U.S. Marines are pussies

Reports AFP (a French news service):

Washington — The top U.S. Marine [said yesterday that] most Marines would prefer not to share a room with gay comrades, despite plans by President Barack Obama to lift a ban on gays serving openly in the military.

General James Conway, who has made clear his opposition to ending the ban, said if the law is changed the Marine Corps might look for volunteers willing to share quarters with gays as some “very religious” members objected to rooming with homosexuals.

“I can tell you that an overwhelming majority would like not to be roomed with a person who is openly homosexual,” Conway told a Pentagon press conference.

“Some do not object. And perhaps, you know, perhaps a voluntary basis might be the best way to start without violating anybody’s sense of moral concern or a perception on the part of their mates,” he said.

He added that “in some instances we will have people that say that homosexuality is wrong and they simply do not want to room with a person of that persuasion because it would go against their religious beliefs.” …

Um, so what?

My federal tax dollars — which go to the U.S. military-industrial complex instead of to things that we Americans need, like health care, public education and public infrastructure — are used to support a military that caters to religious-based ignorance, bigotry and hatred?

What if a “Christian” Marine doesn’t want a Jewish or a Muslim or an atheist or another non-Christian roommate? Is he or she accommodated?

What if a white Marine doesn’t want a non-white roommate? Is white supremacism to be supported by my federal tax dollars?

Fact is, if you’re a straight guy, your assigned roommate could be gay or bisexual whether you can tell or not. Get over it. As long as your roommate (of either biological sex and of any sexual orientation) doesn’t sexually harass or sexually assualt you, what do you have to piss and moan about? That your sensibilities are offended? Oh, boo hoo! I thought that the Marines were tough.

I understand that the U.S. armed forces attract redneck dipshits who apparently think that Jesus was all about killing civilians in foreign lands who refuse to convert to “Christianity.” These “patriotic” crusaders for Christ apparently don’t perceive that they’re just cannon fodder for corporate global expansion; they apparently actually believe that they’re truly protecting freedom and liberty and puppies and kittens and butterflies in the names of God and Jesus.

But that’s the problem: God and Jesus.

I have a problem that our military is not secular, but that it is so highly “Christianized.” It’s wrong. It’s anti-American. It’s dangerous.

Dozens of soldiers at an Army base in Virginia apparently were punished recently for having refused to attend a “Christian” band’s concert at the base. That any branch of the U.S. armed forces would allow such religious-based propaganda on a taxpayer-funded military base anyway is questionable, but to punish soldiers for declining to attend? That’s the bullshit cramming of “Christianity” down soldiers’ throats, and I hope that some high-ranking “Christo”fascist heads roll for it.

I just can’t have confidence in my nation’s military knowing that it apparently is riddled with (in no certain order) xenophobes, homophobes, white supremacists, racists, “Christo”fascists, et. al. A chain is only as strong as is its weakest link, and there are a lot of weak links — and missing links — in the U.S. armed forces.

Placing roommates together, I am sure, can be difficult. Would it be a good idea to place a known gay soldier with a known homophobic solider? No, probably not.

But is it in society’s good to coddle the haters?

No. That’s why, to my knowledge, U.S. soldiers don’t get to object to their roommates’ race or religion.

If we want a stronger military, we should expel the haters. Period. They’re mentally unstable anyway.

And all Americans need to embrace diversity. It’s 2010, for fuck’s sake. I know that millions of Americans are still reeling over the fact that we have our first non-white U.S. president, but they need to get a grip and move forward.

A federal appeals court ruled last month that it violates caregiving staff’s civil rights for a caregiving facility to allow racist and/or white supremacist patients to be able to refuse to be cared for by them because of their race.

“I always felt like it was wrong,” said Brenda Chaney, a black certified nurse assistant who brought about the lawsuit, said of the fact that white patients at her workplace in Indiana were allowed to refuse to be cared for her because she is black.

Back in my nursing days in the 1990s in Arizona, I recall at least a few white patients who refused black caregivers — and that they often if not usually were accommodated. I always thought that it was wrong, too, but the alternative, it seemed to me, was to subject a black caregiver to race-based abuse by a patient.

(To be fair, I had some black patients who didn’t seem to be thrilled to have a white caregiver [I especially remember the one who once rather venomously referred to me as “white boy”], but to be fair, blacks always have been worse victims of racism at the hands of whites than vice versa.)

So while I wouldn’t want black (or other non-white) caregivers to be abused by white supremacist patients, is it good public policy to allow the haters to pick and choose with whom they get to associate in communal settings?

Probably not.

As a federal court just ruled that a patient can’t choose the race of his or her caregiver, how would a federal court rule on allowing a homophobic soldier to be able to pick the sexual orientation of his or her roommate or roommates?

Um, yeah.

You know, while it’s true that gay is the new black, black is a pretty good litmus test: If it wouldn’t be OK to do something to a black person (such as not allow him or her to marry the person of his or her choice), it probably wouldn’t be OK to do the same fucking thing to a non-heterosexual person.

It’s not rocket science.

But then, we’re not a nation of rocket scientists, are we?


Filed under Uncategorized

4 responses to “U.S. Marines are pussies

  1. A Marine

    I’m appalled by your hatred of the men and women who risk their lives every day for the freedom you take for granted on these virtual pages.

    Perhaps you need to meet some of us service members – actually break bread with us and ask why we joined – before vilifying them as ” … xenophobes, homophobes, white supremacists, racists, “Christo”fascists, et. al.”

    I, for one, will continue proudly serving my country and the American citizens despite the hatred and vitriol spewed by people like you.

    • robertdcrook

      Well, see, since no nation truly threatens Americans’ freedom, you can’t really claim that you’re protecting our freedom, can you, now?

      And ya know, that whole post-9/11 hero worship thing just doesn’t work for me. Never did, never will.

      You are just a chump. Your function is to act as thug, paid for by the American taxpayers, to protect and to increase corporate profits.

      The last just war that the U.S. fought was World War II. You were born too late to be able to call yourself a true freedom fighter.

      Sucks, I know, but it’s not my fault that you drank the Kool-Aid.

      P.S. I don’t assert that EVERYONE in the U.S. military should donate his or her organs NOW so that someone else could make better use of them. However, anyone who joins the U.S. military these days truly believing that he or she is protecting freedom and democracy is, at the minimum, woefully mistaken.

      Maybe when teachers and nurses and others who work their asses into the ground with little to no recognition are venerated also, I will be able to engage in bullshit macho hero worship. But prolly NOT.

    • You’re a nimrod. I was in the Army, infantry, 82nd Airborne for four years. I have never been around a larger collection of racists, homophobes, misogynists, thugs, ex criminals and utter morons in my life. There were SOME great and noble people there like you describe but for the most part they were drowned out by the monsters. I would say most could not give a rat’s butt about your freedom. They are there for college money, because there is no work at home, the judge gave them no other option, the thrill of it or because they want to kill people. American freedom has not been at risk since WW2. There has never been the slightest risk that Koreans, Vietnamese, Cubans, Panamanians, Somali’s, Serbs, Iraqis x2, and Al Qaeda would march their troops down Pennsylvania ave and end our govt..

      • Robert

        As I agree with most if not even all of what you state here, I’m not certain why you apparently felt it necessary to pronounce me a “nimrod.” However, you are commenting on a post that is almost four years old, so perhaps my viewpoint is even closer to yours now than it was when I posted this piece almost four years ago.

        Anyway, again, I agree with your assessment that there are more “monsters” than “noble people” in the U.S. military, and that “American freedom has not been at risk since [World War II].” The U.S. military is, then, in effect, the biggest government welfare system in the U.S., and so it’s ironic that the same wingnuts who rail against so-called “welfare queens” support the gargantuan welfare program that is the U.S. military.

        Also, I have a problem with the deification of those who are and who were in the U.S. military. As the U.S. military has been offensive, not defensive, for some decades now, and during this time also has been much more about increasing the wealth of the already filthy rich than it has been about anything else (such as “promoting” and/or “protecting” “democracy” and/or “freedom”), the claim that most current and former members of the military alive today (most of the WW II veterans are dead) have been protecting our freedoms from evildoers and would-be evildoers is ludicrous, and, as you point out, “most [members of the U.S. military] could not give a rat’s butt about [our] freedom.”

        But this has long been a part of our sick, patriarchal society: the elevation of the “heroes,” the vast majority of them (white) males, such as members of the military, cops and firefighters, regardless of the mountain of evidence pointing against these individuals’ nobility. Cherished American myths die hard.

        Finally, yes, I long have recognized that many go into the U.S. military because they see no other economic option. This is sick shit, that any young person’s only viable economic option (McDonald’s is not a viable option) would be to feel forced to join the U.S. military and possibly die for rich people’s wealth.

        Do judges actually force individuals to join the U.S. military, as you indicate? (If so, I have to plead ignorance on that one, although I still believe that I’m fairly far away from being a “nimrod.”) How is that legal? And, as you point out, why would we want criminals in the U.S. military? (Wait — that question might actually answer itself, especially given our offensive wars of choice, and our practice of torture, of the past several decades… We actually love a good war criminal, don’t we?)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s