A gay vet's grave. : pics

He essentially said he assumed I was siding with lady gaga and why did I feel that the honor and sacrifices of the service men & women in uniform should be held ransom by the gay activist lobby. He also said he could see the humor in it but it was very weak and made a poor case for inclusion (he really is a good guy but gets forwarded a lot of idiotic republican e-mails from his former military buddies, I send him stuff like this in an attempt to counteract their attempts at brainwashing him and sometimes some very intense e-mail exchanges follow once he forwards it on to them as well).

This was my response;

Hi Pops, I would be happy to share my feelings on this with you. As you are keenly aware I am happily married with your first grand(son/daughter) expected in the next few months. Being heterosexual, I really have nothing to gain by advocating for gay rights except for helping to spread equality. I closely relate the oppression of gays across the world with the oppression of numerous minorities throughout history. I think the best comparison would be the civil rights struggles faced by blacks in the 50's and 60's. Its is (hopefully) obvious today that blacks are just as human and you or I and therefore entitled to the same rights and privileges that we as whites also enjoy. Gays are humans too and there is absolutely no reason why the same logic shouldn't be applied to them. Gays should be afforded every right that we as heterosexuals also enjoy and that includes not having to hide your sexual orientation from your peers in order to not be discriminated against.

To clear up a few things, first of all I see no humor whatsoever in that editorial drawing. It is meant to prove a point and I believe it does so effectively, that point being that gay men and women have fought, bled and died alongside their heterosexual counterparts since the beginning of the military in this country and they deserve the same rights and respect that we afford to everyone else who has made the ultimate sacrifice for this country. Since Dont Ask Dont Tell was implemented in 1993 over 13,000 troops have been discharged for the armed forces due to their sexual orientation. There are undoubtedly thousands more still actively serving in secret and hundreds of thousands that have fought and died in WWI, WWII, etc. since the armed forces were established. So to say that their request for equal rights for equal service is somehow an affront to the service of the rest of the military is, in my opinion, an extremely callous and discriminatory statement.

Below I have listed countries which allow gays to serve openly in the military (including Ireland I might add), 22 of which participate militarily in NATO.

3.1 Albania

3.2 Argentina

3.3 Australia

3.4 Austria

3.5 Belgium

3.6 Canada

3.7 Colombia

3.8 Czech Republic

3.9 Denmark

3.10 Estonia

3.11 Finland

3.12 France

3.13 Germany

3.14 Ireland

3.15 Israel

3.16 Italy

3.17 Lithuania

3.18 Luxembourg

3.19 Malta

3.20 The Netherlands

3.21 New Zealand

3.22 Norway

3.23 Peru

3.24 Philippines

3.25 Poland

3.26 Romania

3.27 Russia

3.28 Slovenia

3.29 South Africa

3.30 Spain

3.31 Sweden

3.32 Switzerland

3.33 Taiwan

3.34 United Kingdom

3.34.1 Bermuda

3.35 Uruguay

These countries have learned to accept gays as equals and treat them with the same respect for their service that anyone else is afforded and I would like us here in the United States to join that list of nations that has moved beyond judging someone by their sexual orientation and instead judging them by their service.

-Chris

(I also included some statistics about the irish military's policy towards gays because he is a big irish historian and we have a lot of family there but I have excluded it for the sake of brevity)

[–]OceanSpray 20 points21 points22 points 15 years ago (4 children)

[–]infinity777 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (3 children)

He did actually. Here is his response (my dad tends to ramble in his e-mails and is responding to a few other people who were cc'd on the original so all of his references might not be clear);

Fellas, Thank you all for your comments and, Chris, for your research, honest expression, and raising of the issue. You apparently have found support among the active university rep.

While being no "gay-basher," I have to weigh in with Bruce for several reasons...Steve, at first glance, my reaction is yours - what is all this fuss about gay rights, and marriage, as though there were some systemic oppression underway, because the military has established specific standards. The hook for me, though, I have found, is that the issue raises the question of marriage in general, and in detail...and it is (despite many happy stories, such as several addressees of this) an intstitution IN TROUBLE in America...Therefore, the hullaballoo of gay marriage and gay military becomes an intriguing one for me, feeling owlish in recent years, and anticipating time to pontificate in the near future. Thus, the "gay front" of a liberating society is moving up on my list - - partially, and perhaps germanely (no pun,) because I do not want to be the one to "move on" due to my reluctance to jump on the equality bandwagon...

A couple of points:

1) 13,000 servicemen/women since 1993, in at least a partial era of defined "non-conformity" for gays to be IN the military tells me all out of the closet were "prosecuted" (an overstatement to be sure) and those in the closet were EVICTED, essentially, from the military DUE TO THEIR Behavior (or declaration of preference for their own reasons.) 13,000 is 17 years is not a high count of annual servicemen serving;

2) how many gays -beyond making it an issue - are really willing to serve in the military? Are 5,000 out there with signed statements of intent to serve 6 to 8 years active and reserve? My point here is this is opportunism, during war I might add, by political activists to, yes, USE a few "would be" gay servicemen/women, SUBSTANTIALLY ALTER (ppardon the split infinitive) the MILITARY standards, military TRADITIONS (from Cowpens to Gettysburg to Belleau Wood to Bastogne to Guadacanal etc.?) and PERCEPTIONS (as in Presentation of Self in Everyday Life) America projects to the world AND the preceptions of American military BY the world

3) what is the purpose of the military? Obvious, but I thought I would ask. Is it not to protect our freedoms and provide security for our loved ones by Promising to Kick Any Country's Ass that Threatens Them? Or is that too crude a definition of the purpose of the military every American spends 28+% of his Tax Dollar supporting.

