I do think that the reasons JD perceives gays to be bitter are not completely incomprehensible.
We all tend to oversimplify, of course–it’s in our nature to group and generalize.
That tendency, coupled with the fact that her most direct exposure to open gays has come (I believe) online (an exaggerated medium anyway) and in response to her Biblically-based opposition to homosexuality . . . well, I can sort of understand why she might choose to see all gays as bitter, in a way.
It’s not much different from an arch-neocon saying that all Democrats are liberals and all liberals are socialists, or a kneejerk lefty claiming that Republicans all hate the poor.
I don’t agree with it, but I can understand it, in a Bizarro-world way.
Part of the reason that gays on this board might be perceived as bitter is that the bitter ones are more likely to be vocal about gay issues, and more identifiable as gay. There are many gays on this board who are not as impassioned about these matters, but a lot of people probably don’t realize that they are gay altogether - I know I’ve been surprised a couple of times myself.
During the 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton promised to drop the DoD regulations requiring the separation of homosexual personnel. When he got into office, conservatives in both parties (burn in Hell, Sam Nunn) played the “we can’t let our boys shower with homosexuals on submarines” and attempted to codify the regulations into law. After caving to the bigots, CLinton signed into law the “compromise” provision known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” BTW, the third part of that, which the military seems to forget about, is “Don’t Pursue.”
Personally, I am opposed to anyone’s serving in the military anywhere, any time. But the discharge of these linguists at a time when we can’t open a newspaper without reading of the latest threat from Arabic-speaking people points up the complete and utter lunacy of this policy. I submit that should one give “the vast majority” of military personnel the choice between being killed in a fiery explosion triggered by Arabic-speaking terrorists and having a homosexual see their genitals in the shower, they would one and all choose to show the queers their goods.
Maybe you should read the thread more carefully. I don’t think there was a single person posting in it that thought gays should be kept out of the military.
Otto, thanks for the background. But what I still see is Clinton implementing the policy in question. Also, out of curiosity, where are you coming from when you say the military pursues this kind of thing?
FTR, I’m not defending the policy. I’m defending the military against attacks which I feel are unwarranted. Folks can rail at the military as much as they want to about the attitude, but don’t do it about the policy. Pressure the civilian side of the house. Complaints will actually do some good, I think, there.
If the Secretary of Defense or the Commander-in-Chief scraps the policy, then I’ll happily go along with it. Until then, I’ll gladly prosecute or judge someone who’s violated this policy, just as I’d expect the same to be done to me if I knowingly violated a DoD policy.
TAOS, maybe I was misinterpreting your post. I’m seeing the implication that due to a shortage of linguists, the magical, riddle-solving message containing unambiguous, actionable intel wasn’t deciphered until 9/12. This clearly wasn’t the case. If I’m misreading you, I apologize.
Yes, it’s true that none of the posters to that thread actively supported antigay discrimination, but vanilla asked about why people think gays in the military would be a bad thing, and I thought that link would help.
And finally the whole discussion about showers, which I think is too idiotic to go into.
Have any of you read Conduct Unbecoming by Randy Shilts? In it, he argues that the military has been more stringent about enforcing its anti-gay policies in times when they are shrinking the forces, and more lax at times when they need people. He provides many examples of people who were open about being gay, but allowed to stay because it was wartime or because they had needed skills. The actions of the military in this are contrary to Shilts’ assertions. I have no basis by which to judge Shilts’ arguments because I don’t really know too much about the military. Does someone more knowledgable want to address this?
And regarding JerseyDiamond–I think that it’s a lot easier for some people to just classify those that they disagree with as horned devils or something. It’s terrible logic–“Jersey thinks homosexuality is a sin, so she must hate all homosexuals and is a bad person besides.” No! I’ve never discussed the issue with her directly, but I’m, willing to bet that she has mixed feelings about the whole homosexuality issue. This thread is evidence. She is just a regular person, like the rest of us, trying to square her ideals with her reality. I disagree vehemently with her about a lot of things, especially with regard to religion. But I know that we agree on far more than we disagree on. This board tends to magnify differences of opinion, because that’s what makes for interesting discussions. Threads where everybody agrees usually die quick deaths.
Anyway, I’m rambling, but I hate to see knee-jerk reactions of any kind.
Um, OK, not really sure what this has to do with anything but OK. FTR, it was on Reagan’s watch that the former DoD directive went into effect. Prior to that each branch had its own specific regs and enforcement varied widely.
The definitive books on the topic are Shilts’ “Conduct Unbecoming” and Allen Berube’s “Coming Out Under Fire” (which focuses more closely on WWII). Each book includes reams of material on the anti-gay witch hunts the miltary has conducted over the decades since the policy was put in place. Chilling stuff, and an outrage to think of the money wasted and the lives destroyed going after people whom the military itself acknowledges are not only not bad soldiers but are in many cases among the best.
The only way at this point to rescind the policy is for it to be repealed by Congress or declared unconstitutional by the courts, neither of which are particularly likely in the current administration.
Well, I’d hope you wouldn’t be happy about destroying someone’s life for no legitimate reason…
Grean Bean
How about Shilts himself? In this isolated incident the military is going contrary to the trend but the numbers tend to support the assertion. Interestingly, there’s been a small uptick in people self-identifying specifically to get out according to some sources (offline) I’ve seen.
If it helps anyone, here’s another person who was thinking “Oh please let’s don’t have this be another screed” and was pleasantly surprised to see Jersey Diamond’s heartfelt post.
And then half-hearted (because he never does summon much of anything even at his worst) had to come in and try to bait JD.
{{{JD}}} He don’t know you, hon. Hell, I don’t know you much at all either, but what I do know (or what at least seems rather like the case in this thread) is that you really have no problem with people who are gay. (Whatever sexual actions they might take is another thread.)
I think the “bitter gays” thing is not meant to be insulting but, especially in light of some recent (and not-so-recent) posters we’ve had, indicative of what some gay people look like when they focus solely on one aspect of a person (that aspect being the perceived/real “anti-gay” facet). However, I don’t think she meant to include every homosexual in that subcategory.
FWIW, “Health and Comfort” Inspections held at 3am are, in my humble opinion and experience, meant to catch something that is suspected but not proven. This has always been a thinly veiled, but veiled nonetheless, tactic to find drugs, booze, or other forbidden items. The folks who pulled the Health and Comfort Inspection were pursuing, but will never be called on it.
Otto: I’m not sure what you mean. The link that you provided is basically a capsule version of Conduct Unbecoming so it can’t serve as corroborating evidence for the book. But if anyone’s interested, it’s a good summary of Shilts’ arguments.
Speaking as one who is sickened by both the treatment of gays in our society and the treatment of Jersey by hh, I’d like to offer up that I too found the hair on my neck rising when I first saw this thread title coupled with the OP’s screen name. And once I read the OP, I was both heartened by the compassion she showed, and saddened that I had jumped to conclusions.
I am convinced that if our Conservative Christian posters and our Fabulously Gay posters could sit down over a beer (root beer for some of you and you know who you are!) and talk things out, that both sides might learn that neither is quite as rotten and evil as had been previously supposed. Perhaps that is because I count both as some of my dearest friends and family.
Ugh. Do we really need to review how inherently ridiculous and patronizing this is? It’s been done, even if only by showing how ridiculous the opposite sounds.
Yes. He is my Commander-In-Chief. Contrary to popular belief, folks, Bush is actually a rational person, unless of course you don’t agree with his politics, which gives you all carte blanche to insult and demean a man who is a Yale graduate and was governor of one of the largest states in the Union.That’s not even to mention that the people of the United States would hang him from the nearest flagpole without a DAMN good reason for giving that order. Who, incidentally, is also maintaining a policy that has existed for at least 100 years, if not since the US was founded.
Any other questions from the peanut gallery? If so, I hope they’re better than that one.
And as far as the thread goes, it sucks that this guy got dismissed, but rules are rules. If you decide independently to do something you know to be illegal, does that not make you responsible for the consequences?
I really dislike this policy. I’d like to see it changed. But until that day, this is the way it has to be. Now, of course, you’re all gonna bust my chops over this, because I must be a homophobe. That’s not the case. What I am is a person who understands exactly what the UCMJ means and who understands what happens when those laws are broken. Incidentally, I believe that the law that governs homosexuals in the military is Article 125, the one about sodomy, which is also a law fairly common among the individual states as well. Or is it something else? I dunno, but I would think Article 125 has something to do with it.
Why not more properly put the responsibility where it belongs, on the politicians who make the rules, whom you elect time and time again? That’s where the onus of this argument should really be. Most of us average military members could care less what the rule is. We’re too busy doing our jobs to peek through windows and rat people out.
My first flame! Almost as good as my first pitting…
Was I too harsh? I probably shouldn’t have voiced the first thing that ran through my head on reading the OP, true. It’s hardly surprising that the “I don’t hate gays, I just hate their lifestyle” contingent will jump on this as further proof that the world is against them and their oh-so-inoffensive views.
But this topic has been discussed ALREADY. There is a thread about this exact case. It is an OLD, old subject. Why do we need another thread started on it? Maybe because it’s a convenient way for this person to compliment a gay person on one hand and insult gay people in general on the other?
See, until this thread I was perfectly willing to give Jersey_Diamond the benefit of the doubt. I don’t know her, I’ve never directly talked to her (though I have followed some of the train wrecks concerning her little cadre and seen her comments.) But if anyone can give me another reason for the snide little “bitter” comment, I’ll be overjoyed to hear it. And I will sincerely apologize to Jersey_Diamond.
Until then, I’m out of this trainwreck-in-the-making.