An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Gays in the Military
Mike Keefe, The Denver Post
This copyrighted cartoon is licensed to appear on TMV. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. All rights reserved.
43 Responses to “Gays in the Military”
I'm willing to bet that most of the people writing these cartoons and bombarding this site with cheerleading articles for repealing DADT won't have to live with the consequences of the decision at the point of the spear. Neither will I. But someone has to consider their interests. Apparently it's not enough that we will force this repeal on them, but now we are supposed to do that without even bothering to study the implications. No big deal, right? They are only the people defending our nation at the cost of their lives. Why bother looking into it first?
Here's what one of our soldiers “defending our nation” has to say about it (And, talking about “at the cost of their lives…”):
So he admired his commander. And he doesn't know if he was a homosexual or not. Very convincing. What does that have to do with anything? Everyone knows there are homosexuals in the military; always have been, always will be. No doubt that some are courageous and good leaders. That isn't the issue.
The issue is whether they can flaunt or declare their homosexuality openly and publicly. And whether Obama can chalk up a 'win' for a special interest group that helped elect him.
DaMav, I think you're missing the point. It's a cartoon, and it asks a pretty simple question. They could have left their answer out of it, but the question still remains. They say there are no atheists in foxholes…I'm pretty sure that if you were under fire, the last thing you would care about is whether the guy plucking off the bad guys and keeping you alive was looking at you in the shower the night before.
Well why don't we ask them instead of not only telling them what they have to do since we know better than them, but telling them that we're 'pretty sure' that we know what they should be thinking too?
Very member of the armed forces volunteered or reupped under DADT. Now we are going to change the rules. Maybe we should study the matter first. Is there a problem with that?
The cartoon is perfectly clear. It asks a stupid question about bullets, then conflates that with DADT by ridiculing taking a year to study the matter. That is the point and its rather obvious.
Getting a lot mileage out of one comment. Not very objective Dorian. Probably out of context if the truth were known.
Personally I think that forcing people in the military to accept gay culture in close living proximity without having any choice about it at is way to much to expect. Pushing people into a corner without an escape path is wrong and unwise. I expect people turning up dead because of it.
If this “gay” stupidity is implemented, then people now in the military should be given the option to leave the military honorably and with full benefits. If not, the government will be directly responsible for the violence that will no doubt follow.
No, the government will not. The hate-filled, bigoted and intolerant people who commit the acts of violence will be responsible.
You know, your intolerance and desire to see violence against those you do not agree with is very Talibanish.
[...] Gays in the Military | The Moderate Voice. [...]
Forget intolerance, start talking about military housing and sexual harassment cases. If people can shower, dress and sleep with people of the gender they are sexually attracted to, this may save the military some money or create legal headaches. As I understand it, there are separate quarters for men and women enlisted. Now they won't need that anymore since the ban on showering/dressing/sleeping with members who pose a sexual distraction can be eliminated.
Who knew that coed facilities would be the spinoff of DADT? And if you try to argue that men cannot shower with women but lesbians, for example, can, you are arguing that lesbians have more self control than men. And that is descriminatory.
You know, on a related subject, I wonder if a slick attorney might be pushing for the repeal of DADT so that it will set a federal precident to clearly identify GLBT [but not polygamists] as “a sexual minority group”, thereby opening the door to a SCOTUS ruling that gays may marry because otherwise it would be descrimination. Forget revoking the description of marriage state by state, this would give them a nationwide victory in one fell swoop. Utah will naturally follow on the heels of that to be the first state to allow polygamy in marriage.
And if you're for that you should be delighted because it will happen that way. If you're not, well I guess you'd better stop “hating” and get used to it buddy cuz it's GOING to happen.
Here is a sop to a special interest group (which is how and why this matter is being addressed now) that has been ridiculously hyped, turned into a silly public spectacle, while also being given classic bureaucratic treatment that conveniently will lead to results probably after November's elections.
Leave it to our illustrious leadership and Party in Charge to fumble yet another issue in Washington.
What's with all the bigoted yammering? Did somebody get trapped in the 50's or something?
Calling a homosexuals who want to be able to do the same things as heterosexuals a “special interest group” is like calling African Americans in 1860 who want to escape slavery a “special interest group.” It's technically true, but not in the commonly accepted definition of the term.
Not that the two offenses are equivalent, but the quest for human rights should not be considered a “special interest.”
Actually, JSpencer, judging by what I've seen on other threads addressing DADT, this is actually quite toned down.
Let's see, the 1950s — the Civil Rights era had yet to be launched, jobs outside the home for women included secretary, teaching, or nursing, and cars were death-traps with no head rests, few seat belts, and no air bags. Yep, we've come a long way since then. Change can be good. But also consider that most kids could get off the school bus and find a peaceful home, play for hours in the woods with friends and not have to worry about being abducted, and abortion was a word a ten year old child didn't even have to hear. Ignorance can be bliss.
So the 50s were a mixed bag. Some changes since then have been good, and some have been bad. Watch a movie from that era, and you get comedy from comments about men marrying each other! Dressing in drag was a gag, etc. Now if you makes jokes along that line, you're a “bigot,” etc. Sigh…
So, is the DADT repeal a good or a bad change? If they take a year to study the question, more power to 'em. As for the questions about showering, etc., my wife lived for a year in a college dorm for women. On her floor there was a known lesbian. Everyone avoided the showers when she was there. Call it bigoted, call it what you want. I call it an understandable response.
DaMav: The military was adamantly opposed to integrating the armed forces 60 years ago. But the President did it anyway, in the name of human rights. Should we have caved to the opinions of the bureaucrats on that one since they were the ones who (in your words) would have to “live with the consequences”?
Redbus, needless to say, I believe my views regarding this particular issue are the right ones, but you make a good point about the 50's. I remember being a little kid and running all over the place with my brothers and other kids in the neighborhood in 58 and 59 . There was a sense of community and parents would look out for not just their own kids, but other kids as well. There didn't seem to be any worries about safety where I grew up (small town in Michigan) and we would walk to the movies and swimming pool a couple miles away without our parents worrying. Little kids would go out trick or treating on Halloween on their own and there were no problems, etc. You're right, there were some good things about that time period. Lot's of messed up things too, stuff went on that people didn't talk about the way they do now – dysfunctional famlies for instance, and abortion existed, it was just dangerous and illegal. But yes, it was a good time to be a little kid – at least it was for my brothers and my friends and me.
Here's an article for the people who want to retain DADT to read. Probably won't change your mind, but I think it will give you something to think about.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/03/darrah.pe…
“Did somebody get trapped in the 50's or something?”
I support repeal of the law, in case you couldn't discern that before. I am not amused by the lurid political spectacle being made of this issue in Washington, for which there is no excuse, though.
Thanks. A lesbian who says she had a successful career in the military under DADT, including winning a number of awards and medals. While she personally would prefer it repealed, it proves beyond a doubt that a homosexual can have a successful and rewarding career under DADT if they don't flaunt their homosexuality. Nobody really cared what she did in her private life, as long as she didn't shove that in their face in the service. A DADT success story indeed!
DLS, that comment wasn't directed at you, it was directed to two of our other illustrious contributors.
So far this discussion in Washington seems rather tame compared to the initial discussion in 1993 that gave rise to DADT.
Thanks for posting this.
Here's a very worthwhile read, from Rev. Donald Sensing, a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel:
Vanderbuilt Chaplain Agrees that Homosexuals Should be Killed
NOTE: This was a Muslim chaplain, and I'm in total agreement with Rev. Sensing that this is disgusting, and I can't run away from this chaplain's comments fast enough. There are some graphic images of hangings in Iran, so be advised.
Sensing does raise the interesting point, though, of what Muslim members of our military would do if the DADT ban was lifted. The recent Fort Hood massacre comes to mind.
There can be no sympathy for the people who are afraid of the effects of repealing DADT.
They are your fellow citizens, they deserve to be outed and in the military, and you suck for whining about it.