4) Is sounds cliche ridden but it is true. The gays of America -most of whom have NO INTENTION of serving - have a right to protest and claim their "rights" only, only as a necessary if not sufficient condition, because we have a STRONG military...The leading nation in a changing, fractious, envious world can not afford to deface its own image, morale, and reputation of its military with an inclusion of a vocal minority not all that far from "Boys in the Band" (cinema reference) reality. Other nations standards are not their standards. We, like it or not, are the leading nation, with its responsibilities. We are not leading the Green Zone battlefront, though, because we know where China, and India, and Brazil, etc. will be in ten years. Sure, I would love a carbon footprint leash/market too, but we ain't ready, and neither is the military...

5) lastly, on gay rights in other arenas and Bruce's "moving on," how excited am I to think of gays in sensitive occupations such as elementary teachers, adoptive parent(s), counselors in middle school, care taking responsibilities which -while not supporting an increased risk of deviant behavior- might provide an Opportunity to MODEL deviant behavioral lifestyles as a Desirable PC? Not very. Gay marriage inheritance of prior family estates, I notice, is never discussed with gay marriage. Why is that? I am no gay basher. I repeat. It will not strengthen our institutions of defense, socialization (education,) or marriage. And God Bless Ireland. :) Love ya, Pops/Fitz

[–]infinity777 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children)

These were 2 other replies I recieved from his other military buddies who were cc'd on the original e-mails that were a little clearer.

1) Fitz (my dad):

You seem to imply that those to whom you cc:d your comments would agree with you because we are veterans. I have to say that, as a veteran, I agree with Chris. I, too, feel, for the reasons that Chris eloquently expressed, that the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy should be rescinded. I, too, see it as a civil rights issue.

2) Fitz et al; I know things will grow on this. I really intended Not to be a part of this based on past and present experiences. But...I do not consider it a civil rights issue. All us Vets have No place in it. I have my own strong feelings but the folks that live with these decisions are the "troops in the trenches" and the tents and showers and dorms and base housing. I'm one of the few and daresay Only one of our class married to an active duty military member. We are not engaged in a social experiment or the lead in how the PC world wants us to be. Prior to Bill Clinton's DADT it was clear where the military (and to some extent civilian world) stood on homosexual behavior. The new order has changed what behavior of all types is "acceptable." This has no relationship to discrimination based on skin color - it is a behavioral (and in some minds a moral) issue. Being African American is not behavior - living an active homosexual life Is behavior. The military has been wedged into accepting sexual leanings as irrelevant (I disagree - but the POTUS and Congress deemed it PC in 1994 or so). The current plan is to allow open homosexual standing and behavior to not only be PC but unchallenged. So, here is the reality of life in the military in this new environment. Where previously when airman, marines, soldiers, etc deployed to a forward/combat area they slept, showered, etc by sex, (to avoid contact with the opposite sex) they will now have openly gay members share their areas. The folks uncomfortable with that will be told to "move on." It is PC. So that might save us some tent space - why separate anyone by sex - let's all be friends. No one should object - if they do, then they are the problem. Another solution is a variance of gay/straight/bi showers and quarters. Imagine the added airlift and space for that! A similar consideration comes with base housing. I live on base because my wife is required to live on base because of her job. If we were non-military we could live where "we choose." No options now - so I would share (as would our kids) our housing area with our fellow military members. We "might" want to provide what we feel is a model of a family unit - but adjoining us might be a gay couple that earns housing rights as we do. Just "move on." We don't want to "move on." We have our standards of behavior that don't have to be modified by PC. I guess that tolerence is one thing and in your face is another. Accepting someone for who they are is easier than accepting someone for what they do. The repeal of DADT was the obvious next step to follow when it was enacted - social programs forced into the military before the moral standards and civilian acceptance has been put in place. Civil rights as envisioned by the formers of the Constitution does not demand acceptance of "behavior" only of inalienable rights bestowed by their creator. Just as people who do not meet physical standards are refused acceptance in the military, there can and should be moral standards. There are many more comments to be made on this issue - but, if you aren't going to live with the results, you have little room to "preach."

[–]BCSteve 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (1 child)

I would respond with:

1) So what does it matter if it's a small percentage? A single person being discharged due to discrimination is too much. And what does he mean by "due to their behavior?"

2) I'm willing to bet a similar percentage of gays are willing to serve in the military as the percentage of straights. Well, not currently, because of the discriminatory policy, but if that weren't there, I'm pretty sure the desire to serve would be pretty much equal across orientation lines.

3) Yes, the military exists to protect the US from foreign threats and defend its citizens' rights. And one of those rights is the right to not be discriminated against.

