Give me a good reason for not firing gay people in the military

[The Straight Story]

And tell me why people who believe they should be fired should be considered progressives.

Tell me why we should wait to change policy, and why you support doing so.

Explain to me why we waited so many years to control the white house and congress with hopes of ending the wars and allowing gays to serve openly, only to have such things pushed to the back burner while we spent our resources helping out the financial institutions and telling those opposed to the war and dadt that they should just wait because we had bigger things to do and more important people to help.

It is not about Obama as much as is it about those folks in congress we put there for change (but yes, Obama as well to some extent). Maybe it will come, sometime on down the road in the next few years after all the more important issues are dealt with (Guess we can only deal with one or two at a time).

It just seems to me the more money and influence peddled by a group the more urgency there is to help them. Doing what is right seems to have been replaced with doing for who has the most money and influence.

[Skittles]

1. it's homophobia, plain and simple

there's no reason it ever existed except for homophobia - it should be ended NOW

[Ohio Joe]

2. Well...

"Give me a good reason for not firing gay people in the military"

A persons sexuality has no bearing on their ability or desire to serve their country.

"And tell me why people who believe they should be fired should be considered progressives."

I don't think they should be considered progressives.

"Tell me why we should wait to change policy, and why you support doing so."

I do not think it is something that should wait, President Obama should have changed this already.

"Explain to me why we waited so many years to control the white house and congress with hopes of ending the wars and allowing gays to serve openly, only to have such things pushed to the back burner while we spent our resources helping out the financial institutions and telling those opposed to the war and dadt that they should just wait because we had bigger things to do and more important people to help."

I do not know, I am extremely bothered by this. I have sent both emails and snail mails to President Obama, Vice President Biden, as well as my elected officials asking the very same and have yet to receive any answers... not even bad ones.

"It is not about Obama as much as is it about those folks in congress we put there for change (but yes, Obama as well to some extent). Maybe it will come, sometime on down the road in the next few years after all the more important issues are dealt with (Guess we can only deal with one or two at a time)."

As much as I know it would be even worse under repugs... I expect better from the Democratic party and feel very let down.

"It just seems to me the more money and influence peddled by a group the more urgency there is to help them. Doing what is right seems to have been replaced with doing for who has the most money and influence."

This has been true for entirely too long.

Good post, I wish I had better answers. K&R

[MrModerate]

3. I agree with the first post . . . it's homophobia, plain and simple. But:

It's also truth that in politics, you just can't get everything done simultaneously. If you do, you don't get anything done. Is Obama's laundry list and sequencing the same I'd choose? No. Do I agree with much/most of what he's trying to do? Yes.

And frankly, issues where opposition is irrational (e.g., driven by homophobia) are tougher to deal with than those where opposition is rational (e.g., insurance companies fighting for their right to continue sucking blood).

And then there's the fucking blue dog dems who can't quite figure out that the people didn't elect them to be republicans.

[caseymoz]

4. Because I'm f*cking afraid of the military?

That is my one and only reason. I'm very nervous about how they might react, and the military is very conservative, and quite reactionary. Especially when a black, democratic president tries to implement it. At the very least, I can see many leaving the military to form paramilitary terrorist groups. And I am afraid to say that I think a few dozen members of special forces, like the Navy Seals, would be the most reactionary and the likeliest to do this, and they have the training to be terrorists and assassins, and to kill gays by the dozens. They could also just make mince-meat out of the Secret Service, and as terrorists, they can cause the country nightmares for decades. That's the problem with training people to be killers-- you can then lose control of them.

Other than that, yes, I think gays should be allowed openly to serve in the military.

Believe me, don't ask/don't tell is meant to prevent just what I describe.

[proteus_lives]

5. Eye-roll worthy.

:eyes:

Truman integrated the armed forces and through was no big blowup. DAFT is homophobia and cultural. It will pass like racial segregation did.

Try to remember that the members of our armed forces are human beings, not racist kill-bots. Try not stereotype them so much.

[caseymoz]

12. There also wasn't a Christian Mega-Media doing propaganda against Blacks.

. . . for years. This is what has happened to gays. This has been drummed into conservatives Christians for decades now. No, I'm not stereotyping. I am a veteran. The military in the 1940s to the 1960s was very different then, simply because it had a draft. An unforeseen consequence of ending the draft is that its ranks now lean politically more toward conservatism, because they are the ones who volunteer the most. The draft took people of a wide variety of backgrounds and political views. A higher number in the military might have opposed segregation when they were in, but a high proportion of them also knew they were out in 2 years.

And there were much fewer who were convinced by a media empire that segregation was a pillar of their faith.

It's not a stereotype: it only takes 1 in 100 do as I say to cause an immense amount of trouble. Believe me, probably that many have drawn the line for resigning at the military allowing gays, and they would take it as proof that the US as opposing God. There are already paramilitaries, militias backed by congregations that they could join.

Do you really think Clinton and Obama, despite their promises to G&L's, merely decided for no reason to screw them over once in office? For Clinton, do you think for a moment that he backed off to "don't ask, don't tell" when he was committed to going through with it? Especially when he faced such acrimony from his base when the did it? No. I assure you they backed off reluctantly once it became apparent to them how people in the military would react. It wasn't just the high brass talking to them either. They would have done polls of all ranks of the military and decided to back off. Thing is, "don't ask, don't tell" was pretty much how the military was doing it anyway.

[Cid_B]

6. Chrissakes...

Yeah that must be it. Special forces just sits there plotting against the country and gays in particular. Are you high right now? :eyes:

[caseymoz]

13. They do not do it now-- in general. Not even most do it.

Once the military becomes officially pro-G&L though, I could really see them doing this.

High right? What the hell does that mean. High righteous? No, just afraid. I do not think it is wise that G&L's simply ignore this possibility and cite what happened in the 1940s, when most of the military was draftees, as being even comparable to what could happen now.

[Skittles]

14. "officially pro-G&L"??? WTF?

it's EQUALITY - there's no fucking AGENDA there

[caseymoz]

16. I'm just telling you what they would think. Argue it with them.

You do yourself no service by ignoring how your enemy thinks, even if you find it disgusting. They would see it as pro-G&L.

Look, I believe in equality for G&Ls, but I am also a coward. I have much fear (but so did Darth Vader). You have to face the fact that any friendly president is not going to stand against a military so hostile to G&L equality. It won't happen, ever. No, you have to get Congress behind, too, and have the President sign into law. That is the only way. She or he is not going to issue and executive order for equality. Hell, they might back away from it if they are gay themselves.

Even if that is done, it still has to actually be FOUGHT. It is the last redoubt of the culture war, and the cultural enemy is going to fight it like hell.

I am in favor of equality, but do find G&L's ignorance and sneering disregard about politics within the military to be totally irresponsible. No, it won't work smoothly like de-segregation did. And you can't too much blame any President for recoiling when they realize the storm they are facing in the military.

[Skittles]

19. I had no idea the military was my enemy

the fact is, gays serve and have always served in the military - to say military folk cannot handle WHAT THEY ALREADY HANDLE is just pure and utter BULLSHIT

Skittles
USAF veteran

[caseymoz]

22. Yes, but making it official would be something quite different . . .

. . . to a conservative Christian. God punishes nations for their sins. That is Biblically utterly correct. I know that's bullshit, but to them once it becomes a matter of law rather than an individual "loving the sinner, hating the sin," it's a completely different thing altogether. It's the main reason why most conservatives can be persuaded to recognize "Civil Unions," but pass an official law calling it marriage, and they will go ape-shit. Why do you think we have to fight tooth and nail in state after state? It is also the reason why an apparently private issue like abortion becomes a matter of constant public debate.

So, take your sneering, deliberate ignorance somewhere else. You watch. This is going to play out just as I said. You are never going to get a President to go for gay equality in the military. You have to get Congress, too, if anything is going to happen. And believe me, there will be an exodus from the military once it happens, and the wacko conservatives will get bolder, more numerous and more dangerous. Unless there is a huge change in the culture before it. Think of something like 30 years, and by that time, I hope the military-industrial complex will be dismantled.

