There's been a good chat in the comments on this DADT thread. I thought I would cherry pick Bill's comment and append my own - if only to bring the discussion back to the fore.
Bill said responding to me (the part in italics):
I responded:
Bill said responding to me (the part in italics):
Things in society at large are different now than they were back when DADT was implemented. Accounting for the realities of the Current Operating Environment seems to be to be a rational approach.
The difference I see is that the groups that are the most vocal about repeal (of both DADT and the law) are those that are the least likely to want to enlist -- and they're advancing an agenda that doesn't have "equal opportunity and fairness" as its basis. The last thing the military needs is another Protected Class.
In the early '70s, I sat through weekly lectures by *DA* bureaucrats on how biased I was just because I was white. I got fed up with one particular lecturer telling me what a prejudiced individual I *must* have been because of my Anglo-Saxonish ancestry and stood up, announced that I had been insulted enough for that day, and I was going to depart. As I was leaving, the lecturer began to pontificate about what a perfect illustration I was for his point, then shut up as my six drill sergeants -- all blacks -- stood up and fell into step behind me.
SFC Collier counting cadence was probably a bit over-the-top, buuuut...
In the mid-'80s, I sat through a repeat of the lectures, this time being told what a sexist I was just because I was a white *male*. At one lecture, I stood and asked the lecturer if she had ever been in a helicopter crash. She said, "No." I replied that, in a crash, the cockpit was a messy place, full of crushed and twisted metal, with the possibility of a fire erupting at any second. I asked her to picture herself in that situation, then I asked, "Who would you rather have sitting next to you to pull you out if you were stuck -- 6-foot-4, 230-pound 1LT Alan here, or 5-foot-nothing, 90-pound SFC Theresa over here?"
Themoderatorfacilitator announced a coffee break.
In the '90s, after DADT kicked in, I was lectured on the importance of Diversity and Appreciation for the Feelings of Others. After the first one, I made sure I was on the flight schedule whenever another lecturer was due to appear.
The appearance of another Protected Class will result in another flurry of year-long lectures from pompous a$$es on how badly we acted in the past and yadda-yadda-yadda -- but there will be no *positive* result or general acceptance until the new Protected Class proves itself as the others did.
In combat.
By dying for their brothers and sisters.
I don't see *any* of the current drum-beaters willing to sign on to take that final step, and that's why I'm angry -- they're gaming an honorable institution in which they have no stake and most of whose current members they hold in contempt, and they're doing it for their *own* political reasons, not for any benefit that will accrue to either the military or the country.
I responded:
I sat through those lectures, too, Bill. And I sat through them again in the corporate world - where at least I do work for a company that allowed me to behave in a similar way to you without punitive action being taken. And I've been through this with that company on the issue of teh gheys.
I know all that. I'm a fat guy descended from dead white euro males. I get a double-whammy of hate these days. Fat is the new safe whipping boy. Even Mrs. Obama hates me.
Of what you said, here's the crux for me:
In combat.
By dying for their brothers and sisters.
Just like blacks, just like the gurls. Only the blacks and girls were easier to discern, visually (and hopefully, teh gheys that are easy to discern visually are not the ones lining up to enlist....).
And, at least in the case of teh gurls:
The difference I see is that the groups that are the most vocal about repeal (of both DADT and the law) are those that are the least likely to want to enlist -- and they're advancing an agenda that doesn't have "equal opportunity and fairness" as its basis. The last thing the military needs is another Protected Class.
...were also the ones pushing the change.
As I said - we've done this before, twice. It's not an overnight thing, and we were grappling with race issues during Vietnam and Korea. And we were/are grappling with girl/boy issues during Gulf War I, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yes there will be teh stoopid. Which will be the stuff of legendary TINS and keep us in blogfodder for decades.
But just because we know it will be a path littered with potholes doesn't mean we don't head down it.
Because - as we've all acknowledged in this thread and the other one, when it comes to this:
In combat.
By dying for their brothers and sisters.
They've been doing it. But we don't know how much and in what numbers. Because they have to keep it hidden.
I got to say the following. Others can respond or not. Most of the following rant is based on faith, not on referencable material, so I won't argue the point beyond what you all see on this post and I won't ever join in a similar discussion again. This is what I have to say, once and for all on the subject.
1. There is a difference between an accident of birth (sex/skin color) and a lifestyle choice.
2. At this point, some one will say that "modern science" has proved that homosexuality is genetic and theses poor souls can't help themselves. My answer: some years ago "medical science" proved that alcoholism is genetic at those poor souls couldn't help themselves. Now, if we don't give alkies, based on "modern science" the civil right to drive drunk, why should we accept sexual deviancy as a civil right? Actually the Bible said over 2,000 years ago that humans are genetically disposed to certain behavior, it's called SIN. We all have our personal demons who convince us to sin in some way, homosexuality is just one of many sins that can be controlled if the individual would rather live right than march for a right to sin.
3. Most civilizations of the past crumbled within one generation after homosexuality was accepted as an alternative lifestyle instead of being treated as a moral flaw.
4. Do we have a moral compass in this county any more, or not? If we have no moral compass, than the only reasons to serve in the military would be to either promote a US hegemony for our temporary security or solely for individual gain. Considering we now have the apologizer-n-chief in charge, that would limit the reason to serve to personal gain. To accept homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle is to admit we have no moral compass. This country was in constant ascendancy when the Bible was our moral compass.
5. The next thing somebody will say is I'm "homophobic." Since I don't fear queers, but feel sorry for them, since they have fallen into a web of lies; I don't feel the suffix, "phobic" applies. I believe God will give grace to all that repent and accept his grace. I'm in no place to judge since I am a sinner as well. The difference is: I admit I'm a sinner and I don't expect the government to make my preferred sin into a civil right..
And as a straight female who was subjected to a couple of lesbian come ons in my workspace (both in my birth country and here), let me tell you - it was NOT nice and it was NOT funny. Both females in question were not openly/visually lesbian. At least when I contemplated changing the companies to avoid further encounters, I had the freedom of doing so without any repercussions sans loss in income. Military does not afford its members such freedom - you have to finish your contract.
I do think we've done a good job of civil discourse and passionate disagreement without conflating messages and messengers - something many blog communities can't do effectively.
My question for the Baroness is - how is that any different from unwelcome, repeated advances from a male colleague? While I understand there is an added dimension because you don't dance that side of the aisle - but other than that aspect of it - how is that any different from the lothario two cubes over who had garlic brief, bad hygiene and thinks you should find that attractive?
A couple of days ago, there was an article on the "American Thinker" website that dealt with the DADT issue. The author, I think his last name was Bernard, analyzed the situation in terns of what he called "sexualized zones", "non-sexualized zones" and the need for "social taboos". I don't think that I can do the article justice but I do recommend it as an unusual take on a subject that, once again, has reared its head.
I was a proverbial Psychology major back in the last '70s, when the American Psychological Association took its VOTE that homosexuality no longer should remain in its diagnostic manual as a mental disorder. With the involvement of absolutely no science, they proclaimed that homosexuality should now be considered a "sexual orientation" when anyone with half a brain could see that it was a "sexual disorientation". For me, this was the key legitimatizer for the homosexual rights movement and it is little mentioned these days. It is Orwell-speak at its finest.
The other aspect that I find determinative is that, just as with the increased involvement of women in our military, those pushing the homosexual agenda are not those who have any serious love for our military or are interested in its continuing success. Just as feminists used the participation of women in our military to support their false conception of equality (heavyweight champion of the world, anyone?), those trying to accelerate the fall of DADT are trying to establish another lever to move our American culture to the progressive, post-modern, relativistic left.
Many years ago, Gloria Steinam, the Playboy bunny turned feminist opined that "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." Well, any guesses on what the homosexual rights purveyors are thinking?
Frankly, the American men are so pussified (excuse my language) by the sexual harrassment nazis, I haven't had to deal with the unwanted MALE advances at work at all. When I had that back in my birth country, those were usually older men and some of them were in the direct chain of command. My answer that always diffused the situation with no repercussions was "Comrade so and so, my father is your age."
However, when you have to deal with the unwanted advances by the person of the same sex, this does not work, there is a huge risk of repercussion due to the vindictiveness of the other person (I am a woman and I can say that :o)) and it is usually you who has to prove that you don't dance that side of the isle. Plus, it makes you wonder if something is wrong with your appearance that invited such come-on.
I am not sure I expressed myself clearly but trust me, I WAS thinking of changing jobs after every incident.
Most of us have a working knowledge of "Operation Overlord".
During this very same time, there was a messy issue for the British. They had an officer, who was living an "alternative lifestyle", but most people don't know to what degree, even today. Churchill wanted him alive, but they're completely disconnected from the general population. The people want him dead, *yesterday*. In today's terms, he was given an offer he couldn't or shouldn't refuse. The control is not this man, but a man chosen by Eisenhower. Many things are left out.
As I look at this whole issue, I'm constantly reminded of a fine article written by the Armorer. It sounded something like this, What is the difference between the warrior and the soldier? They both fight, but the soldier fights and lives his life under discipline, not just preference.
The important question is this, What do you think?
Eric - it wasn't a perfect document, it was a committee product.
Like, um, the Declaration of Independence and, oh, the Constitution, to name a few.
And while not of the gravity of those documents, it was a heckuva lot better than the legislation currently spewing out of Congress and being signed by the executive.
I'll take what I can get. The key pieces were there, even if the english wasn't all a rhetorician or philosopher might wish for.
And it was certainly misread in predictable ways by the agenda-mongers of both sides. I did wince at "absurd" but, I'll concede the point, too. That was more wishful thinking and projection on the part of the lead author.