Quantcast
This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.
gay military

Hollywood can discriminate based on anything. “Sorry, but you’re too black.” “You’re good, but you’re too fat.” “I like you, but you aren’t pretty enough.” Hollywood can pick whomever they want, for whatever reason, and with no repercussions. Discrimination for the sake of art.

So the military, the people who protect the nation can’t choose who they want,  because gays got their win with the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  Now they can be openly gay. What exactly is openly gay anyway?

Gays are individuals, not defined by their sexuality—at least not the smart ones. So there is a wide spectrum to being gay.

When I think of being openly gay, I think about the black folks who say to me that I don’t “act black.” Sure I do. I am openly black, but being black doesn’t define me. Being American does, as does being human.

I believe that most gays in the military could care less about exposing their sexuality and are content to just do their jobs. I say this, because I don’t walk through life being black.

Unlike Hollywood where being gay or bi considered a la mode, the job of the military is to create military ‘personnel,’ regardless of sexual orientation, ethnicity, creed, or whatever. Black soldiers are not walking around saying, “I’m a black Colonel.” All the military cares about is the “Colonel” part; truth be told, the military is more concerned with one’s competence. The same would be true of “gays,” as most military men and women don’t care what type of sex[1] another soldier is having, as long as that sex doesn’t infringe on them.

I suspect that the military has a much better “gaydar” than gays think. Their peers either know who is gay in the military or they have their suspicions. There are high ranking gays in the military now. The woman who filed the suit to repeal DADT is a retired Colonel, I believe. I’d be willing to bet you that most of the people who promoted her already knew she had her penchant for the ladies.[2] Her gayness apparently didn’t negatively affect her career. It would appear that the only people who were concerned about her gayness was her.

So what Liberals have done for the military is what they have been doing to all of America for decades; infecting the military with cancer. Soon promotions will be measured by how many “gays” we have at a certain rank, or “I didn’t get this promotion or billet, because I am gay.” Gays will require their own facilities, and they could end up where black people were in the ‘40’s…segregated.

What’s interesting about DADT when compared to blacks being in the military is that blacks had to endure a very different form of discrimination. Discrimination against blacks was called “Don’t Ask, We Already Know.”

Blacks have been discriminated in the military for decades. Be it military or civilian, with rare exception,[3] people already knew who the blacks were in the military. Yet somehow in what Liberals believe is the most racist country in the world with the most heinous military, blacks managed to get a black Commander in Chief[4], and a black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.[5]

It has been argued to me that DADT is needed so that gay military personnel could invite their significant others to events. Not true. Gay military personnel could have appeared with their same sex partners, and under DADT nobody could question either of them. It was just two buddies hanging out, or “girl’s night out” as far as DADT regulations were concerned.

But don’t expect bases to look like the Mission District of San Francisco, because as for showing affection towards one’s “partner,” PDA[6] is forbidden by everybody, gay or straight. No fraternization or ‘sororitization’ either.

I’m not sure what this new development will do to morale within the military. I do believe that there will be an “us versus them” mentality amongst homosexuals, which cannot be good for anybody, especially the military.

The military who is supposed to protect us now has become a victim of the Liberal agenda. Go ahead; declare your open gayness, whatever that means. But don’t expect the military to act according to the gay agenda like the civilian world.

Legislating based on sexual proclivity is wrong. Few jobs require knowledge of one’s sexual nature, and most that do are located near Hollywood. Repeal of DADT is just the Liberals’ way of attacking an institution, an institution that was not discriminating against gays.  The military is like Hollywood, in that they have a set of guidelines they felt made them more effective.

Turnabout is fair play, however. I say we attack their institutions—the media, Hollywood, Academia. Let’s sue them for discriminating against Conservatives, straights, Republicans…those are creeds!

Let’s show Liberals that we really understand the art of war.

That’s my rant!

Kevin Jackson is author of The BIG Black Lie and The Black Sphere blog.


[1] Unless good sex counts

[2] Licker License

[3] There were a handful of blacks who could ‘pass’ as white.

[4] He’s still a sissy

[5] Colin Powell

[6] Public Display of Affection

 
 
Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

  • nohammernosickl

    I don't think this is going to be a huge problem. There are already gays in the military. My guess is that many of them will just say "I'm gay, just want to get that out of the way, please don't think any differently of me." And that will be that. Hopefully.

    That being said, I think this has more to do with liberal politically correct ideology getting into our military than anything. Liberals called Republicans racist when we had a black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, a black Secretary of State, a Hispanic Attorney General and a black Supreme Court justice. They really don't care about those things any more than they care about gays being in the military. They simply care about their liberal ideology being advanced. Somehow I think the liberals intend that the DADT repeal undermines the military, but I think they will be wrong.

    • theblacksphere

      You may be right, nohammer. We will see soon, I suspect. I think the gay agenda won't allow for what it considers a single small step.

    • DDCdana

      I disagree. The repeal of DADT was only the beginning. Kevin is absolutely right; now that a soldier can be "openly gay" (whatever that means), it won't be long before they scream discrimination for not getting whatever it is they want but may not deserve.

      On the other hand, why should only heterosexuals give their lives for their country? I admire all soldiers, but I hate the victim mentality.

  • schmoe

    Yes you can take whatever the libtard argument is, and bet the farm that it is 180 degrees incorrect with whatever they are arguing. They say it will make a better military, yet their INTENTION is to UNDERMINE THE MILITARY and they cannot be trusted. I don't care who is gay in the military, but I hope the ones that are there are not liberal activists hellbent on destroying America. The camel already has its nose under the tent with the Army-jihadist-pedophile worshiper who shot and killed many fine soldiers. Also worth mentioning that individual gays may have good intentions, but they are pawns by the soroses of the world who want to infiltrate every stronghold of American security and sovereignty, and certainly the military ranks at the top of any infiltrators' list.

    • theblacksphere

      I agree, schmoe. Liberals hate "institutions," i.e. marriage, religion, military, etc. They are hell bent on destroying them.

    • Brad

      Hi, schmoe. If you are so concern about where the military services is going, why aren't you in it.
      If gays are wiling to put their lives on the line for this country , I have more respect for them than someone on the sideline who has never put there ass on the line.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jackiewalker.stlouis Jackie Walker

    The "agenda" was not to get gays out in the open. There is a much bigger picture going on that everybody seems to be missing. As a veteran, I could have cared less if you were gay or not. Just do your job and respect the same rules as everyone else. This is about the "benefits", about being able to be married, to have the same right to housing with your partner as those that are married. To get the same dependent benefits (if kids are involved possibly thru adoption). Educational benefits for signifigant others, etc, etc.. Infiltrate the military and demand the same benefits as hetrosexuals, and it will spread into the civilian sector.

    • Wade2go

      Yes Jackie, that sounds great. But that is not the reality of what was happening. People who could "care less" were outing people who are gay and they were getting kicked out of military.

  • AF NCO Ret Wilson

    Good job Kevin well said, and keep up the good work. I would like to add my two cent to what you have said and maybe add some additional insight. DADT worked but there were some issues with the management of the program. An example would be the female officer that was kicked out under DAST because her ex told to get revenge was wrong under the law. That however is not justification to repeal something that worked and the people had already accepted. I’m retired military and had a gay guy on my work crew; the problem with open gay is the living. Let me explain; in peace time you train and it is just like any other hard job that you do, with rules and regulations. The problem happens when you deploy and some administration person chooses your roommate and there are open showers. Now you make the majority of people who are not gay uncomfortable and this can affect their job performance. This happened in the first Gulf War in our unit because of gay relations and it did not make us a better fighting force.

    • AF NCO Ret Wilson

      Thats DADT not DAST sorry about that

    • theblacksphere

      I agree that woman should not have been fired for "sexuality." But I still believe that if Hollywood can discriminate, the military should be able to.

