Barry Goldwater: True Conservative Pro Gay

As do a lot of people.

Right, and I'm not here to have that debate with you.

The fact is, from someone who served and saw this whole situation played out, in 2020 this debate is 30 years obsolete. You and Zak both have fundamental flaws in your arguments that, while entertaining, are totally inconsequential.

Octavia, your flaw is that you think that military service is the same as a 9 - 5 job. Sorry, that's not the reality of the military. While it's true that applicants applying for jobs outside of the military should not be discriminated against for race, faith, sexual orientation, handicap, etc., the military can and does discriminate in who they let serve depending upon the nature of the mission and the applicant.

Zak's flaw is that, as I said, all of his arguments were valid 30 years ago. Not today, too much historical water under the proverbial bridge. If Bill Clinton would have instituted full and open homosexual service in 1993, as he very well could have, there would have been anarchy in the ranks. Instead, he instituted "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT). This was a compromise that, at the time, pleased no one on either side of the debate.

What DADT did do was buy time for society to become more accepting and tolerant of gays in general. DADT wouldn't have worked 30 years earlier in Goldwater's time, so at this point, we are seeing incremental progress.

Then came 9/11 and we had a real enemy to shoot at and that was trying to kill us. We didn't care, at that point, who our fellow Marines (in my case) put their dick into as long as it was consensual. We just wanted the Marine on our left and right to carry their weight in combat so we all came home at the end of the mission.

So, when Obama did away with DADT and allowed open service of homosexuals, it was much ado about nothing. Now, society is much more tolerant and open (for the most part) of homosexuals. As such, since the military recruits from that society, recruits are not concerned about the sexual orientation of who they're serving with.

Another of Zak's flaws is his plan for an all white Christian male military. That's a bit way too far over to the right side for even me.

So, I've contributed my two cents here twice, I think that's four cents that I'm up to now.

Please continue if you like.

Two questions: What is the purpose of the military?
Do homosexuals serving in the military aid or impede that purpose?

Why do you constantly insist that the majority surrender to the minority in any conflict? Shouldn't the presumption be that the majority should get their way?

I didn't answer it because it's irrelevant.

Now, I'm going to give two answers. One yes, they should be allowed.

Two, diversity is our weakness. Our best performing army would be all straight white Christian men. But our masters have decided they prefer diversity to effectiveness.

Robert Putnam says you’re resoundingly wrong. Racial & ethnic diversity destroys social cohesion, and morale is one of the, if not the single, most important factors in military success. Diversity destroys unit cohesion. Also, women are simply not effective in combat situations, degrading the performance of their entire unit.

Here, learn something: https://www.takimag.com/article/divide-and-conquer/

And are those conclusions drawn from his DATA, or from what he'd like to be true?

And what, exactly, are the benefits of racial and ethnic diversity? Be specific, please. I don't want some vague, moralistic gas. I want specific, measurable benefits.

"If racial and ethnic diversity actually destroyed social cohesion, the United States wouldn't be around anymore."

If cancer killed people, my cousin Jimmy wouldn't still be around. He was diagnosed with cancer two months ago, and he's still alive.

This degree of imbecility is difficult to deal with.

What are those benefits? Be specific please. I've already explained that according to Robert Putnam, diversity destroys social cohesion and social trust. People don't voluntarily contribute to society. People don't participate in public life together. People are more likely to regard their neighbors with suspicion and distrust.

So what are the wonderful benefits of diversity that outweigh all of that? Be specific, please.

And tell me, what the f--k does a Somalian have to contribute from their dumpster fire of a "culture" to the U.S.?

Tell me, how many murdered American women is a really authentic Mexican restaurant in your town worth?

I said be specific. You weren't.

"That's his opinion,"

No, that's the clear conclusions of his research.

"Of course you go straight to a country you think can't contribute anything."

Prove me wrong. What can they contribute? Be specific please.

Why?

They are a tiny proportion of the population, only about 2%. They are probably less likely than the general population to elect for military service. And their presence can cause tension and strife in an already dangerous and stressful job. So what, exactly, do you think they contribute that is worth that?

A lot of straight men are likely to feel uncomfortable sharing a bunk with a gay man who might be attracted to them. Do you understand this? Or is that just "bigotry"?

Got it. You have no empathy whatsoever for people who think differently than you. You are small-minded and bigoted. Understood.

Octavia & Zak - great debate here. I always enjoy the give and take. Glad that neither of you resorted to name calling.

Gotta say, I served 22 years in the USMC. I was really against "Don't ask, don't tell" when Clinton rolled that out. I was retired by the time Obama lifted that and greenlighted open homosexuality in the military. So, I've actually flip-flopped on the issue to be perfectly honest. In retrospect, "Don't ask, don't tell" was the lesser of two evils.

Octavia - you compare being black (your phrase) to being gay. Whether you know it or not, a lot of our black (your phrase) friends really object to that line of thinking.

Finally, I honestly hope that we bring back the draft. No exceptions for married, gay, college students, bone spurs, or asthma. The AVF has it's benefits, but it costs a ton of money and there's really only a small cross section of society that serves.

So you can’t tell the difference between “doesn’t like black people” and “doesn’t want to shower and sleep next to someone who may find me an object of sexual attraction”? Got it. You’re unbelievably close-minded and rigid.

Right, but as I said, homosexuals are a tiny fraction of our population. Straight men who feel uncomfortable sharing close quarters with them are a much larger fraction of our population.

If the goal of our military is to have the most effective fighting force possible, we should disqualify the tiny fraction rather than the larger one.

Of course, you don't actually think that's the goal. The nature of social justice is that everything, every single thing, must serve social justice, even if it absolutely destroys its original purpose.