Redbus, thanks for posting the link to the article – one we both find highly disturbing. You're right, it raises worthwhile questions and important ones.To me they are best answered by considering the extent to which the USA is willing to stand up for it's own laws and standards. If we let an immoral and dangerous interpretation of a religion frighten us into compromising our standards, then we are going to be heading down the road of dhimmitude. IF there is any reason to be concerned about Muslims within the military who would refuse to function in the military or disobey orders because of religious conflicts then they shouldn't be there in the first place. Perhaps it's better we find that out now, rather than later – regardless of what triggers it. I make no differentiation between dangerous, intolerant religions and dangerous, intolerant superstitions, neither of which has any business dicating terms in a civilized society.
For the record I support the repeal to DADT. If someone steps out of line sexually in the military, either homosexually or heterosexually, deal with using the military rules of conduct already in place. Also I believe that cultural bias has more to do with keeping DADT in place than religion. In church I never hear the terrible anti gay speech that I hear on the streets, in the form of jokes and borderline hate speech.
excellent link JS, thank you.
The weird characterizations of gay people by the rather bigoted here must be a result of having never had gay friends. My wife, who grew up in Manhattan, has many. I've found them smart, committed, educated, culturally sophisticated, witty and fun. They don't hit on me, or anyone, are not predatory or promiscuous or in any way more likely to be involved in “sexual harassment” than any heteros I know.
The idea that a guy with a picture on his desk of another guy, or even studly male 'pinups' should bother me, is so foreign and demented, I will never be able to understand it.
In one of the threads on repealing DADT, one reader mentioned something about not trying “social experiments” with the military.
Interesting. When Truman racially integrated the military he faced the same objections from many, including from five-star general Omar Bradley who said that the Army was the wrong place for “social experiments.”
Similar arguments have been used to oppose full equality and opportunities for women in the military.
(Oh, I am sorry, you are right; it is not the same with gays)
“discussion in Washington seems rather tame compared to the initial discussion in 1993″
I wonder if this entire past year, also has been affected by pre-conditioning we all effectively had by the big lurch to the left by the Clinton gang after the 1993 inauguration.
“We've been there before.” For that reason, I don't believe November is another 1994. (That goes for any second “Contract with America” stuff, too, for example.)
DaMav, “So he admired his commander. And he doesn't know if he was a homosexual or not. Very convincing. What does that have to do with anything?”
Oppressors trivialize any positive support for the group of people they are oppressing. That is what you are doing.
And then, “Everyone knows there are homosexuals in the military”…. “The issue is whether they can flaunt or declare their homosexuality openly and publicly.”
So tell me…. are you afraid that men will start wearing dresses in combat or around the barracks? Tell me how, exactly, homos will flaunt their homosexuality openly and publicly. You've already acknowledged that gays are in the military and always will be. So what about their behavior will send you scurrying for the nearest female to hold hands with?
DaMav, “Every member of the armed forces volunteered or reupped under DADT. Now we are going to change the rules. Maybe we should study the matter first. Is there a problem with that?”
And we've been studying this for 17 years. There is no problem with studying the problem first and people all up and down the chain of command support this decision, including the commander in chief. What's your problem with that?
DaMav, “I'm willing to bet that most of the people writing these cartoons and bombarding this site with cheerleading articles for repealing DADT won't have to live with the consequences of the decision at the point of the spear. Neither will I.”
Aren't we ALL paying the price in our fight against terrorism when we kick out gay Arabic translators and we can not find someone to translate known terrorists conversations involving attacks on us? You may be happy with half measures in fighting terrorism, but I'm not. If having a gay soldier translate attack plans and keeps my country from being bombed by terrorists, then that's fine with me. I don't think the citizens of our country should pay the price with their lives because of bigoted and hateful thinking from other citizens.
GreenDreams:
Good to see you on TMV!
I'm always sorry when judgments like “rather bigoted” and “demented” start being thrown into a conversation, because then I know that real issues will not be discussed. One of my friends (who is gay) sometimes throws the epithet “homophobic” into conversations. Funny thing is, he might be right 25% of the time, but the 75% of the time that the label is inaccurate, it actually ends up being counterproductive. The next time, fewer people listen because people will say: “Oh yeah, there's the guy who likes verbally attacking people to try to win his argument.” On the other hand, the link that JS posted (that you like) is effective precisely because it avoids the kind of verbal tear gas that ad hominem labels constitute, and tear gas just makes people run away from you – the divide widens.
