Comments on: Robert Knight Sounds Every Wingnut Alarm Imaginable Over DADT Repeal

By: Ray Sager

Ray Sager — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:48:22 +0000

My partner and I BOTH served in the military: He was in the Air Force and I was in the Navy. I don’t think any of our fellow service members cared one way or the other if we were gay or not. We certainly didn’t parade it in front of them, but they knew we were gay(even straight men have gaydar!)

My partner just found a service member that was on base with him during his stay in Hawaii, on Facebook. They chatted about their service there and then his buddy said “BTW…we all knew you were gay, but it really didn’t matter to us because you did your job and you did it very well.” As long as you are doing what you were set out to do in the service…that is all that matters.

By: Regan DuCasse

Regan DuCasse — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:22:06 +0000

Well said, my friends. R Knight doesn’t think much of the military in the first place if he thinks simple disclosure will make the military fall apart.
He’s conveniently forgetting how many gay and lesbians service people did their duty, without all that he’s complaining about happening at ALL.

If our forces in uniform were made aware of what people like this are saying, it could be posited to them that :
1. They are insulted by this assumption that they WOULD fall apart by knowing a fellow soldier is gay. And all bets are off that they could see to their own duties and professionalism otherwise.

2. That they are bigots and MUST harbor such distrust and fear of gay people like R. Knight does. The military is no place to INDULGE such bigotry, and an all volunteer military gives an opt out decision to anyone who has R. Knight’s beliefs.

A military career should mean more to a service person than such a superficial bias. Why would they let the honesty of another soldier be the deal breaker on whether or not they want to serve?

We’re hearing a lot of b******t from people like Knight, and Elaine Donnelly who have never served in the military themselves.

The more soldiers are assured what THEY would look like if they all of a sudden turned lily livered over serving with gay people, the more they’d support the repeal.
Why would a soldier want to look THAT chicken and why would they want the likes of R. Knight telling them that’s what they are if they accept gay people as colleagues and often enough…family.

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 16:05:03 +0000

Good point ETownCanuck. I didn’t notice how bizarre that statment was until you pointed it out.

Knight said “Besides, whatever your position is on homosexual activism, this is first and foremost about ensuring maximum efficiency and combat readiness of our armed forces.”.

No its not, its first and foremost about making a statment that gays are icky and you don’t like them.

By: ETownCanuck

ETownCanuck — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 14:26:17 +0000

I’d still like to know how he thinks that allowing gays to serve will open female soldiers up to pressure to have on-base abortions. It certainly wouldn’t be the gay soldiers knocking them up.

By: Gary (NJ)

Gary (NJ) — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 14:15:56 +0000

I’ve heard there’s an expression in the Navy, ‘it isn’t gay when you’re underway’; which I take to mean that horny straight sailors will ‘homosexualize’ each other at sea when the weaker vessels aren’t available. Our benighted Knight will go through an entire box of adult diapers at the thought of these real Judeo-Christian he-men buggering and bumsening on those big Destroyers and going down in more ways than one in those long hard U-boats.

By: Merlyn

Merlyn — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 02:39:37 +0000

I’m not too surprised considering that it is someone from Coral Ridge Ministries. The one thing about fundies is their predictable stupidity.

*facepalm*