Hey Kaya. I'm Zeke, fellow classmate and blogger. I'm supposed to critique your blog for a grade, so please don't take offense.
For starters, I appreciate your admission of being generally unexposed to the wacky world of politics. Your blog title alone tells me we have something in common; we are trying to better our understanding of the complexities of the government (you've got 2 on me by voting twice). Similar to you, I didn't know many specifics about DADT. However, it seems that this is where our similarities end. I wouldn't claim to be the expert on anything, but I did learn a lot just clicking around on the internet.
It appears your main concerns about gays serving openly is the comfort level of the heterosexual soldier and the fact that homosexuality goes against God. While I also recognize you're trying to be open-minded to the fact that everybody "needs love," your concerns about gays don't appear to be without discrimination, or religious fervor. While I don't even think it is the best idea that gays are allowed or encouraged to serve openly, it is for an entirely different reason; one that most staunch supporters of DADT don't like to admit. Now, I'm typically a very wordy guy, so I am gunna try and remedy that by writing a concise list of short arguments.
The Real Reason it is more of a popular decision among Americans and our lawmakers to keep DADT in place is the fear of further, possibly violent, acts of discrimination. No, not everybody opposed to serving with open gays is going to kill them, but allowing open discrimination is said to breed hate. Rest in peace Barry Winchell and Allen Schindler, Jr.
On Religion and the Military, people of all religions are allowed to join the military. It wouldn't seem fair otherwise, would it, persecuting an entire people merely based on a nominal set of their personal beliefs? A lot of gay men and women have some sort of religion, God, or path they follow, just as heterosexuals do. They just have a harder time finding one to accept them.
On sinning and choosing, most would argue that it is not a choice to be gay (or even all that harmful really). Killing is a sin, and a conscious decision. Yet we are overseas killing for what most think is an unnecessary war. While killing isn't always the goal in combat, it sure is used when someone wants to get their message across. Plus, the Bible was written a long time ago. With all the changes we've seen since then, even God is likely to have changed some of his views as he learned more about the human condition. And I'd say he's probably not a huge supporter of the war.
Allowing continued, public, and institutionalized discrimination of any sub-group (especially one so non-threatening, benevolent and open minded itself) needs to be frowned upon already.
Making a generalization or conclusion that gays in the military are distractions to people who are trying to concentrate on the fight makes it seem like they (gays) went to war to annoy or tease or try to recruit heterosexuals. It is my humble opinion that gays go to war for the same reasons as heteros, and not to try and hook-up with uninterested guys in the desert. Some even suggested (*scroll down on this link to 'hope not") they're only in it for the money and will want out as soon as the economy picks back up.
Gays are looking for love, but not just from members of the same sex. They long to be a part of a group or a whole, just like anyone else does. They should be allowed to speak freely, but with discretion, such as straight soldiers should; especially in a setting where everyone has volunteered to risk theirs lives.
It's mostly the hiding from the stigma assigned to homosexuality that creates so much backlash upon "coming out."
As with any minority group, open gays on duty would cluster together with other open gays (or openly female officers), just like they do back home as civilians. The only catastrophe that could result from sexual orientation as public information is hate and intolerance, and that's not something that most gays stand for.
The possibility of secrets among heterosexuals, or dudes on the "down low" is just as scary, maybe less?, than soldiers hiring prostitutes. Without getting too detailed, people stuck together in close quarters (jail, often work) sometimes end up having sex outside of their preferred palate to fulfill carnal desires. What seems more morally wrong, paying to sleep with the enemy's girl, or laying with a trusted friend that's on your side?
I'm not telling you your views don't have any merit, or that mine are %100 right. I'm not expecting you to swing over to the left. I'm not telling you anything I've learned from experience. I've never personally dealt with too much discrimination for being gay, but I took a lot of my notes from the sad, avoidable events that helped spark the DADT debate. I guess I am mainly just hoping that, as you are continuing to learn and adapt your views and ideals about other previously unknown subjects, you also learn to accept all types of people; most of which probably have the best of intentions (I mean, they went to the Army, right? A pretty selfless act where I'm from).
Even were I not gay, I would like to think I was just raised to do good and to follow my heart. My heart of hearts tell me that war is bad, and we don't need to be losing precious American lives over there. However, in such a world, I've come to terms with the fact that war is near inevitable. But the battle at home against gay's rights to marry, adopt, and fight for their country is sadder because it's felt by millions of Americans on a daily basis.
I remain optimistic, however, that one day we won't have to specify in a "Don't Harass" policy to otherwise grown, responsible men that they don't have to harass comrades for differences beyond their control, and that don't inhibit their job performance. Wouldn't it be nice to know that our gun-wielding, 17-25 year old, still developing, hormonal and confused troops are getting along and trust each other enough to push aside petty differences and truly play for the same team?
Thanks for your time. And sorry if it became preachy. Your response is welcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment