When is Obama gonna let gays serve openly in the Military?
- Thread starter WriterDom
- Start date
Safe_Bet
No she's not back I'm Amy
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Posts
- 8,663
Nope. I want everyone in the LGBT community have equal rights and be ABLE to openly serve if they choose to, but I can't bring myself to want them to go die for a bunch of political bullshit.
[rant] Furthermore, even though I voted for him as the best of two poor choices, Obama never has been nor will ever be, a friend to the LGBT community until our votes out number the fundies and right wingers he is hoping to pull over to his side. The dude is a politician, first, last and always. [/rant] There. NOW, I'm pissed...
alaskabibear
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Posts
- 416
No I'm not "pissed", I think we all need to have a longer view of the realities of the world we live in, while at the same time we individually do our own small part in whatever capacity to show others around us that GLBT people are just normal hard working citizens who deserve equal rights and treatment under the Constitution. (Note; and I've harped on this before - I intentionally used the word "normal" above to emphasize that one cannot expect others to embrace and accept something that is overtly portrayed in an offensive/threatening way.)
And while politics do tend to irritate most people (me included!), it is prudent to remember that "politics" is all about compromise. We live in a country with an extremely diverse population. In fact I think a fair argument could be made that this country is unprecedented in all of history for it's diversity of cultural, ethnic and religious diversity. It will take a lot of compromise by all parties to ever make meaningful progressive moves forward to a better life for all. I think these moves will come as "baby steps" as each interest group compromises something in order gain something. And such compromises will only come as we each come to trust the other more and more.
I think an open policy in the military will come when there is a similar "open acceptance" in the general society.
And while politics do tend to irritate most people (me included!), it is prudent to remember that "politics" is all about compromise. We live in a country with an extremely diverse population. In fact I think a fair argument could be made that this country is unprecedented in all of history for it's diversity of cultural, ethnic and religious diversity. It will take a lot of compromise by all parties to ever make meaningful progressive moves forward to a better life for all. I think these moves will come as "baby steps" as each interest group compromises something in order gain something. And such compromises will only come as we each come to trust the other more and more.
I think an open policy in the military will come when there is a similar "open acceptance" in the general society.
Safe_Bet
No she's not back I'm Amy
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Posts
- 8,663
Sorry, dude, but I've got to kinda disagree with you here on a few of your points.
Compromise (def.): A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.
I'm not willing to compromise my rights; just as the writers of the Declaration of Independence, Martin Luther King and Gandhi wouldn't "compromise" their rights. As long as there are right wing / fundie assholes out there that firmly and avidly believe that they are doing god's work by NOT giving ANY concessions, nothing is going to happen until we push to MAKE it happen. I'm not proposing violence or anarchy here, but "baby steps" only work when you don't let the bullies push you back "full steps". What needs to be done is a concerted effort to utilize LGBT political contributions and organization capabilities to PUSH back in a peaceful, yet forceful manner. "Don't Tread on Me" needs to be heard as much today as "why can't we all just get along".
P.S. Right wing fundies are offended / threatened by our very existence, so they will never "openly accept" us. Period.
P.P.S. We also need to make sure that we don't lump conservatives in with the RWFs. I'm married to one of "THEM".
alaskabibear
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Posts
- 416
I kinda, sorta see your point. However, I think it is somewhat naive to think that there is going to come a time when everyone has in hand all the rights they believe are promised by the Constitution. Life is a series of compromises in almost every aspect of our daily existence.
After all, the "right wing fundies" have their rights too. Or would you strip them of their right to believe that homosexuality is a sin? Please tell me it ain't so! For when any sub-group of a people fall into the trap of thinking they and they alone have the correct "truth", then they too become a "fundi" group. In my opinion, all "fundi" groups regardless of their cause are doomed to remain outcasts of the general society in which they belong (just as the RFW's are becoming now).
Your point about Martin And Gahndi not compromising their rights is not accurate. Their rights were already compromised, just as we believe GLBT peoples rights are compromised. They set forth on a multi-generational effort to win their rights. But that doesn't mean they expected an all or nothing solution to materialize without long hard work to change the majority view. And both of the aforementioned men made peaceful protest a hallmark of their leadership. And both understood and used the political process to further their agenda.
My position is that GLBT folk will gain the rights and acceptance they desire when they step up to an even higher level of rational dialog and participation in the society. It's people's minds we must change, and that is most effectively done through peaceful dialog and compromise. To rant, threaten, curse and denigrate another group only brings us down to the same level as the one's we criticize. (that be my humble opinion anyway)
After all, the "right wing fundies" have their rights too. Or would you strip them of their right to believe that homosexuality is a sin? Please tell me it ain't so! For when any sub-group of a people fall into the trap of thinking they and they alone have the correct "truth", then they too become a "fundi" group. In my opinion, all "fundi" groups regardless of their cause are doomed to remain outcasts of the general society in which they belong (just as the RFW's are becoming now).
Your point about Martin And Gahndi not compromising their rights is not accurate. Their rights were already compromised, just as we believe GLBT peoples rights are compromised. They set forth on a multi-generational effort to win their rights. But that doesn't mean they expected an all or nothing solution to materialize without long hard work to change the majority view. And both of the aforementioned men made peaceful protest a hallmark of their leadership. And both understood and used the political process to further their agenda.
My position is that GLBT folk will gain the rights and acceptance they desire when they step up to an even higher level of rational dialog and participation in the society. It's people's minds we must change, and that is most effectively done through peaceful dialog and compromise. To rant, threaten, curse and denigrate another group only brings us down to the same level as the one's we criticize. (that be my humble opinion anyway)
Etoile
Mod, 2003-2015
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2000
- Posts
- 17,049
No, I'm not pissed. Yes, it's probably a simple matter to actually DO it, but he has to go through the process of comments, evaluations, blah blah. Even if he knows what he's going to do, he has to follow the steps. And quite frankly he doesn't have the time for it right now - the economy needs help first. He's been busy figuring out what to do with GM, AIG, etc. The DADT repeal can wait. He said during the campaign that he'll do it, and I believe that it's coming, but I don't need it to be now. He's still in his first 100 days.
CJontherocks
Soul Whisperer
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2004
- Posts
- 1,362
The armed forces community is supposedly a cross-section of American society. Not exactly true, but close enough. As complex as our society is, it will not be a simple matter to just declare that it's okay to be openly gay in the military. It's what the gay-haters in (and out of) the military will do that makes the difference.
The good thing about the military is, they're really on their toes about equality and will not accept behavior that is borne from prejudice and hatred. So those gay-haters who do bad things to gay people will most assuredly be ejected as a minimum. Once the rule is made, the legal authorities will ensure it's adhered to. Now back to the complexities...
First, the gay-haters in the military will have to be dealt with. Someone is going to have to suffer at the hands of these people so they can be caught and punished and made an example of. After a while, everyone will get used to the idea that some military people are gay and there ain't a damn thing they can do about it.
Except there is something they can do about it. They can choose to not serve if they have to serve alongside the gay people they are so afraid of and hate. Maybe that's okay now, because the economy sucks and recruiting/retention isn't a problem when the economy sucks. (Hmmm... maybe the timing is right?) But it's definitely a consideration that there would be a major impact if military service isn't such an attractive option, as is the case when the economy is humming along nicely.
And do you think the former soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who now sit in Congress and on appropriations and oversight committees will sit on their thumbs while this takes place? Now that's definitely something a president (will think he/she) needs to consider. The sad fact is, there are haters everywhere and about every thing, and that'll never go away in our society. Do we patiently wait for more acceptance, holding hands and singing "We Shall Overcome?" Or do we take up arms, shout from the rooftops, shake our fists in outrage, push and push people in order to desensitize them to our way of life?
Here's the good news. I knew a few people during my military career who were openly gay. Some didn't hide it. But they didn't flaunt it either. And they were accepted. The only time someone gets offended and pursues the matter of sexuality in the military is when they're confronted by it and feel compelled to take action because a rule's a rule and you gotta follow the rules. Being gay in the military is okay. It's the actions, the "homosexual behavior," that is not. DADT is interpreted in the military to mean you can be gay, but you can't do gay things. I know, it's a matter of semantics, but really it's how the military leaders are dealing with a complex issue. They do not pursue investigations into a person's sexual preference unless that person makes it an issue. The military is more than just a job or even a profession. It really is a way of life. And those who choose to serve in the military are expected to accept that way of life. You can't smoke dope, you can't wear long hair or beards, and you can't have sex with someone of the same gender. I've known guys who smoked dope (though none that got away with it). And I've known both women and men who had sex with the same gender (and none that didn't get away with it).
The other part of the good news is that not all heterosexual people are gay-haters. So really, just a minority--albeit a loud and powerful minority--are our opponents.
I was fine serving my 22 years as a closet bisexual. Hell, I'm still a closet bisexual. I understand where you're coming from when you say you're not going to be quiet any more. You're pissed that you can't be who you want to be without someone telling you it's unacceptable. It is damned acceptable and it's about time people start accepting it. I get that. But when you get right down to it, the only person who should be concerned about our sexuality are those we choose to have sex with. When we can be who we want to be without feeling the need to be loud about it, then I think we'll have arrived. Until then, I think we'll continue to be disappointed.
Hurray for Iowa and Vermont. Maybe the National Guard in those states can set the example for the active duty boys and girls.
The good thing about the military is, they're really on their toes about equality and will not accept behavior that is borne from prejudice and hatred. So those gay-haters who do bad things to gay people will most assuredly be ejected as a minimum. Once the rule is made, the legal authorities will ensure it's adhered to. Now back to the complexities...
First, the gay-haters in the military will have to be dealt with. Someone is going to have to suffer at the hands of these people so they can be caught and punished and made an example of. After a while, everyone will get used to the idea that some military people are gay and there ain't a damn thing they can do about it.
Except there is something they can do about it. They can choose to not serve if they have to serve alongside the gay people they are so afraid of and hate. Maybe that's okay now, because the economy sucks and recruiting/retention isn't a problem when the economy sucks. (Hmmm... maybe the timing is right?) But it's definitely a consideration that there would be a major impact if military service isn't such an attractive option, as is the case when the economy is humming along nicely.
And do you think the former soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who now sit in Congress and on appropriations and oversight committees will sit on their thumbs while this takes place? Now that's definitely something a president (will think he/she) needs to consider. The sad fact is, there are haters everywhere and about every thing, and that'll never go away in our society. Do we patiently wait for more acceptance, holding hands and singing "We Shall Overcome?" Or do we take up arms, shout from the rooftops, shake our fists in outrage, push and push people in order to desensitize them to our way of life?
Here's the good news. I knew a few people during my military career who were openly gay. Some didn't hide it. But they didn't flaunt it either. And they were accepted. The only time someone gets offended and pursues the matter of sexuality in the military is when they're confronted by it and feel compelled to take action because a rule's a rule and you gotta follow the rules. Being gay in the military is okay. It's the actions, the "homosexual behavior," that is not. DADT is interpreted in the military to mean you can be gay, but you can't do gay things. I know, it's a matter of semantics, but really it's how the military leaders are dealing with a complex issue. They do not pursue investigations into a person's sexual preference unless that person makes it an issue. The military is more than just a job or even a profession. It really is a way of life. And those who choose to serve in the military are expected to accept that way of life. You can't smoke dope, you can't wear long hair or beards, and you can't have sex with someone of the same gender. I've known guys who smoked dope (though none that got away with it). And I've known both women and men who had sex with the same gender (and none that didn't get away with it).
The other part of the good news is that not all heterosexual people are gay-haters. So really, just a minority--albeit a loud and powerful minority--are our opponents.
I was fine serving my 22 years as a closet bisexual. Hell, I'm still a closet bisexual. I understand where you're coming from when you say you're not going to be quiet any more. You're pissed that you can't be who you want to be without someone telling you it's unacceptable. It is damned acceptable and it's about time people start accepting it. I get that. But when you get right down to it, the only person who should be concerned about our sexuality are those we choose to have sex with. When we can be who we want to be without feeling the need to be loud about it, then I think we'll have arrived. Until then, I think we'll continue to be disappointed.
Hurray for Iowa and Vermont. Maybe the National Guard in those states can set the example for the active duty boys and girls.
Last edited:
Powertone
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2006
- Posts
- 11,607
and just what does "openly serve" mean any way?
how "open" do gays want to be in the military? the freedom to engage in homosexuality in the barracks? what? "straights" can not " fuck around".
having an affair means court martial for heterosexuals.
how "open" do gays want to be in the military? the freedom to engage in homosexuality in the barracks? what? "straights" can not " fuck around".
having an affair means court martial for heterosexuals.
Misty_Morning
Narcissistic Hedonist
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2006
- Posts
- 6,129
Nope. I want everyone in the LGBT community have equal rights and be ABLE to openly serve if they choose to, but I can't bring myself to want them to go die for a bunch of political bullshit.
[rant] Furthermore, even though I voted for him as the best of two poor choices, Obama never has been nor will ever be, a friend to the LGBT community until our votes out number the fundies and right wingers he is hoping to pull over to his side. The dude is a politician, first, last and always. [/rant] There. NOW, I'm pissed...
Actually darlin...I didn't vote for him for fiscal reasons. Yes, I agree he plays the political card alot of times....BUT....
I do believe when the chips come down...he will back wholeheartedly gays in the military and gay marriage.
Mansa Musa
Feeling kinda stabby
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2003
- Posts
- 8,941
That's what the Navy is for, people! A place where patriotic gay men can live in groups of a thousand with as few women around as possible.
Powertone
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2006
- Posts
- 11,607
Thus it will become a supreme court case who'll come down on the progressive side and nullify everyone who voted against gay marriage and WON in every state it's been on the ballot determining marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.
Tyranny cometh.
Etoile
Mod, 2003-2015
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2000
- Posts
- 17,049
Yay!!
Powertone
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2006
- Posts
- 11,607
yeah...those who decided what the definition of marriage by casting their vote will just loooooove feeling the supreme court's collective dick in their ass and have no resentment / hostility whatsoever toward the gay community who don't want tolerance...they want unabashed approval and will accept nothing less....charge me with a hate crime for speaking truth.
Etoile
Mod, 2003-2015
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2000
- Posts
- 17,049
Please explain why you are against equality. Why should some people be denied rights that others have?
Etoile
Mod, 2003-2015
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2000
- Posts
- 17,049
And this. Is this even a question? Are you seriously that stupid that you cannot figure this out?
craftyhandyman
Experienced
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Posts
- 89
I hope never!!!
I spent 20 years in the military. Although I am sure there were gays that I worked with or was near. But the idea of the don't ask don't tell is a good idea in my mind. I do not want to know you are gay. I won't even ask. Just keep it to yourself. I am not against gays. I am for sure ok with two girls together but not married. Two guys together creeps me out. When My wife's gay nephew talked how some guy was hot once with me present. It grossed me out. I don't like to hear guys talk about guys in that way.
I spent 20 years in the military. Although I am sure there were gays that I worked with or was near. But the idea of the don't ask don't tell is a good idea in my mind. I do not want to know you are gay. I won't even ask. Just keep it to yourself. I am not against gays. I am for sure ok with two girls together but not married. Two guys together creeps me out. When My wife's gay nephew talked how some guy was hot once with me present. It grossed me out. I don't like to hear guys talk about guys in that way.
craftyhandyman
Experienced
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Posts
- 89
Navy is not for GAYS!
I was in the Navy. I am glad to say, I did not experience any guys doing or even talking about gay stuff around me. Thank god. Two guys together is gross.
I was in the Navy. I am glad to say, I did not experience any guys doing or even talking about gay stuff around me. Thank god. Two guys together is gross.
Etoile
Mod, 2003-2015
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2000
- Posts
- 17,049
This is the saddest, most pathetic thing I have read on here in a long time. I really feel sorry for you.
AggressiveGuy85
Virgin
- Joined
- May 2, 2009
- Posts
- 5
Re:
Pretty funny that some of you try to belittle people who hold an opinion that has been held by the vast majority of individuals that have ever lived.
Pretty funny that some of you try to belittle people who hold an opinion that has been held by the vast majority of individuals that have ever lived.
Etoile
Mod, 2003-2015
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2000
- Posts
- 17,049
Treading dangerously close to violating the GLBT forum rules here. This is the gay section of the board, and it's a safe space for us to post. If this thread continues in this vein, I will close it. Bring it back on topic, people.
WriterDom
Good to the last drop
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2000
- Posts
- 20,077
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
I think this is being played smart
Which normally democrats are terrible at.
Personally, I don't agree, and I would have liked to have seen it start in the miltary, too, but letting state laws fall into place to the point where you can't have this 50 state patchwork and progress will have to come naturally is strategic.
Which normally democrats are terrible at.
Personally, I don't agree, and I would have liked to have seen it start in the miltary, too, but letting state laws fall into place to the point where you can't have this 50 state patchwork and progress will have to come naturally is strategic.
Powertone
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2006
- Posts
- 11,607
you're the doing the one insulting and straying from the topic...you've even gone after a guy who actually served in the military...
with your attitude and cluelessness about " straight thinking" there'll never be any understanding between straights and gays if you're that alternative...
you don't want to hear anything except affirmative posts allowing Gays to openly serve...and don't tell me I'm stupid if I ask "how open..." That is a question
that must be asked
Last edited:
