It maybe so that soon enough gays won’t be that big a deal in the military.

But the repeal of DADT has little or nothing to do with gays serving in the military. Gays ARE serving in the military today – even the gay advocacy groups admit that, claiming that there are tens of thousands doing so right now.

However, as soon as the law that states that homosexuality is incompatible with military service is gone, the VERY NEXT step will be to sue for spousal benefits for homosexual partners. And the courts, absent a law saying that homosexuals are different from heterosexuals, will grant it.

And that will be a Federal recognition of domestic partnerships and/or marriage.

And while the military is prepared for gays in the ranks – they are there already, remember – the COUNTRY is not ready for gay marriage.

But that is what we will get when DADT is repealed.

As an Irishman, I have always loved this scene in “Braveheart” where the Irishman says: “In order to find his equal, an Irishman is forced to talk to God.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gHH0ih867U
(some foul language)

Rod Dreher, IIRC, led that charge. The rest are merely followers. Not lemmings, of course, because they’re all far, far, far, too innerlekshul to be lemmings.

Right?

Gays are serving in the military. Marines on guard duty will tell you that they find Navy personel up to all sort of shennangians at night on ships at sea (yes Virginia, the sterotypes about the Navy are true). That aside, you will still have the vast majority of recruits being straight. Gay ones will serve and either do well or not.

The military will deal with this and has the tools to deal with behavior it deems counter productive. Even if they can’t seem to control those squabies.

Repealing DADT does not mean pandamonium. It is a policy that Bill Clinton imposed and resulted in kicking out qualified personnel for things that were often not even causing problems in the ranks. The Military will appropriately and professionally respond to this.

But, Joe, how will the military deal with same-sex partners? They are not in the military. Will they exclude them?

And if so, how long until *that* gets into court? You can rest assured the pleadings are already written, just blanks left for the names.

And you don’t have to think much how it will be decided. It will likely be some sailor in San Diego. Which court will that end up in?

The push for the repeal of DADT is NOT to get gays to serve in the military. You say so yourself, they are already there. And it isn’t like “gay activists” are all about the getting proportional representation in Afghanistan and Iraq theaters of operation.

This is plain and simple a way to get a Federal recognition of marriage between persons of the same sex imposed by the courts, bypassing the democratic process that has overwhelmingly rejected it every time.

The military (and the traditionalists) lost this battle by planting their flag on the good order and discipline argument. That was the wrong argument. Because once that argument is knocked down, DADT does not have a basis – read the law as written.

Once the basis is gone, the law is gone, and hello gay marriage.

And in case you are wondering – I think that gays should be allowed to marry. But I also think that this should be adopted through legislation, not imposed through the courts, because it isn’t a “civil right.” But when it goes to court, it will be.

The federal government does not recognize same sex marriages right now, so there is time to deal with it. But let’s face some reality, some states will pass it and eventually it will be recognized in part. The military can deal with that too.

I do not disagree with you that gay activists are pushing this issue for reasons beyond merely getting married. But the obviously push back is gays do not get any special rights, just equal rights.

Society is dealing with this. It will in the long run not be as big a deal as many think it will be.

Hmmm.
Imagine that.

Hmmm.
Imagine that.

I AM THE AMERICAN TALIBAN!

NO, *I* AM THE AMERICAN TALIBAN!

What is it about the single sexual fetish called homosexuality that renders it the “good” sexual fetish?

To make the argument based on tradition and religion is to concede the argument, particularly if you’re trying to convince non-believers. Wagging your finger and asking “Who are you to question God?” just proves you have nothing left.

And the elite liberal outfit that is Fox News found that 61% of Americans were in favor of allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve.

Hey, Sparks, in trying to prove one liberal point, you have accidentally refuted another. We all know that Evil Right-Wing Fox News only reports conservative stuff and fixes all their data – oh, wait, what’s that, you say their survey didn’t “fix” the data like MSNBC routinely does, and then when they got a result contrary to conservative thought, they published it anyway. That seems awfully “Fair and Balanced” of them, hmmmm? Oooops!

I do have to wonder whether the idea that homosexuality is immoral came from God Himself, or from some human tradition. If God really is down on the practice, then we ought not to do it, nor to try to normalize it. If the idea arose from human tradition, then, why? Airhead young Marxists will say some blather about exploiting homosexuals. Only thing is, there were a good many homosexuals in ancient times who were not exploited at all, emperors and generals and such, so, where’s the exploitation?
There are people who claim that homosexuality has been universally accepted everywhere and at all times. They love to cite the example of Socrates, who does appear to have had a boyfriend in his old age. (And was a traitor to Athens in her war with Sparta) On the other hand, Diodorus Seculous was quite scandalized at the homosexuality that he witnessed among the Gauls. Even today, Japan is only about one third nominal Christian, one tenth actually practicing that faith, but the Japanese words for homosexual are so bad they are rarely translated into English. Chinese society is similarly very hostile. Until about forty years ago, even American Leftists had no use, literally, as it turns out, for homosexuals. So, I am driven to ask, why are we being asked to rewrite military law, risk military morale and readiness, and revise marriage and family and inheritance law, to please less than two per cent of the population? What general societal benefit do we derive from such actions? The only one that I see is “greater tolerance.” Is that a real benefit? Kindness is a societal as well as an individual virtue, as are cooperation, compassion, inventiveness and innovation. Tolerance? To tolerate what? It all sounds rather like Holland or Sweden, which are both so tolerant that they don’t care about much of anything, any more, including having babies. Those exquisitely tolerant societies are dying. Just how much more tolerance do we need?

Is George Will left handed?

I don’t disagree with the basic thesis, but I think the pundits who are saying “it’s no big deal these days” are making a valid observation on the culture as it exists. Whether through a gradual shift in social attitudes or a long indoctrination of PC values, the culture no longer views homosexuality as a moral question.

As with other values abandoned by modern society, it’s not a question of right and wrong any more as far as popular culture is concerned. That’s just reality.

I don’t see those pundits saying, “Wow isn’t it great that this is the case?” They are merely stating the facts, in that they are essentially correct.