The comment is that we're not ready, and I think the part of the posting around 73% is a good explanation of why. It's not the right thing to do, but it's a damned good reason.
Quite frankly, there's no suitable replacement, because we as a people aren't ready. For fuck's sake, we still don't have gay marriage in more than a handful of states, and even California is fighting an aggressive battle for it. How can one possibly think it's safe to openly put gays into a combat team when a quarter of that team has violent psychological conflicts with the very existence of homosexuality?
The world is an imperfect place. Yes, the law -should- be thrown out and replaced with open tolerance. Yes, gay and other arbitrary forms of legally binding marriage -should- be allowed. Yes, suitably strong artificial intelligence -should- be recognized as having legal rights and identity. However, now is not the time.
It is an imperfect world, and while I am ready, others more important than me are not. As you so eloquently put it, I am a civilian, and my vote counts for shit. What matters is the servicemen, the guys getting shot at, and until -they- are ready for it, open disclosure should be shelved. A better way to handle it would be to open it up slightly, over time; an intermediate compromise might be 'DADT, but if your troop finds out and there's a problem, you will be transferred. If you are repeatedly transferred, you may be involuntarily discharged.'
I learned a long time ago not to underestimate religious zealotry, whether it comes from Alabama's good ol' boys, Kentucky's very active KKK, or members of Al Queda.
no subject
The comment is that we're not ready, and I think the part of the posting around 73% is a good explanation of why. It's not the right thing to do, but it's a damned good reason.
Quite frankly, there's no suitable replacement, because we as a people aren't ready. For fuck's sake, we still don't have gay marriage in more than a handful of states, and even California is fighting an aggressive battle for it. How can one possibly think it's safe to openly put gays into a combat team when a quarter of that team has violent psychological conflicts with the very existence of homosexuality?
The world is an imperfect place. Yes, the law -should- be thrown out and replaced with open tolerance. Yes, gay and other arbitrary forms of legally binding marriage -should- be allowed. Yes, suitably strong artificial intelligence -should- be recognized as having legal rights and identity. However, now is not the time.
It is an imperfect world, and while I am ready, others more important than me are not. As you so eloquently put it, I am a civilian, and my vote counts for shit. What matters is the servicemen, the guys getting shot at, and until -they- are ready for it, open disclosure should be shelved. A better way to handle it would be to open it up slightly, over time; an intermediate compromise might be 'DADT, but if your troop finds out and there's a problem, you will be transferred. If you are repeatedly transferred, you may be involuntarily discharged.'
I learned a long time ago not to underestimate religious zealotry, whether it comes from Alabama's good ol' boys, Kentucky's very active KKK, or members of Al Queda.