Don't Ask Don't Tell: Obama Edition

[MyrddinsPrecint]

I'm kind of curious how they're managing to get good data on how many of the service members are actually gay. Sounds more problematic than usual...

Well, this sounds like a let-down, but I think those who argue the pro-gay side in those discussions should take a long and hard thought about it and instead consider whether it is not better to operate under the assumption that "A very significant proportion of all non-gays will never find being gay is OK, and I must take that into consideration when planning a persuasive argument."

How about this one? If there exists any discriminatory policy excluding otherwise acceptable gay candidates from serving in the military, then there won't be as many gay people in the military. That means that not nearly as many gay people will die in combat as might otherwise, which will mean that even more of them will be on the home front, able to recruit your children, while the morally sound straight people will be the majority of the dead.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

How about this one? If there exists any discriminatory policy excluding otherwise acceptable gay candidates from serving in the military, then there won't be as many gay people in the military. That means that not nearly as many gay people will die in combat as might otherwise, which will mean that even more of them will be on the home front, able to recruit your children, while the morally sound straight people will be the majority of the dead.

Damn! I had just written this whole reply, and the computer ate it just before posting - I had to rewrite the whole thing!

Considerably better than "Stop persecuting gays, because gays are hurt by that!"

However, as it is written it just reeks of ulterior motives, which kills its effectiveness as a persuasive tool.

Instead, the general argument should be forwarded by someone with impeccable conservative/religious/antigay bonafides. Think a pastor of a charismatic Megachurch in Oklahoma, with a reputation for salty language outside the pulpit. If he has a sizeable paunch, an adoring homemaker wife and 5 sons younger than 15 all clad in 3-piece suits and ties - so much the better.

For maximum effect, the statement should go something like this:
Gays shirk their duty - freeloaders, that is what they are! Our patriotic red-blooded guys do their duty and join the army of the greatest country ever to grace the face of Earth, and in doing so protect our nation from infidels, commies, terrorists, and the French! Oh yes, those pansy bicoastals claim that they want to don the uniform, but we know what that really means! I do not need to say it this congregation with its down-to-earth good sense, but if by any chance someone has not been paying attention - we know that it is just a feeble attempt at feigning patriotic sentiment! They do it just to cover their behinds, so that they can stay at home while our true sons are suffering abroad! Instead, they want to insinuate themselves into our schools, where they can warp our precious children (cue to sons beside the pulpit/stage - look visibly shook at this moment) They have too limp handshakes to hold a chalk properly, so the real reason is more sinister than the love for learning which they profess. If we let this go unchecked, they will - sometime in the future - twist even your as of yet unborn children to their odious lust!

This has got to stop! I say, take them up on their feeble "offer"! We all know that none of them will stand an hour of boot camp, but send them there anyway! God has said that there is a role for all to play in this great creation, and maybe they can be put to good use, no matter how preposterous that seems! Just imagine the effect on the infidels if one of the flea-bitten sandpits that they call their cities were to be patrolled by the regiment in pink uniforms!


To this the congregation responds:

"Hail Mary, and Saint Dobson! We shall tithe to the glorious cause that Father has so eloquently sermonized!"

Coming from that kind of person, and expressed something like that, a call for openly including gays in the military will actually have significant crossover appeal.

But that is not how is goes in real life. As soon as self-declared gays find some closet gay expressing himself like that, they appearently feel a unstifleable need to out him! Mr. Closet was hard at work establishing his bonafides, and the outs blow his cover before he can get any use of all that work.

This is not shooting oneself in the foot. This is to first step on ones left foot with the right foot, then press the end of the M16 to said right foot, and emptying a 30-round magazine.

This, from a population groups which seems to pride itself on so many educated people within it - people with creative and brainy jobs.

Way to go, masters of strategy! :facepalm:

People get ticking on different things. Personally, if I hear someone calling me a coward and morally bankrupt, and that only the former has stopped me from committing a multitude of sins due to the latter, I bear it with equanimity. (Provided that they do not have real power over me - then it is a cause for concern.) If, however, I see someone in the fields of politics, persuation, or discussion using tactics which only hurt their cause, then I find it really hard to stop myself from getting on my high horses.

Wow, I better go check my blood pressure now.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

PS: Oh, if you feel compelled to ask: Yes, I have used exaggerations as a rethorical device in this post.

[Inquartata]

Oy. I'm not touching THAT one.

Anyway, I look at it from the same economic standpoint that tells me that discriminatory hiring is a practice which in the long term will allow competitors who don't do it to gain a competitive advantage and put the discriminators out of business. While I hesitate to suggest that in the long run armies which accept gay soldiers will defeat those who don't---there are too many other factors involved in winning battles---the basic premise is the same. One military casts a wider net for talent than the other, and should benefit thereby on the average.

That said, I would NOT have wanted a gay roommate when I was in the Army, or one using the same showers, etc. It would have affected my morale and readiness adversely, I suspect. Perhaps I am just not sufficiently evolved to be that free of all prejudices when it comes that close to home...