And quit setting up straw men. The whole military was our enemies, just enough of them to make things dangerous.

caseymoz
USN veteran
What do you know?

[Skittles]

26. FUCK the "conservative Christians"

those sanctimonious hypocritical bastards have run this country into the ground - time for all us sane folk to stop pretending anyone gives a SHIT what they fucking think

[caseymoz]

27. I don't give a shit for their ideology-religion either.

But I better arm myself if they know how to fight.

What do the marines say? For God, For Country, For the Corps.

In that order of importance.

[eShirl]

7. so you've bought the bullshit

thanks for being honest, at least

[caseymoz]

15. Bought the bullshit? Have you had experience in the military?

I have. I know it is very conservative. I was in navy nuclear power, and I know how many of those extremely intelligent people working with particle physics were CREATIONISTS!!!

What they said about gays and lesbians was-- not complimentary.

That's not "buying the bullshit" and it would be a tremendous mistake for G&L's to consider it bullshit.

What's bullshit is the anti-gay propaganda that has convinced conservative Christians, in the military, that having official tolerance toward G&L's is anti-God. But I'm afraid that its what many of them believe.

[Skittles]

20. I'm a veteran too

and I say kowtowing to a bunch of fucking homophobes is not honorable

[caseymoz]

23. Now I didn't say kotow to them.

There you go with the straw men again. What I'm saying is, you need to be careful with this. There's more at stake here than a bloody nose. You'll never get a President to agree by executive order to giving gays official equality in the military. Only way it might happen is if the military-industrial complex crumbles.

[Starry Messenger]

9. (facepalm)

I don't even know where to start.

[caseymoz]

17. No, you don't have to start, just sneer at very possibility.

Call my "news-for-you" homophobia or homo-hatred.

:sarcasm:

[cboy4]

8. Good over all OP, but of course it's as much about Obama as the folks we

put in congress for change.

Obama not only campaigned on DADT, he has the power to suspend DADT so nobody else gets fired while congress works to change the law.

So yea, Obama also needs to get off his ass.

[quaker bill]

10. Nothing about gays

but i would love it if we started just generally cutting the military, of course, as we brought the troops home. It would not bother me in the least to see it all cut in half, or perhaps a bit more.

[cboy4]

11. So as long as the military is cut, you're fine with the discrimination against

"gays" to continue?

[caseymoz]

18. That is off-topic.

The real reason for all the orchestrated opposition to government programs is so we could keep military spending as high as it is.

Conservatism today and its cut-throat opposition to other programs really might be a campaign, stoked by paid-for media, to keep the military-industrial complex as powerful and wealthy as it is.

[TexasObserver]

21. Not using openly gay military members is insane.

Especially those who have gone into the military, been tested, been trained, and represent a massive U.S. investment. How insane is it to kick out gay linguists in a time of war?

[ThomWV]

24. Because we don't throw straight people out for being straight

Its really that simple. Everyone has a right to defend their country. We do not exclude straight people from the right to serve because of their sexual preference, what legitimates our exclusion of gay people? Nothing, that's what does it - it is illegitimate to exclude gay people from service in the military or from protection of any other Constitutional right, including the unnamed right to privacy.

Why wait to change policy? I do not call for any wait to change the policy. I think the policy should be change yesterday. We are aware of the problem now (in the sense that it is visible in the public conscious at the moment) and so now is the time to fix it.

I can not explain the political stance of others but as a straight guy who served 4 years in the military I never did understand why gay men and women were excluded.

I don't know how much money has to do with it. In fact I don't really understand how it seems to remain such a major issue when there doesn't seem to be an awful lot of money being thrown at it by any particular group. In the sense that something like the tobacco or health care lobby is huge no such thing can be said about the anti-gays-in-military movement. I guess what I'm trying to say is that somehow it comes out as a bigger issue than the money behind it would suggest and I don't know why.

[guitar man]

25. simply because

Gay people are people too. they are our fellow citizens, our neighbors and they pay the same taxes we do. Enough of the religously fueled bigotry. Equal rights now. Equal rights in military and civil service, equal rights in marriage...equal rights period.

I'm a straight guy and I approve this message.