Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Really?

The Senate Armed Services Committee has recently been holding hearings concerning a possible repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military.  This is currently a hot button issue and appears to be divided down party lines (again) with Democrats giving lip service for the repeal while many Republicans are issuing dire, apocalyptic warnings against it.

Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) recently expressed his concern that repealing the rule would pave the way for allowing “alcohol use, adultery, fraternization, and body art” in the military — and that the army must “exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.”

The Baptist Press has similar beliefs, “Military experts and social conservatives are criticizing President Obama’s goal of allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military, saying the armed forces’ inherently close quarters would make any change in policy similar to forcing male and female personnel to live together.”

Let me get this straight.  If gays are allowed to serve openly then military members may start getting tattoos?  Until recently, I thought the military had the market cornered on tattoos.  Adultery?  I thought that was the sole specialty of politicians (I would say the specialty of Republicans, but John Edwards screwed that up).

Every argument for keeping “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” breaks down under even the most basic scrutiny.

No one would seriously argue that there aren’t hundreds, if not thousands of gays serving in the military right now.  However, they are required to keep it to themselves and lie about it.  So, pro-DADT pundits would have us believe that DADT is preventing all sorts of problems.  For instance:

  • Private Smith and Private Jones are in a foxhole with bullets whizzing by their head under heavy artillery fire.  The are very close to each other.  Private Jones would normally be aroused, but because of DADT he is able to suppress his erection and the urge to tear of Private Smith’s clothes and have anal intercourse with him.  However, if DADT were repealed, this impetus would be removed and Private Jones would not be able to suppress his erection and they would have sex right there.
  • Private Smith and Private Jones are in the shower.  The are very close to each other.  Private Smith is wet and soapy.  He’s so sexy.  Private Jones would normally be aroused, but because of DADT he is able to suppress his erection and the urge to bend Private Smith over and have anal intercourse with him.  However, if DADT were repealed, this impetus would be removed and Private Jones would not be able to suppress his erection and they would have sex right there.
  • Private Smith and Private Jones on liberty and hitting up the local bars.  They are both hopelessly drunk.  They walk into a tattoo parlor and pick a cool tat. Private Smith and Private Jones would normally get marked, but because of DADT they resist the urge to get matching unit tattoos.  However, if DADT were repealed, this impetus would be removed and Private Jones and Private Brown would wake up with an Airborne tattoo.
  • Private Smith and Private Jones are performing their daily routine.  All is well because DADT is in place.  However, if DADT were repealed, the heavens would open up and the right hand of the Almighty would strike them down from upon high and destroy America because it panders to “the homosexuals” (just like he did to Haiti).

People, if you believe this you’re a loon.  What else is there to say?