I sent out a call over Twitter and HARO.com for former servicemen and women (gay or straight) to share their views on the potential repeal of DADT. While many of the quotes you read in today’s column will be anonymous, their points of view are no less valid.
“I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
The Oath of Enlistment for all U.S. Military Members
The oath above is one of the biggest reasons I’ve always had a stick in my craw about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (henceforth to be referred to as DADT). Raised by veterans of the U.S. Air Force, I learned to say the Pledge of Allegiance and sing the National Anthem with my right hand over my heart, hat off… looking at the flag with a patriotic reverence. I took my right to vote seriously and won’t deny that in 1992, I voted for Bill Clinton.
In 1993, I doubted that decision wholeheartedly when DADT was instituted.
DADT – to me – seemed like a cop-out. A false panacea to kowtow to the moral right and appease the left-leaning hippies. Having an inarguable history as being a shitty secret-keeper, I had no delusions about the policy being effective. Or for that matter, plausible.
My belief is that one’s sexual orientation has fuckall to do with their patriotism. While many may disagree with me, those of the Keep Them Fuckin’ Queers Away From Me school of thought…a school of thought more perverse to me than the practice of a homosexual or transgender lifestyle, there are many who don’t. If you read my take on the whole Prop 8 issue, I think the heterosexual “norm” is pretty bleak and breeds more screwed-up kids than any gay couple I’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting.
Obama put the Commander-in-Chief smackdown on the military and Congress during his State of the Union address to actively take steps towards ending DADT. Since 1993, my nation’s government has discharged over 13,500 servicemen and women under the policy. That’s 13,500 job dismissals based on sexual orientation.
According to Nolo.com, “Twenty states and the District of Columbia have laws that currently prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in private employment: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Some of these states also specifically prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. (In addition, a handful of states have laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in public workplaces only.)
So lemme get this straight (pun intended): private employers can’t discriminate based on gender, but the federal government CAN?
Straight fucked. Gay fucked, even.
As one of my interviewees states:
”Doesn’t it seem odd that queers have to hide who they are to serve in an institution that claims to protect our individual and institutional freedoms?” @orenkiwi– Dayna Downing, discharged in 1994 for “homosexual conduct”
It does, indeed. Especially since bullets and bombs don’t know the difference between a queen and a redneck backwoods cocksucker (last I checked).
And now…the other side of the sexual orientation story from a currently enlisted straight female who has nine years of service under her belt:
” Obviously sexual preference doesn’t affect one’s ability to do any job, and the military is no different. A military that represents and protects a nation founded on liberty and religious freedom that attempts to remain close-minded and bigoted is at risk to destroy unit cohesion and strength, not vice versa.” Sarah (@lizfits)
Since I decided to write this article, I’ve received responses from numerous former and current military, each with stories from “the workplace” more remarkable than mine (and at last count, I’ve had 23 jobs). Lesbian, transgendered, gay and straight – whatever the bent, I got the perspective. Several former servicemen called collective bullshit on the whole “showering with gay folk” issue.
The case? “I don’t want some fucking faggot checking me out in the shower” Yeah, because he wants to see YOUR fat, white trash body all lathered up nice and gooey. *hurl* (anonymous)
The snark? As a member of 24 Hour Fitness, I see several clothed people (sexual orientation indeterminate) that I do not want to see lathered-up next to me. Ever. *hurl* is right.
Here’s the shit folks: it’s fear and I simply don’t get it. If you hate homos so much, why would you deny them the opportunity to catch a bullet in your place? You’ve got no problem telling the fat chick at the bar “no thanks” when she hits on you and starts drooling after three PBR tall boys. And ladies – stop acting like you haven’t tongued-down your best girlfriend after three shots of Patron because you thought it would make your boyfriend hot (and if you have not done this, you should – women are great kissers).
Enough of the hypocrisy. Seriously. Sexual harassment is a threat in each and every workplace and should be dealt with accordingly, regardless of sexual orientation.
I loved this one thought shared by two separate former servicemembers:
“Somebody flaunting their lifestyle and ‘camping it up’ in the presence of people who are known or make it known to be uncomfortable also need to be answerable to the same discipline and regulations as everyone else. Sexual harassment comes in many forms and it needs to be known that it will not be tolerated from anyone to anyone no matter any individual’s preferences.”
-Jay (@JayJM)
”If there are gay or lesbian soldiers, marines, sailors, or airmen sexually harassing fellow servicemen, they should be punished in exactly the same way any heterosexual serviceman would be punished for such behavior.”
-Peter (@cololawcompass)
Right – but then again, we ARE talking about the federal government here. Remember? They’re the ones who can still discriminate based on sexual orientation. Legally. Military intelligence takes on a whole new meaning.
But I will concede this: the repeal of DADT is going to be a shit storm. It was the same in the military when blacks were permitted to enlist (Tuskegee Airmen fame) women were allowed to enlist in non-combat roles and then allowed to cross-over into pilot roles and such in fighter jets. The military is a huge testosterone fest and thank fucking Christ they are. I need boys and girls with guns to go out and do a job that I cannot do myself. People are built for different roles – the military is the largest proponent of that: job specialization. Infantrymen don’t fly planes and pilots don’t drive tanks.
Another source offered this with regards to the potential repeal of DADT:
” We need to recognize the mistake and subsequently recognize the contributions and valor of those openly gay service members who have served with distinction.”
-(anonymous)
Do what it is that you do best, U.S. military folk – keep on keepin’ on with the specialization of labor and let servicemembers be servicemembers – they all serve and swear to protect the same way.
Now, some of you might think I’m a fag hag, what with this being the second post in three weeks on gay rights issues. Truth is – I don’t see gender.
Yes, I’ve slept with another woman.
Yes, I’ve been married twice.
No, I’m not divorced because I’m gay/bi/confused/a bitch.
I like men and am a straight female.
When I look at people, I see people. Shining personalities, skills I don’t have, adventures I admire, relationships that suck, partnerships I’d kill to emulate, children I’d love to have and above all…spirit. It’s the spirit of a human – something that every Presidential candidate preaches yet few politicians understand – that makes this life worth living. Do I pity those who feel that lifestyles different from their own pose a very threat to their ability to live a wholly fulfilling life? Indeed. Those are the kind of people who spend more time worrying about what others think than tending to their own backyard. A colossal waste of time, but hey – the world needs zealots, too.
It’s about time that the U.S. military starts acting like a more progressive nation – the nation it strives to be: inclusive, encouraging, supporting and an incubator for human potential seen in no other nation. And y’know what? That little bundle of testosterone Colin Powell even agrees with me.
So here’s the bottom line: with as brilliant as the U.S. military is with training and programming and their ability to turn Joe Punk into Joe America in 13 weeks of basic training, how about a little educational overhaul? Add tolerance training to the bill. Hell, if you’re able to overcome a little punk’s disdain for his mother’s authority and turn him into a leader, can’t you overcome the backwoods and unfounded fear that they gay guy with a machine gun standing next to you is going to bend you over and fuck you in the ass? Gay servicemembers stand next to straight ones, ready and willing to defend this country of ours. Same oath, same uniforms, same guns, same training. I thank each and every servicemember for who they are and what they do. I see people who protect my country.
I don’t see gender, sexual preference or religion.
Again, I see people. People who need to be thanked. And I can only imagine the next impending shit storm that will ensue: when gay marriage is finally legalized and the federal government is faced with extending benefits to gay servicemembers.
There will be a blog post about that issue as well. I can hardly wait.
What say you, ToyWithMes…where are the challenges with the potential, seemingly impending repeal of DADT? Anonymous comments welcome – those reeking of hate are not. Fire away…
End note: I tried desperately to get anyone on Twitter (out of HOW many million users?) who was AGAINST the repeal of DADT to offer a quote and even messaged using the #TCOT (Top Conservatives on Twitter) tag. No takers. Huh. Guess everyone’s changed their mind or are too pussy to put a face with their thoughts.
About the Author
Erika Napoletano is the Head Redhead at RedheadWriting LLC, a Denver-based online strategies consultancy. Her blog, RedheadWriting, is a bastion for "unpopular thoughts and blunt advice - delivered" and consistently strives to say what others won't and don't (but should) about marketing, social media, business integrity and life in general. She's a guest blogger on such popular outlets as Copyblogger, one of the most widely read RSS feeds on the web and was named in Social Mouth's 7 Examples of Kick Ass Personal Branding. You can follow her on Twitter (if you dare), check out the hoopla on her Facebook Fan Page or discover what it's like to be Bitch Slapped (a recurring weekly feature on her blog) at www.redheadwriting.com.
{ 66 comments… read them below or add one }
I respect your opinion, but I must respectfully disagree. Not because I don’t want gays in the military, but because I understand the culture of the military. I believe unless a policy is very carefully thought out (not a trend of any government agency), then such a policy shift will only lead to violence or ostracism of openly gay service members. Not out of hate, but because people who serve in combat together must trust each other with their lives…and facts remain that heterosexual men on the whole find it very difficult to place that level of trust in openly homosexual men.
While I believe as much as the next guy that every person has the right to serve in defense of our country, I think that what happens in someone’s bedroom has no business or impact on their ability to serve. Just as I was never asked if I was a heterosexual, neither should any person be asked if they are homosexual….in my humble opinion, this applies to any job, not just military service…if it has no bearing on the individual’s qualifications, neither should it be considered, positively or negatively. It is an issue that is between that person and whoever is in their bedroom…and is certainly none of the business of the US Government.
The current policy does not prevent gays from serving in the military. But is rather designed to protect them from harm by preventing a innate level of distrust being injected into a context that could cost lives. Anyone can serve, but everyone is afforded privacy regarding the private aspects of their lives.
The issue comes to a head (no pun intended), when the “gay, proud and loud” segment of our society starts barking up Obama’s skirt. Most of whom have absolutely no interest in putting a gun in their hands, standing on a wall, crawling through a jungle, or baking in a desert to defend the freedoms of America.
Jed,
Thanks for your comment.
Openly gay Canadian soldiers have been fighting side by side with the Americans in Afghanistan for years now and there have been no reports of unit cohesiveness being threatened.
A friend of mine, Bob (name changed) made the following reply to my above:
Of course, having not been in the military, I cannot speak from the perspective of military culture. And of course, I respect your opinion as well.
However, the policy (as I understand it) DOES prevent homosexuals from serving in the military, if they are known to be homosexual. It is my belief that sexual preference is born, not chosen. As such, to disallow someone to serve because they are known to be gay is the equivalent of disallowing someone to serve because they are a Pisces, or because they are Black.
I hear the argument about some heterosexuals being uncomfortable working alongside homosexuals, but I think that is a result of our culture (both civilian and military), and that problem would reduce once it became the norm. Of course there might be uncomfortable situations with some people at first. There were uncomfortable situations when white people had to serve alongside black people
I also have to ask – why does our military not have the capacity to handle it, but Canada’s and England’s can? I thought we were supposed to have a superior military?
We could (and should) continue to punish military personel who engage in sexual misconduct. If a gay soldier does something inappropriate with another soldier, it should be handled the same way it would be treated in a heterosexual situation.
But that is a civilian’s (and voter’s) opinion.
His friend, Susan (named changed) made an additional reply:
And what on earth does orientation have to do with trustworthiness?
ok, to start off easy…Susan, unless you have ever asked someone to put their life in your hands, it is hard to understand the kind of trust I am talking about, but try to equate it to the way you feel when a man in a bar sits and stares as you like a piece of meat, and how that makes you feel…now imagine asking that man to be willing to sacrifice his life to protect yours with no expectation of anything in return. Would you be able to place that kind of trust in that man? That might be a small insight into the way a person in the military might feel in this context. So, that is what sexual orientation might have to do with trust.
To Bob: I am sure this argument is a futile one, however, I dont believe that people are born homosexual, and I do believe it is a lifestyle choice. The very nature of the human species is that it takes a male and a female to procreate and ensure the survival of the species…this is possibly the most basic and fundamental human instinct. Human genetics have proven time and time again to weed out or promote certain characteristics related to procreation based on environmental conditions. Regardless of environment, it is impossible to ensure the survival of the species with homosexual “gene”, thus our very nature would have discarded it long ago.
Similarly, the argument that sexual orientation is like race is fallacious. Race is not generally a descriptor of one’s private lifestyle. One cannot conceal your race in most cases. Race is however, a protected class, while sexual orientation is not. If you are unhappy with that fact, I encourage you to lobby on behalf of such a change to Title VII.
Bob, I am going to quote you here: “I also have to ask – why does our military not have the capacity to handle it, but Canada’s and England’s can? I thought we were supposed to have a superior military?”
Have you considered it is not an issue of “being able to handle it” that makes our military the greatest in the world? Perhaps the current policy is a contributing factor to the success and culture of our military strength around the world. You must accept that military superiority is not defined by how it addresses social change issues. Military superiority is defined by how effective our forces are in military combat.
That said, I absolutely agree that sexual misconduct should be dealt with strongly and swiftly. Currently in Iraq and Afghanistan, there have been cases of female soldiers getting pregnant on purpose to immediately disqualify themselves from serving in a forward operating area. This has resulted in already undermanned deployment units becoming even more short staffed. There have been cases of commanders issuing standing orders (for which they were highly criticized by NOW and others), that expose these women to the penalties for Malingering under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (look it up if you dont know what that is). Additionally, the men, if discovered can face charges of Dereliction of Duty and Conduct Unbecoming. If either person involved is married, they can face charges of adultery (yes, this is a crime in the UCMJ).
In fact, the Uniform Code of Military Justice includes a charge of Sodomy (article 125) defined as “Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. ”
As told me in our briefing on UCMJ, “unnatural carnal copulation” is defined as any penetration other than vaginal. So yes, stories are told of how a vindictive ex-wife would go to a Commanding officer and tell him that she performed oral on one of his soldiers and that Commander would then be obliged to charge that soldier with Article 125. Any of these UCMJ charged carry a penalty up to and including dishonorable discharge, possible loss of pay or rank, and confinement.
So, with the above stipulated, you would have to revise the UCMJ (requires an act of Congress) in order to allow gays in the military unless they were able to claim to be abstinent throughout their term of service. I think you can agree that it is certainly not the government’s place to tell someone they will potentially face prison for a private matter such as who they invite into their bedroom and what occurs there. With “Dont Ask Dont Tell”, none of these issues are relevant to heterosexual or homosexual service members.
But, in your own words Bob: “If a gay soldier does something inappropriate with another soldier, it should be handled the same way it would be treated in a heterosexual situation.”
So now your position of wanting DADT removed would require that special rules be in place for homosexual soldiers that would inherently cause them to be treated differently than heterosexual soldiers.
When you join the military whether you know it or not you sign away many of the rights that we take for granted. You are no longer living by The Constitution; however, you are living for it. What makes a military great is not the freedoms held by the members, but by the discipline of the members and the decisions made by its commanders. As a member of the military, you are not afforded the same rights while in uniform. Often, especially relating to military matters of policy, servicemen and women do not have Freedom of Speech. The simple fact is, if you are not authorized, you dont make public comments to the media, or anyone else on your approval or disapproval of military policy. That is why there are whole groups dedicated to nothing but public relations.
And finally Bob: I will leave you with a quote from Churchill regarding your closing statement: “But that is a civilian’s (and voter’s) opinion.”
Churchill: “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
While I am a defender of democracy, you must be able to honestly accept that the average voter is virtually always totally uninformed on the majority of issues…and even when people are “one-issue voters”, they have a layman’s understanding of their “one-issue”. More often than not, voters vote on a single defining characteristic that they either share with the candidate, or at least empathize with. JFK was elected because he was Catholic. Obama received 95% of the black vote in 2008. Elections are dictated by who gets the most empathy with the most voters…not about what issues they stand for.
Hopefully that will change in the next 3 years.
Jed,
The commenters that you are referring to have not commented on this article. I am not sure who Bob or Susan even are. I don’t think it is fair to debate someone that is not here to defend their position.
Bob proceeded to reply: Jed – I really appreciate this conversation, as I think it is a microcosm of the broader discussion in our country. But I am going to disagree on some of these points.
First, as long as you see homosexuality as a choice, then of course you are not going to agree with me.
I take minor offense to your point to Susan. Your analogy of the bar is unsound for many reasons. First, the men at the bar are drunk, while soldiers on the battlefield are not. Second, men at the bar are often there for the express purpose of scoring with loose women – not the case on the battlefield. Third (and this is a broad problem I have with the way many people respond to the issue of homosexuality), you are assuming that all gay men really want to get in the pants of all other men. I don’t get sexually aroused around every woman, why would a gay man be aroused around every man?.
Your perspective on the military is obviously valuable in the discussion of “don’t ask don’t tell,” but I believe I have a perspective of value as well. As a person in the theatre business, I work in a field where homosexuality has been acceptable for some time. I have worked with openly gay people for my entire career – I have shared dressing rooms with them, I have had frank sexual conversations with them, I have even participated in stage combat with them that involves grappling. Granted, this is not a battlefield situation, but the knowledge that they were gay did not affect our working relationship in any way. But the military is not culture that has worked in that paradigm, so of course people question whether or not it is a good idea. I can say, in my experience, working with homosexuals has never been a problem for me.
But I think it really comes down to our differing beliefs about the “cause” of homosexuality. If a sexual attraction to an individual of the same sex is a choice, then you may be right about the value of DADT. But if it is not a choice, then it completely inappropriate to bar people from service who are known to be gay.
I’m a vet and was just getting out of the military as DADT was being enacted. We all sort of snorted at the policy, except for the super macho guys who you knew would beat their chests and agree with the concept. Most of us tended to stay away from those guys anyway.
We all knew who the gays were – it didn’t matter. What mattered is if they could do their job or not. It was a different time and by the time Desert Storm 1 happened, you knew who you could trust and who you couldn’t. It had, and still has, nothing to do with sexual orientation. If you can’t do your job, get out of the way.
And for the record, I was never in the shower with any other military member. There is this nifty thing called doors. Group showers may be more prevalent now in war situations, but there is still respect.
Additionally, last time I checked, it takes two consenting adults to have a sexual relationship. Otherwise it’s called rape and that’s against the UCMJ. Just sayin’.
If Bob or Susan wish to comment here I will approve Jeds comments that refer to them. Until then, I have removed them.
My final comment will be in response to the author’s original posting: ““I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
Two points here.
1) the 13,500 people that have been dismissed because of DADT were done so because it is part of military policy and the UCMJ. Any commander that dismissed those individuals did so under grounds of defending the oath you cited in your intro.
2) the DADT issue comes down to a very simple logical progression. Solider, sailors, airmen, and Marines have one primary mission, and that is combat. The single most important thing in combat is that you trust the man or woman you are with. If you cannot trust a person, then your life is in danger when you go to serve your mission.
This trust issue follows logically to the following: The largest religion in the US is Christianity, practiced by the majority of the population (76% in 2008). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Christianity
I am a Christian. The Christian faith believes a homosexual lifestyle is morally wrong, or in religious terms, a sin. I want to be VERY CLEAR here…I do NOT condone Christians who are judgmental and hateful of homosexuals. I believe that Christ commanded all Christians that the single greatest commandment is Love. I think Christians get a bad rap (often in spite of themselves) because we as humans are all sinners and have zero moral ground to judge others. I believe that in God’s eyes, all sin is equal, whether it is steal, murder, lying, or homosexuality or something as simple as taking the Lord’s name in vain. Therefore, I do not pass judgment on anyone, lest I be judged. But I will engage in substantive debate on issues and am always willing to listen and engage all sides.
I have said this little religious spill only to illustrate one thing: 76% of Americans are Christian. Unfortunately, many Christians forget this first and greatest commandment and are not capable of being accepting of someone they see to be advertising at the top of their lungs to be living an immoral lifestyle. In the case of military personnel, they often turn to religion in even greater numbers because they know they may not come back from the next patrol. This is the reason why military culture is so difficult to change and will put forth massive resistance to accepting openly gay lifestyles in the military. Not saying it is right…just saying that it is…
Moderator: I have requested that Bob and Susan post their approval of comment usage here.
Oh please, Jed, you’re argument of “we must protect those poor homos” is oppression at its worst. That’s akin to fanatical Islamists insisting that women need to wear burkas and be accompanied outside the home by a male relative to “keep them safe”. Sick. And your “out and loud” comment is equally offensive. It is healthy for people of any orientation to talk about there loved ones; to share there loneliness of being separated from there home and loved ones while protecting all of us. These units can spend years together, so to impose some sort of “straights can talk about their spouses or boyfriends/girlfriends but gays can’t” is destructive – to everyone in the unit. Studies are showing that when people can be honest about who they are, unit cohesion increases. It’s time to stop the propaganda so that the military stops wasting our tax dollars and destroying people’s lives by dismissing qualified, and most often, highest performing troops. We owe them and ourselves that.
“Here’s the shit folks: it’s fear and I simply don’t get it. If you hate homos so much, why would you deny them the opportunity to catch a bullet in your place?”
Exactly. It scares me when the left can better articulate conservative positions than the people who believe in said position.
I have several friends in the military, many of whom have been deployed to Iraq and come home disillusioned over the cause. If someone wants to take a bullet for a war – any war, legal or otherwise – then by all means, please let them enlist. But it would take a change in an entire culture, something that is slow going, to be sure, but isn’t entirely impossible. There will always be people who hate others for whatever reason. That doesn’t mean we should stop trying to undermine their bigoted influence.
Jed, seriously, a “lifestyle choice”? I did not choose to be who I am, I just am. If I could, would I really have chosen a life where people discriminate against me and treat me like a second class citizen? Where my mother at one time disowned me? Where I feared for my job and perhaps safety? Where I had to hide a significant part of my life because of ignoramuses like you? Hardly.
It appears that I’ve instigated a shit storm…let it rain, let it rain.
I’m “Bob.” My actual name is James. The conversation that Jed is referring to is from my facebook page. I do not wish to provide more specific information, because the conversation involved several people who have not necessarily given their permission to use their comments. But “Bob’s” comments are fine with me. I cannot speak for “Susan.”
Thanks for stopping by Bob.
Feel free to join the conversation
I have found that the people who speak the loudest against gays and lesbians usually turn out to be closeted. Just sayin’. . .
Amy, I don’t believe that to be the case. I do believe however that there is a large segment of the population that have their religious dogma so firmly ingrained that it blinds common sense. When you begin to use religion to make an argument about a political decision having to do with basic human rights then I believe that the argument has jumped the shark.
I’m also going to go ahead and lob a comment over the fence about the separation of church and state. Regardless of whether the U.S. is a predominantly Christian nation, this nation is one founded out of a flight from religious oppression. Yet we see those overbearing religious ideals dictating the way people are supposed to live (and serve this country).
Fuck that – the oppressive right is just as guilty as the extreme left in this case. There is no overnight solution but there IS a path we can begin to walk down.
Remember when women weren’t really supposed to have a say? Go watch Mad Men. A League of Their Own. Betsy fucking Ross who sewed the stars on the flag. There are people who STILL haven’t gotten over women’s growing role in modern society. I don’t expect homophobia to disappear. Ever.
What I can hope for is tolerance. Hell, Southern Baptists can’t stand Catholics and vice versa in many cases. It’s pathetic to use a religious argument as any sort of foundation for solutions.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go call my interior decorator. We’re working on the color scheme for my little condo in hell.
With all due respect Amy, you do a great job of setting up a straw man to my point, but your supposition is fallacious.
I have the highest respect and admiration for anyone that serves this nation…and yes, I did know two individuals that were gay while I served in the military. I understand that when given a choice, those individuals agreed that their private life did not have any place in the public eye. So while my experience is indeed anecdotal, it still carries more reality than your quote “studies show”. Please tell me what studies you are referring to, I would love to learn more. But I suspect that you are using a common tactic to attempt to give yourself credibility by attempting to associate your personal position with credible “studies”.
And for the record, I encourage you or anyone else to advocate a change of the policies you disagree with, but while they are in place, I will, as the Oath demands, defend those policies and follow the orders of those appointed over me.
To address the Author and Adrienne: It isnt about hating homos. I dont give a shit who you have in your bedroom. My position merely states it is irrelevant to your ability to do your job. But, if you force the issue that you MUST be known publicly as gay, then you must accept the possibility that you wont be accepted and while it doesn’t affect your job, it may have an affect on others ability to work with you…not saying that is right or wrong, just saying it is…
As for your friends that come home “disillusioned to the cause”…I dont know any soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine that WANTS to go to war. We dont like the job, but we recognize that someone has to do it. Dont demean their sacrifice by thinking that a soldiers motivations have anything to do with politics.
Readhead: What I can hope for is tolerance. Hell, Southern Baptists can’t stand Catholics and vice versa in many cases. It’s pathetic to use a religious argument as any sort of foundation for solutions.
My intent was not to use a religious argument as a foundation for a solution, I was merely illustrating the root of the problem, and why it will be very difficult to institute any policy that is “better” than DADT. I am not saying I have the solutions…I am saying that I hope someone better than me, and certainly better than the politicians on the right and left in Washington, is trying to find a better solution.
I find it disconcerting that I am being attacked and effectively demeaned simply for providing a dissenting opinion.
Amy: “I have found that the people who speak the loudest against gays and lesbians usually turn out to be closeted. Just sayin’. . .”
Your comment was no doubt an attempted allusion that because I am speaking in dissent to the author, that I must be a closet gay, and that in some way, this sort of attack will hurt me because you believe I hate gays, and in turn, might hate myself.
I am sad to disappoint, but I dont hate gays, I am merely providing a much needed opposing view. (to play on your allusion), I find that when people get into an echo chamber with all like-minded people, they tend to resort to faulty arguments based in anger towards their dissenters rather than fact and reality based discussion with mutual respect as illustrated by Bob and I. (which, if you havent, you might go back to re-read some comments if the moderator has included them for context).
Did you see the hilarious take on this subject last night on the Jon Stewart show? Was brilliant. Most of the top military guys have weighed in that they think it is time to repeal it, but McCain and the rest now refuse to listen.
Jed – I’m not attacking you. I’m countering your points and offering alternative views. I fully respect your right to believe what you do. No ifs ands or buts.
My point is this: in what other capacity — in what other JOB — must someone hide who they are? Aside from the “Dexter” scenario, blacks and women were previously treated as second class citizens as well. The time has come for our seemingly progressive country to walk towards change. Will it happen overnight? No, much to the chagrin of all the Americans who voted for Obama (myself included), change is not an overnight occurrence. We have generations of bias to overcome, and that won’t be done in a single administration. Nor will it be done by one man (something I think the loudest opponents to the current administration forget). It took us years to fuck this country up – it’s going to take years to undo. And the undoing will take a team.
I fail to accept that homosexuals are not “team-worthy.” Hell, I’m uncomfortable around evangelical Christians but I don’t seek legislation to exclude them from walking next to me. They are welcome on my team so long as they don’t harass me with their views. How are homosexuals harassing fellow servicemembers by being who they are?
Assign any pejorative you want: gay, fag, queer, queen, ass bandit, lesbo, dyke…and I’ll assign the others: homophobe, douchebag, redneck, backwoods hillbilly, white trash. The list goes on.
Abandon the pejorative – let’s work towards establishing a majority in the U.S. military that can work together to do a sometimes thankless yet highly appreciated job…regardless of bedroom tactics. Close the bedroom door – I ain’t inviting you in anyways
@bkominsky Yes, this is an interesting turn: see Colbert’s response here to McCain
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/04/colbert-slams-mccain-for_n_448977.html
As a former submariner, a son of a Vietnam veteran, and lifelong supporter of the US military, I believe that the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is not only a necessary step in the evolution of our armed services, but it is a sign of an enlightened, modern, and forward-thinking military. And while there will certainly be rough patches to smooth over, the time is long past for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters to be able to serve their country, our country, proudly, and openly.
Who a person chooses to love has no more bearing on their character, patriotism, or sense of duty than the color of their skin, the god(s) they choose (or choose not) to worship, or their gender.
For all and sundry who might find it interesting, whichever side of this argument they’re on, here’s a few links to those studies about open sexuality increasing unit cohesion. It wasn’t your average internet argument, this one had backup.
Not just a study, a book: http://www.springerlink.com/content/581u8742k485511k/
Here’s another study, looking at several different countries, as well as domestic fire, police, and medical services: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB7537/index1.html
And, finally, there’s this: Colonel Om Prakash, USAF, wrote this essay while a student at the National War College.
It won the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay Competition. http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/editions/i55/14.pdf
I’m willing to acknowledge the fact that it’s going to be difficult to change military culture. God, yes, it’s going to be difficult. And yes, the USMJ will have to be changed. And the first soldiers to serve as openly homosexual are going to have a *very* hard path, for quite a while.
But so did the first women. They still do. So did the first African-Americans. They still do. My best friend is Iranian. Do you think she’s having an easy time of it? Not a snowball’s chance in hell.
But they’re serving. And they’re as good at it as anyone else, or as bad as it as anyone else, because they are *more* than just their orientation. Just because a person is straight does *not* mean that they are automatically qualified to do a better job, so why would being gay automatically make them worse at their job?
The thing I simply do not understand, and *can* not understand, after speaking to military members of my church, to servicemen and women, to people who know this situation intimately, is how we can call ourselves the strongest military in the world, if we’re so afraid of change that we can’t let someone who’s gay serve as a comrade-in-arms.
One of the greatest abilities of the human race is to *adapt*. This is just something else that must be adapted to, like global warming, like sleeping next to another human being, like colder or hotter temperatures than you’re used to. If you could adapt to all of those things, those commonplace, every day things, you can certainly adapt to the idea that someone else’s pinky parts and why they do with them has not a damned thing to do with you.
gay is a pejorative now? I guess that shows how out of touch I am. (I am an unintentional pun machine today)
A few counter-points for you: 1) I am also uncomfortable around Evangelicals. The always make me think of the skeezy televangelist. But your version of the straw man is to say that you dont want laws saying they cant walk beside you…down the street. The context is simply different when walking down the street involves being shot at or people trying to blow you up with IEDs.
2) I never said that this demographic is not team worthy. However, reality is that I for one am, in general, equally uncomfortable around openly gay persons as they are around Evangelicals. I cant speak for mass proportions of the population, but I would venture a guess to say that is likely a mainstream opinion.
3)”let’s work towards establishing a majority in the U.S. military that can work together to do a sometimes thankless yet highly appreciated job”
I am pretty confident that the majority in the US military does not care what bedroom tactics you use, just as you are not interested in theirs…however, I also think the majority of the military, and likely the American public, are not currently sympathetic to your cause, simply because they dont accept/understand you…Only time will change that, but forcing the issue out of anger is ironically part of what makes your task more difficult.
P.S. Adrianna Huffington is not a credible news source.
p.p.s. I think you mistake “conservative” politically with bedroom tactics…a misunderstanding that will lead you to underestimate me. Just because conservatives dont go shouting the gory details of their latest bedroom adventure, does not mean that things dont get just as kinky. I just frankly believe it is impolite to kiss and tell. Besides, what makes you think I would have any interest in such an invitation?
@Jon – thank you for such an eloquent addition to today’s column and for your service.
@Naomi – Good god, I’m in love. Brilliant work.
@Naomi: very well articulated and I am pretty sure that I agree with you wholeheartedly.
“One of the greatest abilities of the human race is to *adapt*. This is just something else that must be adapted to”
Absolutely, although, (man made) global warming is a myth.
Jed Hefner – Since good discussion encompasses both sides of a topic I would like to thank you for sharing your viewpoints.
In regards to “facts remain that heterosexual men on the whole find it very difficult to place that level of trust in openly homosexual men.” I believe that ignorance does not justify repressing someone concerning their sexual orientation.
@Jed – The Huffington Post news link, had you clicked through, was a video clip of Stephen Colbert’s TV show, not an editorial. And for that matter, Fox News isn’t credible either. Especially since their addition of Sarah the Homecoming Queen Palin to the employee roster.
It amazes me how people consistently confuse news and commentary. We’re a better world with the commentary as it stirs the shit. Shit left unstirred just becomes a heap. A steaming, rank heap.
Let me say first that I come from a family of career military personnel, mostly officers, so I feel that, between that and my own service, I also have an understanding of military culture. With that said, I agree with the notion that an appeal means that a policy must be carefully crafted because the potential for violence against and harassment of gay soldiers exists. However, for the most part, that is where my agreement with your arguments end.
First of all, that “concern” in itself is not a reason to not repeal the law. In fact, if anything it is a reason that the law needs to be changed and strong policies enforced with regard to sexual harassment and assault. (I’m sure the female military members would appreciate that considering sexual assaults committed by peers is rarely handled properly by the military.)
Second, when it comes to gay people, most violent acts against them have to do with “hate.” IF you can give me a scenario where violence against a gay person has occurred and hate or extreme prejudice was not a motive, please inform me. (Oh, the gay panic theory doesn’t count either. Look it up if you don’t know what that is.)
To address you point to Susan, I ask you to go back to the point above with regard to sexual assaults and harassment against women. If you want to equate your argument to the bar scene, that is the only way it can make any sense. Otherwise, you are equating two incredibly different scenarios. Someone else already posted that “the gays” do not check out everyone of the same sex. (The fearful heteros who hold this fear flatter themselves waaaaay too much.) Besides, I have known many gay men in my life who have been very masculine and to whom I would, as veteran, entrust my life. I have also known a number of straight men who I wouldn’t trust watching my cat. What you are pointing out is that there is rampant fear and ignorance within the ranks. That is what needs to change.
Regarding your response to Bob, yes, the argument is futile and the reason is in your “last” post. (Though I have a feeling you will need to respond to some of the responses to your posts.) Your religious preference is the reason that you choose not to believe that homosexuality is genetic. Your belief that the nature of the human species is to procreate comes from The Bible and what amounts to God’s “edict” to do so. Given your faith, I could present you with all kinds of scientific and academic research and you still wouldn’t buy it. (Faith and logic/facts do not play well together. )So instead, I ask you to think about this: If this “lifestyle” were truly a “choice” as the conservative ilk like to say, I can honestly say I would have flipped my switch to hetero. But when…hmmm…maybe in my early 20s when I was faced with the humiliation of losing a military career with my family background. Or wait, I would have made it when I thought I was going to lose my family over it. Or maybe when I have worried at any point about my safety or job/housing security if the wrong person found out. Yes, there are people whose sexuality is fluid, but they generally identify as heterosexual. However, there is a very large number of us who are just gay. (Although I can appreciate a good looking guy.) And regardless of how far the “out and proud” have brought us today, I still worry about things like safety and whether or not I could get in to see my partner of 6 years if she were dying in a hospital. I rarely use such fallacious argumentation, but when you won’t accept facts, you leave me no choice.
Besides, I also believe in evolution, and I believe that maybe whatever creative force is out there created the queer community to keep the population for exploding for the worst. Unfortunately, there aren’t enough of us, and we are depleting our resources at an alarming rate, but that is another post…
(Did I feel you cringe on that one? On the not being enough of us, not the depletion of resources. And no, we don’t recruit.)
Speaking of fallacious arguments, saying that race and sexual orientation differ in that race is a protected class and orientation is not, is, just that, a fallacious argument. (You acknowledge the fact that sexual orientation could become a protected class, and there has been lobbying done to change Title VII and the lobbying will continue until it is changed.) Furthermore, while race is generally concealable (as is my sexual orientation), race is not determined solely by phenotypic designations and has been argued to be a social construct used for oppression. Just an FYI.
Our military is one of the few militaries in NATO that does not allow gays to serve openly. In fact, we share that designation with the “Axis of Evil,” China, Russia, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and a few other countries that the US would love to point a missile at. Our being the best in combat has little to do with the stone-age mentality of fearing gays in foxholes. You say that our military should not be judged on how it handles social issues. I throw that one right back at ya.
You know, I’m really big on statistics and facts. While I know that adultery and any form of sodomy is punishable under the UCMJ, I don’t know what the statistical comparison is for discharges for those “crimes.” I have a feeling that there really isn’t a comparison, especially when you consider that the military can’t ask, but can still investigate if it has a “hunch” that someone is gay.
Plus, if you are undermanned, stop kicking the ones who WANT to be there.
I am very familiar with the sodomy statute, since that was the one I was discharged under. And you are WRONG. DADT is exactly what you say would have to happen. It was one of the points of contention in the debate in passing it – that you can serve but you have to give up any hopes of having sex while you do so. (You must have to want to serve your country damn bad to do that. ) The issue is relevant, because if it becomes known somehow (to someone who feels they must follow that oath) that someone has had gay sex, an investigation can begin. The military just can’t start it by asking.
If someone sexually harasses or assaults any other soldier, regardless of gender, they should be punished. This is not asking for an inherent special treatment. In fact, it’s asking for double standards to be removed.
Yes, you sign your life over to the institution, but the hypocrisy comes with the honor and integrity that we are supposed to uphold. The issue of free speech is not specific to the military, but to most employers who deal with any kind of sensitive information.
I do not consider myself an uninformed voter, and I am certainly not uninformed with issues of the military or politics. In addition, one of my favorite academic areas is decision-making theory, and in that context, I think its obvious that the military is loathe to change things and group think reigns supreme. However, I think you can admit that allowing integration is part of what has made our military great today. Think about it, a lot of the same types of arguments were made regarding segregation of troops. Just because something worked for a time period or scenario, doesn’t always mean that it is the best option. (Especially when money and resources are poured into training and certain AFSC (MOS) codes are desperately needed.) As they say in decision-making theory, go back to the “garbage can”.
Oh, and Jed – I wasn’t inviting you into my bedroom and I don’t know where you get that I make synonymous “politically conservative” and lack of kink.
I’m not forcing any issue out of anger. I’m likely one of the least “angry” people you’ll ever meet. I simply have a zero tolerance for lack of tolerance and bullshit. DADT is bullshit and didn’t do anything except create a false panacea. It’s time that we start walking the path towards change. Difficult though it may be.
And you really, really need to explain to me how a person’s sexual orientation affects their ability to perform their duties as a member of the US military. I’m still not getting that. Have you ever considered that heterosexuality could provide much the same source of discomfort? Or being a woman? Being black or as one of our other commenters stated, Iranian? It still shocks me that the federal government can discriminate based on sexual orientation and over twenty states have raised the bar and said you can’t.
Oh – and when you read all those reports that Naomi posted that substantiate Amy’s “several studies,” let me know. I don’t think Amy was blowing smoke or using “studies” as a term of convenience.
Hat tip.
Jed: Re: 11:59 post
1. Oh here we go again, just because the policy exists doesn’t make it right. Plus, the demeaning and verbal abuse that can result from upholding an oath to follow policy is something no one should have to endure, soldier or not. In basic training, I can see the whole “tear them down to build them up”, but in the case of meeting with your commander to be told you are a worthless piece of shit, over and over, end of story, is not acceptable, especially if you are a young recruit having to stand at attention and just take it. Furthermore, the “I only followed orders” excuse is a poor one and seems to be a place where bad things begin. Think Nuremberg (Befehl ist Befehl). While nothing compares to the Holocaust, the point is that never questioning orders is dangerous. The second loop of learning can determine whether or not you have any humanity, or if you will always be content to simply “follow orders.”
2. I understand trust, but what you don’t seem to understand is that trust has nothing to do with whom I chose to love or even just casually have sex with You should be able to differentiate my sexuality from my ability to be an exemplary soldier. If you are that judgmental, who knows what other issues you have. Get the hell out of my foxhole.
3. While I am glad to know that you are not one to condone judgment and hate toward homosexuals, not all of us advertise our sexuality at the top of our lungs, just like I don’t give the once over to every woman I see. I really don’t think this would happen if you allowed openly gay “lifestyles” in. You and most of the military have latched on to the stereotypes perpetuated by the media. You want to talk about logic, think about whether it makes sense that the stereotypical effeminate man that soldiers fear would want to take the chance of being in a foxhole. If anything, I would think that a gay service-member would handle it the way I would. I don’t deny who I am if asked, I talk about my homelife, and I live my life treating people as I want to be treated. I give credit to the military hospital staff with whom I worked who supported me and even testified at my hearing. They understood that my work and care for my patients was what mattered, but as you say, there are those who follow orders and vindictive people among us. I didn’t win that battle.
If you respond and I don’t get back, it’s because I can’t. But I will. Thanks for the alternative viewpoint. It’s always good to see what the other side is thinking.
Ummm…yeah
What Dayna said. [I rest my case, says the straight woman]
Sorry, if some things got printed twice. I had cut and pasted Jed’s responses into a word doc to respond, and got lost along the way.
Just another reason why I’m glad I live in Canada. DADT?? puh-lease it’s a joke. I can hardly even believe that in this day and age of supposed “enlightenment” and “acceptance” that policies like this can even exist.
wow… just wow…
Yeah, politically conservative and lack of kink are definitely not 100%. Look at Jeri Ryan’s husband. He turned out to be quite kinky!
@Dear Redhead
*standing ovation*
everyone else had too many words, so i took action.
Erika, you are too awesome for words.
@Redhead: “you really, really need to explain to me how a person’s sexual orientation affects their ability to perform their duties as a member of the US military.”
I was not advancing a position that a person A’s orientation affects A’s performance…However, an argument can be made that the public knowledge of such may affect the effectiveness of those around person A, in such a case as those around A, lets say B and C, have known A for a period of time and built trust with A, and then are surprised to discover something new. The unit readiness is then affected.
i think most people here have misunderstood my intent. I am not here because I necessarily believe gays are a sub-class of human or that they should be avoided at all costs…quite the contrary in fact…however, Imagine how boring this would have been without someone for you to all direct anger towards. I enjoy playing devil’s advocate. And you are all my puppet theater.
“I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. . . For me personally, it comes down to integrity — theirs as individuals and ours as an institution. I have served with homosexuals since 1968. Putting individuals in a position that every single day they wonder whether today’s going to be the day, and devaluing them in this regard, just is inconsistent with us as an institution.” This comes from Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. End of discussion.
P.S. A note before I leave:
I’m not angry, and I am not your puppet. I don’t like poor arguments. Generally, any argument that is used against the “gay agenda” is going to be poor, your arguments above included, whether they are your views or someone else’s. (Mostly because the arguments are rarely supported by facts, but rather by faith. You say this yourself.)
I will respond further when I have the time to do so. As for now, I have to run.
First of all, I can’t wait for the day that it’s considered common knowledge that being gay isn’t a “lifestyle choice”. But that’s another debate. To the one at hand:
I’ve never been in the field, but my guess is that you trust someone with your life because they have proven themselves in training, on exercises (and there are many many training exercises), or in the field to be professional soldiers. No man injured during an operation is going to look at the openly gay male running up to provide first aid and cover fire and say, “Oh… um… yeah, can you send Steve instead? I’m not sure I trust you to handle the responsibility of helping save me.” And after an experience like that, no man would ever doubt that in the military, someone is a soldier first and foremost.
Felt I might as well weigh in.
As an avid rock climber I have put my trust in openly gay men who did not expect anything for literally saving my life.
Also, all the arguments against gays in the military have been used almost verbatim against blacks in the military not that long ago at all. That seems to be working out fine.
It isn’t about the people, it is about the misconceptions and fears.
Jed,
I’m curious… Why is it that you’re uncomfortable around openly gay people?
I can only assume that you’ve fallen prey to the lies spewed by religious groups that gay men and women are also sexual deviants who can’t keep their hands off of others, and live their lives on the edge of molesting everyone in their path.
The reality is that sex is just sex. The rest of their lives are the same as yours. They have stresses, they have their habits, the things they do for fun and recreation, they have to fill their cars with gas, they see the sky as blue, and they like the smell of bacon.
What I haven’t seen in any debate on this topic is the fact that gay men and women are not sexual predators. They’re not going to hit on every other member of the military, and they certainly do not have any desire to try to get into your pants. In fact, if they’re looking for a partner, they’re trying to find other gay people. They’re not going to try to “change” all of the straight folks.
See? There’s nothing for you to worry about. No reason to be uncomfortable. No reason to keep them hidden in a closet.
Jed sez: “However, an argument can be made that the public knowledge of such may affect the effectiveness of those around person A, in such a case as those around A, lets say B and C, have known A for a period of time and built trust with A, and then are surprised to discover something new. The unit readiness is then affected.”
I sez: “Gee, if only there were some kind of policy where someone’s sexual orientation were not a secret waiting to ‘surprise’ the rest of the unit…”
Also curious to hear what the defenders of DADT on the grounds of what’s best for the military have to say about Colin Powell’s recent statements in support of a repeal. I know as a civilian I may not have a lot of standing to speak on that subject, but are you suggesting that his opinion is irrelevant?
Greg – Excellent point with regards to “lifestyle choice.” I referred to such in my post as gay or transgender lifestyle but I do stand corrected. My heterosexuality is no more a choice than it is a homosexual’s. It’s simply the way I am. Thanks for the correction and I should have picked up on this in Amy’s initial response.
Ken – Thanks for stopping by. You had me in tears with “they like the smell of bacon.” Wanna write next week’s column?
Polyhazard – Mmmmm…thanks for resurfacing the Colin Powell angle. That big, lovable hunk of testosterone. I wanna kiss him. Or maybe spank him. Or arrange a group hug from a bunch of my gay friends and put on on national TV that there’s no “cootie exchange” when you’re around gay people. High five.
The link below takes you to a study that explains that when Australia dropped the ban on gays in the military, it was a NON-ISSUE. The Australian media dropped coverage of it entirely after 6 months. Get it? People really didn’t give a crap, and yes, results show that it improved relationships within the military. Bite me.
http://www.palmcenter.org/publications/dadt/the_effects_of_including_gay_and_lesbian_soldiers_in_the_australian_defence_forces_appraising_the_evidence
Mr Toy: I agree with you; however, I have experienced the phenomenon of “the angry hetero turns out to be homo” first hand — many times. Am I going to quantify and qualify it for Mr. Jed? No. I have to go instruct my college class now. But, hey, here’s a fun read:
http://www.sodahead.com/world-news/study-proves-homophobes-are-nothing-more-than-closet-homosexuals-what-do-you-think/question-140910/
Amy – you go girl
One thing I can’t help wondering? Do folks think that if DADT gets repealed that gays and lesbians in the military are going to start tattooing their sexual preferences on their foreheads? Or, maybe they expect gay guys to start prancing around in pink tutus and tiaras? Lesbians in rubber shorts and flannel shirts? (And hey, if they dig, cool with me. Doesn’t sound very comfortable to me personally, but then again not everyone likes being whipped with a cat-o-nine-tails, either. Not that I would know anything about that…) I guess what I’m saying is that even if DADT is repealed, it doesn’t mean the LGBTQ folk in the military are going to start advertising their sexual preferences as though they were a market putting out coupons for weekend shoppers… DADT will simply give them the choice to express their preferences or not as they see fit without fearing the loss of their position in the military. Does that mean it’s going to be an easy transition once it’s repealed? Of course not. No one with any sense expects it to be. But the fact of the matter is, this blatant discrimination ought to be shit-canned.
I apologize for not having any links or anything to substantiate by comment. All I have is my own two cents.
Wow, Jed. I just threw up in my mouth a little.
I hate all this hypocritical bullshit.
