osama bin Laden orchestrated the September 11 attacks, what did America do? We went halfway around the world and hunted him down. We went and invaded at least three countries, two militarily, and searched for him. When we found him, we killed him. He was tried by our justice system, if our system was “kill all enemies of the state.” Am I cool with him being dead? Certainly. He wasn’t a good guy. But we didn’t even bother with the pretense of putting him through court.

And what of other terrorists? We’ve hunted down and killed so many others. And those we haven’t killed, we’ve put into Guantanamo Bay’s prison complex. These men, often not citizens, are denied access to our courts and legal system, because they are our enemies. Because they’re terrorists.

So maybe that’s why Americans are reluctant to give Bales to Afghanistan. We don’t give foreigners that have wronged our citizens, or tried to wrong our citizens, fair trials, it seems. Maybe we’re afraid Afghanistan will do the same. But, even so, we felt we had the right, as a country that had been wronged, to seek out our own justice. It would be guaranteed to be a trial unfair and unjust to our lost lives to let bin Laden go through the local legal system. Instead, let him suffer the wrath of the country he did wrong in.

Maybe you see where I’m going with this. Am I saying we should hand Bales to Afghanistan and wave goodbye? No. Likely, they’d do to him what we did to bin Laden and simply kill him. An investigation needs to take place. Witness accounts vary, and we must be sure of the conviction. But, in my opinion, ultimately, Afghanistan should have a say, if not the final say, in the fate of whoever committed this crime. Their soil, their citizens, their law. It’s practically the American way.

Tagged , , , ,

We Need To Leave Afghanistan

I don’t know if you’ve heard the news, but it was reported today that a U.S. soldier went on a murdering spree and killed 16 Afghan civilians.

Likely, something like “The Walking Dead” or the NCAA basketball tournament announcements caught your eye… Granted, when we do stupid things in other countries, not much attention is grabbed.

But, really? It should be. Now, granted, this is not the worst thing Americans have done while occupying another country. No, that would be the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. In that one, we managed to kill somewhere between 347 and 504 unarmed civilians in what can only be described as a horrific, senseless butchering.

Even though this was (maybe) one guy (or possibly a group of drunk soldiers) only killing 16 civilians, history has already told us exactly what we need to do: leave.

Now, sure, I’m not a military man. So when I ask what exactly we’ve really been doing over there for the past 10 years, especially over the past couple of those, I personally don’t expect a good answer. There may be one. I don’t really know. But it seems to me like we’ve been sitting over there, fighting skirmishes, getting killed… but over what?

And now, we have stupid mistake after stupid mistake rapidly piling up.

First, we have American soldiers urinating on Afghan bodies at the beginning of the year, being utterly and completely disrespectful to the dead. Something to which I understand is generally frowned upon.

Then, we have soldiers carelessly burning copies of the Quran, Islam’s holy book. This led to riots, which led to at least six Americans and 30 Afghans dead. This happened mere weeks ago, if that.

And now, we have a soldier, possibly more, murdering 16 civilians. Not only are the incidents happening more frequently, but they’re also escalating in stupidity, terribleness and fallout. Because, trust me, there will be a fallout on this one.

If Vietnam taught us anything, it’s that lengthy combat with a somewhat elusive and difficult to define enemy for reasons that are massively political and seem to serve no true purpose for America as a whole is a bad idea. And that’s really what seems to be going on here.

We’re fighting terrorism and terrorists, who aren’t really clearly defined by uniforms or anything… we went over there for 9/11, but we killed Osama bin Laden and many MANY others in the high rankings, so revenge has been had… Why are we still there?

Granted, Barack Obama has a plan to get our troops out by 2014… but that’s too slow. Even if that was just right before, the past three incidents over these past three months have shown that we need to leave. ASAP.

Our initial goal was to try and stop people that wanted to hurt us. Now? We’re practically recruiting people to want to hurt us. And the dead on both sides will continue to pile up. We can’t win in a war against an idea. We can only survive. So, the best thing to do? Get as many of our people as possible out of there alive.

At this rate, it feels like we’re gearing up to go through another My Lai massacre. We, as human beings, can’t let that happen. Bring the troops home, and do it now. It’s better for everyone.

Tagged , , , , ,

Apologizing For Quran Burning Is Not A Dumb Idea

Imagine the following scenario, if you would. America has been noted as a major originating country for a terrorist organization responsible for extremely deadly acts on Chinese soil. China sends in their military to root out the terrorist factions within the United States. While doing so, they make bases and set up camps. Now, China is not exactly known to be immensely friendly toward American politics or political aspirations, and it certainly hasn’t been terribly friendly with the major religion of the United States, Christianity. Heck, they’ve even been known to use Bibles for target practice.

Suddenly, you hear that at one of the bases in Texas, the Chinese accidentally set fire to several hundred copies of the Bible.

Now, maybe I’m crazy, but I could certainly imagine riots and violence sprouting forth from such a scenario.

See, about two weeks ago, several Qurans were accidentally sent to the fire pit used to burn garbage at Bagram Air Field, a large American base a bit north of Kabul, Afghanistan. This event caused several riots, which have killed over 30 people, including American soldiers. In an attempt to quell the violence, President Barack Obama apologized for the incident. Whether the apology actually calmed things down or not, several GOP members have been crying foul to Obama’s apology, such as Rick Santorum, Allen West and Newt Gingrich.

Now, a lot of people have been saying that, instead of apologizing for Quran burning, the Afghans should be apologizing to us for American flag burning and for the deaths of American soldiers.

People that say that are rather missing the point.

First, flag burning is legal in America. Why should they apologize for doing something we’re allowed to do? That’s like asking them to apologize for voting democratically.

Second, as we’re not actually at war with Afghanistan, just certain organizations within the country, I think it’s rather pretty well understood that the government is not approving of any loss of American life from people within their borders.

But none of that’s really the point, either. Ron Paul is one of the few (read as: only one I’ve seen) GOP leaders to get it right on this whole apology thing.

Remember that scenario I mentioned above? It’s not quite equally fair, truth be told. We’re not a third world country, and we’re on decent terms with China (at least through economy and trade). And our country doesn’t have as high a concentration of supremely devout Christians as Afghanistan has Muslims (though I did put the scenario in Texas for a reason). But violent riots are still feasibly possible with that scenario. After all, they’re invaders apparently disrespecting one of our more highly, widely valued religions.

The Santorum response to the apology especially makes me laugh. He said, “There was nothing deliberately done wrong here.” But, later, he said that Obama should have acknowledged that what happened was wrong.

Deliberate or not, it was wrong. And even if it wasn’t deliberate, we don’t have a record of respecting Islam or its practitioners. Our military has had members shoot the Quran for target practice. Our government has spied in mosques. We can talk about it not being deliberate all we want… would you believe it? I know, were I in their position, I certainly wouldn’t.

It isn’t wrong to apologize when something unfortunate happens. It isn’t “weak” to say, “We’re sorry and will attempt to ensure far better care is taken in respect to this issue.” Respecting other countries and other religions is not a bad trait. It’s a smart one. Which is something we’d really better start learning.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

What Makes Gays So Special?

So, today, I was having yet another random conversation at randomly random, and the issue of how idiotic all the current frontrunning GOP presidential candidates are and why came up.

But that’s a post for another time.

What came up during the conversation was, of course, Rick Perry’s “Strong” ad, which you can find in this previous little post of mine, and Rick Santorum’s rather idiotic “Gay marriage is like paper towels being napkins!” tirade. Also, in response to Perry’s most recent ad, there’s this little video in which a bisexual teen asks Perry why he seems not very fond of gay people.

And Perry falls into the same rather stumbling “I’m a Christian” moment: “Well, it’s a sin. But I’m a sinner. But I don’t hate the sinner.”

Et cetera, awkward cetera.

Pretty much every single Christian that claims a specific dislike for homosexuals, when needled for their opinion on why they’ve got such a pointed dislike for them, falls into the trap of, “Crap. Why do I dislike them more?”

And that’s my question: What makes homosexuals so special?

When touting all these “Christian morals,” why is it that homosexuality gets special treatment?

Let’s assume that homosexuality is, in fact, a sin, since it seems that the majority of Christians think that (even though the largest Christian organization, the Roman Catholic Church, does NOT find homosexuality to be a sin, just homosexual sex). If homosexuality is in fact a sin, why does it get selected specially?

People seem to think homosexuals should not be able to adopt, should not be able to marry, and should not be able to openly serve in the military. Simply because homosexuality is “wrong” and “sinful.”

Isn’t adultery sinful? Lying? Stealing? So, liars shouldn’t be able to marry, thieves shouldn’t be soldiers, adulterers shouldn’t adopt.

Oh, and isn’t not worshiping the Judeo-Christian God sinful? So, that should mean atheists, Buddhists, Muslims and all the other peoples of other faiths and non-faiths should not be allowed to marry, adopt, or serve openly in the military.

That sounds sensible, right?

And on that note, for all the people that seem to think America was founded on Christian morals and it’s Christian morals that should be the basis of law and government decisions… What is the first commandment? Not the greatest commandment, just the first of the 10.

“I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods in My presence…”

Now, in an interesting parallel, we in the United States have 10 Amendments to the Constitution known as the “Bill of Rights.” What’s the first Constitutional Amendment?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Huh. Congress is not to make any laws respecting establishments of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. If the 10 Commandments were law in America, Judaism and Christianity (and MAYBE Islam) would be the only legal religions.

But that’s the sort of thing people are trying to insinuate should be when they suggest the sinful status of an action should make such an action illegal. That’s the extreme to take it to. But it’s not really an extreme so much as it is a full application of the thought.

And that cherry picking nature that people are pulling is the thing that is extremely annoying, the thing I’m asking about. Why is it that homosexuality gets special treatment, is specially picked as something that should be particularly targeted by the legal system? Why the heck aren’t there laws against adultery, nor any outcry against adulterers? Adulterous politicians can even manage to be the front-runners of a political race, a la Newt Gingrich.

Homosexuality, sin or not, should be treated no differently than any other action within its subset. If it’s a sin, treat it like every sin. If it isn’t, then don’t. It’s that simple.

And instead of spouting this non-Biblical mess about “I hate the sin, not the sinner,” please stop. Hate is too difficult to separate between action and actor. Hate is what gets us here in the first place.

Tagged , , , , ,

A Call To Common Decency And Sense

Still riding the wave of negativity watching what little of the GOP “debate” I saw yesterday, I’d like to actually confront that negativity head on.

If you watched the debate, or any of the debates previously, then you know that there is a rather excitable audience included at each debate. And this audience has cheered and applauded the high death toll in Texas, has booed an American soldier because of his sexual orientation and has excitedly called for the death of a hypothetical man without health insurance.

Now, I’ve managed to avoid profuse profanity for a while here, but forgive me for this next sentence.

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

The audience members at these debates are, apparently, your average Republican voters. And if that is true, and they aren’t some rabid extremist sect of the party, then there are some serious issues here.

I know many a Republican, and have debated with several in civil manners. My friend Joel Ingram and I butt heads on EVERY political issue, to the best of my memory, but I could never EVER imagine the kind, Christian man that he is giving praise to death. Another friend, one I’ve only gotten to know recently (much to my loss), is a nursing major, and I can’t see her shouting “Let him die!” when confronted with the hypothetical ailing man without insurance. And my own father, a retired military man and a man that isn’t necessarily fond of homosexuality, would almost certainly never boo a soldier just because of what my dad sees as his life choices.

So, does that make those three the crazy ones? Are they the ones that are the black sheep of the Republican Party now?

