The Gay Case Against Joining The Military
Now this is more like it. A non-apologetic liberal making the case against gays in the military as a civil rights issue. CA Conrad not only makes the argument that it isn’t a civil right, but that we should prevent people from joining the military altogether. We should go back to the “good old days” (Vietnam) when gays were at the forefront of bashing our soldiers. Hoo-rah!
Why Gays In The Military Is NOT A Civil Rights Issue – TenThousandByTheFourthOfJuly
One of the most difficult things to talk about with gays and lesbians these days is Iraq. The so-called “gay media” is only interested in shouting to let “our” soldiers in, to let “us” join and be part of… part of what? Can we refresh ourselves a moment here, I mean, tens of thousands of people have lost their lives in a war everyone realizes was for the sake of greed.
If you bought stock in Haliburton three years ago you’d be sick with wealth today. And if you did buy their stock I hope you do get sick from your wealth, your blood money!
Gays in the military, THIS is the big push? THIS is a civil rights issue? You want the “right” to put a fucking rainbow sticker on your machine gun? You GO G. I. Joe! You Hero!
No, this is not a civil rights issue. Unless we can all agree that it’s our right to kill innocent civilians. Can we do that? Can we agree killing is cool? Can we agree that a civil rights issue doesn’t have to be civil, can involve civilian killings instead, huh? Huh? You like that do you?
Don’t be mistaken…. I do not support the views of this piece at all. But I did find it thought-provoking and a worthy perspective to be discussed in our “marketplace of ideas” here at GayPatriot.
(PS – I’m guessing the name of the blog suggests 10,000 US casualties in Iraq by July 4th?)
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
28 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
CA Conrad’s type of “thinking” has been around as long as “gays in the military” has been an issue, and will crop up from time to time.
The post-Stonewall gay movement began as a very leftist movement in the anti-Vietnam era. Gay “Liberation” they called it – meaning they modelled themselves on (Communist) Vietnamese “liberation” and other liberation movements. The first Gay Libs revelled in the idea of being sexual outlaws and in conflict with the rest of society. They ridiculed “assimilationism”, including the idea of fighting for gay marriage.
But even commies can’t totally wreck a good idea (gay equality). As the Gay Lib movement caught, and as it merged with the pre-Stonewall gay rights movment (that was more conventional and pro-U.S.), moderates joined and people slowly forgot about revolutionary doctrine.
I’m only saying, the far left / anti-military seed has always been there – but it doesn’t have to determine our fate; we can be something else.
Comment by Calarato — June 4, 2006 @ 11:07 am - June 4, 2006
Bruce, of all people to be smarmy about a prediction about the number of dead American soldiers in Iraq…. may I remind you that you and your President and his advisors have been wrong about everything. And, let me further remind you that the war is not over, and 2007 and 2008 and 2009 all have a 4th of July too.
Dan
Comment by Dan — June 4, 2006 @ 11:16 am - June 4, 2006
You know full well that the 10,000 is for those who will not serve this madness in Iraq.
CAConrad
Are you a TRANS-BOXER? Or maybe you are and just don’t realize it yet?
Comment by CAConrad — June 4, 2006 @ 11:45 am - June 4, 2006
Whoa!! Come again? What have they been wrong about, in Iraq?
(1) Saddam being a truly evil dictator who slaughters his own people – Check.
(2) Saddam having WMD materials and research programs – Check.
(3) Saddam having actual WMD stockpiles – OK, No check – BUT – that was a failure of the world’s intelligence agencies.
(4) Saddam’s military / regime taken down in one month – Check.
(5) But, Iraq simply teeming with Islamist terrorists (that was part of the war justification, remember) – Check.
(6) Iraqi people thirsting for democracy – Check.
(7) Iraqi people welcoming Coalition forces as liberators; wanting them gone eventually of course, but also ASKING them to stay until Iraqi democracy can get off the ground – Check.
(8) Iraqi democracy representing a crushing moral defeat for the hateful ideology of al Qaeda, and a source of hope to democratic reform movements throughout the Middle East – Check.
The only thing they’ve been wrong about, in Iraq, is point (3) – and that wasn’t hardly their fault.
Try again, Dan.
Comment by Calarato — June 4, 2006 @ 11:45 am - June 4, 2006
Why didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia if as you say we’re so worried about the unchecked balance sheet on al Qaeda? You’re an apologist for everything and everyone in this country who needs a reason for senseless murder and theft.
What went wrong you ask? Well my friend, nothing went right.
To make matters worse the citizens of Iraq are in the middle of living with 60 percent unemployment. 60 percent!? That’s 3 times the percent we lived with in the USA at the time of the Great Depression.
What went right. Nothing. Tens of thousands suffer for greed.
And stupid homosexuals who want to whine and bitch about not being able to put a rainbow sticker on their machine guns is what we have to deal with today.
Well BOO HOO!
CAConrad
Are you a TRANS-BOXER? Or maybe you are and just don’t realize it yet?
Comment by CAConrad — June 4, 2006 @ 11:53 am - June 4, 2006
Disconnected ranting doesn’t work here, CA Conrad.
“What went wrong you ask…” Errr, NO Conrad. That isn’t what I asked. Re-read #4. What has U.S. political leadership been wrong about in Iraq, I asked. Different question.
Putting it more broadly, nothing in your comment #4 is rationally connected to something Bruce said or to something else in this comment thread.
And, by the way, your Iraq unemployment figure is just wrong, AND you left out the part where it is dropping rapidly and >80% of Iraqis feel their country is headed in the right direction.
You do need to try much harder.
Comment by Calarato — June 4, 2006 @ 12:00 pm - June 4, 2006
Sorry, typo. “Putting it more broadly, nothing in your [Conrad's] #5 is rationally connected…”
Comment by Calarato — June 4, 2006 @ 12:06 pm - June 4, 2006
This morning on the news 60 percent was the figure.
Has it been dropping by 80 percent since then? Well, it is after 12 here now (12:08 to be exact), so maybe in the last couple of hours?
That’s GREAT NEWS! I’m so excited that the unemployment rate has SUDDENLY DROPPED AND EVERYONE IN IRAQ HAS JOBS AND THE DEAD HAVE RISEN FROM THEIR GRAVES AND THE OIL IS SPURTING OUT OF THE SAND FOR ALL THE WORLD TO BATHE IN!
You have NO SENSE whatsoever about what the TRUE queer warriors who MADE our movement possible in the first place were all about!
CAConrad
Are you a TRANS-BOXER? Or maybe you are and just don’t realize it yet?
Comment by CAConrad — June 4, 2006 @ 12:10 pm - June 4, 2006
This guy is priceless! LOL
I’m so glad I don’t wallk around with all of this ANGER consuming me everyday.
Good heavens. LOL
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — June 4, 2006 @ 12:17 pm - June 4, 2006
If you read his previous post you will find it refers to the number of AWOL soldiers at the moment (actually at about 8000).
Which by the way is not anything out of the ordinary if you look at the numbers of AWOL historically. Its a tiny, tiny percerntage of numbers of personnell we have in our military.
Considering the violence of the young mans rhetoric, I’m surprised he doesn’t join the military himself, since he apparently believes its only for violent cave-dwelling people.
Frankly I think he knows fuck about what he is talking about.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — June 4, 2006 @ 12:36 pm - June 4, 2006
I can’t believe Conrad thinks that if he hits the CAPS LOCK key, his content/words will magically become more rational and persuasive. LOL
Comment by Calarato — June 4, 2006 @ 1:00 pm - June 4, 2006
Yes dear, laugh all you want.
It’s so funny isn’t it? Yes, a laugh a minute when you think about all the suffering our tax dollars dishes out. Oh yes, it’s SO FUNNY!