OK! Lets ask someone to defend this country and our freedom, but not allow them to be free to be themselves.
FUCKED UP! Pathetic.
Keep your GOD to yourself.
Argument #1: Given that gay people have a very real risk of having the shit kicked out of them or even being killed, just for holding the hand of the person they love in public, why would anyone CHOOSE that lifestyle? I don’t care how good the sex is, it wouldn’t be enough to be worth dying for.
Argument #2: If homosexuality is a choice, why does it show up throughout nature, in nonsentient animals? It has been documented in birds (swans, ducks, penguins), giraffes, lions, sheep, and many primates – you can look it up…
@SkyddsDrake – thanks for stopping by, as always, and weighing in. Your two cents is welcome here anytime.
@Keith – And you’re right – it’s not a choice as many believe. Or, at least, I concur with your statement that it’s not. I don’t feel I had any choice in being straight as anyone else does in being gay. Tis what it tis, yah? Embrace it.
In terms of viewing the Military as a work place, I have to ask, who gives a shit what your coworkers sexual orientation is?
I work at a college, and work with an array of people from every walk of life – gay, straight, bi, transgender – students, administrators, and faculty. And you know what, it doesn’t make a damned bit of difference. Very few of these people say “Hey, I love Cock!” or “Give me that Pussy!” And if they did, well good for them. When it comes down to it, what a person does, who they love, it’s not a big deal. We still manage to work together just fine.
Fear is why people discriminate. Either they don’t understand something or they see a bit of themselves in who they are discriminating against – and that is what scares them.
Love is not a bad thing, people. And we sure as shit should not be punished for loving someone. And DADT is doing just that. Yes, it’s going to be a shitstorm from hell when it’s repealed, but in the long run it will make our country all the more better.
Send your decorator over to my own little place when you’re through with him. The brimstone and fire have singed my curtains.
I agree with Melissa, “Love is not a bad thing.” People are so afraid of change. Imagine what a little more love in the world could do for us? So, you’re afraid that a man or woman might make a pass at you? Or, heaven forbid, look at your naked body in the shower! We should all be so lucky. Love is the only reason we wake up in the morning and survive our days.
Why else would we put our lives in jeopardy in a far off land for our country if not for love? I love.
This weblog is being featured on Five Star Friday: http://www.fivestarfriday.com/2010/02/five-star-fridays-edition-90.html
Congratulations!
This blog, and the entire list of comments is pretty riveting….except for the parts that are trying to frame fear and hatred towards GLBT people as some sort of American Pastime or Final Word or something.
I adore that there IS a dialogue at least, so I should not complain. Its better to talk about it even with the harshest of disagreements.
The military WILL change, DADT will be revoked, GLBT people will marry, we are moving in that direction, just a little slowly. This is the way of our world. We slowly grow, learn, adapt and accept as social mores change, science debunks myth, and people evolve. I would prefer we evolved a little faster myself, so I could feel free to become a Lesbian tomorrow or a little more Bi-sexual today. Bring it on!
Thanks for this excellent post. I can’t believe I didn’t know about this blog before today!!!!! I am a local pro-sex, blogging, feminist, musical Denver sister!
@Camille – welcome and thanks for stopping by! My “unpopular thoughts” go live here every Thursday morning
Look forward to meeting you in person.
@schmutzie – Why, thank you! I’m delighted you considered the post to be among the week’s best. Welcome to ToyWithMe and my thoughts!
@Melissa and Matthew – I can’t agree more fully. I don’t give a shit what my co-workers or contractors do…so long as it’s their job. Love…damn. What an awesome thing. And you’re right: if only there were a little bit more. DADT is divisive, which is no safe harbor for love, cooperation or trust.
Hooray for unpopular thoughts. I will be sure to join you here on Thursdays often!
Mr. Hefner, I must say, I admire a good, logical devil’s advocate, and while I don’t agree with you, you have brought up many interesting aspects of the argument from a perspective that I did not previously have. You also did not stoop to heavy sarcasm and personal attacks, despite others using it on you. Thank you, and I hope you are not discouraged from sharing your well-thought-out opinion on other issues.
Camille – welcome and thanks for stopping by!
C. Tenrab – Jed’s always welcome here. The beauty of comments on a blog are that people get to dialogue. Converse. Opinions vary as do tactics. I think everyone held their own quite well in this instance and we appreciate you stopping by as well.
Keith, finding something in nature does not assign either a moral or immoral status to it.
I know of a case in which a mouse, who had birthed a litter of babies, ate them because she was short of food. That is not morally wrong, for a mouse, it would be wrong for a human.
Human decisions have the possibility of a moral dimension which animals do not share because ultimately humans are not animals.
Choice does not come in how we are tempted, only in how we respond to that.
For the rest, I don’t care overly much whether the American military openly embraces homosexuality or not. I’m profoundly apathetic about it.
I wish I could say that I think DADT is going out the door, but I don’t. That doesn’t mean that I agree with the policy, but I think there are a lot of people who have this John Wayne image of our military that doesn’t go well with same-sex partners.
That said, Israel has one of the strongest “Don’t Fuck With Me” armed forces in the world, and they don’t give a good damn what you screw in your off hours.
To me, the fight for gay marriage and equality mirrors the 1960′s fight for Black equality. In a true and free society, equality is inevitable, and to fight it is to oppose everything this nation is purported to be built upon. People can, and will, dig in their heels, but eventually equality will happen… I just don’t think it’s going to happen NOW.
Great post!
I guess I could make the case as a christian that atheists shouldn’t be in the military because they would hesitate to help me under fire.
I guess I could make the case that muslims shouldn’t be in the military because they wouldn’t take a bullet for an infidel.
I guess I could make the case that a black woman would step aside for a bullet meant for her to hit a white woman.
Jed, sorry. Despite your assertion that the military policies are helpful because like it or not, that’s the way it is, it’s not clear that this would have any impact on morale.
And if you’re uncomfortable around gay men, my suggestion is that you spend a little more time around them. Not at a gay bar, at the hardware store. Changing your oil. You know, all those things that gay men do.
You can’t play the Christianity card. I imagine that your discomfort around gay men has little to do with faith and more to do with culture. I am a Christian (maybe not your flavor, but whatever) and the two gay men who have lived next door to me for ten years are uncles to my children. They taught my son how to ride a bike when I lacked patience to do so. When my daughter’s appendix ruptured, they were at the hospital with a giant teddy bear and flowers hours before anyone from church showed up.
In short, I love these men, a couple who has been together for 20 years, longer than most of my hetero friends. They are sweet, loving men who enrich my life. My kids love Uncle Don and Uncle Patrick. If someone at church makes a disparaging comment about homosexuals, watch out…my daughter is also a redhead and does not suffer fools lightly.
I’m finished. I’m getting on a train in 45 minutes for Dachau. Unlike many others who got on the train to Dachau, I’ll be back in my hotel in 4 hours. In my mind, a fitting end to this discussion about intolerance and prejudice.