Good news on DADT?

[construct]

Thanks for putting this in perspective, archive. I have often noted that military service does not attract loudmouth activists like me, that repeal of DADT will not be greeted by tons of service members bursting out of their closets. By and large from all indications, gay military are not looking for that kind of drama in their lives.

 

[archive]

and before anyone crucifies me...i know blacks were in the military...just segregated

 

[NickCole]

Some apparently see gay rights as a problem that can't be dealt with if anything else is going on. As if civil rights depletes energy that's needed elsewhere.

I see gay rights as a solution, not a problem; a strengthener that helps solve other problems facing us today, like job losses, the economy and a depleted military. I see civil rights as making us stronger as a nation, fuelling the energy we need to solve problems.

But I also think a lot of gays today are apathetic about fighting for gay rights because the discrimination doesn't touch them personally, and self-concern trumping everything else has reached epic proportion in the US. They don't want to join the military; they don't want to get married (this week anyway), so these aren't causes they're willing to fight for. I think that's a problem in American culture generally. And, as I keep pointing out about some current cultural problems in America, it's not a new dynamic. Thucydides once was asked, “When will there be justice in Athens?” He replied, “There will be justice in Athens when those who are not injured are as outraged as those who are.”

A new President comes in who's been heralded as "Change!" and "Hope!" and gay discrimination is allowed to pass, and even legitimized by Obama inviting Warren to open the inauguration, and gay rights are put on hold because Obama doesn't care. That's unfortunate. But what's really sad is, Obama would help with gay rights if he were forced to, and it would make America a better place, but the majority of gays won't push for it so the real reason Prop 8 passed, discrimnation is sanctified and gay rights put on hold is too many gays aren't outraged about gay discrimination. If we're not, we sure better not expect anybody else to be.

 

[archive]

Some apparently see gay rights as a problem that can't be dealt with if anything else is going on. As if civil rights depletes energy that's needed elsewhere.

I see gay rights as a solution, not a problem; a strengthener that helps solve other problems facing us today, like job losses, the economy and a depleted military. I see civil rights as making us stronger as a nation, fuelling the energy we need to solve problems.

dont be coy......

and please for the love of whoever you pray to.....stop making correlating points that arent connected

the military is not depleted because of DADT...its depleted because we have a war going on...and either people arent enlisting or re-enlisting (and really the quota for every service is not that far off)

civilian job losses have nothing to do with DADT

proposition 8 has nothing to do with DADT...or to do with this thread

stop making generalizations and stick to the topic

i do agree with you that you have to fight for your rights.....so tomorrow im going to my first shirt and telling him that im sick of being treated like a second class airman under DADT

 

[NickCole]

dont be coy......

I gave up being coy somewhere in the early 1980s.

and please for the love of whoever you pray to..

I don't pray to anybody.

...stop making correlating points that arent connected

Often, things that some people don't see as connected are, indeed, connected. May seem strange, if you have a headache, to be told you need to eat something (is the head really connected to the stomach??), but in fact the two can be related. Open your mind to original thought; you may be surprised at what you can learn by listening to someone make a connection you hadn't considered.

the military is not depleted because of DADT...

Never said it is.

its depleted because we have a war going on...

Among other reasons. My point is our military can use every qualified recruit it can get. Get rid of DADT and there's a whole new pool of potential recruits.

civilian job losses have nothing to do with DADT

Never said it did. Do you attribute stuff to me that is not connected to what I've said because you make "correlating points that aren't connected" or because you misunderstand what you read in my posts?

proposition 8 has nothing to do with DADT...or to do with this thread

Ending discrimination to achieve equal rights is a substantial connection.

stop making generalizations and stick to the topic

Stop being so controlling. Your way of viewing an issue or how to frame an argument is not the only valid way. Make your points your way and I'll make mine my way.

 

[archive]

Often, things that some people don't see as connected are, indeed, connected. May seem strange, if you have a headache, to be told you need to eat something (is the head really connected to the stomach??), but in fact the two can be related. Open your mind to original thought; you may be surprised at what you can learn by listening to someone make a connection you hadn't considered.


Among other reasons. My point is our military can use every qualified recruit it can get. Get rid of DADT and there's a whole new pool of potential recruits.

we'll do it your way then......

please explain to me how DADT holds potential recruits back .....

