BCT Editorial – 2/12/08

This page was last updated on February 12, 2008.

Don’t ask, don’t tell; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 12, 2008.

The subtitle of the editorial is “Has difficulty in filling ranks led to more tolerance of homosexuals in the military?”

Before I begin, let me state I have neither military nor behavioral science experience or expertise. What I write below just seems to make sense. At the risk of being labeled ignorant and a sexist homophobe, here goes.

One of the reasons I oppose women serving in combat roles alongside men has to do with the sexual tension present in mixed groups and the potential effects on the mission even if full-blown romance doesn’t break out. There are a couple of other reasons, but this is the one relevant to this discussion. The fact non-pregnant sailors leave on an aircraft carrier but a number return pregnant makes it obvious sex isn’t checked at the dock.

When you have homosexuals serving with members of the same sex, how is that different from heterosexuals serving with members of the opposite sex?

Is this one of those cases where commonsense – at least to me – is wrong? I don’t know. As I wrote above, I have neither experience nor expertise in this area. Until we’re certain, however, I don’t believe our armed forces should serve as a behavioral science lab for politically correct social policies.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may be doing what presidential executive orders and congressional actions could not — end discrimination against homosexuals in the U.S. military.

“Scripps Howard News Service reports the Pentagon’s controversial ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy on gays in the military may be on the way out.”

[RWC] Funny how the editorial failed to note President Clinton approved the implementation of this policy, isn’t it?

“Officially, the policy is still there. However, because of a shortage of recruits and the need to retain trained personnel, more commanders apparently are looking the other way when it comes to gays.”

[RWC] Read this editorial closely and you’ll find it’s entirely conjecture.

“The news service cited Army Sgt. Darren Manzella, a medic who spent a year in Iraq, as an example. It’s been more than a year since he told his superiors he was gay, and it’s been two months since he told his story on ‘60 Minutes.’

“And nothing has happened.”

[RWC] How can that be? I thought the Bush administration (and Republicans and conservatives in general) was a bunch of racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes.

“Manzella is not alone. About 500 openly gay troops are serving without much notice.

“Advocacy groups for gays in the military told the news service the armed services are looking the other way because these men and women are valued for their skills and because the military is overstretched by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

[RWC] The editorial appears to imply homosexuals have skills different from and/or better than heterosexuals.

“There could be another reason. Perhaps some in the armed services appreciate the fact that homosexuals in the military are willing to fight and die for their country, even though it discriminates against them, while the vast majority of young heterosexuals of military age don’t believe the freedoms they enjoy are worth fighting for.”

[RWC] This paragraph implies the percentage of homosexuals who believe “are willing to fight and die for their country” is much greater than that of heterosexuals. Is that true?

“Is this newfound tolerance of homosexuals the result of a lack of patriotism in the heterosexual population?”

“Don’t ask.”

[RWC] This is amazing. Homosexuals are patriotic but heterosexuals are not? What’s in the drinking water at the Times?