Social change vs. anti-social ban

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

03/19/2007

by Jeremy Hooper

Cmitchell In an article wherein they defend the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of gay exclusion and refute the legitimacy of legislation designed to repeal the ban, BP News quotes Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary's Craig Mitchell (pic.) as saying of the latter:

...Craig Mitchell, a former career military officer who now serves as a professor of Christian ethics at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, said such an act “does nothing to enhance the readiness of our armed forces.”

“In fact it does the opposite,” Mitchell told Baptist Press in an interview. “The act would allow liberals to the use the military for their social experimentation. That’s part of the problem. I don’t think social liberals understand why the military exists. And this also shows their reckless disregard for the security of our country. The military isn’t a vehicle for social change.”

Wait a minute -- liberals don't "understand why the military exists?" Well that seems weird! Who the hell doesn't understand that the military exists to turn men gay? We thought that was like totally common knowledge! But hey, what do we know? After all, we're just radical liberals whose secular minds are clouded by progressive ideals!

As for that great "social experiment" known as "accepting the reality of the world" -- well, in America, it really would seem to be a radical concept. But whereas Mitchell and company use words like "social change" in the negative, we adopt those terms as positives. Our nation has a history of making social changes when injustice abounds. If you go back and look at historical data in terms of what sect is embracing antipathy, where the polls stand on the issues, the arguments that are used against the minority sect, etc., the modern day gay rights fight mirrors almost every other civil rights struggle to ever hit the land. But at the end of the day, all of those "social experiments" proved to be for the betterment of the world. Gay rights "issues" will be no different.

The BP News article goes on to read:

Mitchell said he believes Pace said something that needed to be said, and “something that everybody knows deep down. It is unfortunate that the president hasn’t said the same thing.”

As for the homosexual lobby, Mitchell said activists should simply leave the military alone because it has functioned well without their plan for “social engineering.” Though the “don’t ask, don’t tell,” policy became official after his departure from the military, the rules were still understood during his 12 years of service, he said.

“You might have suspected that someone was homosexual, but you never made an issue of it unless it was blatant,” Mitchell said. “You were always very careful about accusations. But if it was discovered, it always had the potential to cause friction and disorder in a unit. In a place where you have communal showers, you don’t want to be observed by someone who views you as they should view the opposite sex. Even so there wasn’t a witch hunt.”

Uhm, everyone "knows deep down" that gays are immoral?! Shit, then this writer and everyone with whom he associates (few of whom are even gay) need to go to the doctor and have their "deep downs" checked. Or perhaps Mr. Mitchell needs to broaden the criteria for the sample size that he uses to represent "everyone."

As for the president -- if he were to echo Gen. Pace's sentiment, Mitchell and Co. better be ready for a protest like this nation has never before seen, as such an uttering from the commander in chief would bring about a revolution of epic proportions. We'd do our damnedest to see to that! After all, the president serves ALL citizens, not just the ones who fully subscribe to Leviticus 18:22. While he's certainly said some uber-offensive things about our lives and loves over the past few years, such a fervent embrace of narrow, Biblical-based condemnation would be the straw to break this gay male's back.

Moving on to Mr. Mitchell's final quote: Well, first off, it's completely offensive the way he makes it sound as if he and his fellows had the right to "accuse" or judge those who were too "blatant" in their gayness. What gives him the heterosexist nerve?! But we'll move on from that part of the quote, as there's the more important --and oft recited -- issue of communal showering that we need to address. The social conservatives use this train of thought over and over again to make it look as if "gay in the shower" is synonymous with "feral cat in heat." It's the same line of thought that makes homophobic straight men who tip the scales at 350 lbs and are about as fetching as Jabba the Hut to still say things like "HE BETTER NOT HIT ON ME OR I'LL KNOCK HIM OUT," when told that they'll be in the presence of a gay man. There is this idea out there that gay people are just ready to pounce on any and all people of the same sex at any time. While always an annoying claim, in the case of the military shower, such an argument doesn't even make sense! In any area of the army where opposite-sex sex is currently disallowed, same-sex sex will continue to be! If a gay man were to proposition another man in the shower, or to even make some sort of an advance that another soldier viewed as inappropriate, he would be just as accountable as if he had now made the advance toward a female.

Nobody's power of complaint is going to be taken away by allowing gay soldiers in the army. If they, like any soldier, were to act in an inappropriate manner, they would be disciplined! And just like every new recruit, they would know the code of conduct to which they'd need to subscribe if they wanted to join the forces. The social conservative keep resorting to imagery like the shower one because it plays right into their demonized, sex-crazed gay picture. The want to conjure up the image of a hapless straight solder being leered at and approached by a militant gay activist, who will force the poor guy to participate in a grope session against his will. And they want people to think that a gay-inclusive military would just turn a blind eye to such conduct, as to avoid anti-gay accusations. The only leg they have to stand on is severely broken, yet they keep trying to make it sound reasonable, so as not to fall flat on their arses.

No matter what Mr, Mitchell declares, there was and is still a witch hunt being conducted by social conservatives like himself. Unlike us, they will never tell you who and what are really "at stake."

‘Don’t ask, don't tell’ policy necessary, leaders say [BP News]

space