Sunday, November 21, 2010

Calling Admiral Mullen!

A story from this weekend has caused me to once again defer "From the Fundamentals." Namely, I'm talking about Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen's statement about gays in the military.

If you go to the bottom of the Puffington Host article, you'll see that Mullen makes the claim that asking servicemen and women to "lie about themselves" goes against military ethics.

What a load of hogwash. In the first place, look again at the current policy. It's called "don't ask, don't tell." In other words, the military won't ask, and expects those in the service not to go around yapping about their sexual predilections. I don't see where the current policy asks people to lie. It doesn't. It just says to shut up.

Of, of course someone will say that if someone gets caught in flagrante delicto or gets asked point blank, they'll have to lie if they want to stay in the service. That might be true, but no one asked them to lie. They chose to do it themselves. And they're the ones who went into the military knowing full well what the regulations and standards are. Instead, we get a media-driven false guilt trip and pity party.

Maddening, isn't it?


Anonymous said...

I think you have misunderstood an important point about DADT. DADT also implies that, if someone's homosexuality becomes public, they have to leave the army.
I will give you an example: Imagine a gay soldier who has a private life outside the army (just as most soldiers have a private life outside the army), let's say our soldier has a partner. Being in the army means being close to fellow soldiers, and quite naturally you often talk about private stuff - what they did on the last weekend, for example. So everybody is talking about the past weekend. Our gay soldier could not say "I spent my weekend with my partner." Otherwise, his homosexuality would become public. So he has to make something up, or he runs the risk of being fired.
And situations like my example occur hundreds of times in the army, every week. And this is why DADT forces people to lie about themselves. (Or do you think the gay soldier should just say: sorry, folks, we're sharing our lives here and are meant to fight for each others' lives, but, no, I can't tell you what I did last weekend.)

Solameanie said...

I see your point. However, it doesn't change my view (and that of a majority in the armed forces) that they shouldn't be serving in the military.

I have serious problems with redefining a behavior into a class like a racial or ethnic group. Not to mention that the behavior violates Scripture. Upholding Judeo-Christian standards and values is what this blog is all about. And it is possible to do that without a theocracy, as is often falsely charged.

Despite my objection and that of many others, I have no doubt that gays will eventually be allowed to serve openly in the military, and that they will eventually achieve much of their objectives in terms of their acceptance in society.

How that will play before the throne of God is an entirely different matter.

Solameanie said...

I should also add that most soldiers would probably feel very uncomfortable hearing about someone's liaison over the weekend with someone of the same sex. Locker room talk and barracks talk are pretty similar from what ex-soldiers tell me. I don't need to get any more graphic than that.