OK. It doesn't come much clearer than this. Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg says homosexuals should be menaced with arrest and imprisonment. Transcript and video here. We must not let the public forget that this ugly reality-they want to make us criminals-is what lies behind these guys' insistence that they mean us no harm.
Throw the Gays in Jail!
ADVERTISEMENT
51 Comments for “Throw the Gays in Jail!”
posted by Amicus on
Well, one person who doesn’t let it go by is Barney Frank. I recall a clip, from one of the Sunday shows, perhaps, wherein he interrupted someone to point out that criminalization is exactly what’s on some people’s mind.
The hypocrisy, manipulation, and torrent of false witness that comes from these groups is stagering.
If I read the transcripts right, there were another 7,000+ documents from the last production from ProtectMarrige that the Plaintiff’s didn’t have in time for the trial. Who can forget the attorney from Prop8 objecting at length over docs that were in hand, finally saying, in exasperation to the judge, these are ‘very, very revealing’. (To which the judge replied (paraphrase), ‘not to make lite of that, but people generally want to introduce documents because they are revealing’)
Indeed, the emotions go to the highest levels.
I’m sure everyone saw John McCain in high tonus today, bristling at the calm, rational Bill Gates.
Where was McCain when Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld, rather than face up to the political consequences of their decisions and put in for a draft, decided to change the standards for who can be a recruit? He muttered aloud some objection about ‘tradition’, but they all went along with it, without much further ado.
posted by Carlos on
Sounds like a good idea?! When do we start outlawing what you eat, what sex you are, what skin tone you may have, what eye colour you have, and how you walk (maybe walk is a bad one as everybody knows Americans don’t walk they drive), etc
posted by Tom on
Sprigg’s rare moment of honesty came in an interview in which he also — when pushed by Matthews into revealing the truth about what he thinks — endorsed a return to a complete ban on military service by gays and lesbians.
While I agree that it is important to keep the public informed about the “ugly reality” of the hard-right Christian conservative agenda — these folks wouldn’t recognize integrity if it bit them right in the ass — I think that it is also important to remember that the intense and ferocious animus to Lawrence and repeal of DADT are not isolated from context.
The animus to Lawrence stems from a legal reality. As Justice Scalia pointed out in his ill-tempered Lawrence dissent, if the constitution prohibits the government from criminalizing homosexuality, then gays and lesbians have to be treated on an equal footing with respect to due process and equal protection analysis. As Scalia pointed out, Lawrence leads, more or less directly, to a decision mandating equal treatment under marriage laws.
The animus to DADT repeal stems from a political reality. The American people have a deep sense of fairness and an abiding respect for men and women who serve. It is almost impossible, politically, to deny equal treatment under the law to men and women who have put their lives on the line for our country. Whatever the primary purpose of DADT, a clear secondary effect has been to keep gay and lesbian service members hidden out of sight, to the point where Spriggs could deny, with a more-or-less straight face, that any significant number of gays and lesbians now served. If DADT is repealed, the curtain will eventually come off that fiction.
John McCain is a sad figure.
Up to and including the 2000 Presidential run, he was, as politicians go, an honest man. After he was whumped in the 2000 Republican primaries, he seems to have made a calculated position to kiss up to and grovel before hard-core Christian conservatives in order to gain the Presidency.
By doing that, instead of fighting to bring the party back to traditional Republican principles, McCain put himself into the position he is in today, facing a primary challenge from the hard-core Christian conservatives, likely to lose, trusted by no one, and unable to even keep his own word, knowing that to do so would mean certain political death.
McCain understood and acted with integrity at one time. Those days are long gone. It is sad to see a good man sell his soul.
posted by Amicus on
Aaaand, here comes the rest – I sometimes think that we have no idea how insular so much of American society really is:
“Would it be incorrect (factually and/or politically) to suggest that allowing gays to serve openly in the US military might subject the personnel in the US military to greater exposure to AIDS?”
Read that on a comment-section. No obvious reason to believe the writer isn’t earnest ….
posted by Debrah on
“It is sad to see a good man sell his soul.”
****************************************
I’m no grand John McCain fan…..by any stretch of the imagination.
However, I think this statement is pure melodrama and reminds me of some of the songs I used to write about unrequited love as a teen.
(Just listened to some of those studio demo tapes the other day, however, and they are pretty hot!)
It’s understandable that heated emotions will stir over DADT as well as the SSM debate; however, I don’t see those who disagree with gays as “selling their souls”.
It might interest a few of you to know that people the planet over do not consider the gay community or any other ever-disgruntled group as the “be all and end all” of life’s existence.
But that’s how some of these issues are presented by the “activists”.
I didn’t weigh in on any of this at all in the past and was quite dispassionate until recently when these “gay issues” were used to essentially upend an entire blog in such an unprofessional way.
It provided a front row seat into the self-serving mania that many gays display in everything they do.
And one wonders why some might pause and hope that this same atmosphere is not produced inside the military when DADT is repealed?
None of us can speak for everyone in any particular group.
I don’t speak for all heterosexuals and a few gays cannot speak for ALL gays and divine what will transpire when DADT is repealed.
When I see that the gay community can advocate for their agenda without allowing it to bleed into every aspect of their lives and destroy a productive and cohesive milieu which has nothing to do with “gay rights”, then observers will begin to believe that it’s possible to do more than highlight the gay lifestyle and sexuality at every turn.
The “off button” on obnoxious behavior toward anyone disagreeing with them really needs to be utilized.
Dowd gives a plug for your Adm. Mullen today….as she pummels McCain.
posted by Michael on
I would liked to have seen Mr. Matthews also ask Mr. Sprigg if he felt the same about criminalizing adultery, fornication, and divorce which have created the large majority of problems in marriage and in contemporary family life.
posted by Debrah on
I don’t think many Americans who keep up with the politico-cultural world would trust Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann to be able to ask anyone a question without feeling “a tingle up their legs” born of their insane Kabuki-esque tendentious show.
Interestingly, Rachel Maddow seems to be the only MSNBC talking head who can keep her cool and ask questions that sound remotely objective.
One has only to remember the pathetic show that Matthews presented a few years ago in which he allowed the insipid wife of John Edwards to call into his show and ambush Ann Coulter.
Everyone knows that Coulter is often over-the-top and intentionally provocative to get attention; however, there are no bigger despicable frauds on the planet than John and Elizabeth Edwards.
Elizabeth Edwards knew about his mistress long before he decided to run in 2008.
They took money and long hours of work from volunteers as they jeopardized the entire Democratic Party.
And yes, these two frauds exemplify the best example of marriage at its most disgusting.
One has only to read the new book Game Change.
posted by DragonScorpion on
I watched that go down on Hardball last night and as I was watching it I was both surprised that such honesty was coming forth from Mr. Sprigg (Tony Perkins appears to be more careful in his wording, a bit less declarative), and relieved that the truth of the real agenda behind the anti-homosexual equality crowd was coming out and on national television…
Watching such unequivocal remarks put forth by those who oppose ending discrimination against homosexuals, one quickly realizes that they’re not going to be able to walk themselves back from this one. Most of us have long known what they’re really about and that it isn’t just “marriage” that their wringing their hands over in the name of “tradition”. Their real agenda is to eliminate us, completely. And they’ll do this either by “curing” us, forcing us to completely live in the shadows to where we virtually do not exist, or criminalizing us to remove us from society. Now, however, we have current evidence proving this to be so.
Kudos to Chris Matthews for nailing him on it.
posted by DragonScorpion on
Tom:
Great point about Justice Scalia. While he, no doubt, was trying to rile folks up and shock the ‘sense’ back into everyone by creating a scary world in which homosexuals would have constitutional rights if we we’re allowed to make personal decisions about sexual intimacy, he actually ended up providing a sound legal argument that Lawrence created a precedent which will be very difficult to ignore in the future. Including in regards to the same-sex marriage debate.
I also totally agree with you about John McCain. I used to have a lot of respect for him and his “maverick” nature. He seemed like a man of real integrity, and I think he was. I still applaud some of his efforts at campaign finance reform and showing the courage to call our nation’s torture for what it is â torture. I also thought it showed a lot of integrity when he called out the true “agents of intolerance” for what they are.
I wanted him to win in the Republican primary against Bush in 2000, and if he would have he’d have received my vote. But the Bush machine beat him out, unscrupulously, and so I went Libertarian instead.
But alas, afterward Sen. McCain sold himself to the GOP base. He’s been doing his best to suck up to the hard-core social conservatives of the party when given the chance to ever since. And of course, that’s what he’s doing now, because he’s facing a primary challenge against right-winger J.D. Hayworth. The so-called “maverick” seems to have adopted the notion that if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.
~”The hypocrisy, manipulation, and torrent of false witness that comes from these groups is stagering.” ~ Amicus
You’ve got that right! And from some here at the forum, too… Including one who even claims to be one of us. Talk about staggering. It boggles my mind. I’ve truly never seen anything like it.
posted by Amicus on
Including one who even claims to be one of us
—
Which litmus papers didn’t get forged properly?
http://hardwarehounds.com/pix/cat%20imposter.jpg
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Peter Sprigg has attended several D.C. Council and Board of Elections and Ethics hearings relating to marriage equality. He sat with Bishoo Harry Jackson. According to the January 31 filings with the D.C. Office of Campaign Finance, FRC gave Jackson’s “Stand for Marriage DC” group $25,000. I am a great believer in encouraging people like Sprigg to keep talking.
posted by Bobby on
“But alas, afterward Sen. McCain sold himself to the GOP base”
—Not really, McCain was always a Manchurian candidate, a progressive in the tradition of big government bastards like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Here’s my beef with McCain.
1. He doesn’t think corporations have the right to free speech and he opposed the SCOTUS ruling.
2. He supports campaign finance reform.
3. He tried to legalize illegal aliens without giving a damn what the people though about that.
4. He opposes drilling in ANWR.
The only reason he won the nomination was because democrats and independents were allowed to vote at some of our conventions. Rush Limbaugh tried to play the same trick by encouraging his listeners to vote for Hillary Clinton.
His campaign was a disaster, he was more likely to condemn the people that where condemning Obama than Obama himself. He was weak, polite, and took too long to find a vice-presidential candidate. The only thing that energized his campaign was Sarah Palin, but rather than letting her be herself they tried to mold her, they told her what to say, what to wear, and confused her when the reality was conservatives liked her the way she was.
If McCain supports DADT it has nothing to do with the republican base, maybe he never met anyone gay in Vietnam, I don’t know.
posted by DragonScorpion on
I’ll give you Thirty guesses, Amicus. 😉
Gee, Bobby, other than #3, you make him sound like he’s on the right side of things!
I was glad when he was swatting down the racists and xenophobes on the campaign trail, too. He lobbed plenty of criticism at Barack Obama, but he kept it on policy stuff and stayed away from the personal and the paranoid. Another one of those rare moments of integrity from the man.
But I definitely think it’s rather obvious that several of his recent positions and how staunchly he supports them, is due to his looming primary challenge. This hardline and flip-flop on DADT is one of them.
posted by Amicus on
DS, it says “independent” at the top, which just means independent minded, smart enough not to be a partisan. Looking at ‘About Us’, few are definitely for unlimited government, so they are for limited government. The rest is pretty generic. Market economy is clearly superior to planned.
So, I might need more than 30 questions, unless that was a hint about ND30.
posted by Jorge on
I have my doubts about McCain.
After watching his interview on Greta Van Sustern today, my thought is that if someone of his overall integrity and sensibility is so stubborn over DA/DT, it makes me wonder if it’s really true that the American people are ready to repeal it.
My other thought is that I’m glad I held my piece about him because I don’t see what the big deal is. I don’t feel any particular need to shield him from being run over by history–saying Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell “works” is highly insulting–but it doesn’t make him a sellout or a bigot. If anything he’s acting like a maverick here.
Since McCain is someone with a lot of credibility and is considered relatively moderate, people who disagree with him seem to find the sudden urge to slander him. It won’t go very far, because McCain is making a stand on the foundation of what the military thinks. Fortunately for him, he is either open-minded or he knows he can prove that he is speaking for the military.
posted by Carl on
“It won’t go very far, because McCain is making a stand on the foundation of what the military thinks.”
Which is why he dismissed the opinion of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on repealing DADT?
McCain said one thing about this matter and is now saying another. I’m not sure if this is an example of his integrity.
I have my doubts as to how much of the American public McCain represents. He is a media darling, no more or less. Much of his own party loathes him. He lost against Obama. He has veered all over the place in his political views. He’s a good example of what happens when the press focuses too much time on idolizing a politician and forgetting they are not a god. Basically, the same thing people on the right say the press has done with Obama.
posted by Jorge on
Which is why he dismissed the opinion of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on repealing DADT?
As glad as I am to hear it, Mullen’s opinion is easy to dismiss. McCain cites a letter signed by 1000 (I think it’s a thousand) retired military leaders saying ending DADT would be detrimental to morale in the armed forces. So one, there’s a numbers game. Two, how strongly does Mullen state his case? Not very strongly at all. Mullen was careful to state his opinion was his personal opinion, which is very different from him speaking for the military by him saying it’s his professional opinion. In contrast, the people in the or formerly in the military who have spoken out against repealing DA/DT are making (and I have no reason to doubt their sincerity) professional, expert statements that ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would be harmful to our military.
It looks to most of us that a new page has turned because we have the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on our side for ending DADT, but McCain is showing how shallow that support is without clear professional agreement from the leadership as a whole. He has it clear that he is against ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell if only political reasons are considered.
posted by Jorge on
That last line should read he has *made* it clear…
posted by Tom on
Debrah: “I don’t speak for all heterosexuals and a few gays cannot speak for ALL gays and divine what will transpire when DADT is repealed.”
First, Debrah, if you purport to speak for ANY gays, you need to clarify statements you’ve made strongly suggesting that you are a straight woman. (I will say this, though — if you are in fact a gay man and not a straight woman, you are one hell of a drag queen if the pictures on your website are pictures of you. A real diva, in fact. Kudos in that event.)
Second, though, and seriously: Nobody is going to have to “divine what will transpire when DADT is repealed” when it is time for Congress to consider repeal a year from now.
Instead, Congress, the military and the country will have a solid set of evidence from which to reason and draw conclusions when it is time to decide whether or not to repeal DADT and how to go about implementation. That is the genius of the military’s approach.
We already have a body of studies, dating back to 1957, reporting that gay and lesbian service members perform as well as straight service members in the military, serving with identical military honor, effectiveness and devotion to duty. As far as I know, that fact is not disputed by anyone who has seriously looked at the question.
We will have a study, commissioned from the RAND Corporation by the DOD, reporting the likely effects of DADT repeal on military readiness, military effectiveness, recruiting and retention, and making recommendations about implementation of DADT repeal. We do not know, yet, of course, what conclusions the new RAND study will reach or what recommendations the study will make. But I suspect, as you may too, that the new study is most likely to reflect the conclusions of the 1993 RAND study and a significant number of studies conducted concerning the long-term effects of implementation of open service in other countries — the conclusion that DADT repeal will not have a negative effect on military readiness, military effectiveness, recruiting and retention if implementation is handled in a sensible, measured and balanced way.
