Comments on: CPAC Overboard on DADT

By: Richard W. Fitch

Richard W. Fitch — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:05:17 +0000

CPAC = CRAP

By: Arthur

Arthur — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:13:14 +0000

My favorite part is where Perkins, who supports voting down gay rights, says he knows better than the vast majority of Americans.

By: Chris McCoy

Chris McCoy — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:47:34 +0000

The the late nineteen hundreds (1993 to be specific), I was graduating from high school and had respectable SAT and ACT scores. I was summarily head-hunted by all 5 branches of the armed forces. They continued to hound me despite my repeated protests that I was not interested.

Finally to make them go away, I told them I was gay. They all went away. Except the Navy recruiter – who excitedly replied, “That’s ok! We have Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell!”….

By: Jarred

Jarred — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:35:40 +0000

I see another problem with “mothers who wouldn’t let their sons enlist” argument. Last I checked, the military doesn’t enlist minors. And if said son isn’t a minor, then the mother can’t actually stop him from enlisting. Unless, of course, she still has some sort of control over her still-adult son. And you know what happens when mothers are smothering and overbearing toward their sons….;)

By: Christopher Waldrop

Christopher Waldrop — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:50:20 +0000

Actually, if you read Admiral Lyons’ comments carefully, you’ll see that he’s referring to “the late nineteen hundreds”, which, I guess, would be the 1990′s. Which makes me wonder where I was because I don’t remember hearing anyone’s mother forbid their children from joining the Navy. At least not for the reasons the Admiral mentions.

And if he is talking about the 1890′s, well, they have been called the Gay Nineties.

By: Richard Rush

Richard Rush — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:50:14 +0000

While I certainly believe gays should be permitted to serve openly in the military, I believe that DADT should remain in place with its focus shifted to another target: Religious Proselytizers. If a soldier openly shares the gospel, he’s out. It’s harmful to unit cohesion.

Just imagine: An unsuspecting soldier drops the soap in the shower room, and the next thing you know he has religion rammed up his butt. At that point he is likely to have been exposed to the pathogen that causes religion-based bigotry. Few things are as harmful to America’s military, especially while we are fighting two wars in predominately Islamic nations.

By: CPT_Doom

CPT_Doom — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:32:36 +0000

Thanks for posting this Jim – it is pretty shocking. To my reading Mr. Minnery is basically arguing that there will be wanton gay-bashing by their straight counterparts because of the “sexual tension” that will inevitably rise (all puns intended). So, if we let gay men (but not lesbians, hmmm) into the military, the straight soldiers will be so unable to control their hatred, they will beat them?

Alternatively Mr. Minnery could be worried that those poor gay men will be so full of sexual frustration from being around all those straight men (because gay men are attracted to every single member of their gender) that they’ll be angry and unhappy. Isn’t it nice that he’s looking out for us.

And I love Admiral Lyons’ argument – because mothers 125 years ago acted in a specific way, we should assume the same thing will happen if we allow gays into that bastion of straightness, the Navy (or, God forbid, the Marines). Apparently the Admiral has not evolved in the last 50 years, but I think America has.