 

[construct]

Well, of course, gay rights makes economic sense. Even if repeal of DADT brought the recruitment of no gay soldiers at all, it would still save the Defense Department money because it could keep (rather than replace) all the trained soldiers whose gayness was discovered. Because of a slightly larger pool of potential recruits, repeal of DADT would also result in job creation. And let's not forget benefits like the G.I. bill which would help less fortunate gays go to college and get better jobs that they are more suited to. That also benefits the economy.

So yes, repeal of DADT has economic benefits. It is indeed one of the reasons I voted for Sen. Obama in the general election. I do expect it to happen within the next four years.

 

[archive]

Never said it did. Do you attribute stuff to me that is not connected to what I've said because you make "correlating points that aren't connected" or because you misunderstand what you read in my posts?

It's all inter-related. Or could be. Let gays serve openly, that's more Americans on the government dime (a major part of Obama's "economic stimulus" is government-funded jobs, so that dovetails well) and when they go into the military there'll be fewer on unemployment or the jobs they'll leave in the private sector will be available for others. And "the war" will be needing more troops; it's not quieting down in that part of the world.

you said it not me....in my brutally honest opinion if the only thing thats holding you back from enlisting to serve your country in not being able to serve openly...i feel sorry for you...many of us have done it...alot more will..and will continue to do so...i guess i am being rigid...i can be that way at times....but to me if you want to serve youre going to serve...thats why i say civilian job losses have nothing to do with DADT

 

[NickCole]

Well, of course, gay rights makes economic sense. Even if repeal of DADT brought the recruitment of no gay soldiers at all, it would still save the Defense Department money because it could keep (rather than replace) all the trained soldiers whose gayness was discovered. Because of a slightly larger pool of potential recruits, repeal of DADT would also result in job creation. And let's not forget benefits like the G.I. bill which would help less fortunate gays go to college and get better jobs that they are more suited to. That also benefits the economy.

So yes, repeal of DADT has economic benefits.

Yep.

Well said.

 

[NickCole]

....in my brutally honest opinion if the only thing thats holding you back from enlisting to serve your country in not being able to serve openly...i feel sorry for you...

Don't waste your sympathy on me for having too much character and too much self-respect to hide in a closet.

 

[archive]

Well, of course, gay rights makes economic sense. Even if repeal of DADT brought the recruitment of no gay soldiers at all, it would still save the Defense Department money because it could keep (rather than replace) all the trained soldiers whose gayness was discovered. Because of a slightly larger pool of potential recruits, repeal of DADT would also result in job creation. And let's not forget benefits like the G.I. bill which would help less fortunate gays go to college and get better jobs that they are more suited to. That also benefits the economy.

So yes, repeal of DADT has economic benefits. It is indeed one of the reasons I voted for Sen. Obama in the general election. I do expect it to happen within the next four years.

i somewhat agree with this....but i just cant see why one not being able to serve openly would keep someone from enlisting...but thats my blemish to bare....

 

[construct]

i somewhat agree with this....but i just cant see why one not being able to serve openly would keep someone from enlisting...but thats my blemish to bare....

Well you know, some of us came out rather traumatically, and we decided that we weren't ever going to put ourselves in a compelled closet again. Live free or die! Something like that. I do indeed think DADT reduces the pool of potential recruits a little bit, but I also agree with you that most loudmouths wouldn't put up with military discipline anyway.

 

[archive]

Well you know, some of us came out rather traumatically, and we decided that we weren't ever going to put ourselves in a compelled closet again. Live free or die! Something like that. I do indeed think DADT reduces the pool of potential recruits a little bit, but I also agree with you that most loudmouths wouldn't put up with military discipline anyway.

i concur...i guess thats what ive been trying to say the whole time....until i started to tango with nickcole

 

[NickCole]

we'll do it your way then......

please explain to me how DADT holds potential recruits back .....

Adults with strong character and self-respect and the authentic confidence that comes from owning oneself and living without shame the truth of who we are do not live in the closet today. Keeping essential elements of our core self a secret breeds discomfort, fear and insecurity.

I've known plenty of out gays, men and women, over the years who wanted to serve in the military but refused to because it would have meant allowing themselves to be diminished. Some of the best of our nation are held back from our military because they're gay and rightly refuse to keep a secret of it.

 

[archive]

Don't waste your sympathy on me for having too much character and too much self-respect to hide in a closet.

im not in the closet

 

[NickCole]

... I do indeed think DADT reduces the pool of potential recruits a little bit, but I also agree with you that most loudmouths wouldn't put up with military discipline anyway.

I think DADT may reduce the pool of potential recruits more than a little bit. One of the reasons I think that is because of the response among gays who wanted to join in the early 90s when we thought Clinton was going to open the military to gays.