When have we, as citizens of the United States, lost so much touch with reality and decency due to political intrigue and moronic proceedings that we cheer death? That we jeer those overseas risking their lives to protect us? That we refuse to empathize with those that have done nothing wrong?

This is something I’ve touched on in my previous post about the death penalty. And here’s the funny thing. Governor Rick Perry, the man that was applauded and congratulated for wracking up a higher death count than any other governor in the United States, was shocked and appalled that people would like to see the hypothetical coma patient without insurance die. In the clip linked in this article, Perry says “I was a bit taken aback by that myself,” before adding, “We’re the party of life. We ought to be coming up with ways to save lives.”

Even the man who has had executed over 200 people in his state thinks that cheering for a man’s death is wrong. At least in this situation.

And that’s kind of the funny thing. The candidates seem to be kind of worried about the reactions of some of these audience members. Rick Santorum, who was asked the question about DADT from the gay soldier, actually condemns the people that booed the soldier.

But, you know what? This sort of reactionary “Hey, guys. Bad. Don’t do that.” thing is simply not enough.

In that last article I’ve linked, the writer has a good point: “Think before you do something as juvenile and unproductive as booing during a debate among presidential hopefuls. Because, if you don’t, we’re left following a distracting and potentially damning thread of conversation, while the larger issues at hand — DADT and the fate of gay soldiers in the military — are shoved into the background.”

That’s one thing to take away from this.

But for me, the other thing to take away from this is that we have confused a difference in political ideals and morality. We have confused support and encouragement.

A pro-choice person does not have to cry out in joy when abortions occur. A pro-death penalty person should still want to protect the innocent from death instead of ignoring the issues entirely, as in the cases of Troy Davis and Cameron Todd Willingham. We may hold a political ideology, but there are times when we should recognize that there is an unfortunate component to that belief. We shouldn’t rejoice in the inhumane parts, we should attempt to correct and eliminate those parts as best we can.

So, in the desperate hope that my father and two friends are not in some strange, non-extremist minority, there is still a chance for the GOP (and anyone else of any political ideology that has fallen into this trap) to save itself from painting itself a very gruesome color. And it starts with the leaders of the party, the candidates for the presidency, the members of Congress. Tell your constituents that you do not condone such behavior. Remind them that such thoughts are wrong, not in a brief clip on FOX News, but in a big, widely observed public forum. Like, say, the GOP candidate “debates”.

What I wouldn’t give to hear one of those candidates tell that audience, “We do not hate those that disagree with us. We do not demand death from the innocent. We do not rejoice in killing. We do not delight in war. We do not deride those with different politics. We are better than that. We are Americans. Let’s act like it.”

Someone saying something like that might even make me think about voting for them. If only.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Stop! Your Sexuality Is Distracting Me

So, now that my six part one-a-day-kept-the-political-blogs-at-bay Star Wars themed segment “Second First Time Viewer” is done, it’s time to get back to the stuff I was writing before. Which, while theoretically is everything, was mostly political in nature.

And what luck! Tonight was another Republican nominee “debate,” (I’ll probably write about that later) the first one I actually managed to watch most of via YouTube.

…this has quickly become one of the many things I will regret for a while.

I did jump in late and only got into the debate around the time of the immigration talk, but there was one section I saw that made me a little upset. A homosexual soldier asked his question via YouTube about whether or not the candidates would reinstate Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

So, the background. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was a military policy signed into law during the Clinton administration. Basically, soldiers weren’t supposed to ask other soldiers about their sexuality, be they straight or gay, and no one was supposed to talk about it. And, if people knew that you were a homosexual, be you gay or lesbian, it was bye bye to military service. This policy was repealed on Tuesday after many (stupid) years of being enacted.

Well, as you might be able to guess, not everyone is happy about this.

Recently, in The Huntsville Times, my local paper, a man from Owens Crossroads wrote that accepted or granting normalcy to the things God has deemed sinful would lead this nation down a slippery slope to bad times. I’m paraphrasing, of course. He also said something about not letting soldiers date, so I guess he doesn’t like women being in the military either.

And then, there’s good old Rick Santorum, the only candidate who answered the question tonight as I recall (thank goodness). He is definitely for reinstating it, yet somehow not kicking out any already outed soldiers, or at least not the soldier that asked the question. According to this Associated Press article, since I can’t find a transcript from the debate yet, Santorum said that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly distracts soldiers from their duty to protect the country. According to what I remember of the event (I may have blacked out in anger/sheer depression at one point), Santorum essentially suggested that soldiers shouldn’t be having sex.

Man, sometimes I wish Kickpuncher from NBC’s show “Community” could kickpunch some sense into people.

To the guy that wrote to The Huntsville Times: Your argument is literally a slippery slope. Like, seriously, that’s the basis of your argument. Has no one ever heard of logical fallacies? But let’s say you have a point about the whole God thing. And let’s say that the Judeo-Christian God has even explicitly stated that homosexuality (not homosexual sex, but the entire sexuality package) is a sin (which, by the by, He didn’t [and there’s THAT can o’ worms opened]). Are you saying that the military should kick out everyone that commits a sin in the eyes of the Christian God? Because, if I remember my Bible correctly, isn’t there something about all being sinners and falling short of the glory of God?

But he’s not going to read this, so I won’t beat up on silly guy who wrote a letter that frankly made less than no sense too much.

Rick Santorum, however, I don’t feel the need to hold back about.

Have you served in the military, Rick? Your Wikipedia makes no mention of military service. So how exactly do you know what’s distracting to our troops?

I’ll readily admit, I’ve never served in the military either. But this argument about it being distracting and such? That sounds like some of the arguments made against desegregating the military. “Oh, my heavens! A black man! I can no longer fight this war!” (For the purposes of that last line, imagine that a Civil War era Southern belle was in our modern military for some reason.)

Also, with the undercurrent of this idea I picked up from what you said, that soldiers shouldn’t be doing the sexytimes, first, why the heck not? Second, why do people think that all homosexuals are randy and sexually active? That you can only be gay if you’ve had homosexual sex? I run into that thought process waaaay too many times, and it kind of shows this enormous ignorance about what sexuality even is.

Now, I know that there’s this idea that knowing someone is gay and having to shower communally with them is “creepy” or “weird.” And that will somehow demoralize the troops.

…are our troops so undisciplined that they can’t get over something like that? “That person that I am not sexually attracted to over there seeing me in a state of undress is sexually attracted to me.” Maybe it’s a bit uncomfortable, but we use the phrase “soldier on” to talk about powering through situations that are uncomfortable or negative for a reason. People of both genders that you are not sexually attracted to may find you sexually attractive, and may or may not inform you, and it’s pretty much awkward every time. You learn to get over it.

Are homosexuals less able to defend our nation? Less a part of this nation? No. The homosexuals in this nation that go through the training every soldier goes through are just as capable at their duties as the next guy. Sexuality doesn’t affect that. At all.

Really, the only argument I’ve heard against it that even makes the most remote bit of sense is that the Marine Corps is afraid they may lose their “manly image.”

First, I have to mention the Sacred Band of Thebes. A military group that was nothing but homosexuals and, surprise surprise, kicked some serious butt. You think “300” was all about the manly man fighters, they had nothing on the Sacred Band.

Second, I’ve met some Marines. Some that I know are not heterosexual. And some that I know are not men. And let me tell you, the lady Marine that I know? A mighty sexy lady that still manages to put the fear of God into me just by looking in my direction. And if the inclusion of women in your ranks isn’t damaging your stereotypical male-power manly image, I can’t imagine that the inclusion of homosexual males that could probably kill me with one ab would.

Good riddance, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Legalized segregation shouldn’t even be an issue.

Tagged , , , ,