Obama and the Gay Military...

[Cleon]

Well in all fairness, he is an Admiral and not a General. We all know what kind of people 'Join the Navy'.

Oh, yes. Yes, indeed we do.

 

[Praktik]

I suspect your motivations are more perverse than your supposed orientations. I am willing to entertain that either (1) you fantasize that this might serve as a downfall to American culture

Wowzers - I think the only time I've heard the words "gay" and "downfall of American culture" used in the same sentence is when used by retrograde conservative commentators wistfully remembering the times when gay people weren't on TV and everyone knew their place.

I can't imagine anyone from the civilized parts of the world ever formulating the fantasy that allowing gays in the military would bring about the "downfall of American culture", cause that's an idea that's peculiar to an American strand of politics, and wouldn't occur to people in places where all manner of advances of gay rights have done the opposite to their own cultures.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Bill, you are wrong:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100203/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_military_gays

(I know it's Yahoo's news site, but it's an AP article... lol)

So now even the military leaders say Don't Ask/Don't Tell is discriminatory.

 

[ProbeX]

If Obama truly meant what he said about being an effective president even if it costs him an election, there's no perfectly good reason why he can't advocate for the immediate lifting of the military ban on gay folks. When he stalls like this it makes me think either he is putting a re-election ahead of the consequences, or he is personally against the ban. Or perhaps a combination of the two.

 

[cwalner]

If Obama truly meant what he said about being an effective president even if it costs him an election, there's no perfectly good reason why he can't advocate for the immediate lifting of the military ban on gay folks. When he stalls like this it makes me think either he is putting a re-election ahead of the consequences, or he is personally against the ban. Or perhaps a combination of the two.

I must say I am really dissapointed with Obama on this matter. This seems to be the Modus Operendi of too many Dems. As long as the Reps keep officially promoting an anti-gay position, the Dems seem content to use that to talk about gay rights in their campaigns but then do nothing about it once elected.

The cynic in me says that if the Dems actually did something to get equal rights for gays then they know they would lose voters, as many gays actually have fiscally conservative views. But as long as gay voters feel that the only party for gay equality are the Dems then we remain a fairly solid voting block for them.

 

[SatanicSheep]

I supported DADT out alarm for what was happening to gays in the military at the time. It was discrminatory and the implamentation is insane.

It's a broken policy and thankfully they are looking to CHANGE the situation. An outright appeal would see the levels of bias crimes against homosexuals skyrocket.

I'm just gettin annoyed that this appeared (at first) to be political grandstanding. When many of the supporters of DADT were the same people that supported Obama and support civil rights.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I must say I am really dissapointed with Obama on this matter. This seems to be the Modus Operendi of too many Dems. As long as the Reps keep officially promoting an anti-gay position, the Dems seem content to use that to talk about gay rights in their campaigns but then do nothing about it once elected.

The cynic in me says that if the Dems actually did something to get equal rights for gays then they know they would lose voters, as many gays actually have fiscally conservative views. But as long as gay voters feel that the only party for gay equality are the Dems then we remain a fairly solid voting block for them.

Honestly, though, it's not like either side of the aisle is all that fiscally conservative anymore. In fact, the Dems just recently passed legislation requiring all new spending to be pre-paid for and the Repubs threw a fit...

Imagine how many more votes the Dems could muster up if they would actually do what they say they're going to do. I.e. repeal DADT and see how much of the G/L community, for starters, shifts to their side. I don't think it would be unlikely that by helping one minority community in such a manner, they'd win even more support from the other minority communities they've pledged to help. But, that's probably just me...

 

[cwalner]

Honestly, though, it's not like either side of the aisle is all that fiscally conservative anymore. In fact, the Dems just recently passed legislation requiring all new spending to be pre-paid for and the Repubs threw a fit...

Imagine how many more votes the Dems could muster up if they would actually do what they say they're going to do. I.e. repeal DADT and see how much of the G/L community, for starters, shifts to their side. I don't think it would be unlikely that by helping one minority community in such a manner, they'd win even more support from the other minority communities they've pledged to help. But, that's probably just me...

The problem is the the LGBT community is very much behind the Dems now because the alternative is a party that supports and passes anti-gay legislation (ie DOMA). The gains that the Dems would realize in the LGBT community by actually doing something for gays is negligible because few of us are willing to overlook that despite agreeing with many other republican planks.

