Marine Corps’ commandant Gen. James Conway has declared that, if Congress allows openly gay personnel, those marines will be given separate rooms to avoid forcing straight marines to share quarters with homosexuals.
Conway is a known opponent of repealing the law and insisted “I would not ask our Marines to live with someone who is homosexual if we can possibly avoid it. . . And to me that means we have to build BEQs [bachelor enlisted quarters] and have single rooms.”
Of course, if you want your own room, there is now an easy way to get it in the Corps.
Conway must know that, if there is segregation of gays, that is likely to reinforce the animosity in the ranks toward gay personnel. It could also produce a conflict with Congress and the White House, which could prohibit such separate but equal policies in housing. The Marines, like other services, once segregated black personnel, which would be a troubling model in the twenty-first century. Conway could claim that this falls into his discretion of “good discipline and order.” However, it also undermines the goal of incorporation of gay personnel in the ranks as a policy set by the Commander and Chief and Congress. In such a conflict, the Commander and Chief would prevail — if he was willing to take up the fight. What is clear is that a more organized opposition is emerging in the ranks – at the encouragement of high-ranking officers.
For the full story, click here
Sorry, Tootles. You should feel fortunate I even have time to taunt you today, silly rabbit. The others have you well contained though, as I knew they would. A fisherman doesn’t have to put a line in the water every day. Some days it’s just good to get in the boat and cruise about.
Gone motorin’.
Gyges,
Why do you need to make something up? Why can’t you address what has been said in this thread? Do you need ambiguity?
I gave you a specific reason why I perceive something to be a potential problem. If you think flaming expressions of individualism (Do I need to explain what I mean by that?) are conducive to good order and discipline in the military, reach into your bag of words and tell us why.
Duh,
What you said wasn’t really worth responding to. How does one argue with “I think this group of people has members that would make bad soldiers, and that needs to be addressed before any of them are allowed to be soldiers?” The exact same statement could be made about men, women, people of different races or religions, with an appropriate stereotype for each inserted in place of “flaming.”
“But I’m sure they are also pointing to same countries who come begging to our manly heterosexual-centered military when they get in trouble.”
Oh, you betcha! All those flaming sissy armies just love it when the manly US military men parachute in to ‘help’ wink, wink, hubba hubba! The disco music blares for days…
Gyges,
Do you mean you don’t want Tootie to respond like you did, when someone (who is in favor of repealing DADT) points out a potential problem that may effect good order and discipline in the military?
“Wow, that has to be the lamest self rationalization of bigotry I’ve ever seen.”
You mean that instead of effectively calling the person an bigot, you want her to do what you will not?
Tootie,
Just so we’re clear, are you saying you won’t argue this issue based on the merits of your beliefs on it, but instead want to rely on cheap political rhetoric to stir up emotions?
Buhhda: I’m sure if had had something important to say, you would have.
Have a glorious day.
GyGes: Oh heck no. But, I thank you for your kind and respectful offer.
The problem is, I grew up a street kid: think the Bowery Boys– girls-style*. And so I learned early on about how to deal with all the serious people trying to control me by promoting manners.
I have apparently graduated from that school though, and now attend the Murray Rothbard school. No, that’s not the Arthur Murray dance school. The Rothbard school is the school of Austrian economics and philosophy. A most important lesson and key lesson taught at that school is that you have to finger the culprits and name names.
You flunk out if you don’t.
How’s that for change?
The idea is that if we do not name names and finger culprits, the truth is muzzled, or kidnapped, and life becomes more dangerous because people get away with way too much bad stuff because by the time great evil is upon us we are not sure who said or did what because we obfuscated the facts and the truth at the time they were being writ large.
I don’t believe in hiding behind “decorum” and insisting that good manners means not calling a spade a spade. I’ll will agree its a tough road to travel.
Actually, I think blunt truth-telling is the height of true manners and decorum. (Curtsey)
https://mises.org/daily/3393
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bowery_Boys
Tootie,
Pardon me if I don’t let your substandard analysis of human sexuality influence any decision of import. You still trying to teach those sheep to fly, Harold? Let us know how that works out for you.
Tootie,
How’s this, I’ll gladly rebut your points IF you can argue this issue without referring to anything other than this issue and related topics? That means no jabs at “leftists” or references to how this will only help those evil “communists” lurking under your bed.
Think you’re up to it?
Tootie,
My comment doesn’t address the “feelings” of the members of our military as much as it recognizes a trait that is not conducive to good order and discipline. It’s not the sexual preference that I find to be a potential problem (I think most members of the military will accept that). It’s the flamboyant personalities of some homosexuals that I think will present a problem.
While society should be willing to accept just about any non-violent personality, the same cannot be said for the military.
Gyges* I am profoundly sorry and embarrassed that I keep getting your name wrong.
Did you want to change it for me?
:o)
I’m getting old.
Ha!
Gynes:
Your point is irrelevant to the problem and views only the feelings of the homosexual. And you are referring to homosexuals who cover up their sexuality. But like I say, you are considering only the feelings of the homosexual.
In your viewpoint, heterosexual males are simply not allowed to have their very strong feelings count. They are to be ignored. This is awful because the truth is that this bothers the heterosexuals and they make up the bulk of the male population. And they also represent the bulk of those in the military who bunk together.
It is absurd to the point of insanity to ignore their feelings.
Say what you want about this perhaps being a flaw in American thinking (and I don’t think it is), but forcing American military men to change their emotions on this in a top down fashion is exceedingly destructive and dangerous.
Some folks like to point to the example of foreign countries which allow open homosexuality in their military. But I’m sure they are also pointing to same countries who come begging to our manly heterosexual-centered military when they get in trouble.
Leftists are being very selfish here. This is about our survival should we ever be attacked by another country. And why should the tiniest “sexual” group (which doesn’t even have a RIGHT to be in the military in the first place) drive policy when there is never enough of them in the first place to be capable of protecting the country should the heterosexuals turn the job completely over to them?
This is sabotage on a scale which only the communists could have ever wished for us.
To destabilize the military by breaking tradition with a custom that engenders life-saving bonding among soldiers is to risk the survival of the country. It shows something, in my opinion, very bad about the character of homosexual people who would put themselves above the security of the country just to get their way.
I assure you, that if the government thought I wasn’t fit to serve in the military (and it does), I’d humbly withdraw my request to join.
This is because I’m not the center of the universe and I tend to put others first.
Duh,
Really, that’s your problem, that some people who don’t have the right personality might join the Military?
Wow, that has to be the lamest self rationalization of bigotry I’ve ever seen.
Once again: homosexuals are already serving in the military, and are openly serving in militaries worldwide. People (including homosexuals) are people.
I’m in favor of repealing don’t ask, don’t tell, but I also recognize the potential for problems to arise from doing so.
(If some find my terminology offensive, I apologize. That is not my intent. I’m not “up” on all the politically correct terms)
The current policy prevents those homosexuals who society would consider to be “flaming” from entering the military. A repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell would no longer provide such a restriction. While I doubt many flaming homosexuals would have a desire to join the military, those who do would present a unique set of problems. Flaming homosexuals celebrate their individual personalities. They don’t seem to be able to turn this on and off at will. This is not conducive to military life. Will the military be able to discharge them for being “flaming”?
I’d rather see this addressed before we repeal don’t ask, don’t tell than after. I also think that the repeal should not take place until we we are no longer at war. We simply don’t have enough troops to make up for the loss in enlistment/reenlistment. I don’t think the number of homosexuals joining will make up for the number of people who will choose not to join/reenlist in a gay freindly military.
Tootie,
Homosexual soldiers have already been living in close quarters with straight soldiers. As far as I know the armed forces still function.
After reading the comment left by “carol” and the follow-up by Jericho, I’m left wondering if “pink bullet” is supposed to be a metaphore. 🙂
you-your, again….
Buddha is Laughing:
An excerpt from you first post on this thread reads:
” I know a fair number of homosexuals. This is how this works: just because they know you and interact with you does not mean they are attracted to you.”
That must be the rationale that proves, therefore, that men and women MUST bunk and shower together in the military?
Then you wrote:
“Do you often fear what you don’t understand…”
That is probably similar to misunderstanding that which one doesn’t fear; both yield imperfect conclusions.
Carol, that may depend on where the entry wound is 🙂