? Ending discrimination of any type is always worthy of the Hallelujah Chorus.
Homosexuals didn't have the right to be who they wanted to be if they joined the military. Assuming that you need to put family status on your paperwork, "Bill" could enter his spouse's name as "Cecelia" but if that spouse was actually a "Cecil", Bill would be shown the door.
As a lefty I know this decision doesn't deal conservatism a death blow, but what I really don't understand is why the right doesn't acknowledge blatant discrimination when it's right under their noses.
The law was made to allow gays to serve in the military and it was a farce. It was an end run around discrimination that didn't fool anybody as to its true intent. No such law was ever in effect for heterosexuals, from the time the military was first created.
Because hiding it implies there's something wrong that shouldn't see the light of day. Why do you think keeping it to yourself is a good idea?
You're falling into the trap of lefty stereotyping. In fact, this very topic about benefits came up awhile ago (months, I mean) and my response was:
the % of those in the general population identifying as homosexuals is 3% or less; using those numbers, if the % in the military is 3%, how many would be applying for spousal benefits; and even if all of them did, how big a hit would the defense budget take?
When you talk about flaunting, I'm guessing this means the type of behaviour seen in La Cage Aux Folles or movies like that. Those who join the military understand ahead of time that they will be trained to present themselves according to military standards, and that there's a code of behaviour all members are subject to. Violations of conduct should be handled according to the rules in place, not the gender of the violator. It's no different than business, academia, medical fields, law, public service, etc... the workplace standard.
Just my opinion but I think DADT supporters place far too much emphasis on sexual behaviour and far too little on personhood. I think it's really about the fear that somebody's going to eyeball their family jewels in the shower, and it makes them skittish.
First, let me thank you for the friendly and well laid out reply.
Second, I dislike replying to broken up posts as things are always missed. Please forgive me if I miss something important.
Ending discrimination of any type is always worthy of the Hallelujah Chorus.
Well, I would agree with you, however, DADT was a liberal policy. I guess that now liberals are telling us that they supported discrimination for a time when it suited them.
Homosexuals didn't have the right to be who they wanted to be if they joined the military. Assuming that you need to put family status on your paperwork, "Bill" could enter his spouse's name as "Cecelia" but if that spouse was actually a "Cecil", Bill would be shown the door.
It has been a long time since I was in the Guard. I don't recall being required to put my sexual preference on any forms.
What are you saying homosexuals want to be? Under DADT they had the right to be in the service, just as I had that right. Under no circumstances can one claim that they had the same rights as a married service member (as in naming their significant other on insurance policies, housing benefits etc.) but the repeal of DADT does nothing to remedy that issue. Remedying that issue would be a significant win for liberals. One that I am sure would warrant a celebration. But, that was
not accomplished.
As a lefty I know this decision doesn't deal conservatism a death blow, but what I really don't understand is why the right doesn't acknowledge blatant discrimination when it's right under their noses.
Personally, I do not see asking any person to keep their sexual preferences to themselves as being discriminatory. I realize straight military men will throw "cat calls" and whistles at a good looking lady as she walks by and under DADT it would be prohibited for a service member to do so in reference to a same sex person walking by. If you ask me, it is wrong for the straights to do so and I would say not letting them do so is to a minor extent discriminatory, but it should not be allowed period.
The law was made to allow gays to serve in the military and it was a farce. It was an end run around discrimination that didn't fool anybody as to its true intent.
Exactly! Need I remind you that I said something very similar to that when I entered this thread. BTW: It was a liberal law. Please don't forget that. It didn't fool the right either. We all knew the ultimate goal was forcing the military to allow open homosexuals into the service.
Hmm, let's see, Candidate Obama made the comment that he expected Universal Health Care to be 15 - 20 years away. He said that it would require steps be taken before it would be achieved. Was that Clinton's goal when he signed DADT. It took 17 years for this step to be taken. So, do we only have 16 more years of freedom to choose our health insurance providers?
Because hiding it implies there's something wrong that shouldn't see the light of day. Why do you think keeping it to yourself is a good idea?
Because my sexual orientation is no one's damned business.
I do not agree with you that keeping one's sexual orientation private implies that there is anything wrong with homosexuality. Regardless of which sexual orientation one has, it should remain private to all... except for those to whom one might want to have a relationship with.
You're falling into the trap of lefty stereotyping. In fact, this very topic about benefits came up awhile ago (months, I mean) and my response was:
It has come up on the other site I have been posting on as well. Not so much in regards to DADT that I recall but in reference to "Gay Marriage".
the % of those in the general population identifying as homosexuals is 3% or less; using those numbers, if the % in the military is 3%, how many would be applying for spousal benefits; and even if all of them did, how big a hit would the defense budget take?
My personal opinion is that regardless of what I believe in regards to homosexuality, it is not the place of the government to discriminate against any citizen and therefore the government should not be discriminating against anyone. Note: I do not believe "keep your sexual preferences to yourself" is discriminatory especially since it is supposed to be for straight as well as gay.
When you talk about flaunting, I'm guessing this means the type of behaviour seen in La Cage Aux Folles or movies like that.
I do not know that movie at all so cannot comment in that regard. The flaunting I am concerned with is similar to the worst behavior as seen in some of the gay pride parades.
Also, something needs to be clarified here. No one at all is saying that all homosexuals in the service have plans to "flaunt" it. Most homosexuals that I know feel the same way I do. "My orientation is private and I will keep it to myself in most public situations." Which is why I don't understand this "Hallelujah Chorus" type attitude here. If they really believe that, then what the hell do they win here?
Those who join the military understand ahead of time that they will be trained to present themselves according to military standards, and that there's a code of behaviour all members are subject to. Violations of conduct should be handled according to the rules in place, not the gender of the violator. It's no different than business, academia, medical fields, law, public service, etc... the workplace standard.
I cannot disagree with you here... again, this is why I don't understand this "Hallelujah Chorus" attitude here. Either they want to flaunt it or they simply want to keep things to themselves.
I suspect the problem lies in that it is the extremist/activists that are the ones jumping for joy at this new found liberty and it will be those who flaunt it. Most of the others will go on as if nothing has changed as it should be.
Oh and PS on that... I don't particularly like activists of either side.
Just my opinion but I think DADT supporters place far too much emphasis on sexual behaviour and far too little on personhood. I think it's really about the fear that somebody's going to eyeball their family jewels in the shower, and it makes them skittish.
I am not a DADT supporter so I can't answer for them.
What I am is opposed to extremists/activists. If the extreme left thinks they have won a great victory over the repeal of DADT, there has to be something wrong with the repeal.
Just as if the extreme right got Roe v. Wade overturned and were celebrating their "victory". And note, I am not in favor of abortion, but extremist on either side are never realistic.
Immie
