Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Don't Ask ...

As much as I surprise myself even to say this, I am having a hard time getting exercised (or is it exorcised) about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell thing; oddly enough, I can't get excited about it on either side. On the con side:
1. I don't think gays are this great mistreated group in America.
2. I imagine a lot of gays want to be in the military for the benefits (but so do non-gays)and if they are allowed to "marry" (God forbid)that will make benefits to "spouses" possible.
3. The military's purpose is not to perform social experiments.

On the pro-side (or non-con side):
1. The military needs them, if they are good soldiers, and apparently they are
2. If the military doesn't have a problem with it, I'm not sure we non-military folks really have any business interfering.
3. The social experiment argument may have been relevant 20 years ago, but as much as I hate to say it, gays are more accepted and in general people don't get as astonished by the presence of gays as they did back then.

However, it's a federal law and Congress will have to change the law, and from what the news reports say, the votes and support aren't there. It's one of those issues I can't get myself to feel strongly about either way, and if it happens, it happens. My only fear is that it would make gay marriage acceptable even faster, and that's where I have to draw the line.


drgregb said...


The more significant thing that is happening is the proverbial slow death of the "frog in the kettle." The gay activist agenda is part of the larger rejection and eventually persecution against those holding to biblical values. The religion of tolerance is taking over. I am not trying to be hate mongering (some of my best friends are gay!) Objectively speaking, this is an example of immorality becoming morally relative wehere "bad is good" and "good is bad."


Barbara said...

Yes, I agree. My main reason for disliking the repeal of don't ask, etc. is that it's just one more step toward acceptance of gay marriage, which I am vehemently against. There is no reason, to me, to rewrite civilization.

drgregb said...

But the issue is being re-written, not as a moral issue (or even re-writing civilation) but an issue of civil rights. We of the biblical persuasion fell asleep, allowing the Gay activists to define the issue. Because it has been re-defined as a civil rights issue, they will, I believe, ultimately succeed. It's just a matte of time.

Barbara Tucker said...

Yes, unfortunately I am inclined to agree that the issue got away from us; I'm of the opinion that ten or fifteen years ago we never would have thought gays would even want to be married (as I recall, they used to make fun of marriage). It's only been in the last few years that it's been public as an issue, although I imagine it's been on the agenda lots longer. And while I hope we can hold out on the legality of same-sex marriage in the whole country, it does seem like a matter of time. There is a course in California about Prop 8 that will probably end up in the supreme court. And the younger generation (millennials, as you mentioned in the other post) are not just egalitarian about women and men, but men and men or women and women.
It's kind of interesting to me that churches that allowed women pastors soon allowed gay pastors. HUMMMMM.

Touching thoughts

An acquaintance put this on Facebook. So much of it applies to me. Church is hard. Church is hard for the person walking through the door...