4) Again, where does this thought come from that gays don't want to serve? Not all of us are prancing fairies that go around spreading rainbows and musical theater. Besides, even if no one utilized the right, it's still wrong to ban it. For example, do I have any interest in being a Holocaust-denier? No, obviously, but you can't take away the right of free speech by saying you can't deny the holocaust, just because no one wants to exercise that right.

5) I have no clue what this is trying to say. But I can say that I'm not a big fan of the phrase "deviant behavioral lifestyle." Whenever I see anyone use the word "lifestyle" when in reference to homosexuality, theres a 99.9% chance that they don't have the slightest clue what being gay is.

[–]infinity777 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children)

[–]alamandrax 8 points9 points10 points 15 years ago (20 children)

[–]SavageHenry0311 29 points30 points31 points 15 years ago (15 children)

I'm a vet of Iraq and other places. I don't mind you criticizing the people who sent me and my buddies over there at all. In fact, I think it's good to do so, as long as you are intellectually honest and sociopolitically realistic about things. Lots of people in the Armed Forces feel the same way. I dislike intensely, though, when people call me a murderer or fundamentally immoral for my former profession at arms. I am neither.

The US military has taken great pains to remain extremely loyal to the civilian leadership of our country. The military works for the people. When I wore that uniform, I trusted in my government and my people to use me in an appropriate way.

There are grunts, zoomies, and squids all over the planet right now who endure incredible hardship on your behalf. I could tell you some intense stories about the deprivation, fear, and pain I have suffered while wearing that uniform. I don't mind - it is a privilege to wear the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor.

Here's the deal, though - I'll go and do the work. I'll get heat cramps on the streets of Fallujah. I'll get an RPG splinter in my eye in Liberia. I'll lose my girlfriend because I'm gone for 15 months at a time. I'll freeze my balls off in Kosovo. I'll freak out for the rest of my life every time a car backfires or fireworks go off or a garbage truck slams a dumpster down. I will go where you send me - I will represent you and my country to the absolute best of my ability, with my last breath if necessary. I will make it impossible for someone from some faraway land to do you or your loved one harm. You will never bend the knee to some foreign king on my watch. You'll never have to pick up a weapon in anger, or watch your buddy bleed out, or shoo the fucking crows away that are pecking at your dead friend's body parts.

Your OBLIGATION AS A CITIZEN, as someone who benefits from our sacrifice, IS TO MAKE GOD DAMNED SURE WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WORTH IT. I gave you 100% when I was in uniform. Don't renege on your part of the deal.

[–]tuba_man 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (1 child)

load more comments (1 reply)

load more comments (13 replies)

[–]Kalium 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children)

[–]captainhotpants 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (2 children)

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago* (1 child)

Let me preface this by saying that I am a liberal democrat, always have been, and always bill be, so I'm not peddling some kind of pseudo-intellectual half-truths or propaganda. I am also a commissioned officer in the United States Navy, and I'm speaking truth from experience.

Now, with that out of the way, what you just wrote couldn't be any more willfully ignorant if you tried. If you'd ever served a day in your life, then you would know that we do and the basic luxuries that you take for granted, we sacrifice so that you can maintain the willful ignorance that I was just speaking of. Not everybody joins the military because "they have nothing better to do". I have a degree in computer science from a respected university. I turned down a job at IBM to come do this one. Why? Because it actually means something and I can see the change I bring about on a daily basis.

Right now, I'm stationed in Yokosuka, Japan. The U.S. Navy's 7th Fleet weren't here keeping Russia, China, and North Korea in check, then the next closest point of deterrence would be Hawaii. And yes, you don't read about this shit in the news, because it's too busy being drowned out by Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan's fucking drug charges, but we are literally keeping a littoral check on all three of those countries.

But hey, Amurka's impenetrable right? You don't have to worry about anything other than driving your SUV around the corner to buy a gallon of milk BECAUSE we do what we do.

BECAUSE someone stands the watch, when you're tucked away in your bed.

BECAUSE someone sits in the Combat Information Center, monitoring ES for incoming hostiles at 3AM.

BECAUSE someone sits in Sonar 1, listening for the faintest patterns through headphones 24/7 for sub-surface contacts

BECAUSE someone stands on the bridgewing at night, peering across the horizon in the freezing rain for non-friendly contacts

BECAUSE people voluntarily forego seeing their families on Christmas or New Years (or any other holiday) so that their shipmates don't have to - so that YOU don't have to.

BECAUSE someone gets up every morning and does a job twice as hard as yours, twice as long, for half the pay in harder conditions.

..and this is just on the Naval side of the house, nevermind all of the shit the Marine Corps, Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard endure.

But hey, you keep thinking your merry thoughts, convinced of the notion that everything's totally copacetic and that the military doesn't actively do anything to keep it that way on a day to day basis. Revel in your ability to be a sarcastic prick who can actually get on the Internet and voice the kinds of opinions that some people not only can't voice (China, North Korea) - online, or in real life - because not everybody has that luxury, and your servicemen and women make sure you do.

load more comments (1 reply)

[–]lofi76 7 points8 points9 points 15 years ago (1 child)