Mixtapes for Hookers


If The US Repeals Don’t Ask Don’t Tell The Military Will Obviously Become One Big Gay Hangout
April 12, 2010, 12:02 am
Filed under: gay, heterosexuals | Tags: , , ,

I don’t often speak here about hot-button LGBT issues, partly because there’s 5,000,000 other places on the internet for people to read that and partly because honestly I’m not personally very concerned with gay marriage and the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  Also, since this blog isn’t really about those things, I don’t want to alienate all four of my readers, since they’re not here to  read one more person complaining about the government.  Don’t get me wrong, I think gays should have the same rights as heterosexuals when it comes to burial rights and health coverage and life insurance.  But personally I think the solution is to reform burial and health care and insurance policies so they’re not marriage-based, not to encourage more people to get married.

I’m also not really jazzed about the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, because at heart I am a peacenik and a hippie.  Sure, DADT is basically job discrimination, but I also don’t really understand those LGBT individuals (or, for that matter, those straight individuals) that are so anxious to join the military.  (Unless it’s for the scholarship money, but again, I think there are other solutions.)

However, I couldn’t not comment on an editorial in Saturday’s Providence Journal.  It comes, rather horrifyingly, from a professor of sociology and a former state Senate Majority Leader, and it makes one of the craziest arguments I have ever heard with regard to DADT.

Before making his argument, David Carlin brings up four bullet-pointed facts about the people behind the proposed repeal of DADT: people that want gays to serve openly are concerned about “equal rights for homosexuals”; people that want gays to serve openly “have been generally opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan” and “seldom to they encourage their sons and daughters to enter the military”; people that want gays to serve openly “wish to de-legitimize traditional morality, otherwise known as old-fashioned Christian morality”; and, finally, people that want gays to serve openly “are enemies of traditional Christianity.”

I am not clear on how the third and fourth point are different, but they’re listed separately.

The author questions whether DADT violates gay rights, and decides that it doesn’t, since gays are already guaranteed the right to serve:  “What is not guaranteed is a right of a gay soldier to notify his comrades that he is gay, for instance by boasting of his conquests last night at a gay bar.”  He basically goes on to say that it’s impossible to be gay without constantly boasting about sexual conquests.

But then he gets to his real point:

[T]he military might become something of a “gathering place” for gays — as Catholic seminaries did a few decades ago. As more gays came to populate Catholic seminaries, fewer “straights” were willing to do so, and fewer orthodox Catholic families were willing to encourage their sons to enter the priesthood. This helps explain the “priest shortage” that currently afflicts the Catholic Church.

That explains the priest shortage?  Not the celibacy?  (You know, the celibacy that renders it moot whether you’re gay or straight?)  Not the inability to get married, or the decades of scandals related to the celibacy (and, let’s be honest, to the common Catholic practice of surrounding celibate men with pubescent boys)?

Carlin is undaunted by the fact that all priests are supposed to give up hopes for sex upon ordination, or the fact that no sensible heterosexual male would let the possibility of gay priests deter him from his vocation because the days of multi-priest parishes are largely gone and it’s not like parish priests even see each other very often, never mind in situations where they might accidentally be gay with each other.  Still, Carlin goes on to say that it’s quite possible that conservatives might “steer their sons and daughters into non-military lines of work, thereby weakening the American armed forces.”


Leave a Comment so far
Leave a comment



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: