social network for conservatives
This is a worry that I have. When I served more than 40 years ago, this would not have worked as the soldiers in my day would not have accepted someone openly gay. Would not have happened. The argument now is that the soldiers are more accepting -- perhaps, we shall see.
There is also a right that is being ignored here, and let us talk about that one. There is a right to free association -- that is we have the right to hang with people we want to hang with for whatever reason we wish. In the military that is a right that is modified somewhat by circumstance, however ...
Members of the military are more conservative and more religious, as a group, as compared with the general population. Those who are more conservative, it seems to me, will generally not wish to associate with openly gay people. Yet that right is being trampled upon by this social experiment. So in the long run we must wonder whether, or not, this social experiment will harm recruitment.
The argument about integration of the services doesn't work on a couple of grounds. First it was Republicans (conservatives) who were responsible for civil rights legislation, contrary to the popular wisdom of today. This means that conservative people were already tolerant and in fact supportive of the goals of integration. Additionally the integration occurred at a time there was a draft. So the military, should recruitment fall short, could still fill the ranks.
Considering these factors it may be that the nation winds up with a problem staffing the military. Conservative people who have been the backbone of the service might decide in sufficient numbers that it isn't worth it. Of course they might not, and in time we will have the answer. Nevertheless, this doesn't seem like the time to be taking such a risk.
"Justification" of this experiment was provided by polls of the general population (not the military population) that showed agreement with the idea, and a military study of how it would be done. Neither of these, of course, looked at the impact upon group cohesion or military recruitment. Thus, it troubled me that the goal here was to push an agenda, rather than to see how the advancement of that agenda would impact our military readiness, which meant that this is NOT an action about military readiness. It is rather a social experiment.
The other lame excuse was that the courts were ready to decide it anyway. If this Congress were truly worried about what courts might do there are a number of bills, first among them Obamacare, that they should not have passed. Clearly this is a specious argument.
I wish you and your family a Joyous Christmas with much good cheer and good time with family and friends.
The answer to the question you raise is I don't know. For me, perhaps the greatest wonderment is the ability of the people on the left to ignore the facts and data that contradict their deep beliefs. Somehow those folks are just wired different. I believe their intentions are noble, but they are hampered in their efforts to achieve whatever they think needs to be done by their inability to process quantitative information. So they feel, they emote, which makes them supremely confident that their destructive ideas are helpful.
My worse fear is the loss of our veteran personnel, causing a break in continuity in leadership and experience. It most certainly will cause a disruption in a unit's esprit de corps especially in the combat units.
Women serving on ships and later in combat units were a disruption but eventually assimilation made it routine. My military career spanned these changes. This will create a disruption and possibly some "fragging" which I saw in Vietnam but this social experiment like others will eventually be assimilated.
When entering the military you take an oath and in that oath are these words;
"I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform
Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
When you take that oath, your politics and prejudices are no longer applicable or relevant. Those raising their right hand now, will have accepted this mandate and while they are fighting and dying the debate will rage on.
I was raised to believe that homosexuality is morally, spiritually and socially unacceptable and I still mostly hold to that belief but have become more tolerant from a social standpoint. My ranting and raving is not going to change what is inevitable and if there is a God, he or she will sort it out.
I cannot let some of the comments go unabated. The filth regarding homosexuality that I have read in this discussion is in part, what is causing the Christian Right Extremists to become irrelevant. You are losing this war on immoral behavior because of your own immoral behavior.
I have been hammered on this site for my Agnostic viewpoints, yet a blind eye is turned to comments that would clearly be unacceptable and are an embarrassment to any main stream Christian.
I find it ironic that I am defending Christians but like John Adams who was a Unitarian, I believe religion is necessary in order to keep the masses in line and the moral underpinnings of Christianity are necessary to maintain a free and democratic society. I do not believe the CRE's are beneficial to this goal.
One other hypocrisy reins here, deviating from the subject of the discussion was at one time unacceptable. Maybe the rules have changed.
Please explain: "I cannot let some of the comments go unabated. The filth regarding homosexuality that I have read in this discussion is in part,
what is causing the Christian Right Extremists to become irrelevant.
You are losing this war on immoral behavior because of your own immoral
What filth regarding homosexuality?
Who is the "You" losing this war on immoral behavior?
What immoral behavior are you talking about?
I also took the oath and served, but the point I was making, which is particularly relevant with an all volunteer military, is what will this do, if anything, to recruitment? No one knows. What will it do to fighting readiness? No one knows. So isn't the defense of the nation the FIRST priority and such a social experiment a SECOND priority? If so then this entire affair was worked in an upside down way. That's all I said.
No problem; I just confessed to being in and out of this thread and so I know I've missed things.