We Didn’t Ask, Why Must They Tell?.. (and the Boo heard ‘round the World.) Kevin M. Nelson 10/04/2011
The uproar continues and the phony claims of unpatriotic candidates swirls about the internet like a well-devised hoax, as the tale of the booed soldier spreads far and wide.
What really happened?
During a GOP debate, a soldier came on a screen to ask a question of the candidates. Seven seconds in to his question he reveals he is a “gay” soldier. The audience remained silent until the soldier finished his question, eleven seconds later, after which time a small segment of the audience booed for slightly less than two seconds. After this very short outburst, Rick Santorum fielded the question firmly and, in my opinion, quite appropriately.
So what was the question?
“Under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that’s been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the Military.”
It is very clear to all who actually watch and listen to the video of this incident that the soldier was not booed for being “gay”, and it was solely his inflammatory question that instigated a brief reaction.
If you cannot understand why his question would be described as inflammatory, let me see if I can help you with an analogy.
If this had been a pregnant soldier asking the candidates if they would support her right to abort her child, with an audience of ProLifers, she might have received a similar reaction.
When you ask a question that defies such a sacred core belief of those being asked, can you reasonably expect different results?
After much consideration, I think the only difference in how I would have responded would have been to thank the soldier for his brave service to our nation, prior to addressing his question.
At the heart of the matter is the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), a policy by which all could serve and never be questioned about their sexual preference, with the stipulation that they kept such information to themselves.
The repeal of DADT opens a whole new can of worms in regards to showering and sleeping arrangements, and creates an unnecessary controversy within our professional military.
Why is this a “can of worms”? Thanks for asking. I’ll give you a hint: it rhymes with sensual abstraction.
Did you say “sexual attraction”? Ding-ding-ding! You win more commentary on the matter.
Yes, sexual attraction. Gay men are attracted to men, correct? Sort of like straight men are attracted to women? Tell me, would it raise an eyebrow or two if a straight soldier was allowed to shower amongst women soldiers? I think it would, as it should.
The issue is not “will the gay soldier force himself upon another male soldier?”. I think we all know that he’d never live to try it again, just as the straight soldier showering with women soldiers would suffer the same fate if he gave in to impulse. A straight soldier showering amongst naked women.. a bit of an unnecessary and unprofessional distraction, no? The issue is “OK, you feel the need to tell us what unnatural things you like to do in the bedroom, now what do we do with you?”
Depending upon your political or moral persuasion, this might be the part where you start waving rainbow flags and telling me that the government should stay out of your bedroom. If that’s your outcry, relax knowing I don’t want them in there either, or be more honest about your outcry and change your phraseology to “I don’t want the government having a say on what is promoted, paraded, or otherwise endorsed in the public forum” in which case we disagree again.
For anyone who disputes that the Founding Fathers cared about morality and Natural Law, I suggest you do your homework. The Declaration of Independence is based on Natural Law, and the Founding Fathers left us a plethora of quotes about morality and society.
It’s OK to have moral standards (!), just as it is OK to want the rule of law enforced on our borders. Standing against immoral and unnatural things is not “hate” regardless of the liberal accusations. It is the necessary preservation of what is truly natural, just as standing up for our immigration laws is not racist. It is the attempt to circumvent natural law and the law of the land that is despised, not the person or their worth as a human being.
This is where the conversation ends for the atheists, agnostics, and Universalists. For the rest of the Christians in the audience, please allow me to leave you with a few more thoughts.
The following is some personal insight, not a presidential address.
You have chosen the label of Christian to describe your beliefs. Do you know what that means? Christ-ians are “followers of Christ”. Do you believe in the Bible? If not, how can you follow Jesus? If you don’t know Him by His Word, what else is there? The Bible says “man shall not lay with man…” and we know that “God is the same, yesterday, today and forever”, so at what point did it become OK to bend the rules in the name of political correctness? Jesus loves everyone, and expects us to do the same, but didn’t Jesus not only condemn but whip the money changers in the temple? Didn’t Jesus tell the adulterous women, who he saved from stoning, “go and SIN NO MORE”? Didn’t Jesus tell us to continue His work here on Earth? If you have bought in to some false doctrine that we are all supposed to be silent loving people who smile and nod a lot, sorry, but you’re part of why the church has become weak, and why the small percentage of atheistic liberals have dominated culture and policy. It is no more OK to defile God’s design for Marriage, as it is to defy natural law.
The uproar continues and the phony claims of unpatriotic candidates swirls about the internet like a well-devised hoax, as the tale of the booed soldier spreads far and wide.
What really happened?
During a GOP debate, a soldier came on a screen to ask a question of the candidates. Seven seconds in to his question he reveals he is a “gay” soldier. The audience remained silent until the soldier finished his question, eleven seconds later, after which time a small segment of the audience booed for slightly less than two seconds. After this very short outburst, Rick Santorum fielded the question firmly and, in my opinion, quite appropriately.
So what was the question?
“Under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that’s been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the Military.”
It is very clear to all who actually watch and listen to the video of this incident that the soldier was not booed for being “gay”, and it was solely his inflammatory question that instigated a brief reaction.
If you cannot understand why his question would be described as inflammatory, let me see if I can help you with an analogy.
If this had been a pregnant soldier asking the candidates if they would support her right to abort her child, with an audience of ProLifers, she might have received a similar reaction.
When you ask a question that defies such a sacred core belief of those being asked, can you reasonably expect different results?
After much consideration, I think the only difference in how I would have responded would have been to thank the soldier for his brave service to our nation, prior to addressing his question.
At the heart of the matter is the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), a policy by which all could serve and never be questioned about their sexual preference, with the stipulation that they kept such information to themselves.
The repeal of DADT opens a whole new can of worms in regards to showering and sleeping arrangements, and creates an unnecessary controversy within our professional military.
Why is this a “can of worms”? Thanks for asking. I’ll give you a hint: it rhymes with sensual abstraction.
Did you say “sexual attraction”? Ding-ding-ding! You win more commentary on the matter.
Yes, sexual attraction. Gay men are attracted to men, correct? Sort of like straight men are attracted to women? Tell me, would it raise an eyebrow or two if a straight soldier was allowed to shower amongst women soldiers? I think it would, as it should.
The issue is not “will the gay soldier force himself upon another male soldier?”. I think we all know that he’d never live to try it again, just as the straight soldier showering with women soldiers would suffer the same fate if he gave in to impulse. A straight soldier showering amongst naked women.. a bit of an unnecessary and unprofessional distraction, no? The issue is “OK, you feel the need to tell us what unnatural things you like to do in the bedroom, now what do we do with you?”
Depending upon your political or moral persuasion, this might be the part where you start waving rainbow flags and telling me that the government should stay out of your bedroom. If that’s your outcry, relax knowing I don’t want them in there either, or be more honest about your outcry and change your phraseology to “I don’t want the government having a say on what is promoted, paraded, or otherwise endorsed in the public forum” in which case we disagree again.
For anyone who disputes that the Founding Fathers cared about morality and Natural Law, I suggest you do your homework. The Declaration of Independence is based on Natural Law, and the Founding Fathers left us a plethora of quotes about morality and society.
It’s OK to have moral standards (!), just as it is OK to want the rule of law enforced on our borders. Standing against immoral and unnatural things is not “hate” regardless of the liberal accusations. It is the necessary preservation of what is truly natural, just as standing up for our immigration laws is not racist. It is the attempt to circumvent natural law and the law of the land that is despised, not the person or their worth as a human being.
This is where the conversation ends for the atheists, agnostics, and Universalists. For the rest of the Christians in the audience, please allow me to leave you with a few more thoughts.
The following is some personal insight, not a presidential address.
You have chosen the label of Christian to describe your beliefs. Do you know what that means? Christ-ians are “followers of Christ”. Do you believe in the Bible? If not, how can you follow Jesus? If you don’t know Him by His Word, what else is there? The Bible says “man shall not lay with man…” and we know that “God is the same, yesterday, today and forever”, so at what point did it become OK to bend the rules in the name of political correctness? Jesus loves everyone, and expects us to do the same, but didn’t Jesus not only condemn but whip the money changers in the temple? Didn’t Jesus tell the adulterous women, who he saved from stoning, “go and SIN NO MORE”? Didn’t Jesus tell us to continue His work here on Earth? If you have bought in to some false doctrine that we are all supposed to be silent loving people who smile and nod a lot, sorry, but you’re part of why the church has become weak, and why the small percentage of atheistic liberals have dominated culture and policy. It is no more OK to defile God’s design for Marriage, as it is to defy natural law.