You Just Need to Shoot Straight

Earlier this week, the US Senate passed on an opportunity to rid our Military of a piece of discriminatory legislation still on the books.

In 1950, the Uniform Code of Military Justice placed a ban which disallowed a homosexual from serving in the US Military since it would create an “unacceptable risk to the high standard of morale, good order, and discipline”.

In 1993, The Clinton Administration began the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy which did not remove the ban, but put certain restrictions on how far Defense Officials could dig into your private life looking for evidence of your sexual orientation. This effectively didn’t change much, since homosexuals are still banned from service and had to hide the nature of their orientation before, just as they do now.  Between 2009 and the inception of DADT, 13,389 individuals were discharged from the service under the grounds of being homosexual. Many of those individuals served for years without jeopardizing the high standards of morale, good order and discipline.

We need to judge people’s fitness for service in the military based on their job performance, not based on their sexual orientation.

As Barry Goldwater correctly stated, “You don’t need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.”

So why does one group of people have to live in constant fear of losing their job?

Oh, right – homosexuals would create an unacceptable risk to the high standard of morale, good order, and discipline.

The same argument was made when the military looked to de-segregate the services based on skin color.

The same argument was made for keeping women from serving on naval warships.

ect, ect, ect…

The truth is the men and women serving in our military are professionals. They are there to do a difficult job and this is exactly what they do. Trust me, when I served as an officer on an attack submarine, nobody cared anything about what their shipmates did in their private lives. All we cared about was how well you did your job and if we could count on you are not.  Gay, straight, black, white, orange, wiccan, Klingon, nerd, dork, Yankee Fan, Muslim; it didn’t matter.

“You just need to shoot straight.”

Advertisements

7 Responses to You Just Need to Shoot Straight

  1. No Naval Officer would mistake the abbreviation for et cetera, etc. for ect, like you did. You lying moron.

    Rejecting the openly homosexual people from our military is entirely justifiable. When out next major war occurs (probably with Communist China) those gooks are going to bring their A-team. They will not take us on with a bunch of little angry dykes and niggas with attitude (NWA). The Red Army will bring men to our shores to kill our people and to conquer our government.

    You don’t repel a force like the Red Chinese Army, or deter them from war with a military that is being used as an ongoing social experiment.

    We need men who are willing to fight as a unit and who know how to fight exceptionally well. It takes one Hell of a lot more than just knowing how to shoot straight.

    Equal opportunity does not apply to our military. We need to select the very best warriors that our country can produce, then train and equip them so that they can kill hundreds of times their own number. That is the level of commitment we must make if we are to keep from being over-run, and having America become a conquered country.

    • Don Tabor says:

      Well, hello, Clairese.

      Your insults and racial and sexual pejoratives would get you deleted from many blogs, but here, we just laugh at you.

      Not having been in the Military, I tend to leave comment on this issue to those who have served, but I have to note that those opposing military service by gays and lesbians seem to post the more irrational and vitriolic statements, and that does not support their argument well.

      • Tom Salmon says:

        Don – Most people who oppose homosexuals in the military use perfectly good language. What you just did is stereotype a whole group of people.

        There are valid reasons for keeping homosexuals out of the military. Before allowing homosexuals to serve in the military, even the Obama administration thinks the matter should be studied. The cost/benefits are not as simple as you seem to think.

        I think we should all be able to agree that the military is not the place for risky social experiments. As a matter of fact, when previous generations integrated Blacks into the larger force, they took very little risk. Blacks had already serve in separate units for generations. Everyone already knew the bigotry had no basis in behavior. Blacks had demonstrated they could and WOULD do what was required.

        Similarly, we have introduced women into the armed forces gradually. Since sexual differences do have profound behavioral implications, this introduction has produced problems. Thus, many still doubt the wisdom of women in combat units, regarding it as foolish idea whose time should never come.

        Homosexuality is a behavioral disorder, and we have no prior history of homosexuals serving openly. So we don’t know how homosexuals serving openly will work; we can only guess that as time passes problems would grow.

        Check out http://familyallianceonline.org/2010/09/10/homosexuals-in-our-military-should-homosexuals-be-banned-from-our-military/. That blog has a good series on the topic. No hysteria. No insults or sexual pejoratives.

        • Don Tabor says:

          Not having served in the military, I avoid taking a strong position on that issue, deferring to those who have and continue to serve, my rebuke of Clarise was about her rudeness in using the terms ‘moron’ and ‘gooks’ in what is intended as a respectful place for debate.

          My rule is to not use language here you would not use to someone’s face in a colonial pub, knowing everyone there was armed.

  2. Wow, how to follow such a shrill and paranoid screech of bigotry and hate?

    Let me just say Mr. Roberts that you and I would probably not agree on many things, but I truly admire your moral courage in bucking the disapproval of people like Ms. Lippincott.

    A volunteer military is built on the sacrifices made by those who volunteer. Many of those who have volunteered in the past and who will volunteer in the future are gay.

    I am not gay myself, nor have I served in the military. I was denied that privilege due to childhood asthma. I tried to volunteer for the Virginia National Guard when I was 17, but was rejected on medical grounds. While it is not the same thing, I think I understand the frustration of those who feel driven to volunteer to serve their country, only to have their service rejected due to circumstances beyond their control.

    We probably don’t agree on many things Mr. Roberts, but let me at least take a moment to pause and give you full credit for your gesture of tolerance and acceptance towards a group of people whose only crimes are patriotism and a desire to serve a country that has not always respected their civil rights.

  3. Robert Lawson says:

    Clairese Lippincott,
    The odds of a “Red Dawn” type scenario any time in the near future are ridiculously nonexistent. The PRC is primarily concerned with taking the leadership role within their region. It is highly unlikely they’ll try to control North America if they haven’t even consolidated control of all of “their” own country (Tibet, Xinjiang, various islands claimed by both the PRC and Japan, and the areas still controlled by the Republic of China).
    A more likely scenario is of the USA being dragged into a war with the PRC due to aggression against Taiwan or resulting from an Indian-PRC conflict.
    Even given those more likely (but still not probable)scenarios, the USA would be outmatched in terms of numbers. If you want the USA to win a (hypothetical) war with the PRC then you should be for putting a gun in the hand of every man and woman who will willingly take one… because, even with superior technology and training, that is what is going to be required for the USA to overcome the PRC.

  4. Robert Lawson says:

    Tom Salmon,

    Gays have been serving in our military, proving themselves, just as blacks did. The only difference is that they haven’t been doing it openly. For the time that DADT as been in effect, homosexuals have been (secretly) serving in our military proving they have what it takes and that there is no basis for the bigotry against them.

    Clarification is needed for this though: The battle over DADT is not whether Gays should serve in the military or not. It is over whether they should serve OPENLY or not. They have been allowed to serve under DADT so long as they don’t tell anyone.

    Homsexuality is not a disorder, it occurs naturally and has a biological basis.

    As far as having no examples of homosexuals ever serving openly… well, that is an outright lie. Homosexuals currently serve in the militaries of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Israel, Australia, Ireland, Russia, and many other countries.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: