SHOCK: Most US Troops, Families Say Gays OK

[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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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.

You may not have the right to serve in the military, but don't you have the right to not be booted from the military for bad reasons?

[Rhyfelwyr]

You may not have the right to serve in the military, but don't you have the right to not be booted from the military for bad reasons?

No, why would you?

[Tellos Athenaios]

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.

You don't have the right to serve in the military, you do have the right to equal treatment. And there probably are homosexual soldiers, kinda goes without saying in an army as large as that of the USA. So if activists say don't-ask-don't-tell is not at all the same as being treated just the same as any other soldier (tolerated versus accepted) they might just have a point there?

Rights group exist to push & pressure. As do other lobby groups. Doesn't mean you should ignore them a priori.

[Brenus]

“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).”
The French Revolution for military use imposed Compulsory Military service and the Levée en Masse was quite successful in providing the young Republic of enough soldiers to won against the European Monarchies and to crush internal fights.
As a tool for social engeneering it did work e.g. imposing French to all yong male French, and in mixing all origin and socila backgrounds. If you can give me a exemple of a failure in the French Society that can be let on the Service National, thanks.
It was cancelled because it is not cost effective anymore.

And perhaps it is new to you, but France has no more Colonies. So the Foreign Legion is based in France.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The French Revolution for military use imposed Compulsory Military service and the Levée en Masse was quite successful in providing the young Republic of enough soldiers to won against the European Monarchies and to crush internal fights.
As a tool for social engeneering it did work e.g. imposing French to all yong male French, and in mixing all origin and socila backgrounds. If you can give me a exemple of a failure in the French Society that can be let on the Service National, thanks.
It was cancelled because it is not cost effective anymore.

It made French people feel French. Didn't they give up on groups like the gypsies?

And even then it only worked because a French identity already existed amongst those people. Good luck promoting social unity by conscripting Northern Irish Catholics into the British Army.

And perhaps it is new to you, but France has no more Colonies. So the Foreign Legion is based in France.

But historically it wasn't, which was my point. That it is now based in France is for the obvious practiacal reason you described.

You don't have the right to serve in the military, you do have the right to equal treatment.

Why would you have such a right regarding the military, as a non-political institution?

[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?!?