I also think that you are wrong that support for gay rights would win much additional support from other minorities. As two examples, Latinos are predominately Catholic, and there are threads already about the official church position on gays. Also, according to polls, black voters supported proposition 8 in CA (banning gay marriage). Many people do not see gay rights as a civil rights issue. This includes members of racial minorities and people that staunchly support the Democratic party. Think of organized labor, for which this is a non-issue. They will tend to fall within more general statistics, which based on the election results of recent anti-gay referendums would be mostly opposed to gay rights.

These unfortunate realities, result in too many Democratic politicians giving lip service to gay rights during campaigns, but doing nothing substantive regarding the issue once elected. So far President Obama seems to be among these Democrats.

 

[Sledge]

You must be joking.

It took you over two weeks to come up with this reply? I get that you liked Avatar, but did it push everything else out of your mind for more than a fortnight?

You have bigger fires to fight outside your front door.

Nope, my doorstep is fine.

So what you are saying is that your country has no social woes for you to spend time on.

And this is a response to any point raised in this thread... how?

You are also saying that you are a better social scientist that what the US military can afford.

NEWSFLASH: The US military disagrees with you. I'm afraid that it's just you and some bigots arguing your point.

Tell me, how can anyone take you seriously?

Put that handbag down, dear. If you swing it much more, you'll have your eye out.

 

[Praktik]

I also think that you are wrong that support for gay rights would win much additional support from other minorities. As two examples, Latinos are predominately Catholic, and there are threads already about the official church position on gays. Also, according to polls, black voters supported proposition 8 in CA (banning gay marriage). Many people do not see gay rights as a civil rights issue. This includes members of racial minorities and people that staunchly support the Democratic party. Think of organized labor, for which this is a non-issue. They will tend to fall within more general statistics, which based on the election results of recent anti-gay referendums would be mostly opposed to gay rights.

Saw a poll yesterday that had republican support for repealing DADT at low 50s, independents in the 60s and dems in the 80s

So while it may seem there are no gains there it is something that helps their base (which could use some cheering up), and where it will prove costly are areas that are solidly republican anyway.

I can't imagine many blacks or latinos using the repeal of DADT to jump to the republicans either.

 

[cwalner]

Saw a poll yesterday that had republican support for repealing DADT at low 50s, independents in the 60s and dems in the 80s

Thank you, that poll is encouraging.

I never meant to imply that the general elecorate was overwhelmingly against gay rights issues. The results, IIRC were close but anti-gay measures were passed. I know that puplic opinion is moving in favor in gay rights.

I guess I was expressing my frustration that a candidate who campaigned on hope and change seems reluctant to embrace this reality with actions now that he is elected.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Thank you, that poll is encouraging.

I never meant to imply that the general elecorate was overwhelmingly against gay rights issues. The results, IIRC were close but anti-gay measures were passed. I know that puplic opinion is moving in favor in gay rights.

I guess I was expressing my frustration that a candidate who campaigned on hope and change seems reluctant to embrace this reality with actions now that he is elected.

This is the problem with young(ish) politicians. They don't realize just how difficult it is to follow through on campaign promises. Obama wants to get his agenda through. The Repubs have determined to vote him down every chance they get (politics as usual, right?) so Obama has come to realize that he needs to consolidate his position prior to the 2010 election cycle if he wants any hope of getting anything on his agenda accomplished (for evidence: see the recent health care reform results).

This is, unfortunately, the high price of doing business in DC...

 

[Praktik]

Thank you, that poll is encouraging.

I never meant to imply that the general elecorate was overwhelmingly against gay rights issues. The results, IIRC were close but anti-gay measures were passed. I know that puplic opinion is moving in favor in gay rights.

I guess I was expressing my frustration that a candidate who campaigned on hope and change seems reluctant to embrace this reality with actions now that he is elected.

poll here

 

[pgwenthold]

I heard something while flipping channels about how the first thing they are going to do is to stop discharging people who have been outed by others. I will say, if that had been the approach from the beginning, I think there would be a lot less of an issue with DADT. However, it became clear that when "telling" consisted of simply being seen in public holding hands with your boyfriend during time off, it was not doing what it was meant to do.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I assume you are a revolutionary.

Well, good luck.

From what I know of American culture, you have an uphill climb.

This is not a matter of right and wrong. If it was, why not protest the very existence of war itself and be an advocate for pacifism and disarmament?

This is also not a matter of gay rights. If it was, you should be directing your attention to Saudi Arabia where homosexuality is a capital offence.

This is also not a matter of what is natural. If it exists, it is natural. Homosexuality is part of human nature. But you cannot draw the line and insist that straight people who are repulsed by homosexuality have been raised that way and were not born that way. That does not make any sense.

