Bigot coddlers?
I’ve known I few bigots in my time, and working with them is always a pain in the ass.
Why should our military pander to people who make it harder for others to do their job?
It’s not ‘straight’ soldiers who’d have a problem and lowered morale after all.
It’s bigoted straight soldiers.
That’s a smaller group, and likely one the military would function better without.
I don’t understand the distinction you’re making.
It’s not the senators that are homophobic, they just assume that the troops are.
… and are willing to pander to that assumed homophobia?
Or else it’s just an excuse. Which would be my vote.
True.
Although worht pointing out that this statement was not true, say, twenty years ago. Twenty years ago, forcing the rank-and-file to accept gay soldiers would have had truly negative consequences, on balance. Today, we’re past that tipping point, and I agree the remaining soldiers that have such problems may be safely discarded.
But the point I’m making is that when you dismiss the argument as “It’s about who they sleep with,” the average listener does not think, “Yeah, it is!” The average listener buys into the idea that the QUESTION is unit morale and military readiness, although I believe that he also resolves that question in favor of repeal.
Thought experiment: if you were to become convinced that repeal would cause a 30% drop in recruitment and retention, and stipulated that this was entirely due to bigotry of soldiers and would-be soldiers, would you still argue it should be done?
Yes, you’re right that arguments about unit morale derive directly from bigotry of soldiers, but you’re not right to suggest that those concerns can be dismissed on that basis alone.
Again, this is true, but irrelevant. There is no sound reason for thinking your hypothetical to be true. Nor is there sound reason for thinking that the plurality of people who oppose repeal even think its true. Even the politicians and military leaders who oppose repeal have differing public reasons, including but not limited to sexual tension and the immorality of being gay. What you’ve done is identify the least unreasonable – though wrong – reason to oppose repeal and grafted it onto the real opposition, demanding that we address only that one possible motivation.
There’s a time and place for charitable argument. For example, among two people arguing in good faith, one should assume the best possible interpretation of one’s opponent’s argument. But a pitting of U.S. Senators need not be that place. If someone wants to debate DADT in GD, then I agree with your principle. But I don’t agree that we must always imbue the non-participant subjects of pit threads with the most charitable possible position.
OK, fair point. The Pit does not require this approach.
Although, ETA thought: by that same logic, The Pit should not require this concession on my part. Theoretically, even though your point is correct and I now agree with what you’re saying, that’s no reason to admit it; I should hurl a few random insults your way and change the subject instead of conceding.
Yes, that’s true. And in 1948, the time was right to do it.
How would desegregating the troops have worked in 1917?
When they had the draft? How would that have lowered recruitment?
In the volunteer army I submit that the type of person you’d want handling valuable government equipment and making life and death decisions is also the honorable type that wouldn’t harbor such bigotry, or at least have the decency to put it away in service to their country.
Or put another would sending someone hateful of those different into a place like the middle east be a good idea?
The argument has been offered that we should not change the rules during a time of war. But the war against terrorism is supposed to be ongoing and endless. Therefore we should never do it. Bad argument.
The studies have been done and the top brass say it should be done. Do it now.
Some say the field soldiers will not like it. I believe they take orders, not make policy. Bigoted soldiers should not determine the outcome. They will follow orders .
There was a hell of a lot more opposition to racial integration in 1948 than there is to gay rights today, right? But the military followed orders, used leadership, and almost immediately became the most truly colorblind major institution in the country. So the point sucks.
Risking security for freedom is what America does.
We don’t just fight wars for our physical safety, we also fight to defend our values. At least that’s what I keep hearing from Republican politicians. So a drop in recruitment to allow gays to serve openly is a compromise one should be willing to make, unless one doesn’t thing that allowing gays to serve openly is a value worth protecting.
Bricker, you realize you’re arguing with liberals, right? You could find a lot of Democrat pols somewhere who would be apoplectic at the thought of military enlistment dropping by 30%, but I submit this is not the right line of questioning for your average online lib. That would just be another benefit.
I just threw up in my mouth a little.
The thing most don’t realize is that even though DADT would be repealed, that wouldn’t mean all gay service men would immediately come out to their fellow soldiers. The army is still a macho culture more or less. All repealing DADT would mean is that they don’t have to fear their private lives is going to ruin their careers. Most gay service members are still going to keep their private lives private.
The morale argument hinges on the idea that soldiers won’t follow orders if they’re told to deal with it, that these men can be trained to rush a machine gun bunker if its necessary, but can’t be expected to share a bunk with someone who’s lifestyle they find distasteful.
In other words, you’re calling our soldiers a bunch of spoiled mama’s boys who don’t understand the value of discipline. I must admit Bricker, I’m surprised to hear you make such an accusation.
I think the time was right to do it in 1948 because it was done, but there were many people in 1948 who thought the time wasn’t right to desegregate. I think you’re arguing from hindsight here.
You’d rather cower in the corner like a helpless little chicken? If so you don’t deserve liberty, craven coward.
Better than throwing up in someone else’s mouth.