So, pop star Lady Gaga–a trashy vamp so obscenely creepy that even prominent feminist Camille Paglia has excoriated her as the symbol of what’s wrong with American women–has a new YouTube video where she earnestly tries to read a speech from cue cards while keeping a straight face. This is already serious enough business, clearly, but she even goes so far as to make a bold, original, brave claim in her speech–we should all be nice to gay people. Wow, isn’t it about time a lone hero had the courage to stand up and say that?
Lady Gaga educates the listener about the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” policy, which she then exposes as (gasp!) bad. Obviously, this slimy secret in America’s shadows is evil and must be stopped. Thank you, Lady Gaga, for showing us the way.
Never mind the baldly juvenile posturing such a “statement” must necessarily entail (but, alas, is the mainstream media even capable of anything else any more?); Lady Gaga is surely ignorant of the reasons for such a policy’s origin, or the arguments for its need and effectiveness.
To make an analogy, for years the military has had to deal with a difficult side product of having women in the armed forces: pregnancy. Now, mind you, neither women nor pregnancy in the military is bad, but the sexual escapades that such close quarters can devolve into when not kept in check (Lynndie England, anyone?), not to mention the horrors of sexual activity and subsequent pregnancy while in active deployment, have wrought an awful burden on the shoulders of leaders who have to deal with such hijinks. Some commanders have even had to go so far as to threaten court martials for women who purposely seek pregnancy to get out of duty they’ve changed their minds about, but politically correct pressure has ended such measures.
So Lady Gaga, and who knows how many others, assume that a policy barring gays from the military is just because some narrow-minded rednecks don’t want to be next to one of those people because they’re, you know, grody? How wretched that so many Americans can assume that the rest of their countrymen can be so bleakly hateful.
Don’t you see that the real problem here, the one that having mixed gender associations already causes, is one of increasing sexual activity and the complications that causes in the ranks? Does anyone really think that allowing gays in the military won’t contribute to that at all? Are they somehow immune to human nature?
The issue of gays in the military isn’t one of bigotry, no matter how convenient that would be for the social Left, but one of priorities. Which is more important, the self esteem of many decent citizens who would love to serve, or maintaining the optimum integrity of our fighting forces?
This is an important issue, with various possible interpretations and solutions, but the Left only seems willing to cling to its chanted homily: the status quo is bad and we must have our way. Black and white. I’d love to see the differing opinions in our country have better dialogues, but that can’t happen until the monolithic champions of solipsism grow up and realize that they’re not the only ones whose ideas have value.
I’d also love to serve my country, but I’m a nearsighted asthmatic with massive hearing loss. The military is obviously serving the greater good by denying me entry. But maybe if I claimed that they’re discriminating against me…
Gently Hew Stone 
I’d also love to serve my country, but I’m a nearsighted asthmatic with massive hearing loss. The military is obviously serving the greater good by denying me entry. But maybe if I claimed that they’re discriminating against me…
…because homosexuality is equivalent to a debilitating medical condition? Is that what you’re saying?
Sean, it sounds like you’ve already made up your mind about what I’m saying. By your logic, I’m also comparing homosexual relationships to a woman “getting knocked up on purpose.” Such a connection is sad and strange indeed. Did you read this post just to find a way to be outraged by it? Did you actually try to find something you could warp and hold up as evidence to give you an excuse to cry foul?
After all the effort I put into explaining a rational side to this argument, you respond with a loaded question that’s barely on topic. Do me a favor: I want you to go back and put my argument in your own words. Show me that you read this with an ounce of an open mind. Until I see that you’ve understood this post at all, I can’t see the point in responding to an attack thinly disguised as an ignorant question.
*********
I feel compelled to amend my comment. I hate how angry it is, when charity is needed to help us all communicate. Here’s where I was coming from: I wrote this post as an attempt to reach out and make a case that doesn’t get made often or well enough. I’m always hopeful that my writing is received well. Also, as I’ve complained about here plenty of times, including recently, I’m disheartened by the mainstream’s trend of responding to the thoughts of the Right with automatic disdain and dismissive insults.
And here comes a comment which only seems to say this: “So you’re just saying that gay people are sick, aren’t you?” That’s a stereotypical accusation, and a lazy one at that, frankly. It bothers me to see the kind of ad hominem attacks so abundant out there represented here.
Of course, I could be wrong in how I interpreted the comment in the first place. Aren’t I always saying that we need to give others the benefit of the doubt? So, I will now swallow my pride, apologize for the harsh tone of the original comment, and answer the question at face value, as it probably deserves to be addressed:
No, Sean, I am not calling homosexuality a sickness, nor am I even comparing it to such. The analogy at the end of my post was to show an example of a situation which it would be in the best interests of the military to avoid, to maintain their peak effectiveness. Another situation would be soldiers involved in sexual relationships, be they heterosexual or homosexual. There’s no need to try to equate the situations offered as illustrations.
I feel my point still stands, but I’d be happy to discuss it further. I am sorry, though, if anything in my language, especially in my earlier response to you, caused offense. I was wrong to be so caustic.
I think you bring up an excellent point, and I really appreciate the way that you articulated it. The issue of gays in the military is complex, like most other issues. Like you mentioned, these issues often appear to hinge solely upon a simple contradiction of opinion… like the only thing determining our military policy is an opinion on the morality of homosexuality itself! The way arguments are framed in the media is often so limiting that it is in fact deceptive. (Not to mention frustrating!)