We will have a plan, prepared by the military and endorsed by the JCS, for implementing DADT repeal. If the plan is consistent with the level of quality typical of military planning at that level, the plan will be thorough, detailed, sensible and precise.
I will grant you that no study, necessarily based on past evidence, can claim to predict the future with 100% accuracy, and that even the best of plans are imperfect and need to be adjusted as the plan is implemented. But with sufficient information and intelligent planning, nobody is going to have to “divine“.
posted by Carl on
“It looks to most of us that a new page has turned because we have the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on our side for ending DADT, but McCain is showing how shallow that support is without clear professional agreement from the leadership as a whole.”
Wouldn’t the support of current military personnel mean more than those who are no longer in those roles and may not know how to implement these policies?
“Not very strongly at all. Mullen was careful to state his opinion was his personal opinion”
Aren’t those who sent the letters also giving their personal opinions?
Didn’t McCain also cite Colin Powell not endorsing DADT repeal as a reason not to go forward?
Powell has now endorsed a repeal.
If McCain continues to refuse to support the idea, then is he just moving the goalposts every time something happens which undercuts what he is saying?
posted by DragonScorpion on
Amicus:
Bingo! It only took you one guess.
I’m not sure what any of my comment had to do with being “independent” and “market economy” and the like. I simply find some of the homophobia here at the site, including the hypocrisy, manipulation, and torrent of false witness, unbelievable. I mean, at mainstream sites, I know who they’re trying to convince â the fence sitters. But here…? That seems akin to expecting to catch fish in a swimming pool.
posted by DragonScorpion on
~”As glad as I am to hear it, Mullen’s opinion is easy to dismiss.” ~ Jorge
Gee, Jorge, do you think Gen. Colin Powell’s opinion is easy to dismiss also?
Really, I don’t think John McCain has his pulse on the military as some like to imagine he does. Now I’m sure there are a lot of soldiers, especially men who will say when polled they don’t want a bunch of “queers” in their barracks. No doubt John McCain can come up with at least 1000 officers to support DADT. But I’m quite certain that if polled, most of those who have served alongside homosexuals don’t have a problem with them and wouldn’t have a problem with us serving openly.
Also, I don’t see anything “maverick” about claiming in 2006 on national TV that “the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, Senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to”, and then turn around and tell Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen that he’s “deeply disappointed” that they didn’t consult with Congress first…
posted by Tom on
DragonScorpian: “No doubt John McCain can come up with at least 1000 officers to support DADT. But I’m quite certain that if polled, most of those who have served alongside homosexuals don’t have a problem with them and wouldn’t have a problem with us serving openly.”
The thoughts of General John M. Shalikashvili, who was Chairman of the JCS from 1993 to 1997, on this issue:
News that the president would change the policy had inspired a group of retired flag officers to argue on this page this spring that service by openly gay individuals would harm morale, discipline, cohesion, recruitment and retention in the U.S. military [“Gays and the Military: A Bad Fit,” Washington Post Op-ed, April 15]. They wrote as part of a larger effort by more than 1,000 retired officers to keep the ban in place.
According to the generals and admirals, allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly would make parents less willing to allow their sons and daughters to enlist. The argument assumes that anti-gay sentiment is so fierce and widespread that moving to a policy of equal treatment would drive away thousands and could ultimately “break the All-Volunteer Force.” Not only is there no evidence to support these conclusions, but research shows conclusively that openly gay service members would not undermine military readiness.
Tradition is a critical military value, and the armed forces have a long-standing tradition of banning gay men and lesbians. Equally important military traditions, however, are learning and adapting — and my colleagues made claims as if no new knowledge has been acquired over past decades, during which time Israel and Britain joined more than 20 other nations to allow openly gay individuals to serve without overall problems. In Britain and Canada, polls had indicated that thousands would resign if gays were allowed to serve, but when the bans were lifted, almost no one left. The British Defense Ministry conducted several assessments of the policy change and called it a “solid achievement.” The flag officers neglected to acknowledge Britain’s experience, instead dismissing the relevance of nations such as “Denmark, the Netherlands and Canada.” While it is true that the U.S. armed forces are unique, it is important that we not marginalize the lessons learned in other countries — particularly those that often conduct joint operations with us.
But it is not just foreign militaries that show service by openly gay individuals works. The U.S. military itself has had successful experiences. Enforcement of the ban was suspended without problems during the Persian Gulf War, and there were no reports of angry departures. A majority of U.S. service members say they know or believe that someone in their unit is gay, according to a 2006 Zogby International poll, and most of those who know of openly gay peers report no detriment to morale or cohesion. A recent study co-authored by Laura Miller of Rand Corporation found no correlation between a unit’s readiness and whether known gays serve in it. And last year, four retired flag and general officers studied all available evidence and found that allowing gays to serve posed no risk to force readiness.
While the proper timing of repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” remains uncertain, it is evident to me that a policy change is inevitable. More than three-quarters of the public favors the change. Polls show that even a majority of Republicans support allowing openly gay people to serve. Within the military, the climate has changed dramatically since 1993. Conversations I’ve held with service members make clear that, while the military remains a traditional culture, that tradition no longer requires banning open service by gays. There will undoubtedly be some teething pains, but I have no doubt our leadership can handle it.
While I do not discount the sincerity of the “1,000”, and the authenticity of their concern, I think that it is important to evaluate their opinion in light of the evidence. As General Shalikashvili titled this article: “Gays in the Military: Let the Evidence Speak”.
posted by Debrah on
“First, Debrah, if you purport to speak for ANY gays, you need to clarify statements you’ve made strongly suggesting that you are a straight woman. (I will say this, though — if you are in fact a gay man and not a straight woman, you are one hell of a drag queen if the pictures on your website are pictures of you. A real diva, in fact. Kudos in that event.)”
*****************************************
Ha! You found me out, Tom.
Seriously, if I were a gay man, I might have an enormous challenge hiding the “bulge” in the black cat suits which are my uniform much of the time (Ex.- the photos taken last month around the holiday). LOL!!!
Along those lines, check out these two articles:
Gay men and the Diva phenomenon.
Or this interesting study.
I’m a bit nonplussed by your impression that I’ve attempted to “speak for gays” on anything. Like you and others, I simply give opinions as so many gays give theirs about the hetero world.
It’s very odd, actually, that many heterosexuals don’t really know much about the gay world….even as they purport to have so many “gay friends”.
As has often been illustrated, much of the dialogue is cut off pertaining to intimacy and sexual practices.
My quest was to open things up and discuss it.
Months ago, I commented here, initially, because the Jews were being used as an analogy for “discrimination” against gays.
I take enormous offense when race and ethnicity are used like this. It’s simply a Procrustean method utilized promiscuously because of the high drama attached to the history of race issues.
Much of the dialogue here has been informative and productive. Unlike most other gay blogs, the participants at IGF do, indeed, exhibit independent thought and ideas.
“We will have a plan, prepared by the military and endorsed by the JCS, for implementing DADT repeal. If the plan is consistent with the level of quality typical of military planning at that level, the plan will be thorough, detailed, sensible and precise.”
***********************************
You’re probably correct that DADT will eventually be repealed. Certainly looks that way.
And since this issue is and has been so utterly contentious, you are perhaps also correct that those who devise the new plan will do so with the precision of a surgeon.
posted by Bobby on
“Gee, Bobby, other than #3, you make him sound like he’s on the right side of things!”
—Well, he would be if he was a Democrat. Perhaps John should do an Arlen Spector, the GOP would be better off. You know, Rush Limbaugh warned us about him, he told us that when you see The New York Times endorsing a republican (before Obama won the democratic nomination) you have lots to fear. If you study the real history of the progressive movement, people like Roosevelt, Wilson, all the big government leftists types, you’ll see that McCain is not a real republican but an impostor.
“I was glad when he was swatting down the racists and xenophobes on the campaign trail, too. He lobbed plenty of criticism at Barack Obama, but he kept it on policy stuff and stayed away from the personal and the paranoid. Another one of those rare moments of integrity from the man.”
—Yes, and while the left was demonizing him and Sarah Palin, he ignore Jeremiah Wright, ignore all of Obama’s leftist associations, ignored the fact that Obama never wrote an article for the Harvard Law Review and fought a weak campaign. I would not call that integrity, Dragonfly, politics is a dirty business and if you’re not willing to play hardball and destroy your opponent, you shouldn’t be a politician.
“But I definitely think it’s rather obvious that several of his recent positions and how staunchly he supports them, is due to his looming primary challenge. This hardline and flip-flop on DADT is one of them.”
—Well, we can agree on that.
posted by Tom on
Debrah: “You’re probably correct that DADT will eventually be repealed. Certainly looks that way.”
It looks to me like the end is sight, but it is up to Congress. I think that the JCS strategy — figure out the likely effects of repeal and get a plan in place to sensibly implement repeal, if it comes — is the right way to go about it from a military perspective, and I think that the timing will take the debate in Congress out of the election year cycle, which is likely to reduce the political posturing at least a little.
Debrah: “And since this issue is and has been so utterly contentious, you are perhaps also correct that those who devise the new plan will do so with the precision of a surgeon.”
High quality, reality-based planning is the earmark of military planning at that level. I think that when the JCS is able to say, “We have evaluated the situation and we are satisfied that our planning will permit us to make the change without negatively affecting combat readiness, military effectiveness, recruitment or retention, and without significant disruption of our current operations,” the level of contentiousness might diminish enough for Congress to make a reasoned decision.
It seems to me that the question is rather open and shut, from a military standpoint.
DADT imposed significant costs on the military, both in terms of military culture and in terms of military readiness, effectiveness, recruitment and retention. DADT offered benefits to the military, as well.
In 1993, in the considered judgment of military leadership like General Powell, the benefits outweighed the costs. In the last two years, the military seems have been signaling that the equation has changed, and the costs now outweigh the benefits.
Obviously, as Admiral Mullen pointed out in his testimony, repealing the ban will have some short-term costs, as does any change in policy. However, if JCS planning can handle the short-term costs, then the sole question from a military perspective is whether DADT can be repealed without a significant and long-term negative effect on readiness, effectiveness, recruitment or readiness.
The answer to that question, it seems to me, can be predicted with a high degree of confidence, given careful study, and I believe it will be when the RAND Corporation study is made available to Congress.
My view is that the situation is so contentious because the question has become politicized, primarily by social conservatives, who understand the political implications of throwing the light of day on the fact gays and lesbians serve our country faithfully in relatively high numbers and can and will continue to do so when permitted to serve openly.
The American people have a high level of respect for the military, for the men and women in service, and for veterans. In the long run, the American people will not tolerate unequal treatment of Americans who put their lives on the line, regardless of sexual orientation.
As a result, DADT repeal may well be the beginning of the end for the kind of wedge politics that social conservatives deploy, using gays and lesbians as cannon fodder. And that is just too bad.
posted by Debrah on
Tom–
Read this one.
The points made are reasonable ones in my view.
To wit:
“…….itâs the integrity of the military as an institution that matters more than anything else. Its purpose is not to serve a progressive social agenda. While there are aggrieved gay former soldiers who want nothing more than to serve their country, the urgency of repealing ‘donât ask’ as a political matter is the symbolic victory it would give gay groups.”
posted by Clay on
There is no rational, policy-based argument in favor of a continued ban on gays in the military. Every concern and objection hurled at removing the ban has been met and overcome by every other NATO ally except Turkey. The British military is no worse off, and no one can seriously suggest that Israel’s capacity to defend itself has been harmed by gay integration. Some people need to become vastly better informed. The debate is a paper tiger, rooted in obsolete fear and in bigotry.
posted by Tom on
Debrah, quoting an NRO article: “… itâs the integrity of the military as an institution that matters more than anything else. Its purpose is not to serve a progressive social agenda. While there are aggrieved gay former soldiers who want nothing more than to serve their country, the urgency of repealing ‘donât ask’ as a political matter is the symbolic victory it would give gay groups.”
Exactly. It is the integrity of the military as an institution that matters more than anything else.
That is precisely the point that Admiral Mullen made in his statement to the Armed Services Committee: “My personal belief is that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would be the right thing to do. I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, it comes down to integrity â theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.”
You have been looking at this issue solely from a political perspective, treating it as if the case for DADT repeal was based on a “progressive social agenda” pushed by (as you put it in your comment in another thread) “so many little blowhards with a hard-on for ‘activism’ …”
It is a colorful turn of phrase, but you have it exactly backwards.
You need to stop looking at this solely through the prism of political agenda and look at it instead from the perspective of the military.
Whatever the benefits that DADT might have conferred on the military in 1993, at this time in 2010, fifteen years later, a time when the military Stars and Stripes publishes polls reporting that 75% of enlisted personnel have no objection to serving with gay and lesbian service members, and a time when a significant majority of enlisted service members — I believe the number is about two-thirds — polled respond that they know a gay or lesbian service member in their unit, DADT has become destructive.
DADT is destructive because it erodes the integrity of the military.
The military code of honor is simple: “A soldier will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.” Those simple words are the core and essence of the integrity of the military.
Now think about that of DADT, and you will, perhaps, appreciate the point that Admiral Mullen is making.
DADT erodes the integrity of the military by creating and, in a very real sense, forcing an environment in which lies, denial and cover up by a majority of service members, straight and gay alike, are necessary to maintain the fiction that DADT seeks to foster — the fiction that straight service members do not know that men and women that they serve with in their units are gay or lesbian.
Gay and lesbian service members, of course, are forced to lie, deny and cover up in order to comply with DADT. But so are the majority of straight service members, if the polling is correct and straights know that they are serving with gays and lesbians. And that destroys integrity, both at a personal level and at an institutional level.
Service members in combat units form bonds that you will never have the opportunity to experience. I don’t know that I can adequately explain them to you, but I can say this: The bonds are bonds of trust — trust that the others in your unit will come through for you.
When I served, the men I served with knew that I would get to them when they needed me without regard for my own safety. Those men trusted me to get to them when they were hit. In turn, I trusted them to put down fire and cover me when I needed cover. We depended on each other for our very lives.
As I remarked in another thread, I’ve stayed in touch with some of the members of my unit, and none was surprised when I came out to them. I said nothing about my orientation when I was in the service — I took care to hide it, in fact — but they knew. And they didn’t give a rat’s ass. What counted to them — the only thing that counted to them — was the I came through for them. And that is all that counted to me, that they would come through for me.
When I noted that “sexual orientation is not relevant to military service”, that is what I meant.
But trust and integrity are relevant to military service, as relevant today as they were when I served forty plus years ago.
And the culture of lies, denial and cover up that DADT creates in today’s military is destructive of military integrity.
The lies, denial and cover up may have served a useful purpose when I served years ago, a purpose that outweighed the cost to integrity.
The lies, denial and cover up may have even served a useful purpose in 1993 that outweighed the cost to integrity, although I doubt it, based on the findings and recommendations of the 1993 RAND study.
Today, in 2010, when almost all young people know and like someone who is gay or lesbian, and few men and women serving in the military give a rat’s ass about who is straight and who is gay or lesbian, I cannot believe that the lies, denial and cover up serve a purpose that outweighs the cost to integrity.
The military has been signaling for about two years that DADT is an albatross. You need to get your head unstuck â stand aside from your political prism for a bit â and start listening to them. Then you can make a judgment. But you cannot make a judgment unless you look at the question from a military perspective.
posted by Tom on
Whoops. Posted this time with proper URL coding.
Debrah, quoting an NRO article: “… itâs the integrity of the military as an institution that matters more than anything else. Its purpose is not to serve a progressive social agenda. While there are aggrieved gay former soldiers who want nothing more than to serve their country, the urgency of repealing ‘donât ask’ as a political matter is the symbolic victory it would give gay groups.”
Exactly. It is the integrity of the military as an institution that matters more than anything else.
That is precisely the point that Admiral Mullen made in his statement to the Armed Services Committee: “My personal belief is that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would be the right thing to do. I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, it comes down to integrity â theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.”
You have been looking at this issue solely from a political perspective, treating it as if the case for DADT repeal was based on a “progressive social agenda” pushed by (as you put it in your comment in another thread) “so many little blowhards with a hard-on for ‘activism’ …”
It is a colorful turn of phrase, but you have it exactly backwards.
You need to stop looking at this solely through the prism of political agenda and look at it instead from the perspective of the military.
Whatever the benefits that DADT might have conferred on the military in 1993, at this time in 2010, fifteen years later, a time when the military Stars and Stripes publishes polls reporting that 75% of enlisted personnel have no objection to serving with gay and lesbian service members, and a time when a significant majority of enlisted service members — I believe the number is about two-thirds — polled respond that they know a gay or lesbian service member in their unit, DADT has become destructive.
DADT is destructive because it erodes the integrity of the military.
The military code of honor is simple: “A soldier will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.” Those simple words are the core and essence of the integrity of the military.
Now think about that of DADT, and you will, perhaps, appreciate the point that Admiral Mullen is making.
DADT erodes the integrity of the military by creating and, in a very real sense, forcing an environment in which lies, denial and cover up by a majority of service members, straight and gay alike, are necessary to maintain the fiction that DADT seeks to foster — the fiction that straight service members do not know that men and women that they serve with in their units are gay or lesbian.
Gay and lesbian service members, of course, are forced to lie, deny and cover up in order to comply with DADT. But so are the majority of straight service members, if the polling is correct and straights know that they are serving with gays and lesbians. And that destroys integrity, both at a personal level and at an institutional level.
Service members in combat units form bonds that you will never have the opportunity to experience. I don’t know that I can adequately explain them to you, but I can say this: The bonds are bonds of trust — trust that the others in your unit will come through for you.
When I served, the men I served with knew that I would get to them when they needed me without regard for my own safety. Those men trusted me to get to them when they were hit. In turn, I trusted them to put down fire and cover me when I needed cover. We depended on each other for our very lives.
As I remarked in another thread, I’ve stayed in touch with some of the members of my unit, and none was surprised when I came out to them. I said nothing about my orientation when I was in the service — I took care to hide it, in fact — but they knew. And they didn’t give a rat’s ass. What counted to them — the only thing that counted to them — was the I came through for them. And that is all that counted to me, that they would come through for me.
When I noted that “sexual orientation is not relevant to military service”, that is what I meant.
But trust and integrity are relevant to military service, as relevant today as they were when I served forty plus years ago.
And the culture of lies, denial and cover up that DADT creates in today’s military is destructive of military integrity.
The lies, denial and cover up may have served a useful purpose when I served years ago, a purpose that outweighed the cost to integrity.
The lies, denial and cover up may have even served a useful purpose in 1993 that outweighed the cost to integrity, although I doubt it, based on the findings and recommendations of the 1993 RAND study.
Today, in 2010, when almost all young people know and like someone who is gay or lesbian, and few men and women serving in the military give a rat’s ass about who is straight and who is gay or lesbian, I cannot believe that the lies, denial and cover up serve a purpose that outweighs the cost to integrity.
The military has been signaling for about two years that DADT is an albatross. You need to get your head unstuck â stand aside from your political prism for a bit â and start listening to them. Then you can make a judgment. But you cannot make a judgment unless you look at the question from a military perspective.
posted by Jorge on
Wouldn’t the support of current military personnel mean more than those who are no longer in those roles and may not know how to implement these policies?
Absolutely.
I think it can be argued with some justification that whether such support exists is still an open question. McCain is arguing that the Pentagon’s announcement of a study that will look at the impact of ending DADT when (not if) it is ended prejudges the outcome.
Aren’t those who sent the letters also giving their personal opinions?
No.
They are giving their professional opinions as former military professionals that ending DA/DT would harm unit morale and cohesion.
Mullen is giving his personal opinion that it is the right thing to do. Although that statement that it’s about integrity is a very nice touch and makes it a moral values thing.
Gee, Jorge, do you think Gen. Colin Powell’s opinion is easy to dismiss also?
I don’t know. I haven’t read his remarks on the issue. Or McCain’s about Powell.
I think it’s a shame that Powell couldn’t bring himself to back a repeal while he was still in uniform, because now that he’s retired he can’t speak from any experience or professional knowledge.
posted by Tom on
Debrah: “It’s very odd, actually, that many heterosexuals don’t really know much about the gay world … even as they purport to have so many “gay friends”. As has often been illustrated, much of the dialogue is cut off pertaining to intimacy and sexual practices.”
I’ve never noticed that my friends, straight or gay, have any interest in what my partner and I do in bed. The lack of interest is mutual. I have close friends of 20-30 years standing and know little about their sexual practices.
Maybe its a Midwestern thing.
How do your friends respond when you regale them with tales about your sex life? If they are transfixed by the details, your sex life is a lot more interesting than mine.
posted by Tom on
Jorge: “They are giving their professional opinions as former military professionals that ending DA/DT would harm unit morale and cohesion. Mullen is giving his personal opinion that it is the right thing to do. Although that statement that it’s about integrity is a very nice touch and makes it a moral values thing.”
Well, giving professional opinions about the effect of DADT repeal on morale and unit cohesion without having current data on which to base that professional opinion sounds like a case of “fools rush in” to me. Or maybe “talking through your hat”. In any event, it seems misplaced and premature.
I think we need current data, and I’m glad to see that the JCS is insisting on getting it before putting the decision to Congress. As Admiral Mullen put it, commenting on the state of current data: “There is very little objective data on this. It is filled as you know with emotion and strongly held opinions and beliefs,â Mullen said a day after announcing his own opposition to the ban as unfair to gay troops. Thatâs the work we have to do over the course of this year. We need to understand that in terms of what the senior military leadershipâs principal concern is, which is the readiness and military effectiveness of the force.â
posted by Debrah on
“Maybe its a Midwestern thing.”
********************************
Or the fact that you are a no-nonsense military man.
Not everyone has your cool, Tom.
That’s all some gays want to talk about. Sometimes it’s a productive discussion, sometimes not.
I didn’t mean that people should necessarily discuss the blow by blow details of their individual lives.
Just a general discussion of sexual practices….which has been done here on occasion.
At first, I was quite tepid in my remarks until I was met with dirty misogyny from one or two pseudonymous freaks.
It was so typical of remarks I had previously read on other gay blogs.
The way some gay men talk about women is quite astonishing as well as revealing of the many dark layers of their own personal psychological angst.
After all, if not for their mothers, who, presumably, are straight women, how would these “men” even be here?
If this kind of dialogue comes from them, then gay men can certainly take discussion of the most basic elements of truth as to why many people do not place a premium on “gay sex”.
And no, I don’t “regale” others with details of my excursions under the silky veils of ardor; however, I certainly do not see anything wrong with discussing sexual practices, in general.
Perplexing that gay men partake and subscribe to so much gay porn, “man” websites, or anything that provides the rawest segue into it……but might bristle when others bring up that on which they seem to thrive.
It doesn’t phase me at all when heterosexuality is discussed—on any level—simply because I don’t place my identity with any “group” or purport to “represent” them.
This particular topic is the sotto voce, almost-never-discussed-elephant-in-the-room which informs the decisions made and the impressions harbored by society, in general.
posted by Tom on
Debrah: “… under the silky veils of ardor …
Good lord, Debrah. Do you read romance novels, or what?
posted by Debrah on
” Do you read romance novels……?”
*************************************
No. This kind of embroidery comes naturally.
Just as I get turned on by dirty talk from a hot intellectual with a great voice.
LOL!
(File this under ‘another one containing more info than you asked for’.)
:>)
posted by Bobby on
“The way some gay men talk about women is quite astonishing as well as revealing of the many dark layers of their own personal psychological angst.”
—You know, sexism and misogyny has little to do with sexual orientation. Stereotypically speaking, in the gay community we seem to love outlandish women, or glamorous women with problems like Bette Midler, Joan Rivers, Judy Garland, Liza Minnelli, etc.
At the same time we live in a culture dominated by women. Every song in the radio seems to be about “I love her,” “I need her,” “she’s my everything,” sometimes it drives you crazy. Mr. America exists but you’re never going to find it in your TV. Then you have straight women who say that women are more beautiful than men. So I think men who love men and sometimes even straight men resent a culture that puts them down while women are put on a pedestal.
Here’s an example of “The war against boys” in academia.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200005/war-against-boys
posted by Jorge on
I happen to like Bette Midler, but it’s mostly because she’s fat. That big broad complex.
On the other hand, I liked Lily Tomlin, too.
posted by bette on
jorge writes: “I happen to like Bette Midler, but it’s mostly because she’s fat. That big broad complex.
On the other hand, I liked Lily Tomlin, too.”
liked??? please don’t stop liking lily. she’s not dead yet. and she’s still pretty cool. but she’s no big broad … like some of us.
posted by Debrah on
Yes, Bobby, I’ve read that one long ago and there are many excellent points, especially when the issues are those of the education system and the academy.
You’ll also find this one provocative from Stuart Taylor at National Journal.
So true that misogyny galore exists among all men in some quarters; however, I can handle heterosexual men very easily on this.
With gay men who behave this way, there’s an added “ugh” factor because their sensibilities are often expressed in feminine “bitchy” ways as some hetero women.
Of course, we are not talking across-the-board; however, one must admit that the obnoxious ones are most often those who are the “activists” and who are promoted in the media.
posted by trailrunnr on
Deborah: there are powerful people who want me in jail literally for no reason. I get a little upset about it. I hope “activists” (your dismissive quotes) keep at it.
posted by Bobby on
“With gay men who behave this way, there’s an added “ugh” factor because their sensibilities are often expressed in feminine “bitchy” ways as some hetero women.”
—True, but straight women often have an “ugh” factor when it comes to same-sex male sexuality. While straight men love lesbians scenes, most females don’t want to see two guys kissing. So I think both groups are equally responsible for their mutual intolerance.
posted by Craig2 on
How quaint. Their counterparts wouldn’t get away with that one in any other mainstream western liberal democratic nation…they’d be laughed out of court…
However, thanks for sharing this. The US Christian Right does have its satellites elsewhere in the world, New Zealand included, unfortunately.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Debrah on
“…..most females don’t want to see two guys kissing.”
*****************************************
This is such a loaded topic.
As I think about it, Bobby, you’re probably right. And I believe this feeling exists among many heterosexuals—even those who are proponents of SSM.
I would even venture to say that this feeling exists among some family members of gays, whether or not they would ever admit it.
Fundamentally, why would anyone care about the sex lives of other people?
Except……except…….this topic is, necessarily, front and center of the gay agenda. Consequently, discussion of sex seems to be integral. And most gays certainly bring the issue to the foreground.
On another thread, commenter “CPT_Doom” offered this analysis:
“Gay men are seen as perverted in large part because we ‘demean’ ourselves by taking on the female role……”
“…..gender identity is inextribly linked to sexual orientation and must be included in our fight for equality.”
*************************************
This is significant.
All my life, I’ve been surrounded by gays so it was never a cataclysmic revelation to discover that someone happens to be gay. In the arts, especially music and drama, there’s an abundance.
Artistic gay men have always been drawn to me and have been great “buddies”. It’s so wild to think about these issues now on a whole different plane.
You and “CPT_Doom” have hit on something very important.
“Gayness”, IMO, doesn’t really bother most people and it certainly never bothered me; however, perhaps that’s because I always knew up front that my friends and acquaintances were gay.
I didn’t concern myself with their sex lives, nor they, mine.
But here’s the clincher: When you come to admire someone and think of them as just a regular guy, automatically, in the heterosexual sense…….
…….only to discover later that they are gay, it’s a feeling of “Oh G/d, no.”
You can’t and don’t want to imagine someone whom you respect and admire for their work, or for what they’ve meant to you in some way, being a gay man and engaging in “that kind of sex” with another man.
You don’t want it to be, but it changes the way you look at them….at least, initially.
I believe this is a real issue for most heterosexuals.
You think to yourself….”How can this man whom I so adore and admire enjoy ‘doing that’ ?”
Sex between women is not met with the same “ugh” factor, IMO.
Anal sex between men takes away some of the “man”. It can be a psychological downer in some way, especially when you hold someone in high regard.
As I said, this topic is loaded. Most will avoid it like the plague.
posted by Bobby on
“I would even venture to say that this feeling exists among some family members of gays, whether or not they would ever admit it.”
—Well, to be perfectly hones, I’m not always comfortable with gay displays of affection unless it occurs on a porn movie or a gay bar. Part of it is the homophobia people grow up with, which is hard to let go even if you’re gay.
Yet the solution isn’t to hide same-sex male sexuality but to put it out there just like heterosexuals broadcast their sexuality.
Yesterday for example, I saw an advertisement for Valentine’s Day featuring dozens of straight couples from the movies french kissing in different settings. Yet when Adam Lambert did his little dog and pony show, all hell broke lose.
Either way, the more gays come out of the closet and kiss in public, the more straights will get used to it.
posted by Will J on
Didn’t Hitler try this?
Interesting to see where they are getting their playbook.
posted by Tom on
Debrah: “But here’s the clincher: When you come to admire someone and think of them as just a regular guy, automatically, in the heterosexual sense … only to discover later that they are gay, it’s a feeling of “Oh G/d, no.” You can’t and don’t want to imagine someone whom you respect and admire for their work, or for what they’ve meant to you in some way, being a gay man and engaging in “that kind of sex” with another man. You don’t want it to be, but it changes the way you look at them … at least, initially. I believe this is a real issue for most heterosexuals.”
Well, sure, Debrah. It is a real issue for heterosexuals.
But understand that it is heterosexual problem, born and bred by the biases our culture embeds in us, not a gay problem.
And, as you point out, it is a problem only initially for most heterosexuals. Heterosexuals who are shocked to find out that a man they know and respect is gay, typically are forced to confront their prejudices and get over it.
The core of the problem is that our culture teaches us to think that anyone who is “just a regular guy” must be heterosexual, because gay men are different — flamboyant, self-absorbed, effeminate, and so on, all the cultural stereotypes your comments on this forum display. I don’t blame heterosexuals for having a “real issue”, because they are reflecting the attitudes that they are taught to believe. But I do believe that heterosexuals should get over it.
And that does happen.
It is also happening on a wider level, on a cultural level. Studies show that younger heterosexuals don’t think that finding out that a friend is gay is a “real issue” nearly as much as do heterosexuals of your, uh, age, and older.
The key to helping heterosexuals get over it, I think, as others have remarked, is for gay men to live openly, outside the closet. However much heterosexuals may have a “real issue” initially, it is hard to maintain a prejudice in the face of knowledge and familiarity.
posted by Debrah on
Ho-hum.
Well Tom, even as you stay true to your signature calm and collected brand of commentary, your underlying animosity is palpable.
A presentation of imposture with the same over-used and largely erroneous assumptions.
I’d also like to drop the word “initially” which I used previously because it provides an out for this topic.
I should hone in on the actual point being made—one that is fundamental and will never go away, even as many persist in showering feathery chimeras on those who are now in their teens and twenties.
Over the last few months, I’ve made an effort to talk with innumerable people about these issues….from all walks of life and all ages. That’s what I do when culture wars emerge. That’s what we all should do before making blanket assumptions.
The American clerisy in general prompts questions more basic.
Can you say Massachusetts?
“It is a real issue for heterosexuals.”
***************************************
Not really. Nothing monumental, except the offering of an opinion here and there on occasion.
As I have said many times, I wouldn’t work against SSM, nor do I know anyone who would. My circle of friends is quite liberal; however, as with society at large, many feel the way I do regarding the idea of two men “marrying”…….virtually twisting the definition into a pretzel. But they would also probably vote in favor of SSM just to put this superfluous sh!t to bed.
Those in their teens and twenties are like all of us were at that stage of development. Most will vote “yes” on anything that is presented to them as “progressive” and “the thing to do”.
At that stage, I was extremely liberal because like most, I did not question anything “new and progressive” or employ critical thinking beyond what a “good little ‘cosmopolitan’ liberal” was supposed to do.
Besides, when your existence is the ephemeral world of the arts, there is no need to be concerned with consequences or the down side of an issue. The day-to-day boring lives of the “average people” aren’t important to you.
It’s exponentially easier to say “Yes” to everything. There are fewer consequences in that orbit.
I will make a prediction that when the now-teenage and early twenties demographic gets out into the world—if, indeed, they ever become productive, gainfully-employed citizens—they will become much more circumspect regarding issues they enthusiastically embrace at the moment.
Curious that you and others feel no need to be circumspect or critical of the behaviors—overt, flamboyant, and often dangerous—that engender some of the reactions from society.
Everyone else is supposed to “get over it”.
Tom, I’m perhaps the last person whom you need to enlighten on these matters; however, if it makes you feel better to leave a whiff of condescension, so be it.
The sentiments I offered above pertain only to someone with whom I might have direct association. Otherwise, I don’t waste my time being shocked about which side of the sexual veranda someone swings.
Again, we can pretend that there will be a fundamental sweeping change; however, I believe this is a false assumption.
People won’t really give a damn if this issue doesn’t affect them personally…….just as has always been my position.
But never underestimate the private visceral reactions and opinions that most people have—but will continue to keep to themselves—regarding the intersection of gender and sexual orientation.
posted by Tom on
Debrah: “A presentation of imposture with the same over-used and largely erroneous assumptions.”
I may be an imposter, as you seem to believe, and you may be a ‘sock puppet’, as DragonScorpian suggested in another thread, ND30 posing as an impressionistic “glam” queen, delighting in putting one over on us all. I have no way of knowing anything about you, and you have no way of knowing anything about me.
That, for better or worse, is the nature of Internet forums. Most of us choose not to identify ourselves with additional information to permit others to independently verify who we are, and that, I suppose, leads to questions. We have no way of knowing.
But it is also irrelevant. What counts is the quality of the arguments we are each making, and the evidence supporting the arguments.
I believe that almost everything I’ve said about DADT, except for a few personal observations, is supported by serious studies that reach the conclusions I’ve reached, or by logical arguments drawing upon substantial evidence as the foundation. It is also the case, I believe, in discussions on other topics. The arguments I’ve been making speak for themselves, and stand or fall on their own strength, or lack of it.
So it is up to you, it would seem to me, to identify any “erroneous assumptions” in the case I’ve tried to make, and challenge the “erroneous assumptions” with some counter evidence, or at least some logical counterargument.
I would like that, because it would give us the chance to engage each other on the basis of reason rather than unsupported assertions.
I would like to see you put forth serious and supported arguments in favor of the positions you take in this forum. Then, it seems to me, we could all have a more serious discussion.
Debrah: “I’d also like to drop the word “initially” which I used previously because it provides an out for this topic.”
It may provide an out, but it also, it seems to me, describes a fact. Innumerable studies have looked at the question of whether or not people’s biases are affected by actual contact and familiarity with people who are the object of the bias, and have concluded that biases tend to be lessened by contact and familiarity.
People do, in fact, move beyond bias when confronted with the reality of dealing with human beings they know and respect. So fell free to drop “initially” if you wish, but I think you are dropping an important qualifier.
Debrah: “Tom, I’m perhaps the last person whom you need to enlighten on these matters; however, if it makes you feel better to leave a whiff of condescension, so be it. The sentiments I offered above pertain only to someone with whom I might have direct association. Otherwise, I don’t waste my time being shocked about which side of the sexual veranda someone swings. Again, we can pretend that there will be a fundamental sweeping change; however, I believe this is a false assumption. People won’t really give a damn if this issue doesn’t affect them personally…….just as has always been my position. But never underestimate the private visceral reactions and opinions that most people have—but will continue to keep to themselves — regarding the intersection of gender and sexual orientation.”
Private visceral reactions surrounding gender and sexual orientation are real enough, as are private and visceral reactions to ethnicity, appearance, dress, manner of speech and a lot of other things. Real, but suspect and often wrong.
Many, perhaps most, of us, on reflection, understand that however visceral the reactions may be, they are born of our cultural biases, both in a micro-cultural and macro-cultural context, and that it is up to us to work our way through them.
I have to do that with my prejudices, and so does everyone else who wants to work and live around people who are different from us in any material way. I suspect, most of us do that, sooner or later, with differing degrees of success, with the individuals we know and with whom we are in frequent contact.
I have certainly had that experience.
I grew up in a small, rural community, a community in which I live once again as a retired, older man. I’m related by blood or marriage to a majority of the families that have lived in this community for two or three generations. Growing up, I knew almost no one who was not more or less like me, although minor differences — what church you attended, whether you lived in town or on a farm, and so on — tended to be thought of as important. Maybe they were, too, then, although I think they are less important today.
When I moved out into the larger world — the military, then college and law school, and finally practice in a large, national law firm that took me all over the country — I had to expand my horizons and get used to a lot of people who weren’t like me. I was exposed to people of different races, ethnicities, education, attitudes and mannerisms, and often had to examine and overcome the biases bred into me. It wasn’t just the obvious stuff — like learning to live and work with African-Americans and Jews, or accepting women as equals in the workplace — but often biases that were much more subtle. It took me a long time to get used to New Yorkers, and people from the coasts in general.
I know — my partner’s and my kids remind me often enough that I’m a “hick” and challenge my biases from time to time — that I am still holding on to many of the biases of the rural Midwest, almost unconsciously. I know this, and I have to catch myself and think a bit when I start dismissing other folks, as I did by belittling this forum for being absorbed by the “Washington bubble”. David Link caught me up on that, and he was right.
So I made a journey, albeit an incomplete journey. I assume you have, too.
Debrah: “Again, we can pretend that there will be a fundamental sweeping change; however, I believe this is a false assumption.”
I think that there has been relatively steady, incremental change in people’s attitudes. I think that the change is measurable, and I think that it has been consistent, with ups and downs as the culture wars have ebbed and flowed. I’m not sure what you mean by “fundamental sweeping change“, but over time incremental changes add up.
I’ve seen it in my adult lifetime. When I came of age in 1968, public knowledge about and attitudes toward gays were significantly different than they now are. The cultural environment has shifted materially. So has the legal environment. So has the political environment. We live in a different culture than the culture that held sway when I grew up.
I believe that people’s personal experience with gays and lesbians has been a major driver in that cultural shift. Studies support that belief, overwhelmingly, so I’m not just talking through my hat.
When I think about the next ten or twenty years, I make the assumption that increased contact and familiarity will move the process of acceptance forward. It may be a false assumption, but it is a logical assumption, based on evidence from the last 40-odd years.
Debrah: “Curious that you and others feel no need to be circumspect or critical of the behaviors — overt, flamboyant, and often dangerous — that engender some of the reactions from society.”
I am by nature circumspect about my private behavior, and it goes against my nature to criticize other people about their private behavior. I don’t walk down the street looking for opportunities to tell young couples, straight or gay, “get a room”, although I sometimes wish they would.
I prefer to encourage responsible behavior rather than crusade against behavior that I think is irresponsible. I encourage gay men to practice safe, responsible sex. I encouraged my partner’s and my children to avoid casual sex, because I think that sex without love and commitment is hollow and demeaning. And so on.
And sure, I think that Elton John, Adam Lambert and Perez Hilton (along with way too many other people, both straight and gay) spend too much time and money on “fashion” and usually end up looking like clowns as a result (overdressed, dressed in age-inappropriate ways, and so on), but I don’t think that it is my business to criticize those who think that “fashion” is important and dress or act flamboyantly.
I’m rural and I’m Midwestern to the bone. I keep my private life private, and I let others live their own lives according to their own lights, for the most part.
You seem to have a hard time with that. So be it. I’m too old to nip it in the bud.
I draw the line when people want to use the government and the law to restrict private behavior unless our society has a clear and compelling interest at stake. I personally believe, for example, that remarriage after divorce is almost always adultery, pure and simple, gravely sinful and destructive. But I do not want to change our law to prohibit it, because I believe that personal morality is not the government’s business, per se. It is the same with abortion. I strongly believe that it is almost always wrong to abort. But I believe even more strongly that the decision should not be the government’s, but instead the decision of the man and woman involved, their doctor and their God.
Debrah: “Everyone else is supposed to ‘get over it’.”
I think that we have an moral obligation to move beyond our prejudices, whatever they may be, to the point where we can treat every other person we encounter as “created in the image of God”, that is to say, to allow them the freedom of conscience, action and belief that we reserve for ourselves.
What strikes me is that you say, again and again, that a significant number of heterosexuals form their opinions about gay men based on the excesses of gay men like Elton John, Adam Lambert and Perez Hilton, mixed in with an “ugh” reaction to gay men kissing or having sex of whatever kind the heterosexuals find most revolting, but you never challenge the legitimacy of homosexuals failing to move beyond that prejudice.
It would seem to me that generalizing from a few unsavory examples to beliefs about a group of people broader than the examples is a logical fallacy. But in my view, you persist, doing it again and again. If my objecting is perceived as animus against you personally, I can only say that I have no feelings one way or another about you personally, but I do have a strong, and negative, reaction to your practice of doing so.
Let me put this bluntly: Do you believe that men can legitimately base their opinion of serious, intelligent, hard-working business and professional women based on the antics of bubble heads like Carrie Prejean and Britney Spears? If not, do you believe that challenging them to think more logically is wrong?
I don’t.
posted by Debrah on
“I may be an imposter, as you seem to believe….”
*************************************
No, Tom. I certainly do not believe that you are an “imposter”
When I said “a presentation of imposture”, I meant that some of your arguments are philosophically an imposture…..simply because you choose not to understand that so much of the newfound “acceptance” of SSM is born not of a lack of so-called “prejudice”, but of the overriding need and desire to be seen as progressive by observers.
I won’t repeat those issues at this moment. “Throbert” and I often cover some of them in our exchanges.
As you say, none of us knows—or cares, really!—anything about the lives of fora participants unless there is a genuine desire to get to know someone.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion; however, I can assure you that ND30 and I are not connected in any way. An hilarious idea, really.
He, no doubt, will also quickly assure you of that.
I concur that who any of us are on these fora is basically irrelevant. The myriad experiences and opinions brought to discussions often produce riveting exchanges.
I think that you, Throbert, ND30, Lori, and Bobby have been the most enlightening.
Each of you in your own way represents a heightened intellectual autonomy which is a positive feature coming from the “gay community” that is most often shown as solely Far Left by the media.
“It took me a long time to get used to New Yorkers, and people from the coasts in general.”
****************************************
LOL!!! Funny that you admit that.
However, even those who visit the States from around the globe seem to give poor New York a bad rap.
I was hailing a taxi in San Juan a few years ago and the driver assumed I was another clueless American whom he could fleece. I speak Spanish well enough to get around—much to his dismay—and I explained to him that his taxi fare was triple what it should be. After quibbling a while, he came down to a fare that was reasonable.
His comment was that I must be some wife of a New York lawyer with my “attitude”.
Imagine….with that stereotype he insulted every New Yorker, every woman with a few brains, and everyone in your profession.
Poor New York City.
You and I come to this exchange almost total opposites. I’ve lived what one might call a “liberal” lifestyle. My own parents didn’t place restrictions on which elements of the cultural fabric I could or could not embrace. Consequently, in may respects it’s been necessary for me to sculpt various aspects of life’s tableau. I’m less liberal now than the way I grew up.
Those who’ve been a significant part of my life would make up a mini-United Nations. Back in the 1990’s some of us would meet for all-night dancing at Club Desiree in the tri-level of Georgetown’s Four Seasons (which has since been turned into a spa).
I am reminded of our genuine raillery around tables of Israelis, Jordanians, even Palestinians on those evenings. Of course, this was pre-9/11.
I wouldn’t use the word “prejudice” to describe those who are not in favor of SSM. DADT might be another matter, however.
The only true “prejudice” that I have in life is against messy people. I’m compulsive about neatness and probably should have married Jerry Seinfeld. LOL!
You ask so many questions in that post of yours. I’m too sleepy to dissect it entirely; however, there will be many more occasions to delve into those issues.
Let me say that I really don’t have trouble with Elton John or Adam Lambert. Both have talent, are creative, and fundamentally offer something of value. Perez Hilton, IMO doesn’t. The world doesn’t need more encysted dry rot.
“Let me put this bluntly: Do you believe that men can legitimately base their opinion of serious, intelligent, hard-working business and professional women based on the antics of bubble heads like Carrie Prejean and Britney Spears? If not, do you believe that challenging them to think more logically is wrong?”
*************************************
No…..and no.
posted by Mark Gilmartin on
serveopen.com/serveopenly.com 17 OL female from ky ready to take on the military gay right policies, dads a retired 1SG, should be interesting.