  • AF NCO Ret Wilson

    The living today is male tents and female tents. What do you tell the person that has a problem living with a gay person? Get over it or get out? Most of the people in the military are not gay so do you tell most of the people this? So do you have a male, female, gay, and lesbian tent? What about the Tran gendered what do you do with them? If you allow the gays to have their own tent then you are discriminating against the heterosexuals and would require a tent for straight couples as well. With budget cuts coming and you know they will who is always at the top of the list? If we are unwilling to pay for two tents when we deploy how can we justify six tents to accommodate a small group of service members? I know there was a lot of question in this but I don’t think these questions were properly addressed. Here is another one will we lose the wars we fight because we do not have openly gay service members? There is an old Army saying if Uncle Sam had wanted you to have it they would have issued it to you. I have been retired out of the military for about 5yrs after serving 22yrs and they never issued sex of any type when I was serving, you kept that to yourself.

    • Jeff B.

      When I was in service, there usually wasn't 'male' and 'female' tents, except in training units like AIT. Most of the time everyone went in a GP Medium, with a few exceptions (rare.) The whole 'gay tent' -straight tent' argument doesn't fly with me.

  • Kunoichi

    I had a fair bit of confusion re; DADT, as to why it was a problem in the first place. I had to get my ex-military (Cdn) husband to explain what I didn't know was behind it. I've written about it myself, so rather than repeat it all, you can check it out here if you wish.

  • NSangoma

    ~
    Stop this planet earth from spinning and let this Kevin Jackson Negroe get off.

    Bye-bye.
    `

    • theblacksphere

      It's my world NegroSangoma, and you are free to get off at any time. Glad you keep checking out my work. I know it's the only sanity in your otherwise crazy world.

    • Tubman2010

      Hi NSangoma, I don't know how your normal diatribe goes, but I would love for you to explain to me so I understand what your beef with Kevin Jackson is. I think the world is a much better place with individuals like Kevin on it who can think for themselves. Is it because it confuses you? Is the world easier to understand when all black people stick to the same rhetoric? Does it come down to simply that? Please help me understand.

  • theblacksphere

    Nice "take" Amberocia. I agree that sexuality should not be legislated.

  • Tubman2010

    I agree. What difference does it make it they “tell”. The Israeli army is “integrated” and they are notoriously badass! If it doesn’t work we can look at the issue later but why would we want to deny people the dignity of admitting who they are if they want to serve this great country??

  • http://www.theblacksphere.net Kevin Jackson

    @Tubman2010 Nobody is denying gays any rights. Serve in the military. Straight people aren’t walking around saying, “I’m straight. And I like to have sex like this!” “Gay” is just one aspect of these people’s lives, and the military shouldn’t have to deal with “sexuality” as an issue. DADT was for straights as well.

    • auntiemadder

      That's how I see it, too. To anyone besides your lover(s), it's TMI.

    • defendusa

      Kevin,
      As a veteran who served before the DADT, what you state is correct. The "smart" gay people are not there to have their status elevated like the poor excuse of an officer who chained himself to the WH fence.

      They were there to serve the Country and do the job. And yes, we could pick them out easily. Sometimes the guys were tougher, but not the gals. Showering was not a big deal, nor was living in the same room. As with straight people and getting it on, you did that shit in private or you took your stones. I had one platoon SSG who didn't mess around. He plainly stated he wanted no he-in and he-in, or she-in and she-in in his barracks.

      In my own formerly military mind, the repeal gives gay people elevation among their peers when they are all supposed to have the same status of *soldier*, period. The military is allowed to have standards that differ from an accepting or tolerant civilian society. A big can of worms has been opened.

  • R.C.

    What happens if a faggot who calls himself a soldier ogles, makes sexual passes & maybe even makes serious moves attempting 2 hump a straight soldier, who responds by kicking that faggot in the groin & decks him upside the head several Xs so that the faggot ends up w/2 black eyes, a bloody nose & a fat lip?

    • auntiemadder

      I dunno. Just the same, I suggest you blow off any plans you have of making the moves on some other guy. It probably won't be worth it in the end (pun intended).

    • Brad

      Get a life R.C. somewhere in life you probably were turnout

    • Jeff B.

      Well, if he survives the beat-down, he can file charges for aggravated battery and what-have-you, while he is being charged for sexual misconduct, sexual harrassment, attempted sexual assault and if it happened in the barracks, then he also violated regulations for sexual activity in the barracks.

  • http://americanandproud.net Robert

    Well Kevin I've been saying exactly what you posted (In a not so polite and well written manner) You said it well.

    I don't care if you're gay, straight, got a midget foot fetish or enjoy the company of chain smokin hookers with one eye and one leg…What two (Or more) consenting adults do for sexual gratification is between them and GOD almighty. I couldn't care less.

    I have a gay neighbor, nice guy his yard is always clean and he seems to be a good neighbor. However: IF the crap hit the fan I'd rather billy bob on the other side of my house watching my back. Billy bob is well armed and wrassels gators for a living…

    Great rant Kevin, Expect the gay troopers to come in and insult you for a while though.

    My recent post Obama speaks on his Accomplishments…

    • So What

      Especially the FLAMING black ones

  • http://americanandproud.net Robert

    So what: ???? Is that a joke? or are you so enamored with the color of ones skin that you can't go without calling attention to color? Please I'd really like to know….
    My recent post Merry Christmas

  • http://anax.intuitwebsites.com/ R.C. Kim

    The smart gays will not define themselves & 2 everyone they encounter as 'gay' soldiers, they will just do the best damn job they can & not demand special treatment or exemptions & more importantly NOT proselytize straights 2 accept their sexual choices

    • zipporah

      Years ago, the military was ALL MALE and no females were allowed 'cause men felt they had to PROTECT WOMEN so, since women are in the military (flying planes, in tanks, etc.) there should be NO HANKYPANKY .period. and if there is, they should be expelled from service—-so that goes for the gays as well—since there is no draft

  • Sir RonB

    Don't ask don't tell was considered a Clinton administration success. Now the repeal is considered a success. I just don't understand how liberals think. You repeal a long standing policy by a Democrat President with a new policy of a Democrat President. I am confused. I guess it what they really wanted…to play for both teams!

    • Jeff B.

      DADT was a compromise reached instead of just having gays joining all at once openly. Decades of 'no gays' probably needed a transition period like DADT.

  • Wade2go

    It truly disturbs me when someone who may very well be discriminated against themselves, agree with the discrimination of others. I will never understand any woman, black, Jew, or any other person who often face discrimination (even today, though not as overtly), discriminate against anyone!

  • AnAmericanVoice

    The reality is that people (liberals in particular) want special treatment based on their sexuality, creed, race etc. They also want this treatment, even if it means infringing on your liberties, by any means necessary. The second anyone disagrees with them, all of a sudden that person is labeled a racist or bigot. Gays are very adamant about their sexuality. That they should have the freedom to do whatever they want sexually. This would be a legit argument if they also fought for the sexual 'rights' of pedophiles and other sexual deviants. As we know this is not the case. Gays have all of the same rights as me. If you want to work for a private company and you don't like their rules, don't work there. Gays need to get over themselves. They are no more special than you or I. Like you said, who you have sex with does not define who you are. If you are interested, I give perspective on the DADT policy on my blog at http://www.stillwagner.com/2010/12/22/there-are-m….
    My recent post There Are More Important Things To Worry About Than DADT

  • zipporah

    This isnt about openly gays in the military (sorry to be off topic)—–but i cant believe that the loony left is BLAMING SARAH PALIN for the young "Uncle Fester' that shot those people in AZ including the congreswoman—-because THE LIBERAL LEFT CREATED HIM!! even the so-called SCHOOL HE WENT TO—I hope we blacks wake UP AND 'SMELL THE COFFEE'

  • Jeff B.

    Psychiatrists used to consider homosexuality a form of mental illness, so gays were banned from the military, not for being gay, but for having a mental illness. In about 1979-1980, the American Psychiatric Association finally decided being gay wasn't an illness. DADT was put in place when I was a soldier, and became the joke of the month ("I didn't join Clinton's Army.") I was in service before DADT and knew one guy who got discharged for being gay. Being the most condescending, arrogant jerk in the Western hemisphere probably didn't help his case much… no one missed him when he left. He was good at his job, but so was his replacement. If his replacement was no good, we might have missed him.