Our City Online

Messageboard - Politics

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Gay adoption = Raising puppies?

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Politics Gay adoption = Raising puppies?

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 135 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #360693
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Bear wrote >>

    gramarye wrote >>
    This is an identity-politics point, but the primary reason I’m hesitant to endorse the concept of dropping DADT is the company I’d be keeping. By and large, I don’t think that most of the major organizations and public figures demanding the open inclusion of gays in the military agree with the premise that the military is first and foremost a warfighting organization. The most vocal and ardent supporters of ending DADT are the same people who call for ending a large portion of our defense procurement initiatives, who opposed the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan (and generally take a pretty strident antiwar position that often comes off as anti-American, whether intended so or otherwise), and generally think that the only military operation of their lifetime that was worthwhile was the humanitarian aid mission in Haiti.

    Refreshingly candid, albeit deeply troubling: not being willing to join forces with one’s misguided opponents on those rare occasions when one’s interests happen to align with theirs is a red flag that one might be becoming (gasp!) principled.
    More seriously, though, although a majority of strident antiwar types are in favor of ending DADT, I’m not sure the converse is true. Ending DADT is a pretty mainstream position these days; the group that you characterize is in favor of it, but so are a substantial majority of comfortably pro-defense pro-Afghanistan pro-American red-blooded types.

    Interesting article there… a few quotes from it:

    Once the study is complete, the Pentagon team will determine how best to survey active-duty service members and their families on any change in the policy. Some officials favor asking the Rand Corp. to provide an updated version of the 1993 study it conducted.

    The poll also reveals several sharp demographic divides. Men (65 percent) and seniors (69 percent) are far less likely than are women (84 percent) and young adults (81 percent under age 30) to say that gays should be allowed to serve if they have disclosed their sexual orientation. Knowing a gay person makes a big difference: Among those who say they have a gay friend or family member, 81 percent support allowing gay people to serve openly, compared with 66 percent who say they do not know someone who is gay.

    The poll was conducted by telephone Feb. 4-8 among a random national sample of 1,004 adults, including users of both conventional and cellular phones. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

    Provided the results from the survey of currently serving members relates to the survey of civilians, this may be a non-issue… although I’d prefer to see acceptance figures in the high 90’s.

    #360694

    gramarye
    Participant

    Bear wrote >>

    gramarye wrote >>
    This is an identity-politics point, but the primary reason I’m hesitant to endorse the concept of dropping DADT is the company I’d be keeping. By and large, I don’t think that most of the major organizations and public figures demanding the open inclusion of gays in the military agree with the premise that the military is first and foremost a warfighting organization. The most vocal and ardent supporters of ending DADT are the same people who call for ending a large portion of our defense procurement initiatives, who opposed the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan (and generally take a pretty strident antiwar position that often comes off as anti-American, whether intended so or otherwise), and generally think that the only military operation of their lifetime that was worthwhile was the humanitarian aid mission in Haiti.

    Refreshingly candid, albeit deeply troubling: not being willing to join forces with one’s misguided opponents on those rare occasions when one’s interests happen to align with theirs is a red flag that one might be becoming (gasp!) principled.
    More seriously, though, although a majority of strident antiwar types are in favor of ending DADT, I’m not sure the converse is true. Ending DADT is a pretty mainstream position these days; the group that you characterize is in favor of it, but so are a substantial majority of comfortably pro-defense pro-Afghanistan pro-American red-blooded types.

    True, which was why I was careful to say “the most vocal and ardent,” by which I basically meant the people making the most noise about it. The identity-politics point was simply an issue of trust–most of the people making the most noise on the repeal side are people I simply do not trust to do, know, or care what’s right for the country. Does that encompass everyone saying that the policy could be beneficially repealed? Of course not. I already mentioned that some (not all, but some) senior military officials have stated that the policy could be repealed with more benefits than drawbacks. The people doing the real screaming, though, are the people at DailyKos, C&L, MyDD, etc.

    #360695

    DavidF
    Participant

    rus wrote >>

    Bear wrote >>

    gramarye wrote >>
    This is an identity-politics point, but the primary reason I’m hesitant to endorse the concept of dropping DADT is the company I’d be keeping. By and large, I don’t think that most of the major organizations and public figures demanding the open inclusion of gays in the military agree with the premise that the military is first and foremost a warfighting organization. The most vocal and ardent supporters of ending DADT are the same people who call for ending a large portion of our defense procurement initiatives, who opposed the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan (and generally take a pretty strident antiwar position that often comes off as anti-American, whether intended so or otherwise), and generally think that the only military operation of their lifetime that was worthwhile was the humanitarian aid mission in Haiti.

    Refreshingly candid, albeit deeply troubling: not being willing to join forces with one’s misguided opponents on those rare occasions when one’s interests happen to align with theirs is a red flag that one might be becoming (gasp!) principled.
    More seriously, though, although a majority of strident antiwar types are in favor of ending DADT, I’m not sure the converse is true. Ending DADT is a pretty mainstream position these days; the group that you characterize is in favor of it, but so are a substantial majority of comfortably pro-defense pro-Afghanistan pro-American red-blooded types.

    Interesting article there… a few quotes from it:

    Once the study is complete, the Pentagon team will determine how best to survey active-duty service members and their families on any change in the policy. Some officials favor asking the Rand Corp. to provide an updated version of the 1993 study it conducted.

    The poll also reveals several sharp demographic divides. Men (65 percent) and seniors (69 percent) are far less likely than are women (84 percent) and young adults (81 percent under age 30) to say that gays should be allowed to serve if they have disclosed their sexual orientation. Knowing a gay person makes a big difference: Among those who say they have a gay friend or family member, 81 percent support allowing gay people to serve openly, compared with 66 percent who say they do not know someone who is gay.
    The poll was conducted by telephone Feb. 4-8 among a random national sample of 1,004 adults, including users of both conventional and cellular phones. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

    Provided the results from the survey of currently serving members relates to the survey of civilians, this may be a non-issue… although I’d prefer to see acceptance figures in the high 90’s.

    Well it’s my opinion (yep only an opinion) that dropping DADT and allowing open service will be far more easy to implement that integrating the military was. There will be resistance certainly, not the least of which being that any large entity is inherently suspicious of change. There is also a strong evangelical presence in the officer ranks that opposes this for reasons that have nothing to do with mission effectiveness. Ultimately though I agree with Rus that it will most likely be a tempest in a teapot for the military itself.

    Where we will see the most fall out from this will be in the civilian political milieu. This will certainly be used as yet another polarizing issue. (i.e. the statements that started this thread)

    I expect that this will be broadly painted by the right as something that fundamentally undermines the military. It’s just too easy a target not to. It doesn’t matter if it has any basis in reality if it gets the core to the polls. (and here’s a preemptive acknowledgement that it happens just as frequently on the left. I’m talking about this particular issue so that’s why I bring up the right.)

    And I think it’s important to have a full discussion of an issue like this. It’s not enough to say bigot on one side and hippie on the other. The polarization ultimately isn’t in any thinking persons interest.

    As a liberal veteran, I fully understand Rus’s concerns, I just happen to disagree with them.

    #360696
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    DavidF wrote >>

    As a liberal veteran, I fully understand Rus’s concerns, I just happen to disagree with them.

    As a veteran, that’s certainly your right.

    If / when DADT is repealed, I’d be happy to see no reductions in readiness and no problems with open integration.

    #360697

    DavidF
    Participant

    rus wrote >>

    DavidF wrote >>
    As a liberal veteran, I fully understand Rus’s concerns, I just happen to disagree with them.

    As a veteran, that’s certainly your right.
    If / when DADT is repealed, I’d be happy to see no reductions in readiness and no problems with open integration.

    Well that’s something we can both agree on.

    #360698

    TaraK
    Participant

    DavidF wrote >>

    rus wrote >>

    DavidF wrote >>
    As a liberal veteran, I fully understand Rus’s concerns, I just happen to disagree with them.

    As a veteran, that’s certainly your right.
    If / when DADT is repealed, I’d be happy to see no reductions in readiness and no problems with open integration.

    Well that’s something we can both agree on.

    Could this be Resolution Post?

    #360699

    LBOWACC
    Member

    Core_Models wrote >>

    jackoh wrote >>

    rus wrote >>
    Not a good analogy; most us work places don’t also include forced sharing of living arrangements with coworkers.

    The other place in US society, other than the military, to “include forced sharing of living arrangements” among an all male population is the prisons. And we all know what happens there.

    For the most part, not what you think.

    +1

    I am so sick of hearing about prison rape from people who have never even seen a holding cell in a precinct.

    #360700

    LBOWACC
    Member

    joev wrote >>

    rus wrote >>

    gramarye wrote >>
    There have now been some uniformed brass that have made comments about DADT that suggest that they don’t see the prospect of abandoning it as readiness-threatening. Those opinions, I respect, and I wait to hear more from them. The leftist netroots, not so much.

    Indeed. Nice summation.

    Two points:
    I don’t think military members who would discriminate against a gay or lesbian coworker to the point of doing them physical harm should be paid with tax money. That doesn’t fly for teachers, or police, it shouldn’t fly for soldiers and sailors.
    A soldier who would physically or verbally attack a gay or lesbian coworker is not the type of person I want representing America overseas. If this person can’t respect a coworker who shares their American culture, how can they be trusted to respect Iraqis and Afghans? The military’s primary purpose is to win wars. But most of the time, their duties are peacekeeping. Even one bigoted, violent person jeapordizes America’s image abroad. Think about Abu Ghraib and that damage that did to us around the world.

    Sorry, that is the type of soldier I want. The military is not there to respect the citizens of countries we are at war with. The terrorists we are fighting right now do not respect anyone, what do you think afghans and iraqis think of gays?

    If we are fighting people like that, I want our equivelant of them. Our equivelent person would be a alabama raised redneck, who loves drinking busch light, smokes marlboro reds, curses a lot, and gets in fights when they are out at a bar. Basically our military should not be formed with a bunch of pansies who blog and twitter.

    #360701

    lifeontwowheels
    Participant

    I love idiotic stereotyping.

    #360702

    bman
    Participant

    Cookie wrote >>

    rus wrote >>
    I’m sure you can also think of certain training and discipline failures who cause more than their share of problems. A majority? Certainly not… but that minority certainly is a distraction from the task at hand.
    And if that minority is large enough, then it’s a real problem. Is that the case? No idea, but I suspect it is.

    Those are the people that shouldn’t be in the military.

    +1

    #360703

    LBOWACC
    Member

    I love providing for myself, and putting a roof over my head that the military protects.

    #360704

    joev
    Participant

    LBOWACC wrote >>

    joev wrote >>

    rus wrote >>

    gramarye wrote >>
    There have now been some uniformed brass that have made comments about DADT that suggest that they don’t see the prospect of abandoning it as readiness-threatening. Those opinions, I respect, and I wait to hear more from them. The leftist netroots, not so much.

    Indeed. Nice summation.

    Two points:
    I don’t think military members who would discriminate against a gay or lesbian coworker to the point of doing them physical harm should be paid with tax money. That doesn’t fly for teachers, or police, it shouldn’t fly for soldiers and sailors.
    A soldier who would physically or verbally attack a gay or lesbian coworker is not the type of person I want representing America overseas. If this person can’t respect a coworker who shares their American culture, how can they be trusted to respect Iraqis and Afghans? The military’s primary purpose is to win wars. But most of the time, their duties are peacekeeping. Even one bigoted, violent person jeapordizes America’s image abroad. Think about Abu Ghraib and that damage that did to us around the world.

    Sorry, that is the type of soldier I want. The military is not there to respect the citizens of countries we are at war with. The terrorists we are fighting right now do not respect anyone, what do you think afghans and iraqis think of gays?
    If we are fighting people like that, I want our equivelant of them. Our equivelent person would be a alabama raised redneck, who loves drinking busch light, smokes marlboro reds, curses a lot, and gets in fights when they are out at a bar. Basically our military should not be formed with a bunch of pansies who blog and twitter.

    So you want bigots in the military?

    #360705

    LBOWACC
    Member

    joev wrote >>

    LBOWACC wrote >>

    joev wrote >>

    rus wrote >>

    gramarye wrote >>
    There have now been some uniformed brass that have made comments about DADT that suggest that they don’t see the prospect of abandoning it as readiness-threatening. Those opinions, I respect, and I wait to hear more from them. The leftist netroots, not so much.

    Indeed. Nice summation.

    Two points:
    I don’t think military members who would discriminate against a gay or lesbian coworker to the point of doing them physical harm should be paid with tax money. That doesn’t fly for teachers, or police, it shouldn’t fly for soldiers and sailors.
    A soldier who would physically or verbally attack a gay or lesbian coworker is not the type of person I want representing America overseas. If this person can’t respect a coworker who shares their American culture, how can they be trusted to respect Iraqis and Afghans? The military’s primary purpose is to win wars. But most of the time, their duties are peacekeeping. Even one bigoted, violent person jeapordizes America’s image abroad. Think about Abu Ghraib and that damage that did to us around the world.

    Sorry, that is the type of soldier I want. The military is not there to respect the citizens of countries we are at war with. The terrorists we are fighting right now do not respect anyone, what do you think afghans and iraqis think of gays?
    If we are fighting people like that, I want our equivelant of them. Our equivelent person would be a alabama raised redneck, who loves drinking busch light, smokes marlboro reds, curses a lot, and gets in fights when they are out at a bar. Basically our military should not be formed with a bunch of pansies who blog and twitter.

    So you want bigots in the military?

    You are saying all beer drinking, marlboro red smoking kids from alabama are bigots? Sounds pretty bigoted to me. I expect that from you though.

    #360706

    joev
    Participant

    No, the people I described in my post are bigots. You replied and said that’s the type of person you wanted in the military.

    #360707

    LBOWACC
    Member

    Joev, let’s be honest here. There is a certain type of person you want in the military, and a certain type you dont. It does not matter whether they are straight or gay. That is not important to me. They should though fit a certain type of criteria imo.

    Onto your bigot statement. When thinking about it, I guess I do want our soldiers to be a bit bigoted. The reason for this is, i do not want to send someone to war that respects other nations or nationalities, I want someone who is so pro America, that they will kill without question for America.

    For instance, I would not send someone like you over to France if we were in a war with them. I do not want someone saying “oh France, what a great culture, and what great people”. No, I want someone who gives two shits about France, and would kill anyone in it if they were commanded to by top brass.

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 135 total)

The forum ‘Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: