Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

National Review editorial - PRO gays in Military

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
 
aspergris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 05:15 PM
Original message
National Review editorial - PRO gays in Military
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODliYjkwN2RkNWExMW...

Pretty good news when the "conservative flagship" has editorials supporting the elimination of Don't Ask Don't Tell and the author calls for the elimination of this policy and for gays to be able to serve openly.

This editorial may piss off many paleo's, but the data doesn't lie. Gays serve openly in many countries without any problems. It will work here, just like it works there.

excerpt:

In March 2007 the Navy discharged Petty Officer Stephen Benjamin, an Arabic cryptologic interpreter. Supervisors investigated him when a message he transmitted said, That was so gay the good gay, not the bad one. He also mentioned his social life, thus exposing his homosexuality.

His captain previously graded him an EXCEPTIONAL LEADER. Extremely focused on mission accomplishment. Dedicated to his personal development and that of his sailors. Takes pride in his work and promotes professionalism in his subordinates.

Never mind. Out he went. U.S. soldiers in Iraq now have one less colleague to give them translated, real-time, operational intelligence.

Meanwhile, Benjamins straight co-workers, whose instant messages were profane and sexually explicit, remain in uniform. Similarly, 28 straight soldiers who had sex in Afghanistan were reprimanded, but not axed, Drew Brown reported in the May 28 Stars and Stripes. Under an updated General Order No. 1, sex among single, straight GIs is now highly discouraged, but not prohibited.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hydra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. It always makes me laugh that they can't reach their recruiting totals
But they reject gay volunteers.

I suspect practicality may have finally sunk their ideology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aspergris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. yup
practicality AND data. Like I said, it's not like we can't look to see what happens when gays serve openly in the military. the UK, Israel etc. have no (that I am aware of) cultural difference that would dispute the notion that if gays can serve openly THERE, they can do so here.

It's disgusting that warriors who happen to be gay, have to live in fear that they might be discovered and lose their job.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hydra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. This has never been about the facts
It's been a nod to the Fundies, IMO. Dismissing a large number of our linguists was never a good idea, for example.

I have no love for the Military(Open ended contractual obligation?!?!), but if you want to join, there should be no barrier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aspergris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. fwiw
I was agnostic about gays in the military, even though DADT put a bad taste in my mouth. Simply put, I didn't have access to the data. I suggest SOME people were against it for religious reasons (unreasonable imo), when the only rational reason for DADT would have been unit cohesion, efficiency, etc.

But I will always take data over ideology or desire.

I was always hoping the Data would support that gays can serve openly and efficiently in the military, and I'm glad the data supports my desire.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karl_Bonner_1982 Donating Member (701 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Time to change the law
My favorite act of stubbornnes was by Duncan Hunter a year ago when he said that the reason to keep DADT was that "most troops are conservative Christians who would be offended by homosexuality." (this was in response to a retired openly gay general asking about it during one of the early GOP debates). That was about as cheap an argument as it gets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aspergris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-23-08 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. yes
That falls under the "nanny nanny boo boo" style of argumentation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 24th 2014, 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC