This issue has been beaten to death already, so I won't get into it very much. There is an attached link to a pretty good summation of what is at stake here though via Military.com's website. http://www.military.com/news/article/clock-starts-ticking-to-end-gay-ban.html?ESRC=dod.nl
Personally, I think the danged federal government should let the military do what it was designed to do; break things and kill our enemies. The military should NOT be used for congress' or the President's social engineering programs or to try and rectify what they see as politically correct injustices. The military is greatly harmed by the repeal of this policy that President Clinton put in place. Just like everything else though, Obama just can't leave something that is working fine, well enough alone.
Well, why not? He has already made the country less safe with his fighting of the war on terror now being a massive criminal investigation. He also has made our weak intelligence services even weaker by hamstringing them with asinine and dangerous rules. Why not further erode our ability to even defend our country with our military to top it off? So how does everyone else out there like this "change you can believe in"? I never thought I'd say it, but I actually am starting to miss that old school Democrat, George W. Bush.
5 comments:
It's funny, when the military leadership was opposed to letting gays serve in the military, all the homophobes argued the policy should be based on what senior military officials want. Now that the military leadership (including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs) is in favor of it, what exactly is your rationale now?
And yes, it is homophobia and prejudice that is keeping gays from openly serving. You guys on the right need to at least be honest about that and own your bigotry.
The same tired arguments that your side is clinging to are the same ones racists used to argue against integration in the military in the 1940s. I guess you are "conserving" those ancient attitudes and bigotry. If you hate gays, just admit it. But calling a policy supported overwhelmingly by the American people and the military "social engineering" is intellectually dishonest, and not in keeping with the actual ideals of the country.
Splash, it won't surprise you that I am going to tell you that you are horribly mistaken on all fronts here and the facts back my position completely.
Now, I do not understand why Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen have not spoken out against this policy shift. Perhaps they do agree with Obama on this, or perhaps they are cowards and don't want to lose their jobs for speaking out on the subject.
Regardless, I can unequivocally assure you with 100% certainty that a HUGE majority of senior officers, senior NCO's, and even the rank and file of the military are STRONGLY against the repeal of the DADT policy.
Further, I would be willing to bet that the American public also supports this position by a large majority. I question what your source is for claiming otherwise.
By the way, I cannot speak for others, but I find your assumption that I "hate gays" quite offensive. I have relatives and friends that are homosexual. (One of which even passed away due to AIDs years ago). While I disagree strongly with the sexual lifestyle
I certainly don't hate gay people. It has to do with Christ's teachings of "hate the sin but love the sinner".
There are scores of pragmatic reasons why openly gay people serving in the military breaks down morale, discipline, and unit cohesion. Reading the linked article describes some of them, if you had bothered to do so.
Aside from the fact that often times in military barracks etc. you are living in close quarters with a lot of people. If you had to sleep, shower, etc. with a person that might be sexually attracted to you when that feeling was not mutual, that would tend to to cause a "hostile work environment" to use the HR vernacular.
By your logic, why should we go through the expense of segregating male and female military members?
Then there are practical combat matters such as the dangers of first aid to a potentially HIV infected soldier in the field, or even having emergency blood supplies in the field tainted.
It has nothing to with gays on a personal level. DADT has worked well and allowed gays to serve in the military with distinction for quite awhile now. If they keep their private life private, which by the way is something that both hetero and homosexual military members should be doing anyway, then I am okay with that.
Yada yada yada. Same shit different day. Really you need new talking points. Those smell like the 1990s.
I'd have more respect for your side of the argument if you just admitted that homophobia and hatred play a factor in your feelings on this issue. I guess gays have ruined the Israeli military. And the UK did such a horrible job in Afghanistan with all of those gay soldiers. You're fighting a losing battle, my friend. This policy will end. Maybe not this year, but it will be gone.
By the way, being gay is not a lifestyle or a choice. Gay people are born that way. That, sir, is a fact. Who would "choose" to be in the most persecuted segment of society in the world? I always want to ask people who say it's a choice that question.
By the way, here are the results from the latest poll of active duty military on the issue of gays serving openly in the military (from Military Times).
Opposition has been declining steadily for years.
For the record, I believe a huge segment of the gay population is that way due to a genetic pre-disposition.
I also think that the current pop culture today makes being gay as not just acceptable but actually cool.
This leads a lot of confused hormone riddled teenagers into thinking what is a normal part of growing up into thinking that there is something wrong with them and perhaps it is that they are gay.
In that regard, it nowadays seems to be a choice far more often than it used to be in my day as a teenager.
You may be right though that the DADT policy might end. It will be to the detriment of the American armed forces if this does come to pass though.
Ironically the declining opposition to the gay lifestyle that you mentioned coincides with what I was saying about the current cultural trends to "normalize", if you will for a lack of a better word, homosexuality in our American society.
Post a Comment