- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 289
Label it what you will, it does not change the fact that it is an integral part of the subject. You can't just sweep it and hope it goes away. The subject of whether it is or is not a privilege to serve is not semantics. I agree that one ought to serve because there is a need. However, I still believe that for those who have served, they would consider it a privilege to be of service to their country in that way.
I'm sure. I feel privileged that when I graduate I'll (hopefully) have the ability to put my life in harms way so that others won't have to. But I do not think that in general it is a privilege to serve in the military.
Except that allowing gays to serve openly is not comparable to equipping them with squirt guns or breaking down the chain of command or breaking up unit unity.How would that be insulting? So should we make our units more vulnerable in order to praise the ability of our military to adapt to changing situations? Forgive my royal butchering of the English language, but is it insulting to say that people will die, or be more vulnerable because we equip them, say with squirt guns. Is saying that insulting to their ability to adapt? "Oh, they can adapt," we say. So we are then justified to break down the chain of command, break up unit unity, etc. just because to refuse to do so would be "insulting to their ability to adapt?"
It is a minor change that, as far as the survey is concerned, won't even change much. The major change will be that gays won't be discharged if it is discovered that they are gay. It's not like all of sudden a bunch of gay guys will come out and become so much of a distraction that people will die.
My argument isn't that it wouldn't be difficult to implement, but that I find it hard to believe that people will be distracted to the point that lives will be lost. I've been in survival situations where it was a life or death situation and it's pretty damn hard to distract the survival instinct from doing it's job. I find it hard to believe that someone else's sexuality would be a factor at all.
If Gen. Amos had said it would be difficult, fine. If he'd said Marines wouldn't like it, fine. But I disbelieve Marines told him "Sir, I feel less safe with gays in the military" or "Sir, I don't think I could successfully defend our country if there was a gay guy in our unit. In fact, I think I'd be distracted and be seriously injured or die."