our army is so fuckin weak..just go look at south koreas army ..and chinas army...wtf..you think they got gays and women in there ??....not that im hating on gays and women....but it sucks to see our army like this
You are saying that denying citizens equal rights is the right thing to do? That now is not the right time to do it? It's always the right time to fix a wrong no matter how hard or inconvenient it is... shame on you!
@combativesuniversity That's ridiculously narrow minded view. Human sexuality is a lot more complicated than "you like women" or "you like men".
There's bisexuals, pansexuals etc. then there are the obvious straight (heterosexual) and gay (homosexual).
With so many straights, gays, bis etc. out there, there is no way a statement like "there is only straight and gay" can be true. Seriously, it's not made up.
Anyone who isn't lock step w/ the Dems will see this. I'm from an extremely liberal state and I have to say-this isn't helping the party except among a tiny minority of gays serving the military
Strangely, since being in your algebra class this year Mr. Craven, I think I can understand where you are coming from. It takes too much to right the wrongs of our own past. Take segregation for example...how long did it take to settle that one? So the DADT will take probably just as much time since there are too many zealous homophoics out there. I for one actually get along great the with bisexual, homosexual and heterosexual individuals but my parents do not. Otherwise, great suggestion Sir!
@Lordes Wait, What? You just came off a point about telling me that its not good to serve openly gay, and then you come back saying that I'm irrational because I can see no benefit in serving openly gay... That's a bit of a contradiction...
@Lordes 1) You know SOME femme guys- you don't speak for all or even any gays here. 2) How would you know? You have no idea who I am, or what I can do. Don't post a comment calling someone stupid when your own comment is dripping with stupidity...
@Lordes So you would fire those from the majority so you could keep the minority? That's what's stupid. There's just no need for someone to be openly gay in the military or any job setting for that matter and that's because, whether you like it or not, there are people who do not like gays. Why would you tell these haters that you're gay unless you had something to prove or a pride issue? I can see no benefit in being openly gay in a job setting, especially the military.
I agree with your points. Their are much bigger things at large than what essentially boils down to gay pride. As long as gays, particularly men, don't behave like stereotypical (though still quite common) gays- far too prissy and silly- then they should be able to fight just as well as the straight man beside them. Whether they're trusted by the non-gays is why the bill shouldn't be repealed. If everyone knows someones gay, this helps breed discrimination and distrust. Gays need to remember- b
Morale has nothing to do with it. Maybe a homo-phobe might feel a gay person in there unit is bad for their morale, but what a lesbian women? Can't say that most men would find that bad for morale, yet lesbians aren't aloud to open about it.
I don't think we should even have a gay pride parade. At what point does someones sexuality need to be paraded? I don't care at any point wither someone is gay, straight, or ETC, because at no point does it even matter. Sexuality is such a juvenile topic in today's society, people think its complex but it really isn't. You love who you love, and you fight for who and what you love. My only concern is if that said person is performing efficiently at their duty. Wither they're gay or straight.
To those that just want to use this space to get on their soapbox about DADT, here's what the video's actually saying (and why you should look somewhere else to soapbox):
* DADT is an issue.
* DADT is in a stalemate, and has been in a stalemate for quite a while.
* We're gonna be screwed pretty soon if we don't take care of the "big" issues.
* DADT is not (in the author's opinion at least) one of those "big" issues.
Didn't Obama try getting climate change efforts started earlier?
Also, if the Republicans become seen as total bell-ends over issues like this, there is an improved chance of more democrat wins in their constituancies.
Given what servicemen put up with (and I don't just mean combat, plenty of people are fine with danger, it's usually the massive number of rules on everything that are easilly tripped over), I really can't see most servicemen giving half a shit that there be gays among them.
Well said, Greg. You can't judge a book by it's cover, and the substance of the video is fantastic, but the title probably formed more than a few preconceptions. I look forward to hearing more from you about various issues in the future.
@wonderingmind42 Your problem is actually a good one... you aren't a politician just trying to tell people easy answers they want to hear. That said... you should have involved yourself with a more pressing issue, like deforestation, GMO nonsense, or the precautionary principle in general. But don't beat yourself up. Even if you had been plain wrong you're redeemable. Instead of backing away though, you could make your mea culpa bigger. IDK, just a thought. Better is just to go w/ the Tao.
My thoughts on the matter dont just encompass this, but go as far as "If you don't like the requirements of the job, dont sign up for it". If it's the only job you can get "beggars can't be choosers." I'm pro gay equality. I'm bi myself; my first relationship was w/ a girl. If i went into my work & said i was gay or liked bondage, it would be inappropriate unless I was a sex worker. Same is said for a military job. This is a non-issue for the majority of ppl.
Your position seems to hinge on how members currently in service "feel" about gays serving openly. I suppose there are factions that feel the same way about this as there were factions that felt about freeing slaves, and allowing women to vote. They had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, in to a more civilized world. But we are better for it. The law is there, but there is abundant evidence that gays are still being outed, and subsequently booted.
I am sorry, but i must degree. Canada has let gays openly serve in the military since 1992, Britian in 2000. Both of these nations have lent support to the War on Terror in afganistan and have both served well. I would suggest that these examples be brought up.
Still, this is an interesting development in that you have people with more conservative outlooks interested in climate change.
YOU SHOULD KNOW DATA ISN'T EVERYTHING! There can be no effective "control" group for such a study since its probable that the entire army has been selecting for homo-phobes since the policy was initiated and the pool of respondents is contaminated! This entire premise defeats its self if you replace the word homosexual with black. During the period immediately following de-segregation there was ALOT of unit-moral-issues, but eventually the army had civility and decency crammed down its throat
Wow. I certainly would not have expected to hear these sentiments from you. I wonder how it's possible to "serve our country with honor" whilst simultaneously denying a central facet of one's being- thus dishonoring oneself.
Furthermore, DADT is an agenda mainly supported by fundamentalist Christians. I find it odd, Mr. Science Man, that you are considering bowing to their misguided ideology. What's next? A vid in which you negotiate a "brilliant compromise" with the Easter Bunny?
There are already other armed forces with openly gay personnel with all the data. We need not wait for December. This survey is just a delaying tactic.
DADT has already objectively caused harm to our military readiness by depriving us of key people.
There are already other armed forces with openly gay personnel with all the data. We need not wait for December. This survey is just a delaying tactic.
DADT has already objectively caused harm to our military readiness by depriving us of key people.
Your suggestion that polling current members of the military lacks merit I think. As an older man who grew up in a military family I'm old enough to remember segregation during the 50's and 60's and the rancor that existed when the military became fully segregated in spite of the objections of many politicians and citizens. were the same sort of poll taken back them regarding the issue at the time I suspect you would have had a high number of people objecting to it... you see where I'm going?
Your suggestion that polling current members of the military lacks merit I think. As an older man who gre up in a military family I'm old enough to remember segregation during the 50's and 60's and the rancor that existed when the military became fully segregated in spite of the objections of many politicians and citizens. were the same sort of poll taken back them regarding the issue at the time I suspect you would have had a high number of people objecting to it... you see where I'm going?
Please...most other country in the world repealed anti-gay policies years ago. They taught their men and women that homophobia was NOT TOLERATED. And today, everything's just fine.
I didn't realize I had an opinion on it, but I'm straight, but bi-sexuals and gays don't bother me a bit. I think however that gays should be able to be in the military. I don't think the people who aren't comfortable with it should be catered to. Just like anything else in life you might not be happy about, or comfortable with, you have to learn to cope with it, whether you understand it or not. I wasn't always comfortable with gays, but I had to deal with it then too.
are men and women allowed to share barracks under the united states DOD? no. why? conflicting sexual orientations. are men who like men allowed to share barracks with other men? no. why? conflicting sexual orientation. it isn't that they are gay. it is that their interests don't provide a sexually neutral ground for military missions. if openly gay people were allowed in the military there would have to be gay barracks for the same reason there are women's baracks.
I normally don't do this sort of thing but I feel the need to comment rather than anonymously unsubscribe.
The idea that the army is too full of fanatical fundamentalist Christians, skin heads, and other implicitly homophobic groups and thus the answer is to prevent gays from serving openly is false. Simply because it implies that such an army is desirable in its current state. I'd argue that this is not the case, and I would argue that, if not for the annoying character limit...
This is a matter of priority. As the US military draws on increasingly circumspect sources of recruitment - including ex-cons - any barrier to maintaining the kind of quality recruiting needed to sustain a modern army in frustrating counter-insurgency operations is essential.
Case in point: The recent civilian murder accusations in Afghanistan, which themselves are linked to similar atrocities in Iraq.
Who would you rather have protecting you - gays (acting professionally) or ex-con felons?
@thinkingguy87 In my opinion that would depend on the felony, and degree of rehabilitation, as well as the degree training/expertise between the two. That's my opinion anyways.
@thinkingguy87 Youre just being ridiculous! It is not in any way a priority, and you trying to sound smart with how you word your comments, common buddy, you can't fool me. But I will agree with you on one thing, US recruiting could definitely use fixing. Yeah US has a huge army, but that does not mean it's infantry is quality. The old quantity vs quality debate. Who would I rather have overseas fighting? An ex con or a homosexual. Personally I dont give a shit. You are just too biased.
@msteeves01 How am I not foling you? You're not refuting the argument.
The US military needs high quality recruits, as it's a high-tech volunteer force conducting small wars. Automatically exclusing possibly good recruits on the basis of preconcieved notions about gays is therefore detrimental to the maintenance of a high personal standards among your soliders. How is this a "biased" opinion?
Since men and women in the service should not be having sex while on duty or in combat, PERIOD, their sexual orientation is no ones business. Openly gay? You're right in one sense, it's a damn fool thing to worry about.
This video isnt bullshit. The sexuality of the people in our armed forces shouldnt be a matter for inquiry of any form. Its down to the soldiers who are are gay to gauge the situation on a personal level and tell the comrades that they choose. All this does is put sexuality up for political legislation which is b.s. Interesting video wm!
Out of 26 NATO participants, our country is on of very few that have this policy. Among the few others? North and South Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Yemen...etc..COME ON PEOPLE..Our country is BETTER than this. I STRONGLY DISAGREE with this video. It affects people's lives on a daily basis, and that should be enough to say that it affects our country, and that it needs to be overturned NOW
@calimntgirl34 "COME ON PEOPLE..Our country is BETTER than this."
I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but we elected Bush twice then had to choose between a wimp or another Bush. My neighbors preach that we have the best healthcare in the world as well... I'm not so sure our country is better... :(
Interesting ultra-conservative point of view of a liberal mind .... kind of contrasting ..... why do we need to conduct a public poll? .... the real question is are we equal or not? or must we conduct a poll for include afroamericans, women, etc?
You're not thinking like a government, you're thinking like a single person. Any competent government gets everything done simultaneously, its about allocating resources to every problem. The US will always be in a war with someone or other, to wait until you're not you'll be holding your breath a long time. Being part of a government is also a matter of diplomacy, and you don't give up on any of your goals if you can't achieve the whole thing at once, you try to gain as much ground as possible
So if it were 'good for morale' you'd support an openly discriminatory system against gay people who don't hide their sexual preference? What do you think that does for the morale of people who happen to be gay?
One wonders what else you would support if it were good for morale...
@daveff66 OH, and that's not fear mongering. It's a statement of doctrine and Christians will understand the underlying meaning.
Analogy: Look both ways before crossing the street because there are cars driving both ways and you could get hit.
Wash your hands before eating after working with birds because you could get salmonella.
Don't jump in front of a moving train because you could get killed. The advice is based on the principle of the doctrine. You don't have to listen to it.
@daveff66 The same thing happens on the other side. "If you believe in God, you're stupid," kind of stuff. But God is a vague word meaning "object of worship." What ever you worship, that's your god. Or it could be simply Good Orderly Direction. It occurs due to a refusal to accept people as they are. Bigotry knows no creed, doctrine, color, ethnicity, or lack thereof.
Lastly, Greg, I am a HUGE fan of your climate change videos, and have shared them with many people I know. They are some of the most thorough investigations and considerations of the topic that I have seen. It is thus shocking to see such a shallow, uninformed opinion piece that smacks heavily of a climate denialist rant come from you.
I must say that I am, in a word, disappointed.
However, like you say, you're not perfect and that you expect to be proven wrong. Well, here's your wake-up call.
Secondly, Greg, the specific amendment did NOT immediately repeat DADT AT ALL. It was specifically intended to allow for the completion of the DoD study and, if the study found in favor of getting rid of DADT, it AUTHORIZED the DoD to implement such an action AS IT SAW FIT.
Thirdly, Greg, DADT has been used to actively harass AND pursue gay members of the military IN THE ABSENCE of anyone asking OR telling. See the cases of Major Margaret Witt and Major Mike Almy.
Firstly, Greg, you really know better than to criticize something before you understand what you are criticizing. The so-called "don't ask don't tell repeal" vote was for CLOTURE (ie, to stop the filibuster so that actual, you know, DEBATE could proceed on the bill before it actually GOT to a vote) on an amendment to the 2011 defense authorization bill, which is the legislation that FUNDS ALL of our military for the next year. In the last 42 years, it has NEVER failed to be passed.
Is a survey really the way to decide such matters? Should they make all gay combat units, as they did all black units in WWII? If heterosexual men and women can serve together, then why not homosexuals? Sometimes structures need to be changed from above and perhaps this is time for this one to change. Let gays and lesbians hug their partners before going to war... openly. Let them have photos, talk about their partners and be open as anyone else gets to be.
There will ALWAYS be more pressing issues than civil rights, so does that mean we always put it aside?
Believe me, as a gay individual, I have no interest in being in the military not simply because of this ridiculously stupid policy but also for the fact that I cannot marry. I have no interest in protecting a country that will not grant me equal rights.
Pragmatic or not, I don't think that some politicians should be able to tell me whether I can or cannot protect my country. I am unsubscribing
Anyone concerned about "morale and military effectiveness" should ignore the BS gay issue and instead protest the war machine itself. Ask yourself which of the following is most important and which are most reported in the media: soldiers coming back with PTSD; soldiers killing themselves when they return; soldiers killing civilians in negligence or just for sport; war profiteering; gays serving with straights. You know your answer. DADT is a distraction from what's important. As usual.
@adt33 But if we were not overseas in current messes, then the issue discussed in this video would still apply. There should be room to think about all the topics you bring up and also discuss DADT. What "news" needs to stop covering is the latest movie and how much money it made over a weekend. They'd have more time for information if they would stop wasting time "telling us what they will be telling us" after the break.
This is a horrible video. You haven't done much research at all which makes me question the content of your other videos. Also, human rights are a HUGE priority. I couldn't disagree with you more.
My first thoughts when I read the title of this, your latest video were: what is the most appropriate combination of profane language to use in response, and should I unsubscribe to one of my favorite subscriptions. Now, after watching the entire video, my only thought is: WHY THE FUCK CAN'T WE HAVE MORE AMERICANS LIKE YOU!?? Do most smart people just die at an early age, or do ignorant, selfish, jackasses just have a higher birth rate? May the whole world one day hear the voice of reason!
I can't say I agree but I wonder why would lgbt people be so eager to serve a government that oppresses us and a lot of others anyway? I guess they should be entitled to though. Also I really hate it when people start out an argument saying "Now I have a lot of gay friends" like that means anything.
The problem with forcing gays (or any other group) to stay hidden/anonymous is that it prevents everybody else from having the chance to become educated by direct personal interaction with open members of said group. Thus, it perpetuates ignorance. Since the best way to foster acceptance in society is through knowledge and education, DADT is a step backwards. So, repeal it. Sure, there will be morale issues at first, but we'll get over them. Just like we got over desegregation.
@tradain Wanted to add to this that bigotry is generally based on fear caused by lack of understanding and ignorance, as it is human nature to fear what we do not understand. Keeping a group distant or hidden makes it much easier to vilify.
You know that law commonly referred to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? There is another part of it called "Don't Pursue" that ISN'T being enforced. If it were, the people chasing after LGBT folks in the military would, themselves, be put on trial and booted from the military.
Military is about following orders, not about love or sexuality. I wont argue further on that, I'll leave it to you. Why is the 1-2% of population needed for the military service? How is that going to fill up the ranks?
@thinkingguy87 20% might be overestimated. Even if it is 15%, it wont fill in the military ranks that much. People who want go to war will go regardless of their sexual orientation, so they could be in service already. The rest might boos the military ranks by several percents. Military wont gain much more troopers.
As I understand you Greg, you aren't opposed to don't ask, don't tell per se, but rather arguing for postponing choosing side until data is collected and then picking side based on the data, which makes perfect sense. If our politicians were even half as pragmatic as you, I'm sure we'd have a substantially better society. :-)
I'm gay, ideologically against don't ask, don't tell, but pragmatic enough to respect if data opposes my belief. :-)
@Spiderboydk Hey, I pointed this out to someone else a little bit ago, so I thought I would let you know as well. Hopefully the tip doesn't offend you. The word "data" is a plural form of the word "datum", so you are referring to 'THINGS' instead of 'a GROUP of things,' do you see what I mean?
So it would be '...until data are collected...." and "...if data oppose my belief." I know it may look and feel weird, but that's English! :P Hope I helped. Take care.
@kriptonis That's a highly hypothetical question, but for the sake of the argument let's say investigation shows the pros of having slaves are bigger than the cons - every aspect examined (economical, ethical, and so on), well, then yes. But I can't imagine these conditions ever being the case.
What I say to listen more to data (reality) than to ideology, i.e. be pragmatic.
BTW - the American military is not our "most macho" organization. That' honor belongs to "Big Twins", a leather/biker dyke bar I wandered into by mistake one night. Trust me - we need to recruit those ladies hard - they'd even butch up a seasoned combat Marine brigade.
The system works how it is now, trying to change it before knowing how the people it effects think about it seems foolish to me.
Im sure its not the same for everyone, and i am not homophobic by any means, but as far as i can tell, soldiers in the military do not enjoy working with gay members. Ive seen people come out of the closet in the army and get harassed and abused for it. The soldiers that don't harass feel uncomfortable about working so intimately with gays. showers, changing etc. IMO
Hmm. I guess Harry Truman should have waited for a survey before he integrated the military. I wonder how that survey would have turned out? Further, Don't ask, Don't Tell" is actually "Don't get outed by anyone, either". I realize that it's an issue whether the planet melts or not. But the same parties that deny climate change are the ones that favor denying Americans equality. Poking them in the eye on this issue might just distract them from killing our planet and economy.
As always well thought out and explained. I think any major policy shift int he Military takes time and forethought. Rushing military policy means bad things for our soldiers. Military culture and previous policy will have to be altered or overturned in order to maintain the rights of every soldier. It's a policy nightmare.
Are you... seriously implying that gays should have to stay in the closet in order to serve? Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Sorry, as a gay guy, I'm just completely shocked that someone so brilliant as you could be so unperceptive at how horrible an experience being in the closet is. It feels like you're on the run. You have this secret, and everyone is hounding you. You feel trapped.
@HouseFantastic absolutely true, the military of all places is where we need people to be open minded about things like homosexuality. I find being in the army i am free to express whatever i want whenever i want. I can yell at my leadership about how bad their decisions are, or comment to the press about how inefficient our systems are. The army seems to be a great place for me to be able to be racist or sexist, because america says i can be. (i have nothing against gays, i just disagree)
Are you being sarcastic here? Your thoughts aren't very well put together. If you're saying that there's no room for racism and sexism in the military, then there isn't room for homophobia either, because if generals say "Stop being homophobic/racist/sexist," people stop being homophobic/sexist/racist. That's how it works. It's not hard to accept, it happened with world war II, it'd happen again.
Besides, I was ranting about Craven's unintentional bigotry, not the military.
@HouseFantastic yes, it was sarcasm, and you are correct. If leadership says don't act sexist/racist/homophobic then the men underneath them will listen. The don't ask don;t tell policy is pretty much the order saying that. Just like you can BE racist in the military as long as you don;t say that you are or act like you are, same with sexism and being homophobic/homosexual.
Hmmm...I wonder what Martin Luther King Jr would have said about your "we'll get to it when we don't have more pressing issues" attitude if you applied it to say...the African American civil rights union? Liberty is the fabric of our society...and I would say to deny someone from serving our country as an openly homosexual person would be to deny that person of liberty.
some pragmatic points here, but mostly I disagree. Seeing what the data looks like could be good, but at what point do we have to tell the adults serving that this is what professionalism looks like? You have to deal with people of different races, genders, religions, etc already. The military hasn't fallen apart after involving these different groups.
And a side question to me is, how can we address the nasty negative cultural attitudes that lead to situations like this in the first place?
Your conclusion does follow from your premises and I agree about more pressing matters. However, you are missing one premise, and another is incorrect.
1) You are missing the claim that the US is based on its constitution, which DADT violates (multiple court rulings, plus an obvious violation of equal-protection).
2) The incorrect premise is that we don't have the data. We do - by comparing the US to other countries that allow openly gay servicemen.
As far as I'm concerned, if you're gay, go ahead and scream it out. Yell it from the mountain tops. Scream it and show it right in front of the Taliban. Practice it in front of Al Queda, just before you try to shoot them. You're welcome to live any life you wish. I'll stand back here and watch. :-) Now do you understand why the UN and Nato mainly uses more American soldiers than their own yet? No? Still don't understand? Keep fighting the Muslims under your new crusade.
@BewareofFlatteries your post is a bit rambling, butn I'll try to address some issues here.
1 - If you're fighting th Taliban, you have very little time to practice any sort of sexuality, so your narrative is moot.
2 - UN/NATO missions don't actually use a majority of American troops. The US commits large numbers of troops to maintain operational control, not because other people are begging Washington for deployments.
An analogy I'm going to use on this issue is two people arguing over which pie to have for dinner: Chicken or Beef. Now one insists that all people should eat chicken because he prefers chicken. The other insists all should eat beef, being he prefers beef. Niether likes the other to the point it nauseates them. Which should all people accept as the dinner pie? Chicken, or beef? People would argue it's unconstitutional to segregate (assemble) and let them eat the pie of their choice.
@BewareofFlatteries Fundamental believers have run for thousands of years, trying to find a land they could worship in peace, but the world always follows them, joins up with them, and then perverts them. You'll find, if you're a fundamentalist that you will become the object of sneering, ridicule, name-calling, and out right persecution. The era of persecution is rising. Either take the mark of the beast, or be denied to buy or sell. Good luck in maintiaining your principles.
@BewareofFlatteries You will come to the realization that you are the alien and sojourner. Look for the city whose builder and maker is God. Keep your eye on the high calling and don't worry about the worldy wise machinations. Don't be afraid to be different: it's what makes you, you. If they want inclusion (which they are in there, anyways) then just apply exclusion of yourself. "Separate yourself" from all unclean things. To be like Abraham in this time of growing chaos.
