11/10/2004 12:39 PM 1 out of 16
Someone recently asked what do I think Gay males could do. Here’s an idea.
20 gay males could show up at an Marine induction center declare that they are gay and they want to enlist. This type of activity could take place in every large city. Media attention is vital.
I strongly suggest that each gay male who shows up for service be eligible for service. The last thing we need is for some guy to chicken out if the Marines call his bluff.
Lesbians should stay home. That’s as about as politically incorrect as I can be, but it is true. Whether one likes it or not, this is a Male Issue and lesbians should stay out. I don’t care that women in general can serve; that it not the point. The point is that Gay Males are seen as Sissies -- they that don’t serve in the military. we have done very little to debunk the myth.
The fact that thousands of closeted gay men are in the military does nothing to tear down the stereotype as those servicemen are in the closet. It does not help if the straight population does nto know they're serving. The battle to be Gay in the Military has to be open, public, confrontational, aggressive and persistent and persistent and persistent – aggressively persistent.
Total_Top
11/10/2004 3:46 PM 2 out of 16
This is a stupid idea in time of war. I know young men who were allowed to enlist even though they said they were gay and soldiers who have come "out" and been told they will only be discharged after the war in Iraq is over.
If they want to keep gays out of the military, then let the people lose their heterosexual children.
I would not support your idea and I would work very hard to talk any young men out of doing this.
You didn't fight when you could have. So you have no room to talk. Maybe you need to deal with your own guilt on this issue firt?
robinsgarret
11/10/2004 6:29 PM 3 out of 16
The point is that Gay Males are seen as Sissies --
Are you the one who sees gay men this way, RickLee? Isn't THAT the real issue here?
RickLee
11/10/2004 8:50 PM 4 out of 16
No that is not how I see Gay men.
As Bill Clinto said today in talking in the context of the overall myopia of the Democratic Party, denial is not going to make the Party into a national party again. The same applies to Gays; holding to our own stereotypes about how terrible the rest of the country behaves is not going to makes life better for Gay persons.
We have a right to stand up for oruselves, but if that is our total concern, what are we? If we do not admit that we made errors in the face of 11 ballot defeats in one day, when will we.
RickLee
11/10/2004 8:58 PM 5 out of 16
Dear Total Top,
Your attitude is harmful to the Gay Community. You are stating a position which validates the subconscious stereotype that gays are weak and will not fight for the country.
Despite what Kerry wanted the country to believe, The War on Terrorism is not like Vietnam. Ho Ching Minh never bombed San Francisco. The War on Terrorism is the greatest threat to Western Civilization since the Battle of Tours in 732 when Charles Martel beat back the Moors in southern France.
There are thousands of gay men who want to serve but who cannot do so openly. This is a national disgrace. It is a volunteer army and no man, Gay or Straight, who believes that going into the military is not appropriate for him should be forced to do so. Those Gay men who want to serve, however, should have the full unqualified support of the Gay Community.
TheGreatWhiteBuffalo
11/10/2004 9:25 PM 6 out of 16
To RickLee:
First off this is 2004 we do not need war any more.
It is terrible that you think people should stoop to the level of killing each other.
The gay community could do better creating their own religion.
The military doesn't need to know anyones sexual orientation.
We need a better judicial system in our world, terrorism is not limited between any two oceans.
Terrorism takes place in our own back yards.
Fighting terrorism is a never ending war.
How can we win?
Find the source where the fighting begins.
The battle must be won in the heart.
Hate crime legislation, is it good or is it bad?
When I discussed a disenting position against hate crimes my view of why I liked hate crime legislation changed.
We have enough laws on the books to prosecute people for the crimes that they have committed. Therefore all we need to do is to get those criminals punished for violating our laws, this goes right back to judicial review and prosecutors doing their jobs.
I realized that Hate crime legislation turned an innocent victim one who would not normally be targetted to be a victim into the victim by putting stiffer penalties onto those that would have a choice to choose from committing a crime against a person and maybe choose a different person because if caught the penalty would be less. If the choice was yours would you target the person who would give you the least amount of punishment if you were to be caught? It could become a factor in someone's thinking.
Here is the crux of the whole post, the war in Iraq. What good of sending our troops in to fight against an invisible attacker? If we don't get ALL of the bad guys then we don't win. We need to change the thinking of the people and you do not do that with violence.
War is wrong against social disobediance, you need to incarcerate and train or teach people to respond differently. You need to provide and not react.
I hope somehow I am reaching you about what I am trying to share with everyone.
Let us see where this goes.
Peace
GWB
Total_Top
11/10/2004 9:50 PM 7 out of 16
RickLee -
“Your attitude is harmful to the Gay Community.”
You are entitled to your opinion. I don’t see gay people rushing to agree with you.
“You are stating a position which validates the subconscious stereotype that gays are weak and will not fight for the country.”
That’s your stereotype. And you reinforced it, didn’t you, when you refused to fight?
“Despite what Kerry wanted the country to believe, The War on Terrorism is not like Vietnam. Ho Ching Minh never bombed San Francisco. The War on Terrorism is the greatest threat to Western Civilization since the Battle of Tours in 732 when Charles Martel beat back the Moors in southern France.”
*yawn* I hate ignorance.
“There are thousands of gay men who want to serve but who cannot do so openly. This is a national disgrace.”
I agree. They shouldn’t serve until they can do so openly. So, I would discourage gays from serving under the current policy.
“It is a volunteer army and no man, Gay or Straight, who believes that going into the military is not appropriate for him should be forced to do so. Those Gay men who want to serve, however, should have the full unqualified support of the Gay Community.”
The volunteer part is likely to change. People who have completed their assignments are being called back in a “back door draft.”
You are free to support anyone you want. But until you show me how you are the spokesman for the “Gay Community,” you are just a frustrated old man who doesn’t appear to have much support of anyone.
Total_Top
11/10/2004 9:52 PM 8 out of 16
Buffalo -
Would you mind staying on topic? If you want to discuss homosexuality in general, please have some respect for the rest of us and go to the Sexual Orientation Debate board.
robinsgarret
11/12/2004 5:18 PM 9 out of 16
Here's an idea... we'll have Gay Men... (here after refered to as the GMC (Gay Male Community) ONLY fight for gay rights in the military.... and we'll have Gay Women (here after refered to as the GWC) ONLY fight for marriage rights.
That should wipe out those silly stereotypes and give us in roads in each.
DotNotInOz
11/12/2004 5:40 PM 10 out of 16
What a great idea, Robinsgarret! Clearly designated roles and their very own acronyms thoughtfully provided.
You have undoubtedly spared both the GMC and GWC untold hours of brainstorming and discussion. I'm sure you'll either be elected to a position of prominence or otherwise suitably rewarded for your commendable initiative.
Ummmm...you wouldn't know of a good oral surgeon, would you? I think my tongue is definitely stuck in my cheek.
JonAtFaithUCC
11/12/2004 6:36 PM 11 out of 16
So what about us gay men who, for a variety of reasons (including disability and age), could not enlist? Especially those of us with partners and children? Are we allowed to seek equal marriage rights & responsibilities while supporting those seeking to enter the military as openly gay soldiers?
RickLee
11/12/2004 7:29 PM 12 out of 16
Dear Jon At ...
Where did anyone suggest that Gay men not fit for military servcie should enlist? Have you bothered to read what has been written or did you only glance a one or two postings, and then chime in?
DotNotInOz
11/13/2004 9:09 AM 13 out of 16
To Jon: As RickLee demonstrates yet again that he is apparently incapable of answering pertinent questions without turning his response into another ad hominem, "Have you bothered to read what has been written or did you only glance a[t] [sic] one or two postings, and then chime in?", I'm guessing your answers lie within RickLee's statements in his group prospectus above. To wit, Gay Marriage confirms the stereotype that gay men are sissies who want to be women. Unless the country sees that we actually do FIGHT for the country, in their eyes we will haev not RIGHT to ask for anything.
You and your partner, if you have one, would be "sissies who want to be women" simply because you wish to be legally married. Furthermore, since you cannot volunteer for military service, no one can observe you fighting for your country, assuming that the Iraq War is ongoing thereby offering you the opportunity. So, RickLee thinks you have no right to ask for anything, probably including respectful answers from him to the questions you posed.
JonAtFaithUCC
11/13/2004 10:40 AM 14 out of 16
Rick responded to my earlier post: Where did anyone suggest that Gay men not fit for military servcie should enlist? Have you bothered to read what has been written or did you only glance a one or two postings, and then chime in?
I respond: Where did I suggest that Gay men not fit for military service should enlist? This was my question: "So what about us gay men who, for a variety of reasons (including disability and age), could not enlist? Especially those of us with partners and children? Are we allowed to seek equal marriage rights & responsibilities while supporting those seeking to enter the military as openly gay soldiers?".
You have written elsewhere: The issue of Gay Marriage should not precede the issue of Gays in the Military.
You have written that the fight against DADT should be our number one goal. That marital rights are bad for the gay community and reinforce a Sissy-stereotype to the rest of the world.
So I ask again, while otherwise eligible gay men are seeking to enlist and overturn DADT (with deserved support from the rest of us, IMHO), what are those of us who are ineligible for military service to do? How long do we wait to seek protections for our partners, children, and property?
JonAtFaithUCC
11/13/2004 1:39 PM 15 out of 16
Maybe another front to this war against DADT is the need to de-criminalize sodomy under military law.
Tucker
11/13/2004 11:43 PM 16 out of 16
Back to the first post in this thread: Twenty out gay men simultaneously trying to enlist would be an interesting demonstration. Do you think the military would take them anyway? Do you think they'd try to call in a shrink or a chaplain and convince them out of being gay, or at least try to get them to retract their statement of gayness, so the recruiter can meet quota? Do you think it's especially difficult to find people willing to enlist given that we're at war? Do you think there are many gay men willing to enlist at all?
Whoever wants to see the demonstration happen should organize it. Identify the gay men who want to serve and help them get their butts in the recruiting center at the same time. But, if you can't organize it, I wonder if you have an opinion about why it's so difficult to do.
Responses not accepted or permitted as following up this conversation at of all message boards, (Beliefnet)
Back To:
No comments:
Post a Comment