"I agree with Johnathan. Keep DAST. I love gay people think they should be treated fairly, but if you turn them lose with no restriction than katy bard the door. They will be like a person who lost weight. talk about in your face, my face, and our kids faces. However, please respect them." HAHAHAHAHAHA. EDIT: Yes, this is a very real comment on an article on CNN about how Kristen Gillibrand, the senator chosen by New York Gov. David Paterson to replace Hillary Clinton, is pushing for the repeal of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. There are two types of commentary I have on this issue. Type I: Serious.
Now, first, I should say that I think there are a few pretty good reasons NOT to repeal DADT, not the least of which is that DADT was actually an advance, because the previous law prevented gays from serving at all, and this one allows them to serve closeted. Therefore, a repeal isn't what we need so much as a new, even better law. But I think that this is actually what's going on, and repeal is just the easiest way of putting it out there as a sound-byte, so it's all semantics. My second complaint is that while the "repeal" would be politically popular and require little political capital on its surface, it would require a restructuring of military bases (in the new law's most extreme form) or a reprinting of some of the paperwork (in its least). Most likely, something in-between. It doesn't seem like any of this effort would have to be expended, but after reading some of the comments from (purported) actual military personnel on the issue, it seems like most of them would want to be able to avoid having a roommate who is gay, and that the gays in the military, once out, would want some way to ensure they wouldn't get, you know, lynched. Which to me seems like, given the current political climate(where the democrats eventually win, but only after the Republicans and blue dogs hassle them to do a bunch of silly things and jump through hoops for weeks), would end up with separate quarters or something like that. And we all know how this can tend to go wrong, the restructuring phase of a politically popular law, where a policy comes head-to-head with reality. (remember Guantanamo?) It could be another drain on Obama's political capital which could be spent somewhere that it would do more good. But perhaps this is why Gillibrand is leading the charge here, instead of Obama himself? So all of my concerns seem to be being dealt with--at least if I'm optimistic--and I am in favor of allowing gays to serve openly in the military, so I hope the administration DOES find a way to do it without a huge leak in political capital (maybe they are trying to slip it in while everyone is still arguing over health care?). Type II: Making fun of the guy who posted that comment. I shall now take the comment peice by peice and respond, meanly. "I agree with Johnathan. Keep DAST." DAST? Don't Ask... So Tell? I don't even know, man. I mean, I realize S and D are right next to each other but you just typed a capital D. You didn't even have to move your finger between the last one and the one you typed as S. And of course, that's not to mention the fact that you could have easily spell-checked this before submitting it.
"I love gay people think they should be treated fairly, but if you turn them lose with no restriction than katy bard the door." See, this is why spell-check is important. It's one thing to say DAST instead of DADT, but "than katy bard the door?" I don't have any clue what you are trying to say here. What does Shakespeare have to do with any of this? Anyway, beyond that this whole sentence reeks of disrespect for homosexuals. I mean even just the phrase "turn them lose (sic)" likens gays to animals who need to be controlled (in this case because their sexual urges would overcome them and they would cause harm to all the normal, non-sex-obsessed straight people.) "They will be like a person who lost weight. talk about in your face, my face, and our kids faces." People who lose weight talk about their weight loss in your kids' faces? It's just... I mean... maybe that happened to you, but I don't think that analogy works in the general sense. Plus bringing up children in the argument about homosexuality, as if they somehow need to be protected (again likening gays to predators, which they are not) is really fucking classy.
"However, please respect them." I say again: HAHAHAHAHAHA. I mean, I know it's just some random dude on the comments of CNN, and I shouldn't be upset about it, because almost all the comments on CNN are like "LOLOLOL Srah Palin showd u media!!!1! PALIN/LIMBAUGH 2012" but it's really indicative of the people--and there are a lot of them--who honestly beleive they aren't prejudiced against homosexuals when they really really are. Which is lame. Which I guess is my entire point. If you're going to be a homophobe, own it. Of course, a lot of this kind of homophobe are the ones who get really offended when you call them out, and say they are being persecuted just because they're straight--after all, they're perfectly okay with homosexuality "behind closed doors." Ugh. Anyway, this is all bothering me a bit more than usual, because last night I was having a pleasant night of drinking for very cheap (hooray for Mondays!) and a kid from my chemistry class last semester bumped into me. I was with friends so my sexuality was not at all a secret, and when it came up he was all shocked and then was trying to be nice about it but was clearly disgusted which felt pretty... yucky. You know what I mean? He wasn't like "oh you're a fag" but he was like "I mean how do you do that?" and all squicked out as if I was diseased or something. LAME.
| 
