After Hours

General discussion

Locked

Gays Serving in the U.S. Military - Who should decide?

By maxwell edison ·
Tags: Off Topic
Disclaimer: My personal position is two-fold:

One: A person's sexual preference and/or practice is his/her own business. I don't know whether sexual orientation is a matter of choice or birth, nor do I care. It's not my business what you do; it's not your business what I do.

Two: Serving in the military IS NOT a Constitutional right. The military can indeed discriminate for a variety of reasons (sorry, you have flat-foot), all of which are implemented for the purpose of maintaining the most effective military force possible. If you disagree, please show me the exact article of the Constitution that shows me to be wrong. The mission of the military is to be the most effective fighting force - no more, no less.

Having said that, whether or not gays are allowed to serve in the military is a question that I would pass on to the military experts; I'd yield to their opinion.

What's yours?

Edited to change the title and add the following content:

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=337373&messageID=3376274&tag=content;leftCol

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Delbert

by maxwell edison In reply to Let's revisit this after ...

You're too funny!

Needless to say, I'd be voting for Newt!

Collapse -

We need a discussion on the coming disaster in Republican leadership

by DelbertPGH In reply to I don't think S.P. will r ...

Newt, Sarah, the whole tea party nonsense... how the **** can I ever take Republicans seriously? The only wackadoodle who clearly will be rejected is Christine O'Donnell.

I'm gloomed.

Collapse -

"Coming disaster"?

by boxfiddler Moderator In reply to We need a discussion on t ...

Been a disaster for weeks now.

Collapse -

Weeks?

by NickNielsen In reply to We need a discussion on t ...
Collapse -

Weeks? In the case of South Carolina

by DelbertPGH In reply to We need a discussion on t ...

since about 1830.

Collapse -

Your stated outlook would make any "discussion" . . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to We need a discussion on t ...

.... just about impossible. It would be no more than your typical Demonize Republicans nonsense.

By the way, both Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton would acknowledge that they worked together, behind the scenes, to achieve a balanced budget in the 1990s. But if you buy into said demonize Republicans nonsense, your bias just wouldn't allow you to see it.

Collapse -

LOL. boxy

by Oz_Media In reply to We need a discussion on t ...

You're just being nice. I think you meant that in at least years.

Collapse -

Newt & Clinton collaborate on a balanced budget? Not quite.

by DelbertPGH In reply to We need a discussion on t ...

Certainly there was give and take to get a budget passed.

To say they collaborated to balance the federal budget overstates their shared contribution to the outcome.

The budget was balanced in the last couple years of the Clinton presidency, but only after Newt had quit as speaker (Jan 1999), and because tax revenue soared with the swelling capital gains from the stock market bubble. The Dow went from 3740 to 11490 in the six years from Newt's ascendency to the speakership to Bush's victory in 2000. Everyone was quite surprised and pleased, except Alan Greenspan.

It would be fair to say they cooperated on welfare reform. Both had interests that converged on that topic.

Collapse -

South Carolina had no Republicans

by NickNielsen In reply to We need a discussion on t ...

before Strom Thurmond "converted" in 1964. All those other people were Democrats (or their forebears).

The Republicans were "the Party of Lincoln" and that just wasn't happening in South Carolina until after Strom took the plunge.

Collapse -

"Military experts" are not the best deciders

by DelbertPGH In reply to Gays Serving in the U.S. ...

First: I've served in the military with gay men, lived in barracks with them, shared community showers with them. I was never gay myself, and no gay guy ever made a move on me, not even when I was glistening wet and soapy, naked and at the peak of my youthful vigor, in the comon shower. If I had gotten propositioned, I would have simply said, "No thanks, a**hole, what do you think I look like? Now, pass the bong and forget it." (Not that we ever passed the bong in the shower. That was in other rooms.) I never had the opportunity to share a foxhole with a gay guy under fire, which seems to be the situation that silly people like to bring up as the Ultimate Dreadful Moment of Sexual Vulnerability, but I doubt it would drive me ****, or drive him to rape.

I guess you could compare all this weird handkerchief-wringing on the part of our generals and conservative thinkers to what they thought about the integration of blacks into the armed forces in 1948, which was done not by Congress or courts, but by Truman's executive order. What about the massive prejudice in the country? Was the military supposed to take the lead in overcoming that, ahead of the civilians? Would forcing ("forcing," damn it?) men to serve and bunk with negroes cause dissension, harm morale, reduce effectiveness, and adversely impact reenlistment? If you took a poll of white soldiers in 1948, and asked it they would want to share bunk rooms, toilets, showers, mess tables, and every minute of the day with colored soldiers, what do you think the opinion would be? If there had been no integration in 1948 and you asked the same question in 1965 or 1970, what do you think the opinion would be? If they asked the generals instead of the men? Answer: the same, at all times, in all cases. "No, not now, why change, why hurry?"

It was done, and the military survived, and the country outlasted the communists in the cold war. And, we're better for it, though there will always be some who disagree. (Check out stormfront.com and amren.com.)

Congress should open service to open gays, but it won't, because Republicans will sell out justice for the reactionary vote every time. So, that's my answer to your question, "Who should decide?" Congress should, but they won't, even if most of the country thinks it's a decent idea. Somebody should, because it's justice, and there's no worthy objection to it, let alone one that should override justice.

I've seen no evidence that ***** G.I.s reduce military effectiveness. I just see "experts" afraid to advocate change. The country as a whole has come to accept homosexuals as valid citizens, just as they have learned that Jews, Mormons, Indians, blacks, and women are entitled to the everyday rituals and privileges of citizenship.

Related Discussions

Related Forums