SHOCK: Most US Troops, Families Say Gays OK

[Rhyfelwyr]

As we know, gay-haters are never brave enough to stand behind their feelings.

Because everyone that disagrees with you is a coward etc...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Because everyone that disagrees with you is a coward etc...

Seems like a question of honesty not courage. I've heard people say that we use the word courage in inappropriate contexts these days, maybe it's true.

[Xiahou]

Gay rights groups attacked the 103-question survey. They said it assumes troops don't want to serve with openly gay service members and repeatedly uses the term "homosexual," considered to be outdated and derogatory.

Wait... what? "Homosexual" is derogatory now?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No no, it's "considered" to be. They didn't say anything about whether it is.

[Devastatin Dave]

This thread's so gay....

[Megas Methuselah]

Amrika's so behin res of world o gey issues it so petiful yno wht i mean?

[The Stranger]

Amrika's so behin res of world o gey issues it so petiful yno wht i mean?

XD... XD

[johnhughthom]

Wait... what? "Homosexual" is derogatory now?

No no, it's "considered" to be. They didn't say anything about whether it is.

What should we use now, differently sexual?

[PanzerJaeger]

Because everyone that disagrees with you is a coward etc...

Not at all. What I meant was that, unlike other social issues where there are clearly two logical opinions, there are few if any valid arguments for this and other anti-gay positions and therefore opponents usually rely on appeals to authority.

For example, regardless of the strong religious opposition to abortion, a pro-life argument can be made without an appeal to religious authority. Life starts at conception>the fetus is therefore an individual>ending the life of an individual is murder>murder is illegal. And with drug legalization, legitimate arguments can be made on both sides: drug use harms individuals>harmed individuals harm society>drug use should be illegal. And with gun control: guns kill people>dead people are bad for society>without guns its would be harder to kill people>guns should be banned. No matter which side one falls on these issues, logical, fact-based positions can be formed without the need to inject religion.

In contrast, there is no chain of logic that makes homosexuality illegitimate or that justifies treating gay people as second class citizens without appealing to religious authority. Every murky supposition of the dangers gay people pose to society has been thoroughly debunked.

[Lemur]

Not at all. What I meant was that, unlike other social issues where there are clearly two logical opinions, there are few if any valid arguments for this and other anti-gay positions and therefore opponents usually rely on appeals to authority.

For example, regardless of the strong religious opposition to abortion, a pro-life argument can be made without an appeal to religious authority. Life starts at conception>the fetus is therefore an individual>ending the life of an individual is murder>murder is illegal. And with drug legalization, legitimate arguments can be made on both sides: drug use harms individuals>harmed individuals harm society>drug use should be illegal. And with gun control: guns kill people>dead people are bad for society>without guns its would be harder to kill people>guns should be banned. No matter which side one falls on these issues, logical, fact-based positions can be formed without the need to inject religion.

In contrast, there is no chain of logic that makes homosexuality illegitimate or that justifies treating gay people as second class citizens without appealing to religious authority. Every murky supposition of the dangers gay people pose to society has been thoroughly debunked.

Utter, complete, slack-jawed agreement. Well-turned, well-phrased, and remorselessly logical. Well done, PJ.

[PanzerJaeger]

Utter, complete, slack-jawed agreement. Well-turned, well-phrased, and remorselessly logical. Well done, PJ.

It had to happen eventually. Thanks.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the military's top uniformed officer, agree but want to move slowly to ensure that military effectiveness doesn't suffer.

Apparently old prejudices die hard with the brass. Denying a volunteer army, seriously stretched & stressed from almost 10 years of war, the services of skilled and capable soldiers on the pretenses that the "ick" factor may reduce combat effectiveness needs to end immediately. The same dooms day whining over integrating blacks into the regular army was heard till Truman made the command decision to do it anyway. Our current commander in chief needs to lead.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Not at all. What I meant was that, unlike other social issues where there are clearly two logical opinions, there are few if any valid arguments for this and other anti-gay positions and therefore opponents usually rely on appeals to authority.

For example, regardless of the strong religious opposition to abortion, a pro-life argument can be made without an appeal to religious authority. Life starts at conception>the fetus is therefore an individual>ending the life of an individual is murder>murder is illegal. And with drug legalization, legitimate arguments can be made on both sides: drug use harms individuals>harmed individuals harm society>drug use should be illegal. And with gun control: guns kill people>dead people are bad for society>without guns its would be harder to kill people>guns should be banned. No matter which side one falls on these issues, logical, fact-based positions can be formed without the need to inject religion.

In contrast, there is no chain of logic that makes homosexuality illegitimate or that justifies treating gay people as second class citizens without appealing to religious authority. Every murky supposition of the dangers gay people pose to society has been thoroughly debunked.

OK but what does that have to do with your earlier use of the word "coward"? Being illogical makes you a "coward"?

You're on the end of similar tiresome rhetoric a fair bit yourself, I thought you might at least spare other people from it.

As for the matter itself, the army needs social cohesion, and so should reflect society itself if it is to work effectively. So if society as a whole don't like blacks, don't put them in the army. One of the central ideas behind a liberal democracy is that the military and politics are kept strictly separate, and the military should be able to organise itself effectively without becoming a tool for social engineering.

Even in countries where their ideology has meant that it is used for precisely that (social enginering), with probably France being the best example, they've never stuck with it in reality, because it doesn't work. The Foreign Legion is I believe still not allowed to enter French soil (I think anyway).

[PanzerJaeger]

OK but what does that have to do with your earlier use of the word "coward"? Being illogical makes you a "coward"?

You're on the end of similar tiresome rhetoric a fair bit yourself, I thought you might at least spare other people from it.

I did not use the word 'coward' in my post. I assume you're referring to the sentence 'gay-haters are never brave enough to stand behind their feelings', which was not rhetoric. It is my genuine belief that there is a lot more standing between your average anti-gay opinion than four obscure versus scattered throughout the Old and New Testaments. Gay haters understand that 'it just don't seem right' is not a valid argument for de-legitimizing a portion of society, so they hide behind religion, as there are no other valid arguments against accepting homosexuality as the natural genetic/biological/nurturing-induced variation that it is.

As for the matter itself, the army needs social cohesion, and so should reflect society itself if it is to work effectively. So if society as a whole don't like blacks, don't put them in the army. One of the central ideas behind a liberal democracy is that the military and politics are kept strictly separate, and the military should be able to organise itself effectively without becoming a tool for social engineering.

Well, apart from pointing out that gay people are part of society, it seems like we're on the same page. Society wants this, the military brass want this, and now it appears the grunts want it as well.

Even in countries where their ideology has meant that it is used for precisely that (social enginering), with probably France being the best example, they've never stuck with it in reality, because it doesn't work. The Foreign Legion is I believe still not allowed to enter French soil (I think anyway).

How is this social engineering? Gay people serve at all levels of the military. At this point it is just an acknowledgement of reality. The real social engineering took place nearly twenty years ago during the Clinton administration and worked out quite poorly, with many thousands of gay people serving combat and non combat roles throughout the military summarily kicked out. What is so morally bankrupt about 'Don't Ask' is that it acknowledges the fact that gay people are just as capable of serving as straight people, but requires their dismissal if their sexuality is uncovered. It would be more intellectually honest to ban them outright.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Don't disagree, if the US people want gays in the military then let gays join the military. I do not think this it is social engineering if the people want it. I just don't think gays have some sort of 'right' to join the military, nobody does, it's not about rights since it's not part of the political sphere (at least not in the Anglo-sphere tradition).

My point was just that should there be controversy surrounding the issue, the army should not be forced to allow gay people to sign up. I'm getting kind of abstract but it just brought to mind how in France they tried to use conscription to help integrate different segments of society by instilling them with civic-republican values.

That makes me uneasy since I guess in Anglosaxonland we have a different tradition of political-military relations.

Heck, if people decided they didn't want gingers in the army, I wouldn't complain. I might think they're idiots but I'm not going to want to disrupt our effectiveness as a military unit and get people killed.

[Lemur]

I just don't think gays have some sort of 'right' to join the military, nobody does, it's not about rights since it's not part of the political sphere (at least not in the Anglo-sphere tradition).

Well, of course nobody hasa "right" to serve in the military, but I think approaching it from that angle confuses rather than clarifies. Who said anything about rights in the first place? The point, rather, is that there is a small but maeningful population of people who would like to fight and die for their country, and there is no compelling or logical reason to deny them the opportunity. I guess you can make it a rights issue, but I don't see how that makes things clearer or easier to discuss.

Heck, if people decided they didn't want gingers in the army, I wouldn't complain

That's different. Gingers have no souls.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, of course nobody hasa "right" to serve in the military, but I think approaching it from that angle confuses rather than clarifies. Who said anything about rights in the first place? The point, rather, is that there is a small but maeningful population of people who would like to fight and die for their country, and there is no compelling or logical reason to deny them the opportunity. I guess you can make it a rights issue, but I don't see how that makes things clearer or easier to discuss.

Come on, you know the real pressure for this came from the activists that see everything in terms of rights, the military doesn't like change, they're not going to do it without being pushed.

That's different. Gingers have no souls.

And negroes can't string two thoughts together never mind fight effectivelly with modern technology, but they still let them in.

[HoreTore]

I did not use the word 'coward' in my post. I assume you're referring to the sentence 'gay-haters are never brave enough to stand behind their feelings', which was not rhetoric. It is my genuine belief that there is a lot more standing between your average anti-gay opinion than four obscure versus scattered throughout the Old and New Testaments. Gay haters understand that 'it just don't seem right' is not a valid argument for de-legitimizing a portion of society, so they hide behind religion, as there are no other valid arguments against accepting homosexuality as the natural genetic/biological/nurturing-induced variation that it is.



Well, apart from pointing out that gay people are part of society, it seems like we're on the same page. Society wants this, the military brass want this, and now it appears the grunts want it as well.





How is this social engineering? Gay people serve at all levels of the military. At this point it is just an acknowledgement of reality. The real social engineering took place nearly twenty years ago during the Clinton administration and worked out quite poorly, with many thousands of gay people serving combat and non combat roles throughout the military summarily kicked out. What is so morally bankrupt about 'Don't Ask' is that it acknowledges the fact that gay people are just as capable of serving as straight people, but requires their dismissal if their sexuality is uncovered. It would be more intellectually honest to ban them outright.

The most sense I have read in quite a while on gay rights comes from PJ, and I'm preparing to hold a social economics lecture where I will defend Milton Friedman and attack Keynes....

What has the world come to?!?