Ann Coulter Says DADT Isn't Anti-Gay
Written by Jonathan Higbee |
Thursday, 29 September 2011
|Tags: ann coulter, dbags, conservatives, bigots, anti-gay, don't ask don't tell, defends, dadt, column, santorum, boo, gay soldier, lgbt|
Grab the Platinum Wet from your gym bag; you'll need it to lube your eye-sockets for the massive amount of eye-rolling Ann Coulter's latest column provokes.
Ann is so incensed by Rick Santorum and company apologizing on behalf of the extremely childish audience members who booed the gay soldier at the recent Fox News debate that she has decided to reiterate her support for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
It is beyond absurd to demand that Republican candidates pledge not to consider altering a recent rule change overturning a military policy that had been in effect from the beginning of warfare until the last few weeks of the 111th Congress.
Of course there was booing for that!
At the time of the vote—five minutes ago—only eight Republicans in the entire U.S. Senate supported eliminating Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It's safe to assume that no one on the stage supported this sexualization of the military, except maybe one of the nut candidates polling at 3 percent.
This is not an anti-gay position; it's a pro-military position. The basic idea is that sexual bonds are disruptive to the military bond.
Soldiers, sailors and Marines living in close quarters who are having sex with one another, used to have sex with one another or would like to have sex with one another simply cannot function as a well-oiled fighting machine. A battalion of married couples facing a small unit of heterosexual men would be slaughtered.
It's always futile to hunt for logic in any of Ann's rants, but her statement that DADT "is not an anti-gay position" should definitely not be the first place one looks.
Also, in the final paragraph referenced here, Ann forgets about the prison scenario: sex, despite what ignorant conservatives will have you believe, is the natural human condition. Whether it's a "battalion of married couples" (lol!) or a "small unit of heterosexual men," Ann is an idiot (redundant?) to assume that sex is so easily removed from the equation on one side of the battle. And how does Ann want the military to ensure that these "small units" are 100% comprised of officially heterosexual men (all boasting scores of a rare 0 on the Kinsey Scale)? How would we go about testing that, Ann? Submit each and every troop to dehumanizing brain scans and porn experiments? How American and pro-military!