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Oy. I'm not touching THAT one.

I am suddenly reminded of who sang that ditty: Touch me...Touch me - but you are not one babe lost for words, and you will most certainly drop us a line! Showing my age.

Anyway, I look at it from the same economic standpoint that tells me that discriminatory hiring is a practice which in the long term will allow competitors who don't do it to gain a competitive advantage and put the discriminators out of business. While I hesitate to suggest that in the long run armies which accept gay soldiers will defeat those who don't---there are too many other factors involved in winning battles---the basic premise is the same. One military casts a wider net for talent than the other, and should benefit thereby on the average.

There is a problem with this line of reasoning. If McDonalds (say) discriminate while Burger King (say) does not, prospective employees can choose the latter over the former and BK will on average have somewhat more talented jobseeker pool to chose from helping them in the long run.

However, this only works when employer A is competing with employer B. Americans wishing to do military work pretty much have only one thinkable employer, the US. Armed Forces. Monopsonistic situation, or nearly so.

That said, I would NOT have wanted a gay roommate when I was in the Army, or one using the same showers, etc. It would have affected my morale and readiness adversely, I suspect. Perhaps I am just not sufficiently evolved to be that free of all prejudices when it comes that close to home...

You have competed in lots of competitions, and hopefully showered after them. Of all the hundreds of fencers who have happened to shower at the same time and and in the same room as you - statistics dictates that at least someone has been gay. Law of large numbers, you know.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Inquartata]

What I don't know doesn't bother me. This whole discussion is about having gays in the military whose status is open and accepted, rather than those who "aren't telling".

[tchwojko]

That said, I would NOT have wanted a gay roommate when I was in the Army, or one using the same showers, etc. It would have affected my morale and readiness adversely, I suspect. Perhaps I am just not sufficiently evolved to be that free of all prejudices when it comes that close to home...

I don't understand why? Would you be more concerned if the hypothetical gay roommate was, or was not attracted to you?

[erik_blank]

Personally, I think that the best argument in favor of dropping DADT is one of national security. Specifically that of the ease of blackmailing someone who is "in the closet." This has been one of the biggest reason for getting rid of homosexual personnel in the past, and still in some respects is the most compelling reason BECAUSE of the DADT rules.
By making homosexuality illegal, it creates an easy path for recruiting spies within the armed forces. Get the 'dirty' goods on someone and you have them by their conejos. Conversly, if this is no longer a means for dismissal from the service, then people can no longer be open to this kind of attack.

[jeff]

That was a big security risk during the Cold War, when the penalties for being outed as a gay were very harsh, but still applies now when the penalty could be the loss of one's military career.

I think the bigger issue is still the loss of talent. There are a number of reported cases where fluent Arabic speakers had to leave military service (translation, including for intelligence) because they were outed as gay. What a foolish waste to kick out loyal, patriotic people who served in such an important area.

By coincidence I just read a book review of a biography WW II spy who was widely known to be homosexual served with distinction in Britain's SOE - being dropped into Occupied Europe and serving with distinction at great risk to himself. See The Spectator at http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/519...ely-hero.thtml or http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n32367744/

So, are we serious about victory, or are we just kidding around and feel we can kick out people who can provide service to our country just because they're gay?

[telkanuru]

[chase]

That said, I would NOT have wanted a gay roommate when I was in the Army, or one using the same showers, etc. It would have affected my morale and readiness adversely, I suspect. Perhaps I am just not sufficiently evolved to be that free of all prejudices when it comes that close to home...

your not prejudiced youre just a REAL AMERICAN who doesnt want a homosexual doing disgusting things by you. thank you for your service.

as the hero above points out lots of people arent comfortable with the sodomites in the military. even if the majority (according to that poll wich may not be right) does want to let them in the problem is that, if let us say 40% are uncomfortable with it, its like losing 40% of youre men.

AMERICA was founded as a CHRISTIAN country and should represent CHRISTIAN values. homosexuals are against God. if we were to send an army of homosexuals into battle, you can look at it 2 ways: 1-God wouldnt protect them and 2-they wouldnt represent AMERICA and give the world a real reason to hate and fight us.

[noodle]

AMERICA was founded as a CHRISTIAN country and should represent CHRISTIAN values.

i'm going to completely contextualize this from the rest of the stuff you say, as its quite obviously trolling.

this part, though, which you try and pass off as fact, is patently and provably false. there are numerous documents, laws, treaties, and other things signed by our founding fathers that patently and explicitly state that the US was not founded as a christian nation.

[migopod]

your not prejudiced youre just a REAL AMERICAN who doesnt want a homosexual doing disgusting things by you. thank you for your service.

as the hero above points out lots of people arent comfortable with the sodomites in the military. even if the majority (according to that poll wich may not be right) does want to let them in the problem is that, if let us say 40% are uncomfortable with it, its like losing 40% of youre men.

AMERICA was founded as a CHRISTIAN country and should represent CHRISTIAN values. homosexuals are against God. if we were to send an army of homosexuals into battle, you can look at it 2 ways: 1-God wouldnt protect them and 2-they wouldnt represent AMERICA and give the world a real reason to hate and fight us.

It's interesting that people frequently accuse the public school system of producing less than desirable results. Chase has stated previously that he attends a private christian school, and he evidently can't spell, can't reason, can't use apostrophes and can't (attn Inq) capitalize.

Chase, does being a fundie cause brain damage, or is one more likely to be a fundie if they are congenitally retarded? Please provide your hypothesis and design an experiment to test it.

[fencerchica]

i'm going to completely contextualize this from the rest of the stuff you say, as its quite obviously trolling.

this part, though, which you try and pass off as fact, is patently and provably false. there are numerous documents, laws, treaties, and other things signed by our founding fathers that patently and explicitly state that the US was not founded as a christian nation.

100% in agreement with you, but the conservative movement and the GOP have been pushing all-out for years to spread the myth that Chase believes, not only through unofficial channels like talk radio but also through more "mainstream" means. Here's that 2008 platform of the Texas GOP again -- on pages 17 and 18 they explicitly endorse the concept of America as a "Judeo-Christian nation".

[Hauptman]

your not prejudiced youre just a REAL AMERICAN who doesnt want a homosexual doing disgusting things by you. thank you for your service.

as the hero above points out lots of people arent comfortable with the sodomites in the military. even if the majority (according to that poll wich may not be right) does want to let them in the problem is that, if let us say 40% are uncomfortable with it, its like losing 40% of youre men.

AMERICA was founded as a CHRISTIAN country and should represent CHRISTIAN values. homosexuals are against God. if we were to send an army of homosexuals into battle, you can look at it 2 ways: 1-God wouldnt protect them and 2-they wouldnt represent AMERICA and give the world a real reason to hate and fight us.

Seriously, Chase, this is just pathetic. If you didn't type this on a computer I could easily imagine it scrawled in crayon. Poor spelling, poor grammar, poor logic, no fact checking; your teachers would be ashamed.

I'm not going to address your errors... there are too many, and you're too close-minded to appreciate it anyway. But let me at least point out this; that last sentence does not mean quite what you intended.

[chase]

i'm going to completely contextualize this from the rest of the stuff you say, as its quite obviously trolling.

this part, though, which you try and pass off as fact, is patently and provably false. there are numerous documents, laws, treaties, and other things signed by our founding fathers that patently and explicitly state that the US was not founded as a christian nation.

To what "documents" are you referring? The only thing that might be true is the questionable "research" that "proved" Jefferson might have been an athiest (despite of his references to God).

[migopod]

To what "documents" are you referring? The only thing that might be true is the questionable "research" that "proved" Jefferson might have been an athiest (despite of his references to God).

Treaty of Tripoli comes to mind, as well as Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

If the US was in fact founded as a christian nation, as some suggest, don't you think that ol' Xristos would be at least mentioned in either the Declaration of Independence or in the US Constitution at least once?


Oh, by the way Re the Treaty of Tripoli:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This was unanimously approved by the Senate in 1796 and signed by John Adams.

[Inquartata]

I don't understand why? Would you be more concerned if the hypothetical gay roommate was, or was not attracted to you?

Same reason that military women doubtless would not have been pleased at the prospect of rooming or showering with straight men.

Attraction doesn't enter into it. In my day the women to be found in the Army were attractive to no one, but I daresay would not have been convinced to shower or room with guys on that basis!

[lindajdunn]

To what "documents" are you referring? The only thing that might be true is the questionable "research" that "proved" Jefferson might have been an athiest (despite of his references to God).

1. ATHIEST is spelled ATHEIST and most researchers credit Jefferson with being either Unitarian or DEIST, which is NOT the same as being an ATHEIST.

A deist is generally defined as one who believes in God but denies supernatural revelation.

[migopod]

As an entertaining side note, the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, as well as the famous Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in which he coined the "wall of separation between church and state" were actually meant in part to calm the Baptist minority who at the time was concerned that the Unitarians who were in the majority would establish Unitarianism as the de-facto state religion.

[fencerchica]

Same reason that military women doubtless would not have been pleased at the prospect of rooming or showering with straight men.

Attraction doesn't enter into it. In my day the women to be found in the Army were attractive to no one, but I daresay would not have been convinced to shower or room with guys on that basis!

Despite the presence of a substantial number of gay personnel in the armed forces, same-sex harassment hasn't proven to be a problem (except in some odd cases of same-sex sexual abuse of gay servicemembers, with outing them being used as blackmail). What's more, gay servicemembers consistently report (with the confirmation of their straight allies in the services) going above and beyond to ensure their behavior is beyond reproach, not only because they wouldn't want someone hostile to realize they were gay, but also because they're mortified at the idea of contributing to any tendency of others to assume that of course the gay guy/girl is out cruising in the locker room or whatever.