I'm pretty sure you're not but it seems like you're equating being out of the closet with being a loudmouth or with being unable to conform to military dicipline. I think that's not even a little bit true. I don't think most out gays are loudmouths or incapable of subverting to authority when appropriate.

 

[NickCole]

im not in the closet

I didn't say you are.

 

[Kulindahr]

=====

OK, just to summarize -- the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the son of Julie Andrews' and Ann Margaret's press agent who has playbills from Broadway shows on his walls.

Don't look good for DADT...

What difference does his background make? If he'd grown up in the inner city, or on a farm, those wouldn't be relevant either. The only thing that's relevant is that he made it to the position he's in, and that achievement should command respect.

^^^Then you might also be interested in this article about William White, an openly gay man who's being advocated for Secretary of the Navy...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/18/gay-man-backed-for-navy-secretary/

That article skirts an issue that's important here: no one should care if this guy is gay; what we should care about is whether he will do, as one observer is noted as saying, a "superb job". Yes, it would be great to have a gay guy at that particular helm, but that's not even a tertiary issue for making a selection.

. . . . Obama would help with gay rights if he were forced to, and it would make America a better place, but the majority of gays won't push for it ....

Even if every gay in the country wrote letters and made calls to Congresscritters, it wouldn't be enough to "force" Obama to do anything at all. To many Americans it would just prove that we're a special interest, which means someone to be despised and fought.
We need a Martin Luther King here, someone who doesn't fight for a particular group, but who fights for the rights of all. His success didn't come from pushing an "us v them" mentality, but from pushing an "all of us together" mentality (believe me, if it had been the former, Charleton Heston wouldn't have marched with him, nor a lot of other whites, because it would have made it a racial antagonism issue).
So long as we keep casting it as something for us, rather than standing on basic human rights for everyone, we won't have enough fellow travelers to be able to force any president's hand.

 

[Kulindahr]

I've known plenty of out gays, men and women, over the years who wanted to serve in the military but refused to because it would have meant allowing themselves to be diminished. Some of the best of our nation are held back from our military because they're gay and rightly refuse to keep a secret of it.

I think DADT may reduce the pool of potential recruits more than a little bit. One of the reasons I think that is because of the response among gays who wanted to join in the early 90s when we thought Clinton was going to open the military to gays.

I'd say the problem here is that many gays these days are coming out in high school or before, so joining the military becomes a question of going backward. When coming out was more often something done later, military service didn't entail any bigger a burden that was already being shouldered.

I've known guys who served in the Marines and other services who had no trouble at all; they weren't out when they joined, so it was no big deal. Their units figured it out, but mostly no one really cared. But I've also met some guys who came out in high school without thinking through that being already out would be a problem, and had to give up their dream of military service.

Overall, I have to agree that DADT is reducing the pool of potential recruits, though whether it's "more than a little bit" depends on whether we're looking at a percentage of potential gay recruits, or overall.

 

[NickCole]

Even if every gay in the country wrote letters and made calls to Congresscritters, it wouldn't be enough to "force" Obama to do anything at all. To many Americans it would just prove that we're a special interest, which means someone to be despised and fought.
We need a Martin Luther King here, someone who doesn't fight for a particular group, but who fights for the rights of all. His success didn't come from pushing an "us v them" mentality, but from pushing an "all of us together" mentality (believe me, if it had been the former, Charleton Heston wouldn't have marched with him, nor a lot of other whites, because it would have made it a racial antagonism issue).
So long as we keep casting it as something for us, rather than standing on basic human rights for everyone, we won't have enough fellow travelers to be able to force any president's hand.

When Martin Luther King said he dreamed of the day his children would be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin, he was talking about race. He also was talking about everyone who is judged by superficial markers rather than the content of their character, but he made it specific to race -- making it specific is the only way to move people to action. He was a black man fighting for equal rights for blacks, and also what you call an "all of us together mentality"; the two are not mutually exclusive, and in fact one nourishes the other.

When we fought for gay rights in the 70s and AIDS-related rights in the 80s we were fighting as gays for gay rights, and we also were fighting for equal rights in an "all of us together" mentality. But we were specific, which is what led to legislative change.

When fighting for rights you have to be specific. The right to not be discriminated against through health insurance, through job opportunity, through housing, through the military, through marriage. You can march for equal rights and hold hands and sing kumbaya, and that's great, but getting elected officials to change laws has to be specific and forceful.