I am sorry I missed that interview, Diamond. It would have been very interesting to hear both the former soldier and O’Reilly’s positions (which may be the same, I don’t know). I like his statement that it is not a Gay Rights issue, but a Military Proficiency one.
I don’t think it’s a hijack stinkpalm. I think it is the real OP, covered with a gossamer-thin veil.
Notwithstanding the thread Ace of Swords linked to, I’m with SPOOFE on this. I came to this thread (with JerseyDiamond and homosexuals in the same sentence) and felt my indignation level rising even as the thread loaded, only to find what seemed a perfectly reasonable argument. Maybe I’m a sub-standard poster in that I don’t weight up the possible ramifications of every single word that I right in a post, but FWIW I for one am willing to give Jersey and the
comment the benefit of the doubt on this one.
I’ll also back up SPOOFE on this. I think hh is an ass for his hijack.
I’m kind of getting tired of hearing this. Do you have a cite for this “one day late” claim? Also, it’s nice you consider the military responsible for a civilian policy. I admit the vast majority of military people would love to weed out homosexuals, but from what I understand, President Clinton implemented the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The fact is that most of these linguists admitted to being gay knowing the consequences of doing so.. The second two got caught, from what I understand, in bed on base. Again, they knew full well how dangerous their behavior was to their continued employment as soldiers. The fact is, all these guys broke a long-established, well-knonw rule. Yes, we need linguists, but we don’t need rule-breaking linguists.
This is your military. Like it or hate it. It ain’t perfect, and if you’re pissed off about this policy, elect a president who’ll change it. Until then, stop slinging arrows at us start whining to your elected representative.
They did. He backed up on it.
No, genius, the point of the thread is that she was impressed with the grace and integrity with which the man in question handled his dismissal, chalking it up to “Well, rules are rules, and I broke them knowing the consequences,” (paraphrased) and basically accepted his punishment with dignity.
Most people, myself included, would have fought to keep their position, and would not have handled it with such grace.
For the record, Jerseydiamond favors gays serving in the military, and is upset that the military is discriminating against this soldier. Get your facts before you shoot off your mouth, huh?
I saw the interview and JerseyDiamond is right: The man was extremely gracious and kind-hearted about the whole matter. Not to mention “dedicated, hard working, and honest.”
But still…what a stupid thing to say about gay people seeming bitter. It’s a shame you couldn’t make the point without sticking your foot in it.
Perhaps gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military. I don’t know. But it’s a bit difficult to listen to any argument when it contains even a seed of prejudice.
Asking some questions:
Why do some people think gays in the military is a bad thing?
There are probably gays in it right now, but nobodys knows, and yet the military keeps humming along.(pun not intended)
So why not allow them in and just have no sex allowed on base(or wherever) hmosexual OR heterosexual?
Does this refer to gay men only, or women too?
It’s not how well the bear waltzes but that it waltzes at all.
I’m gratified to see people judging the OP on the merits rather than through some lens of history.
And I’ve always thought ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ was the moral equivalent of the Missouri Compromise. It’s the sort of policy designed to get the people on the spot (the Clinton Administration, in this case) off the spot without actually making any real change in policy. Anything to avoid a fight on the issue.
Sooner or later the military will have to open the ranks to openly gay soldiers. It’s coming, and no amount of foot-dragging will stop it.
I, for one, appreciate the sentiment. Empathy is a good first step to bridge the gap between us.
I guess the biggest issue that I have with this is, quite simply, all members of the military, upon entry, are oath sworn to live by the UCMJ. If a member of the military chooses to deny his or her sworn oath, I have no problem whatsoever with discharging that same soldier, sailor, or airman due to a lack of discipline.
Flyboy88: The day late translation was all over the place. In the NY Times, Time magazine. Hell it even made it to USA Today.
http://198.65.138.161/org/news/2002/020620-nsa1.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/attack/2002/06/19/intelligence-usat.htm
If you search for it in GD, you’ll find those threads contain the discussions of President Clinton’s don’t ask don’t tell compromise, which was still a step up from the I’ll ask you and you’ll damn well tell me plan under President Bush I.
Back to the ramifications: Alstair was very clear that two men on base in bed was treated entirely differently then one woman and one men caught together, so let’s not term it a fair, sound application of the rules, because it wasn’t.
“Probably”, heh heh. 
There are most definitely hundreds, and probably thousands of gay and lesbian people serving in the military who would be discharged if their orientations came to light.
I am not a military person, but I believe that there are rules of conduct that technically apply to both homo and hetero people, but are only enforced in homo cases. Constitution, Schmonstitution.
I don’t think this thread is about whether or not gays should be in the military, its about this guys demeanor on the Oreily Factor.
Most people on this board, including myself (a 6 year vet) think gays should be allowed in the military. But I think soldiers following the UCMJ and following orders the way the branch tells them to is the most important thing.
People need to seperate the 2 issues. Just because someone says that they can see why he got kicked out, and agree with it, as I do, doesn’t automatically mean that they think gays shouldn’t be in the military, it means, as in my case, that soldiers following the rules is more important than civil rights. If they don’t like it then don’t go in if you know you are gonna break the rules. Civilians can change the rules of the military, but until they change them the soldiers must follow them. They can’t just pick and choose which ones they will follow and which ones they won’t. They don’t have the luxurt.
That is one of the things that makes them soldiers and not civilians. They can’t just quit thier job because they don’t agree with the rules. ANYONE going in the military know before hand that gays are not allowed, so why subject yourself to it?
For the record, since I know people like to read into things just to stir shit up (homophobe hunters that means you) I think gays should be allowed to be in the military with no strings attached.
And vanilla, have you seen this thread, where certain people employ specious reasoning to justify the ban on gays and lesbians in the military?
Homosexuality is grounds for dismissal right now, be it right or wrong. Heterosexual sex is not grounds for dismissal, nor is being caught in your rack with a member of the opposite sex. They are treated differently because they ARE different. It is a sound application of the rules. Whether or not the rule is fair is another issue altogether.
And vanilla, yes lesbians are also against the rule, but pursued less vigorously, in my experience.
Huh? So what if it is a rule? If Bush accidentally invades Canada and declares their population to be enemy combatants, will you start shooting them?
Jersey, I too want to commend you for a decent and thoughtful OP. I dislike the policy in question, because I think that, with some careful structuring of programs, people can serve effectively in the military regardless of what their sex, sexual orientation, gender identification, race, creed, color, national origin, or previous state of servitude happens to be. And there is quite a bit of evidence from very effective armed forces in other countries that this can indeed be done.
O’Reilly’s stance is one that interests me greatly – predominantly a conservative, he has sufficient libertarian in him to allow people to be who they want to be without judging them, has become a strong supporter of some gay rights, and seems perfectly positioned to be the kind of “translator” between the opposing camps here.
I would like to raise the question, if you feel willing to answer, as to why you would suppose most gay people seem bitter. I think, if prejudgments can be kept out of the way, that the dialogue that could result on that subject might be educational to all concerned. I can easily understand why you’d shy away from answering that question, but if you are willing to do so, you have my appreciation and support in essaying an answer. And whether or not, I think that your OP was nobly done, and I respect you for it.
A-hem, the crap talking thread is over here.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=148973
No probablys about it.
In all of my years working with disabled veterans, I can personally verify that there have been more than a few gays in the military from WWII to now.
I have never seen any military records or any other documentation that show differences between the military performance of a gay soldier and that of a straight soldier - ever.
I also gotta give mad props to JerseyDiamond for her support of the gay Arabic translator. The “bitter gays” comment doesn’t faze me because, we do (or did) have some bitter gay people posting. JD was making a positive, pro-gay statement and she should be commended, not pilloried by the Parsing the Syntax Patrol. Well done, JD.
Gobear (not bitter, but more lemon fresh)