Amazon.com Widgets

« Links With Your Coffee - Monday | Main | Healthcare »

Gays in the Military

The Democrats make their view on gays in the military crystal clear.




Quicktime Video 8.3 MB : 00:03:25
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.


 

Comments

haha. i love that mike gravel got his jab in there at the end.

"you don't have to be straight to shoot straight"... nice.

"a big flood of discharges"? Is this a funny clip or a serious one? I can't tell yet...

"a big flood of discharges"? Is this a funny clip or a serious one? I can't tell yet...

Well said, Sen. Clinton. That was impressive. Seriously. Arabic linguistic experts. What the fuck is the military thinking?

"a big flood of discharges"? Is this a funny clip or a serious one? I can't tell yet...

LOL, well as for the line, "you don't have to be straight to shoot straight" this seems to me to probably have its origins in the adult entertainment industry and just so happened to make its way to Congress.

Gays in the military? Are they actually debating this? God, who gives a shit if there are gay people in the military?

They debate it because of two reasons. Firstly, gays represent a voting bloc. Democratic politicians aren't any significantly less homophobic than their Republican counterparts -- it's just that with the Republicans having gone after the Evangelicals, they can't also pander to the gay bloc.

Gays would naturally lean towards Democrats as a result of that, so most Democrats have no sincere desire to speak up on this issue -- and there's the second reason why this is being discussed: the media showed an ounce of cajones for a change, and asked a valid question.

Women are allowed in the military, but not because US politicians are any less misogynistic, than they are homophobes. Women are allowed simply because they represent a bigger group of voters.

Bill Hicks:

"Gays in the military... here's how I feel about it, alright? Anyone... DUMB enough... to want to be in the military, should be allowed in. End of fucking story. That should be the only requirement."

He said that over 15 years ago, and still you're arguing over it? Hell, here in the UK we don't care what gender you stick your willy into.

Well said Alex! Look at how much noise nonsense issues like gays in the military, gay marriage, the death penalty (probably the rarest occurrence in the annals of crime and punishment), flag burning, etc. etc take up. We are in a process of selecting arguably the most powerful person in the world. The President is a person who will have sweeping powers of influence of control not only over the 300 million Americans but almost every person alive on the planet. Why does the debate boil down to issues that represent probably less than 1% of a President's real exercise of power in office? I think it is, yet again, an overt example of American arrogance over character judgement. "Gee, he agree's with my opposition to abortion, I guess he must have ideas that are just as good for everything else." Single-issue voting is the root of all evils undermining American democracy today. It is probably the most fundamental bad legacy of Ronald Reagan's 8-years in office. Now it is the lingua franca of politics. Single issue voters should not even be allowed to be voters; of course, that would be un-democratic, no matter how true it is. That's why I moved to Thailand.

This is nothing but pandering to the democratic base. Good waste of a question (we should be talking about how these democratic luminaries failed to persuade their own party to vote against renewed Iraq spending, for example). (see vote stats here.)

Sorry, here.

Bill Hicks was a genius :-) I just wish he was around to give us shrewd spot-on social commentary today :(

Alex and Kelly to see who "gives a shit" and why they do: http://www.newyorker.com/online/video/conference/2007/haidt

And Kelly, if you are (were) an American Citizen, and you left for the reasons you mention the you are an ignorant coward.

"The President is a person who will have sweeping powers of influence of control not only over the 300 million Americans but almost every person alive on the planet."

And that is why these moral questions are so important to people.

As a gay veteran, I think the DADT policy is beyond inhuman. We the United States of America are supposed to be a GREAT country, but this sort of discriminatory policy is not beyond unfair. I was raised to believe that this was the best country in the world, but this isn't the action of an enlightened society that's supposed to be the major world power. Just one more piece of this retarded American pie...

Biden is awsome! Hillary did a fantastic job explaining that too.

I agree with J R. For those of you commenting that you don't think this is a valid issue, you're just terribly wrong. They are debating this because there is a law on the books that needs changed. In the military, DADT isn't some arbitrary thing, it is a defined law in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and it is causing some significant losses of gifted linguists, like Clinton said. So you can cry "who gives a shit if there are gay people in the military?" but the fact remains that this IS a serious issue for the American military, and it's something that needs to be resolved.

Kelly-- Are you implying that Thailand is a good model for democracy? I might question that.

I'd still much rather be focusing on how to keep the U.S. military out of Iran, for example, thereby saving soldiers' lives, gay or straight.

Don't get me wrong: change the DADT policy; it clearly sucks. Just don't make a big deal about it.

-bilbo.

I just meant that it's kind of a "duh" issue. I know there are laws that have to be dealt with, but just as with the issue of gay marriage, I honestly can not believe that people feel the need to explain why they don't think an entire group ought to be discriminated against. Like, if we still had anti-miscegenation laws on the books, Wolf would be asking the candidates to explain why they supported overturning these laws. And all I'm saying is that, if I were one of the candidates, my response would be, "Um, because it's a dumb law that serves no purpose except to be mean to a large group of people? Uh...end of debate?"

It's like the existence of God. The burden of proof ought to be on those who make discriminatory laws, not those who want to overturn them. And I know Bill was the one who created the DADT law. Hey, no one's perfect. If wives aren't allowed to fix their husbands' mistakes, what are we even doing as a society?

Who gives a shit about DADT, you ask? How about the 30 million gays living in America? We may only be 10% but we are a voting base just like anyone else. When the army was still racially segregated, African Americans in the United States took up less than 10% of the population. Would you stand indifferently while THEIR civil rights get violated, too? Or are gays the only group to get special discrimination here? Wake up, you heterocentric idiots. Just because YOUR political issue and MY political issue don't happen to match up 100% of the time doesn't make either my political issue or my rights (which I receive as a tax-paying citizen) invalid. People who pull that "who cares" crap are no better than the fascists on the right wing.

Why is it ok to hate gay people, I dont understand? The only reason I can think of that dadt law even exists is because there are so many homophobes in the military, who claim gay people will look at them in the shower. But yes as adam pointed out bill hicks said it best, along with alot of other insightful things, especially pro lifers, war on drugs, christians, hitler etc. (funny thing is im actually joining the military.)

And this reminds me didnt one of the republicans at the debate say it should be ok for employers to fire gay people for just being gay? what a jackass....

One question, does the Iraqi government want a continued foreign military presence or do they want the troops out?

I believe I have it bookmarked somewhere but I can't seem to find it. Pretty sure they want the troops out (the population certainly do).

I haven't seen it posted here yet, but was anyone else surprised at the angle with which Hillary answered the question about the policy Bill Jeff passed? She actually answered it!

"Nobody asked anybody else if they were gay in those holes."

Should we take bets to see if this comment ends up on Steward/Colbert tonight? I have a feeling it might...

Democratic politicians aren't any significantly less homophobic than their Republican counterparts - it's just that with the Republicans having gone after the Evangelicals, they can't also pander to the gay bloc.

This is more cynical than logical. Given that gay-bashing has been a favorite sport of GOP politicians for quite some time, I'm sure that attitudes on this issue have some influence on the choices politicians make in choosing their party affiliations. Of course, I'm sure you can find anti-gay bigots among Democrats and unbigoted Republicans, but on average it is unreasonable to think that attitudes concerning gays in the parties' constituencies aren't reflected in the parties' politicians.

I think you misunderstood my point, Nikolai. I was trying to say that it is ridiculous that anyone gives a shit whether gay people want serve in the army. It should be a non-issue.

I absolutely agree with you that anyone ought to be able to serve if they want to. That was my point: the fact that it needs to be debated seems ludicrous to me, as though there is anything to say about this matter other than, "Wow, this is really really heterosexist and homophobic. There is absolutely no good reason to have this law on the books."

Instead, it has become this "issue" that has to be debated, and I'm saying that's bullshit, because the answer to the problem (i.e., don't limit any civil liberties or rights because someone is gay) is so obvious that there can't even really be a rational argument about it.

How do you answer a question that doesn't make any sense in the first place? It would be like having a debate about whether a man ought to be allowed beat his wife. It would be a stupid waste of time to debate this question, because it is so obviously wrong for someone to beat someone else. Just as it is wrong to exclude someone from military service because of their sexual orientation. It's just a stupid discussion about something that should not even be an issue.

love the end where kucinich is left flailing and yipping at wolf. he was, ultimately, completely ignored.

user-pic

"Women are allowed in the military, but not because US politicians are any less misogynistic, than they are homophobes. Women are allowed simply because they represent a bigger group of voters."

Yawn. It sure is easy to avoid having to justify any belief you have when you can just dismiss everyone who disagrees with you with some broad label.

So the fact that women are allowed in the military - and yes there are actual problems with having women in the military, just as there are with women firefighters, women police, etc - is not enough for you. Everyone's still a "misogynist" to you.

Now the fact that allowing openly gay people in the military would be destructive to morale and unit cohesion means nothing to you, and like everyone else you just dismiss the natural heterosexual reaction of revulsion at homosexual behavior as a 'phobia'. Wow, I guess not wanting to be waterboarded is just irrational hydrophobia.

And don't beg off with the 'fear is phobia' nonsense because generally to qualify as a phobia, a belief must be irrational. It is not irrational to find homosexuality repulsive. It's human nature. The world doesn't conform to your PC view? Tough. There are other people in the world, and they have views of their own.

"Nobody asked anybody else if they were gay in those holes." Should we take bets to see if this comment ends up on Steward/Colbert tonight? I have a feeling it might...

Jon Stewart in Conservatory with the Biden Joke. I so called it :-p

Oh, man. My human nature hates you. I guess that means this is a perfectly justified position to take. I guess you ought to be dehumanized and demeaned because my human nature is getting repulsed by your gayness.

Seriously, guy. What the crap are you talking about? "It's human nature to be repulsed by homosexuality?" Based on what evidence? These strange feelings you can't cope with? I call bullshit on that. Who made you the spokesman for human nature, anyway?

Also, "phobia" means fear. It does not have to be an irrational fear to be a phobia, but I would say that fear of homosexuals (or fear of homosexuality) is pretty irrational.

It is not irrational to find homosexuality repulsive. It's human nature.

The idea that homosexuality is pathological has more than a little to do with the history of religion. I'm not suggesting that the revulsion that some heterosexuals feel for homosexuals can be entirely explained in terms of religious doctrine but it can be largely explained in such terms. The stigma over time has permeated society to the point where even secular persons can start to hate minorities (blacks, women, gays, etc. [which explains why some Muslims view women as inferior dogs—would you call this human nature by your logic?])

Moreover, not all societies view homosexuality as repulsive. Because of globalization (as well as the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions), many ideas get shared across the board to the point where now we do not really witness such a difference of opinion toward differing orientations. It should be noted, however, that many societies existed where homosexuality was seen as acceptable. In the east we have the examples of the Ancient Greeks (from Socrates down to the very pagan religions they followed (Zeus having male lovers, Narcissus teaching eromenos to not be cruel to their erastes lovers, etc.) In the west, the Native Americans had something known as “two-spirit”, where they accepted each individual to be a contributing role to society without stigma or revulsion. The fact that you label it as "human nature" just fosters your own ignorance. Consider that our species (as well as hundreds of other animals) not only has homosexuality, but that evolutionarily speaking is found to be beneficial to the populations of these animals.

