Ooh, and an article on the "gay epidemic".

[conuly]

The gay agenda is (apparently) the greatest threat to freedom we face.

And I know why!

See...

It's because they're EVIL.

They're evil because they can't defend us against terrorists.
And they can't defend us agains terrorists because they can't join the army.
And they can't join the army because gay people aren't allowed.
And they aren't allowed...

Because they're evil!

Comments

[conuly]

That is BULLSHIT.

That's the same exact reasoning they used for keeping black people in segregated units, and for not allowing women in the military.

It is fucking BULLSHIT.

If the military allowed openly gay soldiers it is likely they would be in danger.

They're in the military. They're already in danger. They're also adults, and should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding their safety.

I got bullied at school for being different. Does this mean I should've been forced to pretend I was "normal"? That's dangerously close to saying it was my fault I was being bullied.

It's not my fault if other people have bad behaviour, and I don't see the need for people's bad behaviour to be enabled like this.

[georgiapeachy.livejournal.com]

For women in blacks they integrated them gradually- it required time and patience.
You obviously have no background in the military as I do and I have not only my gay aunt but a gay great uncle who was in the military. Most of my family is in the military. Military people are not forgiving of differences, when you are in the military you do your job and this often means disregarding facets of your personality. You don't get to have long hair, wear large religious symbols, etc. etc. You are thinking in the abstract when you are saying danger is not a good excuse for not allowing them because you have no idea what kind of violence you open yourself up to when you are gay and in the military. Blacks and women had to be integrated gradually and women in the military still are in considerable danger of sexual assault. For this reason most military women look as asexual as possible. There is no "being yourself" in the military. Bad behavior in the military towards those who are a different is not enabled by not allowing open homosexuals, it's prevented because it is so difficult to enforce good behavior. From officers I've talked to it's likely the "don't ask, don't tell" rule will be changed in a couple of years, but they need to do it gradually and with caution. Most officers are staunchly conservative and it will take a long time for them to be able to treat gays with respect.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

"Most officers are staunchly conservative and it will take a long time for them to be able to treat gays with respect."

That's the truth. My father is a Navy commander (retired now), so I grew up seeing and hearing the sort of straight-line, zero-tolerance, my-way-is-the-only-way thinking you're describing. I don't think it's going to even start to die out until the WWII/Korea/Cold War veterans are all gone.

"Bad behavior in the military towards those who are a different is not enabled by not allowing open homosexuals, it's prevented because it is so difficult to enforce good behavior."

Also true. Giving unenforceable orders undermines discipline - sure, a CO could enforce severe consequences for harassment, but what about all those COs who'd "look the other way" - how is their compliance with orders going to be enforced? Court-martial? First you've got to prove they knew and did nothing, and that's a hard thing to prove. The first lesson anyone learns in the military is "cover your ass"; by the time someone's a CO he's generally very good at it.

"Don't ask, don't tell" is a fine policy for things which ARE "facets of one's personality", such as religious beliefs and political convictions. But homosexuality is a "facet of personality" to exactly the same extent heterosexuality is. Now, if they want to make it that all personnel - gay, straight, or whatever - are not to talk about or openly engage in romantic/sexual affairs of any sort, that would be fair. As a side-effect, it might cut down on the amount of harassment women in the military are subject to. It isn't fair to enforce a rule on one group and not on others.

When gay marriage becomes legal, the whole problem is going to get a lot stickier. How do you tell people they're not allowed to even mention the fact that they have a husband or a wife? Can you picture the uproar if straight people were forbidden to tell anyone that they're married?

The military doesn't change quickly or easily, but it does change. A historical example is flogging, the abolishment of which caused a huge storm of protest from officers who claimed that it would not be possible to maintain discipline without it. Somehow they managed, though - when they had to, and not a moment sooner.

[conuly]

You are thinking in the abstract when you are saying danger is not a good excuse for not allowing them because you have no idea what kind of violence you open yourself up to when you are gay and in the military.

No, I'm saying that people need to be allowed to make up their own minds as to whether or not they risk violence. That's called being an adult, in a system that is formed of adults.

[rainbow-goddess.livejournal.com]

Openly gay people are allowed in the military in Canada and in many other countries. No one seems to have a problem with it outside the United States.