And yes, no need to be angry. Oh goodness, why aren’t we having a nice gay party about the whole thing?
You make me sick!
And to the folks who e-mail me directly, I told you to see me HERE! Especially to the asshole who said that I DISGRACE the graves of gay American soldiers, yeah? Well what about the graves of the gay Iraqi citizens?
If we take the 10 percent margin into consideration, then 10 percent of the TENS OF THOUSANDS of murdered Iraqis FAR OUTWEIGHS the number of possible gay American soldiers.
AND LOOK AT HOW PERSUASIVE THIS SENTENCE REALLY IS NOW THAT IT’S IN CAPITAL LETTERS!
and IF i MAKE every OTHER word ALL capital LETTERS maybe I am MEANING what?
The argument FOR war is the issue.
The apathy for the dead Iraqis, to the point of MAKING them be GRATEFUL for our aggression on their land to bring them freedom. Wow.
And to the person who e-mailed me saying that I should just shut up and vote for Hillary Clinton, no, she’s actually closer to your ideas than my own. I cannot and will not vote for anyone who voted FOR the Patriot Act.
But I’m sure you asshole “Gay Patriots” just LOVE the fucking Patriot Act, don’t you?
Yeah, how charming. You salute to the flag has real nice SUCK MY COCK kind of ring to it!
CAConrad
Are you a TRANS-BOXER? Or maybe you are and just don’t realize it yet?
Comment by CAConrad — June 4, 2006 @ 6:13 pm - June 4, 2006
Conrad,
Why don’t the vicious attacks of the terrorists in Iraq on the Iraqi people outrage you?
Very few of those 30,000 civilian deaths in the last 3 years in Iraq (a significant drop from Saddam’s 30-50,000 per year, by the way) were caused by Coalition troops, dude. They were caused by terrorists.
And why is the Coalition there at all? To help the Iraqi people fight terrorists and have a democracy.
Why don’t vicious, murdering terrorists outrage you?
I know it is much easier and safer for you to misplace your rage onto the good guys, than to face the reality of the world’s true evil – the terrorists. Bye and good luck.
Comment by Calarato — June 4, 2006 @ 6:55 pm - June 4, 2006
Well, that was interesting but I don’t think I’d call it thought provoking.
Comment by Synova — June 5, 2006 @ 2:09 am - June 5, 2006
Oh, and I wanted to thank Gryph for mentioning that the AWOL rates are about what they are when we’re not at war. I’d like to add that we’ve been going on now, long enough, that anyone now serving either enlisted after 9-11 or re-enlisted since then.
Gays in the military isn’t a civil rights issue (and neither is gay marriage, IMO) but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have both of them.
Comment by Synova — June 5, 2006 @ 2:15 am - June 5, 2006
Excuse me for chiming in late, but I’ve been busy this weekend.
I just love, LOVE, how many people rant and rave and spit acid when defending the innocent Iraqi people and scream and yell about the evils of our men and women in the Armed Services, especially those who haven’t been there.
I have been there. I’ve walked in the Souk in Samarra, climbed the Spiral Mineret, watched the sunrise over the Tigris River, and had chai with many, many Iraqis. I’ve know men and women who were hurt or killed defending themselves, thier friends, and local Iraqis. I’ve lain in a field hospital bed beside Iraqi soldiers who were being treated and cared for by American military Doctors and Nurses. And I honestly believe that what we are doing over there is a good thing.
People say this isn’t our war, that we should just pack it up and leave. What about WWII? Was that our war? Sure the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor but what about the Eastern Front? What did Germany ever do to threaten Americans? Should we have wasted the thousands of American lives freeing the French, Dutch, Italians, or Jews? Hiltler was about as much threat to us as Saddam was right? He rounded up undesirables, Jews, Roma, Gays and the like to exterminate them. But there were no Nazi-Supported attacks on New York or D.C. that I remember reading about in the history books.
So what was the point? Why did we do it? Is supporting the war effort in Europe acceptable because the main part of ther American people are decended from Western Europeans? Our roots and our families are firmly planted in the UK, France, Spain, and Germany. That is not the case for the Middle East. Its a strange land, with different cultures and languages and religions than out own ancestory has given us. Does that make them less worthy of protection of genocide and slavery.
You, CAConrad, argue about the unemployment rate. What was the unemployment rate during Saddam Hussien’s presidency? How were the medical facilities and education and power and water supplies. All of this has improved since the US-led invasion of the Fertile Cresent.
I’ve been there. I’ve walked through and sat in Sandstone palaces with marble floors and mud huts with thatched roofs. I’ve seen what Saddam did to his own people.
We are doing a good thing. “With great power comes great responsibility” We are THE world power. We cannot stand idily by why atrocities are wrecked upon defenseless people. No Iraq and Afganistan aren’t the only places in the world where bad things happen. But can you name many more more deserving?
Comment by Red — June 5, 2006 @ 9:26 am - June 5, 2006
Right on. And thank you for what you’ve done!
Comment by Calarato — June 5, 2006 @ 10:12 am - June 5, 2006
Thanks, Red. Some valid personal experience trumps invalid moral exhibitionism every time.
The issue about joining or not joining is not about civil rights, except indirectly. It is about civic duty. People who expect to vote, enjoy police protection and all the other beneifts of citizenship owe public service. Period. Otherwise they are parasites. That is the argument for women in the military as well as gays.
Indirectly though, this is about civil rights, because civil and any other political rights are political power, and that comes out of the barrel of a gun. Do we really want only evil bigots and all those other wicked Neanderthals to be the only ones with military skills, the only ones in control of military power in society?
Comment by Jim — June 5, 2006 @ 12:40 pm - June 5, 2006
I always thought, in an all volunteer military, that the issue was jobs, training and benefits. In the last 35 years we have been at peace much longer than the few weeks of Greneda and the months of Iraq I and Iraq II. It is about equal protection and equal treatmment under he law.
-
Comment by chandler in hollywood — June 5, 2006 @ 3:32 pm - June 5, 2006
See? Just let them talk, and they hang themselves every time.
Comment by rightwingprof — June 5, 2006 @ 3:39 pm - June 5, 2006
That is one issue, Chandler. It is a side issue. The underlying issue has always been the common defense. Some citizens are willing to do their share and others aren’t. Some citizens do their share as civilians; as Peace Corps volunteers, as diplomats, as cultural influences overseas – the whole range of DIME. Others just coast. This has always been the case, whether we had a volunteer or a draft force. Rich and influential people could always get their sons out of service. They still don’t have to worry about getting their daughters out of service, but that sis o true on so many fronts.
Anyway. The issue of jobs, training and benefits. While it may look like these are loss leaders to bring in suckers, in fact it works both ways. The training you mention is training the military has to conduct whatever the status of the new recruit. The benefits you mention – medical care, education, etc – are simply maintenance of this now valuable asset. So it is simply idle to argue who is benefiting whom. Because – and this is part of the training a new recruit needs – the soldier or sailor or whatever is no longer some individual in a contractual relationship with an employer, as was the case when the recurit was that little bourgeois parasite with a market mentality coming in off the street; he or she is now an organic part of the military community, a member and not an employee who can be laid off or fired at will or replaced like a temp. By the time that recruit gets to his unit, there is a good chunk of money tied up in him/her.
Comment by Jim — June 5, 2006 @ 4:22 pm - June 5, 2006
#15 by Synova — June 5, 2006 @ 2:15 am – June 5, 2006
Gays in the military isn’t a civil rights issue (and neither is gay marriage, IMO)
Actually, both are civil rights issues, but regarding “gays in the military,” the fact is that some rather significant benefits accrue to having served in the military.
Two obvious examples:
One, veterans’ benefits regarding medical care, whether or not the medical conditions were as a result of their military service.
Two, in more than a few states, and in the federal government (at least this used to be the case), veterans were awarded additional points on their civil service examinations, which gave them an undeserved “leg up” to governmental employment after they left the military. Why “undeserved”? Because the points had nothing to do with their ability to do the jobs for which the civil service examinations purported to test.
So, the anti-gay witch-hunts conducted by the military do, indeed, negatively affect the civil rights of gay people.
Comment by raj — June 6, 2006 @ 12:48 am - June 6, 2006
#16 by Red — June 5, 2006 @ 9:26 am – June 5, 2006
This rant is so convoluted that it makes no sense whatsoever, but as to one point:
What did Germany ever do to threaten Americans?
Um, this is a joke, right? Apparently you are unaware of the fact that Germany declared war on the United States before the United States declared war on Germany. I suppose that some people might believe that a declaration of war is not a threat, but I am not among them.
Actually, the US and Germany had been conducting an “under the radar” naval battle for some time before either declared war on the other, but that’s another issue.
Comment by raj — June 6, 2006 @ 12:50 am - June 6, 2006
Okay, I just have to say it.
You assholes are the type of fags who went SCURRYING and RUNNING out the back door of Stonewall in 1969!
That American Revolution one of you jerk-offs referred to as gay “Liberation” with quotation marks around Liberation, but THAT American Revolution known to the rest of the world as The Stonewall Riot, has made it possible for YOU dumbass conservative queers to have your website here today.
BY THE FUCKING WAY! DO YOU REALLY FUCKING THINK ANNE COULTAR LIKES YOU FAGS!?
CAConrad
DEVIANT PROPULSION
Comment by CAConrad — June 6, 2006 @ 7:18 am - June 6, 2006
“One, veterans’ benefits regarding medical care, whether or not the medical conditions were as a result of their military service. ”
Fair point. Quite valid, so these witch-hunts are a civil rights issue.
One thing to remember though is that there is a gulf between policy and execution. It is no secret that the medical and intelligence fields along with the Special Forces community have tradtionally been gay-safe zones, and pretty much for the same reason – 1) they are insular and basicaly contemptuous of outsiders, and especially of snuff-dipping manuever arms pinheads, and 2)the snuff-dipping pinheads need them enough and cannot replace them easily enough that they end up tolerating their insularity (calling it “esprit de corps” or some such figleaf term). What this means is that in cases where it is brought to the attention of the commander that some soldier iswings the other way, the commander just always has more pressing matters to attend to, and somehow further up the chain higher his/her commanders agree with that assessment. It has been this way for a long time.
Is that good enough? Hardly. There are plenty of gay snuff-dipping maneuver arms pinheads, and they are not in a safe zone. UNSAT.
Comment by Jim — June 6, 2006 @ 4:58 pm - June 6, 2006
#25 Jim — June 6, 2006 @ 4:58 pm – June 6, 2006
What you relate in your main paragraph pretty much conforms to what I have been told elsewhere. Within the military, there is “policy” and there is “reality” and the two do not necessarily coincide, particularly in these elite groups.
Comment by raj — June 7, 2006 @ 12:38 am - June 7, 2006
Re #16 by Red and #23 by raj. Red you are right about Germany and raj you are full of crap. I spent 4 years in the Army from 1942 to 1946. Three years were spent in Europe. I know what went on – not what some left wing professor told me later.
JohnW
Comment by John W — February 4, 2007 @ 4:11 am - February 4, 2007
why on earth would any gay person WANT to be in the military?you, who have been historically the victims of violence, now want to be part of the killing machine?i remember having to register for the draft, i was so releived to discover that they wouldnt want me anyway!never mind youre so called right to serve,,think of your right NOT to,be glad they dont want you for cannon foddeer!!!
Comment by winona wolf — May 5, 2007 @ 7:45 am - May 5, 2007