Simply because I may find old people making out to be utterly repulsive doesn't mean I go out of my way to support a bigoted agenda against them. So now the whole nation has to cater to the revulsion you feel toward gays? You compare the forceful coercion of prisoners being tortured by water-boarding to homosexuality? Unless they are going out of their way to sodomize you, then yes, your phobia is irrational.

user-pic

"Oh, man. My human nature hates you. I guess that means this is a perfectly justified position to take. I guess you ought to be dehumanized and demeaned because my human nature is getting repulsed by your gayness."

And bingo, right to the heart of your dishonesty: the lie that to disapprove of your lifestyle choice is the same as, or necessarily leads to, 'dehumanizing' or 'demeaning' you.

Tell me something: do you consider drug addiction to be something that should be shunned? How about alcoholism? Do you 'dehumanize' or 'demean' those people, as well? Or do you just have an ideological disagreement with their choice?

Stop being dishonest.

"Based on what evidence?"

All of recorded human history, and the fact that it's a natural human reaction. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

"Also, "phobia" means fear"

So you're ignorant as well as dishonest. I suggest you invest in a dictionary.

"The idea that homosexuality is pathological has more than a little to do with the history of religion."

Sorry, but just saying that doesn't make it so.

And in any case, religion is an evolution of human ways. Man made God, remember, not the other way around. What we encode into accepted social practices is generally an extension of what we naturally do, and what keeps us alive.

Simply saying "oh that's based in religion" (with no proof, mind you) doesn't do away with the natural human behavior we are describing. It is natural for a heterosexual to be repulsed, and possibly offended, by homosexuality.

"Moreover, not all societies view homosexuality as repulsive."

However the vast majority do, and have done for the vast majority of recorded human history. It is also one of the most universally reviled behaviors among cultures - no matter how diverse.

I can also show you some societies in which cannibalism is 'okay'. Doesn't mean it fits here.

"Simply because I may find old people making out to be utterly repulsive doesn't mean I go out of my way to support a bigoted agenda against them."

If only that analogy worked - a better analogy using your building blocks is: isn't it so bigoted and horrible that we don't allow 80-year-old midget women on the front lines of battle?!? How can we be so ageheightsexaphobic?!?!?

"So now the whole nation has to cater to the revulsion you feel toward gays? "

Not at all. You confuse our agendas. Your agenda - the 'gay agenda' - is to force people to accept homosexuality. The agenda of free-thinking people such as myself is to make people like you realize that you don't have that right.

Note that for all the BS about some right-wing conspiracy to deny gay people rights, nobody is actually denying gay people anything. You're just naturally excluded from some things. Marriage doesn't include gay people. You want to force us to accept you, not the other way around.

The fact of the matter is that openly gay people in the military would be destructive to unit cohesion and camaraderie. It's not all about gay people. There are other people in society, too.

However the vast majority do, and have done for the vast majority of recorded human history. It is also one of the most universally reviled behaviors among cultures - no matter how diverse.

This is called the Band Wagon Fallacy. Simply because many adherents follow a certain trend speaks nothing of human nature. Many—throughout history no less—not only suggested that the Aryan race was superior, but also considered slavery to be acceptable and sometimes even encouraged. You are presenting a ridiculous argument grounded on nothing but your own convictions and popular trends.

If only that analogy worked - a better analogy using your building blocks is: isn't it so bigoted and horrible that we don't allow 80-year-old midget women on the front lines of battle?!? How can we be so ageheightsexaphobic?!?!?

Using the “must be this tall to ride” argument doesn’t fit with homosexuality because being gay doesn’t impede one from performing adequately in field service. This is what Senator Clinton argued. Nice try.

Not at all. You confuse our agendas. Your agenda - the 'gay agenda' - is to force people to accept homosexuality. The agenda of free-thinking people such as myself is to make people like you realize that you don't have that right.

This argument can fit so perfectly with the argument for equal rights of African-Americans and you don’t even see it—assuming you are tolerant of them. No one is forcing you to give fellacio to a gay person. Homosexuals want equal rights and tolerance. If you find it repulsive that is a different issue—non-issue really. And don’t even dare try to associate yourself with freethinkers like us. You are no better than a bigoted religious toady. Oh and here's you're "gay agenda".

Note that for all the BS about some right-wing conspiracy to deny gay people rights, nobody is actually denying gay people anything.

You’re not even paying attention which is the saddest part.

Marriage doesn't include gay people.

And neither did blacks constitute a full human being. Law does not speak for morality nor does conviction and popular bigotry speak for reason and logic.

The fact of the matter is that openly gay people in the military would be destructive to unit cohesion and camaraderie.

Please elaborate. I’m just dying to hear your evidence for such a claim about gays in the military being destructive.

It's not all about gay people. There are other people in society, too.

Yes, why won’t anybody think of the other people. Those poor un-oppressed and un-stigmatized people. It must be so hard for them. (tear). You are serious psychotic.

Oh and here's you "Human nature." Science--well, reason in general--is not with you. Sorry.

Hes obviously a moron and it probably is a waste of time to argue with him.

He's trying to use "logic" to justify discrimination, we all know that doesnt work, because to rational compassionate human beings, discrimination is wrong. And that is all gays are asking for, the same rights as everybody else.

Tell me something: do you consider drug addiction to be something that should be shunned? How about alcoholism? Do you 'dehumanize' or 'demean' those people, as well? Or do you just have an ideological disagreement with their choice?

Are you arguing that there isn't a huge stigma attached to being an alcoholic or a drug user? Of course by saying that there is something about an individual that needs to be "shunned" you are dehumanizing and demeaning them. Is there any way to say, "I don't agree with who you are. I think that there is something WRONG with you." without dehumanizing that person? Don't be ridiculous by someone insinuating that you can say there is something wrong with someone without finding them inferior and yourself and your position superior.

I think it's safe to say that there are people with something intrinsically wrong with them. People that society needs to keep apart for the safety of society. Those who would molest a child, the criminally insane, those who cannot seem to stop themselves from inflicting harm on others. But shouldn't that be the acid test? The inflicting of harm on another?

You're saying that you belive there is something intrinsically wrong with being gay/lesbian. That they need to be treated differently by society because of that "wrongness" But why? Only because of your belief that it's "wrong"? Why is it wrong? Who does it harm? Why are some people so terribly hung up on this issue and others able to absolutely dismiss it as completely irrelevant to who a person is??

I'm not gay. I'm a man. I have no issue whatsoever with anyone being gay. It's a complete non-issue when it comes to who a person is. It's as irrelevant to me as whether or not someone likes to drink coffee or finds it vile. Why? You tell a child who hasn't been indoctrinated by a specific belief system that a man loves a man and there's no innate response to that. There's no argument whatsoever to this revulsion being anything but a learned response. Of course it's religious. We wouldn't be having this conversation without religion.

Why aren't we having a national debate about passing legislation to prevent anyone from working on the Sabbath? It's one of the freaking ten commandments and no one ever mentions it? Why?????

Let me clarify something: When I said the Democrats aren't any less homophobic than the Republicans, I meant their honest, off-the-record opinions -- as opposed to the way they actually portray themselves in public, for the benefit of votes. Republicans clearly takes an anti-gay stance officially, but that's just because it is politically convenient for them to do so. They deserve to be punished for it, since it is inherently evil and bigoted. If the Republicans actually were as homophobic in private, and they pretend to in public, would there by any gays working for the Republican party in DC? Would there be any Logcabin Republicans? Would Dick Cheney be on speaking terms with his daughter?

Only a single member of Congress has "come out" as an atheist... Not every member is a Mensa candidate, but you can't reach such a high office without being intelligent and resourceful, and considering that the more intelligent a person is, the more likely they are to be atheists -- you get the picture: They are pandering to the public.

And as far as homophobia goes: that's a socially conditioned phobia. If your skin crawls when exposed to gayness, please consider that if you were born in Sparta at the time of King Leonidas, you'd happily take a protein injection up the tailpipe from an older man. M'kay?

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives