Andrew Sullivan had a good take on gays in the military the other day:"To say that open gay men and women are serving their country in uniform is to say that they are fully citizens. It is this equal citizenship that simply cannot compute with the idea of homosexuality in the minds of a minority of the older generation."I hadn't quite thought about it in that way, but civil unions or gay marriage is similar. If gay couples can get married then we as a society are acknowledging their basic humanity. As almost always Shakespeare has a quote for this:"If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge?"This reminds me of arguments during the Civil War among the Confederate leadership about arming black soldiers. They realized that if you did that you destroyed the whole logic of slavery. Similarly if gays can get married then the whole logic behind much of the right wing social agenda falls faster than the ratings for Palin's Alaska TV show.Let Freedom Ring! I hope that one day civil unions and eventually "marriage" is the law.As for the Capplemaniac and Richard they have maintained a loving relationship for nigh on 20 years. That's better than many heterosexuals have done. Including my skanky self.If Cappleman becomes aldercritter he and Richard become a symbol of the basic humanity of gay men and women. In and of itself it's not reason enough to vote for him, but it ain't a bad bonus.
I think alot of people my age(33), and most people younger than me just don't get the hub-bub over gay marriage. We've grown up around gay people our whole lives and can't understand why they shouldn't be allowed to marry. It doesn't make sense to us. Banning that from marrying feels un-natural.And IP, I'm on the right wing, but that part of the right wing social agenda just doesn't vibe with my personal experience. I've got plenty of gay friends, and I'm pretty sure the sun would still rise in the east if they were allowed to marry.
Very touching Pirate, you are a man of very lofty eloquence!
well said, IrishPirate. And I totally agree with WCE. To my generation, it is mind-boggling how homosexuals are not afforded the same basic rights and privileges as other heterosexuals. I just see absolutely no justification for it. If you are not a bigot or homophobe then I couldnt imagine any other reason you could offer me. But until my generation has taken the reigns from the baby-boomers and bible bangers, we'll still be fighting for something we thought was inherent. Social Security and Equality.
Andrew Sullivan has *never* had a good take on *anything*. Ever. (Though I suppose I should take it as a sign of improvement that he's finally stopped blogging about Trig Trutherism.)There are plenty of other folks to choose from who can also eloquently misinterpret DADT. You can do better!
Luke,let's see. Charles Moskos from Northwestern reluctantly developed the concept of DADT. He's dead so we can't speak to him.Admiral Mullen is all over the net talking about how it should be done away with. Google around.This really isn't the forum to debate DADT. My guess is you either never served in the military or are one of those "fancy pants marines".This woman with some experience working with senior Marines wrote an interesting column this week.Your comment is unworthy of a hyperlink so...http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/19/AR2010111902930.htmlhttp://live.washingtonpost.com/outlook:--11-22-10.htmlAnyway my larger point was about the basic humanity of gay folks and not about a silly military policy that one way or another will disappear.I'm just a dogfaced soldier,http://lp2cd.com/time/30/30007.htm
Such reflexive hostility, IP -- for shame. Perhaps you should have read what I actually wrote more carefully, rather than going off half-cocked on a straw man and looking the fool.You're right -- this isn't the place to debate DADT. (Why you begin to do so after saying that, I have no idea.) It is, however, a good place to laugh at the thoroughly ridiculous Andrew Sullivan (who is in fact misinterpreting DADT, as I claim), and to snicker good-naturedly at anyone who would quote him with a straight face in polite company.
Luke,I'm not playing. I don't know if you're a local or just a loco. Perhaps you troll the net looking for references to Sullivan and/or DADT.I'm sure now that Dancing with the Stars is over you have some free time on your hands. Like your puns mine is intended.
I am not taking sides of the "Sullivan debate" I know nothing bout it....but that is a great pun IrishPirate, your quite the wordsmith. I don't even own a TV but I got it.Which makes me wonder...Is pun and pundit from the same root word, maybe going back to Latin? Just curious. Happy Thanksgiving everybody!