less blasphemy than enquiry….

I’ve got just a few thoughts and questions [mostly rhetorical] regarding the DADT clusterfuck:

Someone raised this point in the HuffPost’s comments regarding this article and I’d like to raise it here, mainly so I don’t forget it – do those opposed to DADT’s repeal believe there are currently no homosexuals of any kind serving in the American military? The language used in the discourse makes it seem as if there are none and that allowing them to serve is the issue.  This is obviously incorrect.

The issue is, should homosexuals be able to reveal themselves as such?

Until [or unless] it is prohibited to mention any sort of relationship, heterosexual or otherwise, to one’s peers in the armed forces, homosexuals should be able to talk about their children, partners, husbands and wives the same way anyone else would.

I find the GOP’s resistance to the repeal particularly hilarious.  Homosexuals are completely willing and devoted to the United States and only want to serve! At the very least, these are just more bodies with which to carry out your bidding!!  MORE WILLING SOLDIERS!!!

Bill Maher made this point using Twitter [it's probably meant to be sarcastic but it's also quite astute]:  since when does the government poll the military on policy changes?

If absolutely nothing else, there exist several other advanced and progressive nations with militaries wherein no DADT or equivalent policy is enforced.  Or even dreamt of.  One of which is Israel.  They certainly don’t seem to be lacking in competence.