Our government did away with "don't ask, don't tell" as it regards homosexual relationships in the military. Anything goes sexually, so why should the government get involved.
And yet General David Petraeus resigned his position once it was discovered he was doing what no one in government has the business to interfere with--following his sexual orientation and inclinations. And there is shock at the so-called scandalous details if anything today concerning sex is considered scandalous especially by our current administration who doesn't want anyone to feel bad about who they love and how they do it.
Oh, I forgot, that's just for homosexuals.
So that begs the question. If General David Petraeus had been homosexual, would any of this have been a scandal? Would he have resigned? Would national security have been a concern?
Just wondering!
16 comments:
Good Father - You misrepresent the effect of the end of DODT. "Anything goes" is not the order for the day.
Each branch of service has its fraternization policies still in effect. They can easily be found online by those who are not overwhelmed by his own tendency to commit hyperbole.
General Petraeus resigned because he was unfaithful to the promise he made to his wife and family, not because he was "following his sexual orientation and inclinations." He resigned because he is untrustworthy.
The sexual orientation of General Petraeus has nothing to do with his resignation.
So what you are saying is that if this had been a homosexual tryst involving multiple players and of the same type, that the press would be covering it in the same way and the homosexual lobby both in government and in the main line media would have welcomed it?
His fooling around was already known while it was going on. Not withstanding the investigation that may have been launched by the complaint of the second woman, the author of the book apparently had several relationships going on, sexual or otherwise, that yielded loads of information about the high ranking people. Even if Patraeus didn't know about the other men, the woman was collecting a lot of information. That is why he was fired.
Huh? I'm saying that Gen Petraeus's resignation - and the whole tawdry mess - has nothing to do with being gay or straight.
And that your assertion that since the repeal of DODT "anything goes" is plainly false. If "anything goes" now then the General would not have resigned.
No, there is a double standard, anything goes for gays, not for straights and the good general proves it.
Think Rep. Barney Frank and his homosexual dealings with underaged boys.
Double standard in which gays get preferential treatment?
Eric Massa (D-NY) resigned after groping male staffers.
Mark Foley (R-FL) resigned after soliciting male pages.
Ed Shrock (R-VA) did not run for re-election after soliciting male prostitute.
There are numerous examples of straight Members of Congress who, after admitting sexual dalliances, who did NOT resign.
David Vitter (R-LA)
Strom "Why Is My hair the Color Of Tang?" Thurmond (R-SC)
Henry Hyde (R-IL)
Newt Gingrich (Speaker of the House, R-GA)
No, there is no double standard.
PI, think about it this way: A child is punished for reaching for a hot stove. Until he comes to understand WHY he should not touch it, he thinks of the slap on his wrist as the reason to avoid it. Patraeus discovered the barriers of control had been torn down. He, and apparently others, thought that anything could go. When it did, they discovered the deeper reasons we should resist these things. It is simply that when we act like animals we can be played for fools. Maybe this woman tempted him and now he has been tied to his chair and stripped of his secrets. In direct terms Satan does this to us but takes far more than secrets.
It was widely known in Army circles that General Petraeus was having an extramarital affair. Some are now speculating that after being blackmailed by Obama to tow the line or be exposed, he outed himself because of his own outrage toward the Benghazi affair. Don't be surprised if Petraeus delivers some ugly info on the Obama administration. Nor should we be surprised if Obama and his State Department have already cooked up their own narrative to counter Petraeus.
But yours are all examples from the distant past, not from today's modern outlook on things.
A much more penetrating analysis of this is needed. Out of hand emotional ejaculations do not reach the root of the problem. One must get behind the issue in order to drive home the depth of the problem. Probing questions should be asked, and hands on exploration of the subject is essential. Undercover work is always sticky business; precautions should be taken that issues do not emerge that are pregnant with difficulty. One may hope that, in General, Privates do not follow the example of those on top. I'm sure all this will make for interesting mammaries...er..memories. Personally, I think the whole lot of them should be transferred up to Fort Dix, NJ to learn what to do if pinned down by the enemy.
Other than the infamous case of the segregationist and adulterer Uncle Strom, the cases I note are not from the "distant past." Vitter was 2007, Hyde was 1998, and Gingrich was 1998. These cases are more contemporary then the pictures you often use to highlight "on-going" liturgical abuses.
Trying to blame Petraeus' fall on the repeal of DODT is laughable. The cultural mores of our country have been changing for almost a century with the acceptance of gays and lesbians being the latest to morph. The Stonewall Riots, often cited as the geginning of the "Gay Liberation" movement happened in 1969 when Obama was 9 years old. Unless you think he was REALLY born in Kenya in, say, 1951, the repeal of DODT cannot be considered the cause of the General's mess.
Beware the man with the simple answer to a complex problem.
I am compelled to agree with Fr. Kavanaugh here. Although, this case is turning out to be more about leaked secrets than sordid love affairs, I think it highlights a movement forward in our culture. No longer are the sexual indiscretions of the "manliest men" in power viewed as merely "men being men." This is viewed as an abuse of trust with his family (and with the CIA). We are not seeing the same mentality expressed here as when Clinton did something similar, for example.
So, to some extent, this emphasizes that marriage as an inviolable institution is still a viable idea in America.
If this general had been caught in a homosexual relationship, I think the emphasis in the story would have been the same.
PI, I accept the rigour of your position for DADT. However, the DADT policy simply codified a level of behaviour that is barely challenged by heterosexual adultery. Put another way, what social norm allows the General to be prosecuted for having a fling with a good looking woman after an extended combat tour, when it is acceptable to have same sex partners for fun back in the garrison? I had womanising problems in my unit all the time and dealt with them as the attacks on good order and discipline that they were. Once we have elevated the sex drive as primary in our lives, regardless of who or what we have sex with, then it will indeed trump all and no other task or goal can compete.
While I may agree that the link is not totally clear as FrAJM would state, I would bet you a pair of leather chaps that if the General had been outed with his boyfriend that he would be hailed as brave.
RCG in leather chaps...gee thanks. Now, I have to try to get that image out of my mind...
An unfortunate photograph in that it shows the Royal Navy. I was awarded the Queen's Commission in 1972 (land forces) and would like to reassure all readers that the ethos in HM Armed Forces is robustly heterosexual.
Post a Comment