Like I said, this is not a matter of right and wrong. If it was, why not protest the very existence of war itself? Then you say that disarmament is good but you doubt you will not see it in your life time. Did you forget you were talking about the United States military? I think shutting down the need for a military will come long before GI's will embrace open gays in their ranks.

 

[Cleon]

I assume you are a revolutionary.

...What? Who are you talking to, anyway?

From what I know of American culture, you have an uphill climb.

If you know as much about American culture as you do about military culture, we can expect to see the red flag flying over the Capitol any day now.

This is not a matter of right and wrong.

Yes, it is.

If it was, why not protest the very existence of war itself and be an advocate for pacifism and disarmament?

That doesn't make any sense.

This is also not a matter of gay rights.

Yes, it is.

If it was, you should be directing your attention to Saudi Arabia where homosexuality is a capital offence.

That makes even less sense. You can't campaign for equal rights in the United States, because somewhere gays are being treated worse? I'd call that the worst logic I've seen, but given your other whoppers in this thread I wouldn't be able to do so honestly.

This is also not a matter of what is natural. If it exists, it is natural. Homosexuality is part of human nature. But you cannot draw the line and insist that straight people who are repulsed by homosexuality have been raised that way and were not born that way. That does not make any sense.

Uh, yes, it does.

Like I said, this is not a matter of right and wrong.

You can say whatever you like, that doesn't make it right.

If it was, why not protest the very existence of war itself?

Still doesn't make any sense.

Then you say that disarmament is good but you doubt you will not see it in your life time. Did you forget you were talking about the United States military? I think shutting down the need for a military will come long before GI's will embrace open gays in their ranks.

Again, you ignore everything that doesn't back up your preconceived opinions; like the opinions of the active duty military who've posted here, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, etc.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I think shutting down the need for a military will come long before GI's will embrace open gays in their ranks.

Well, I think you're wrong. And so do the top members of the US Military.

 

[Cleon]

Well, I think you're wrong. And so do the top members of the US Military.

But the Joint Chiefs don't know what it's really like in the military! After all, Bill was in the Navy for three years in the mid-80s! How can the experience of Admirals and Generals compare with Bill's extensive insight into military culture?

 

[Sledge]

That makes even less sense. You can't campaign for equal rights in the United States, because somewhere gays are being treated worse? I'd call that the worst logic I've seen, but given your other whoppers in this thread I wouldn't be able to do so honestly.

What's even better is that Bill thinks people who don't live in America have no right to comment in this thread. So other countries criticising America is bad, but Americans telling other countries what to do is fine. I'm beginning to think Bill is a satire of American foreign policy.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

I assume you are a revolutionary.

I know this was not directed at me, but I am not. Revolutionaries get shot at. I prefer to work from within a system.

Well, good luck.

From what I know of American culture, you have an uphill climb.

Changing any standard in any culture is an uphill climb. Thankfull they make hiking books and walking sticks are quite plentiful.

This is not a matter of right and wrong. If it was, why not protest the very existence of war itself and be an advocate for pacifism and disarmament?

To some this is a matter of right and wrong. I am one such person. I also do advocate for pacisifsm and disarmament, even though I doubt I will see it in my lifetime.

This is also not a matter of gay rights. If it was, you should be directing your attention to Saudi Arabia where homosexuality is a capital offence.

This is a matter of gay rights. Gay rights activists tend to speak pretty harshly of situation in Saudi Arabia. Here however the situation can be changed more easily and with less violence. Gays and their friends can multitask so working on the issue of DADT and attempting to influence Saudia Arabia are not mutually exclusive.

This is also not a matter of what is natural. If it exists, it is natural. Homosexuality is part of human nature. But you cannot draw the line and insist that straight people who are repulsed by homosexuality have been raised that way and were not born that way. That does not make any sense.

Being natural or not is rather irrelevent. So is being inherent from birth or coming about as a social construct. Still, homophobia seems to be as much a social construct and based on regular fears as any other phobia based on differences. Recognizing this is useful in knowing how to combat this, not in establishing if it is right or wrong.

Like I said, this is not a matter of right and wrong. If it was, why not protest the very existence of war itself?

Where can I protest basic human nature? As an atheist I can only appeal to people.

Then you say that disarmament is good but you doubt you will not see it in your life time. Did you forget you were talking about the United States military? I think shutting down the need for a military will come long before GI's will embrace open gays in their ranks.

I disagree here. Considering the news of late and the history of the US military, I fully expect to see a few more wars in my lifetime and would not be at all surprised to see DADT or any such restrictions on homosexual service in the armed forces repealed within the year.

The news of late has been most interesting.