If gay “marriage” is ultimately accepted in our culture – and it still may be – it will be because LGBT have won over doubters through kind actions, not harsh words. They have to be better than the other side.
good comment, and I'll keep it in mind. but you know, the term means prejudiced, and there's no doubt that those who oppose gays are prejudiced against them. From Wikipedia:
“A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.”
It's amazing how many people make the comment that those serving in the military would end up resorting to violence if they had to serve next to people who were openly gay. Amazing because, they already are serving next to those gay people anyway, for one (and probably already know they're gay), and second, most of them are in their late teens and early twenties, and really don't give a damn to begin with. Coming from where I come from, I know a lot of people in the military, and from what I've seen, most soldiers want DADT to go away because it hurts morale – people who have to live a lie are more likely to drink excessively and entertain thoughts of suicide, and are more likely to engage in risky behavior to keep their love lives secret.
In the military, you're supposed to have no secrets from your commanding officer. Continuing a policy that demands exactly that is discriminatory – but as others have pointed out, there is ample ground for the military to discriminate if it was for the better for the military. The real reason why this policy needs to be repealed, is because it hurts readiness (by kicking out droves of highly trained soldiers, many of whom are arabic and farsi linguists), and undermines morale.
And to the folks who say that this will cause people to become violent against gays because they can't handle sleeping or showering in the same room with them, I ask – is it really the case that our soliders can fight and die in the worst war zones known to man, summoning up unimaginable courage in the face of the most horrific situations, and yet they can't handle sleeping next to a man who has a boyfriend waiting for him at home that they actually know about? People who think so little of our soldiers do our military a disservice.
You must go to a nice church. Before I left my church I remember a priest comparing me to a sheep-f*cker and a murder in the same homily, right from the pulpit. Yikes.
are you afraid that men will start wearing dresses in combat or around the barracks?
speaking of 'trivializing', is there some reason you are playing on ridiculous and insulting stereotypes of homosexuals to try to make your points?
I'm very sorry you had that experience. I hope it won't color your feeling toward all religious people.
There are 2 items I wish to report about homosexuals serving in the military. The first is from a dear friend who is a physician who served during WWII in the Asian theater, the Korean Conflict and continued up to the late 1960's. His observations are that homosexual men made the best staff in the Navy and particularly during conflict. He generalized his attitude toward medical staff and warriors alike. The other is that of a 22 year old Eagle Scout friend of mine who joined the Marines and has served on active duty in the Mediterranean and is presently awaiting deployment to Afghanistan. He's a grunt and loves the military experience. His discussion is that ” we know we have gays in the unit and it presents no problem. ” From his experience homosexuals' conduct and heroism is undistinguishible from the others in his unit. I applaud Obama and the defense brass for pushing repeal of the service restrictions of homosexuals. I doubt there will be a rush to paint the barracks pink.
February 8, 2010– The Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times.
DaMav, I made several points about gays serving in the military, none of which you addressed. Cat got your tongue?
Stephen Weiss, your whole comment that begins, “It's amazing how many people make the comment that those serving in the military would end up resorting to violence if they had to serve next to people who were openly gay….”
Great, thanks!
What points? I already addressed your insulting stereotype about men in dresses.
I already spoke to the bogus point about translators elsewhere — specialized expertise can be contracted out to the civilians; the military already does this for many things. You don't have to turn our forces topsy turvy over such a minor problem.
Since you have studied this for 17 years perhaps you can answer some questions. What will be the impact on recruitment and retention of repealing DADT? Don't give me some kind of opinion, cite a study showing detailed results. The study should include a reasonably robust methodology for identifying potential recruits and determining the likely influence on their probability of enlistment if DADT is repealed. Ditto for retention.
Your statement that “people all up and down the chain of command support this” is apparently your opinion. Cite specifics, and the source.
Here's one from Military Times
Most active-duty service members continue to oppose President-elect Barack Obama’s campaign pledge to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy to allow gays to serve openly in the military, a Military Times survey shows.
Moreover, if the policy was repealed, nearly 10 percent of respondents said they would not re-enlist or extend their service, and 14 percent said they would consider terminating their careers after serving their obligated tours.
http://militarytimes.com/news/2008/12/122908_mi…