Friday, May 28, 2010

Chaplains and DADT

Read this article first before reading on...as this will be a very very short blog post.


Chaplains in the military are claiming that their religious belifes will be threatened by allowing openly gay and lesbian service members, because the tenets of those chaplains religion...whether it be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. do not agree with homosexuality.

Two things. 1. Would not a Christian chaplains religious beliefs be severely hampered if say, a Jewish man goes to him? As the article says, chaplains routinely counsel those who are not of their particular belief system...why should gay people be any different?

2. The chaplains are claiming that their religious rights are at risk through this policy. Could it not be said that the rights of gay and lesbian service members are also at risk because they have to hide their orientation and lie to their superiors? Why are the religious rights of the chaplains more important than the rights of gay and lesbian servicemen and women? The Christians will claim that it is ok for gays and lesbians to serve in silence because they chose to be that way, and thus they should not get any "special" rights. Lets take the "choosing" your sexuality argument as valid...even though all literature shows that that is not the case. Do you choose your religion? Yes, Duh!! But though you choose your religion, the right may say, it is very deep and personal to you...and your sexual orientation is not??? In my opinion, if gays cannot serve openly because the poor chaplains will be "persecuted" because of their beliefs on homosexuality, then those same chaplains should not be able to serve, because freedom of religion should not trump the freedom to be who you intrinsically are.

Though I know the DADT issue has almost come to a close...I still believe that we must be vigilant for its repeal...because the religious right is going to try everything to stop this repeal.

Thursday, May 27, 2010

The lunacy of the "Christian" DADT defenders

Over the past hour I have been watching coverage of the House debate on Don't Ask Don't Tell...the military policy that does not allow gays to openly serve in the military. I will specifically be addressing the two "reasons" the Christian Right has given in the past few days why gays should not be allowed to openly serve.

The first issue is taken from the following article, written by Cliff Kinkade from American Survival Inc...


Despite the utter lunacy that this man espouses and it obvious lack of thought, I will address it anyway. Mr. Kinkade claims that by repealing DADT gay soldiers will spread HIV to heterosexual soldiers because of emergency blood transfusions.

First, Kinkade is assuming that all homosexual men have HIV...which is blatantly false. Yes there is a larger percentage of homosexual men that have HIV than heterosexual men in the regular population, but this can actually be attributed to other factors. Second, let us assume that Kinkade is correct in the former assertion, though he obviously is not. If this was the case, then the army would already be seeing a huge HIV epidemic, which it is not. Why do I say this? Because one common fallacy that groups like that which Kinkade represents fallaciously think that no gay people are serving in the military right now. DADT does not ban gays from serving...it bans them from serving openly. There are already gay soldiers on the battlefield who are giving blood to other soldiers in emergency blood transfusions and yet...no rampant spread of HIV...shocking!!! I wonder why this could be.

The second piece of anti-DADT blathering this time comes from the Family Research Council...who has just released a groundbreaking "study" proving that be allowing gays into the millitary (like they are not there already) will lead to increases in homosexual rape. Link is found below...


Basically, the author of the study...a Mr. Peter Sprigg, claims that homosexual rape accounts for 8.15%of rape cases in the military and because gay members of the military only account for around 3% of members, homosexuals are obviously more likely to commit violent sexual crimes against other members. This coming on the heels of a recent controversial position taken by Brian Fischer of the American Family Association who claimed that all major Nazis were gay and that was why they were virulently violent against the Jews and such...yea, insane, go look it up.

Anyway, so is this argument by Mr. Sprigg even deserving of contemplation...not really, for a few basic reasons. First, Sprigg automatically thinks that all homosexual sexual crimes were committed by gays. What is a "sexual crime?" normally it is not about sex, therefore not about pleasure...it is instead more about POWER. So a heterosexual man might rape another man to assert his dominance and power over him. Thus, it is fallacious to just assume that because it is a "homosexual" crime that homosexuals committed it Secondly, though most likely not about sex at all and the pleasure that comes from it, where does Sprigg get his numbers about how many gays are in the millitary? In my reading over the past few hours...i have not seen one verifiable source for his claim that only 3% of enlistees in the millitary are homosexual. So where does this number come from? It comes from the supposed statistic on how many open homosexuals are in the U.S. general population. Thus he extrapolates data from one realm and plants it in another...very bad scholarship on Mr. Spriggs part. His claim that gay people will be more likely to assault, because of these "statistics", is not truly based in logic.

Now lets use Mr. Spriggs argument against him...if in fact what he is saying is correct. So 8.15 % of assaults are homosexual assaults...(lets assume that all the perpetrators are homosexual.) So therefore over 90% of all assaults are heterosexual sexual assaults. So if we are concerned about sexual assaults, we must instead ban all heterosexual men from being in the military, because by doing that over 90% of the assaults would be virtually eliminated. See how the logic put in the reverse seems ludicrous. Yet because it deals with the oh so evil gay people, it must be acceptable.

These "Christian" organizations continue to surprise me with their lunacy.




Related Posts with Thumbnails