December 10, 2003

• I think you missed out an important point. Not only is he an admiral, he's actually a rear admiral. 'Cos, like, he's gay, and a rear admiral... Rear... uh... [coat]
• I'm glad we got that sophomoric Rear Admiral gag out of the way early, now we can discuss the meat of the issue namely, well actually that's the only angle I can find to comment on. Damn my Beavis & Butthead-esque brain, damnit to hell.
• commanders have said they are concerned that forcing heterosexual members to live, and fight, side by side with gays will undermine the military's mission to win the nation's wars. Yep, there you are on the battlefield, bullets whizzing by you, blood and mud and body parts flying, and suddenly the realization dawns " Seargent Jennings is checking out my ass! Oh jeeze, how do I let him down easy? " No man should ever have to find himself in such an awkward situation.
• < slaps forehead > I'm ashamed that I laughed. But I did, and then I thought of the First Transvestite Brigade. Let's try these though: 1) Will their revelation help? 2) Is this an indication that change is coming? 3) Are the comparisons to Jim Crow laws applicable? Is homosexuality intrinsically different than race? 4) Would you be ok with serving with openly homosexual soldiers? 5) Does this uniform make me look fat?
• All respect to Nickdanger, but let's face it, 95% of a soldier's life is NOT spent on the battlefield, but in training, in barracks, and in otherwise peaceful environments.
• 1.) Yes. I believe the fears of the American public, at least the ignorant among us, are rooted in a belief that people of homosexual orientation are somehow unable to control their sexual desires and will cause the average red-blooded heterosexual GI-Joe to neglect his training because he's too worried that his fellow-in-arms is trying to hold his hand or cop a feel. The fact that these three men, and the unknown numbers of others like them, were able to succeed in a system openly hostile to their sexual preferences undermines that argument completely. 2.)It is an indication that change has come. The real question is how far will that change go? I can't pretend to know. 3.) <jim crow> Uh... Yes. In as much as a fairly superficial aspect of these people's lives is taken by the majority, used to define them as 'other' and then as a reason to deny them the same rights as heterosexual (or in the jim crow since, white) americans. Is homosexuality different then race? I believe that's a moot question, since it is the majority's perception of people with a homosexual orientation that defines their place in society, in much the same way that racism is a social construct, while race is perhaps a question of genetic heritage. 4.) If I was okay being a soldier in the first place, the last thing I would worry about is if the, um... rear admiral might fancy a cuddle with another man from time to time. In much the same way that I wouldn't allow a heterosexual female boss to undermine my ability to serve food in a restaurant, shelve books in a bookstore, or perform brain surgery in a hospital. Barring sexual harrassment, which is a different issue altogether. Frankly, if I was a soldier I would be much more concerned that I was expected to kill people and/or die!!! 5.) Of course not, it's actually quite flattering.
• If I were inclined to be in the military (which I am definitely not), it wouldn't bother me if my fellow soldiers were lesbians. I think it's different for women than for men though. I think Nickdanger brings up an important point though: perception. Perception about minorities and what they can and can't do is slowly but surely being changed. And even if you are racist or misogynist, you have to shut up about it because too bad, the policy is that women and racial minorities are in the military to stay (this goes back to the Jim Crow arguments). If we stop isolating homosexuals as freaks, maybe people will stop thinking about them that way. I have a feeling that it's going to be a painful transition though--especially in settings where being tough and macho is encouraged because homophobes often consider homosexuality a threat to their manhood.
• Historical context: Can an army of lovers be defeated? Apparantly, the answer is yes, but not until much ass has been kicked.
• of course there are openly gay soldiers in iraq and they say they're not having any problems...
• I never figured out why the left hasn't pointed out that there are gay law enforcement officers and there hasn't been a problem. Plus, there have been gays in the military for a long time. They just stay private about their sexuality. The result has been that the United States has the most powerful military in the world. I would be able to respectfully disagree with the military's argument if they were consistant. They have a problem with gays, but they try to cover up things like female Air Force cadets getting raped. The military's policy is based on prejudice. Pure and simple.
• ...And not just law enforcement officers. What about, say, doctors? If this idea - that people will somehow be unable to do their job if, and only if, they believe that slightly camp male nurse over there is checking them out - is accurate, then shouldn't homosexualists be barred from any important job in which significant decisions have to be made in high pressure situations? Or, perhaps, women should be banned. Or men. Or all heterosexuals. Or any single people. Or, um, humans. Or... something? I remain perplexed by why so many people remain obsessed solely with poofery as being the bad thing in the entire pantheon of human sexual behaviour - most of which, let's admit it, is pretty odd and irrational...
• Don't ask, don't tell.
• Variations on a theme: Don't ask, don't tell.
• "I'll tell you what, Stephen," said Jack, "Now, you know I'm not the sort to top it the kitten-hater-" "Far from it, my dear," demurred Stephen. "-and you know how dearly I hate to see a kitten be flogged around the fleet. But that new Captain Fluffy... well, you know, he just ain't quite the thing. A fine sailor, a capital one for precise gunnery, I grant you, and nary a mouse nor a rat aboard his barky - but he just ain't quite the thing..." /Patrick O'Brian obsessive, goes to bed. ...and on preview - well, there's my nightmares sorted. Images of Jacko d'or with chimp rampant for me tonight. Aaargh. Cheers, jjray... :-)
• Ah, Patrick O'Brian. I'm currently on the seventh book.
• Three More Gay Arabic Linguists Gone
• Argh.
• You rang?
• Ah, just a Diet Coke for me please. Ooh! And some of those little sandwich things?
• How about a little salad to go with that?