@BewareofFlatterie Today there is an attempt to force USA to become what so many groups left other countries to avoid under appeal to emotions fallacy arguments that are very similar to those of the Grecian and Roman Empires. But eventually they will then turn to Islamic countries to attempt the same. Muslims are ten times more stronger in their resolve, and more resilient. You can't force people to accept your way of life, just as you can't force religion on someone. s
I like this video. Obviously thought out, as I've come to learn about your videos. Though I'm not sure you've sold me on the pragmatism of putting this issue off for a later time. You're right that there's no data on the 'morale' issue. I think it's moot. Did desegregation hurt the morale of the South? But to the other point about scarce resources: wouldn't allowing openly gay to serve increase your potential pool of recruits, and prevent the discharge of those who are otherwise fit for service?
What many people don't understand is that you're dealing with a complex social issue here. You're trying to apply judgement upon people who have particular beliefs and values and try to maintain that moral in every aspect of their lives. This is why many people long ago left Europe and other countries: because the govt and people tried to force their cultural values on these small groups. They came here to worship according to their own values. They were outside the norm then and still are.
@BewareofFlatteries To try to maintain an overall "ethics" upon these subgroups is against their nature. Now if you are trying to apply ethics that is against nature (forcing someone to accept what is to them, immoral) than you are not being logical. To truly be ethical, you must be also in sync with nature that allows for variances and also logical. The world order is not logical and that is why wars constantly start. One tries to subject another to an ideology, and war starts.
I & my partner both served in the AF and this is my thought at this time in my life, I would not serve my nation again if it were attacked and Amernca begged me. I do agree gays should not serve openly or in the closet. Why should I fight for your rights to marry etc and not mine?
There are gays in the military now, and yes, many other soldiers know about it. There are also problems that occur now with interracial relationships in the military. Many people when they get into charge positions take out their anger and built up bitterness on those who are not like them. In other words, the tables turn against whites and heterosexuals. That's what I've seen when I was in.
As for IQ, all soldiers have to pass a test to show they are competently intelligent.
Because the US is an insular country. What works elsewhere couldn't possibly work in the US. Are you kidding? We're #1 in everything. Nothing we do can go wrong, nor is anything we ever do wrong to begin with. Yay America!
"According to preliminary Pentagon data, 612 homosexuals were discharged in fiscal 2006, fewer than half the 1,227 discharged in 2001. On average, more than 1,000 service members were discharged each year from 1997 to 2001 -- but in the past five years the average has fallen below 730. The data were provided to The Washington Post in response to a request."
We wont be able to do anything constructive about "Dont ask dont tell" until we stop being so scared and hateful about anyone who is different. Not just the gays, but the athiests, etc.
When we let go and realize many of these things are NOT a big deal and we have lived with these people for hundreds of years with civilization marching forward as it has always done...well, what the hell is the flap about?
Yes, there are more important things to attend to...
they performed the survey during the civil rights era in the same fashion as they are doing it now. The questions were based on how they felt on serving with a person of color. As expected, the soldiers were massively against serving with black soldiers. The president of the time passed anti-descrimination laws for the military even knowing the results of the survey.
Before you poke a hole in my argument, yes i know they passed the law to get more bullet cushions, but we should also use this
as a measure of the types of people that sign up for the military. i'm willing to bet a salami sandwich that the mean iq and socio economic status of your average soldier is below average.
the easiest way to teach you to not hate something is having it watch your back.
and to poke a hole in your argument, what resources are you taliking about when ot comes to repealling DADT? time and money? a few staffers afternoons wasted writing halfass speeched for their bosses maybe but nothing important.
@thelleht I agree, but at the same time, America is unique just like every other nation. Consider that America is the most religiously conservative democracy in the world.
I think that this issue is more related to rights & discrimination rather than doing what is best at the moment. The military history of the USA is almost continuous military action, so I do not think that the justification of Afganistan holds as there is never a good time to make a change to the military. The big question is wether it is right to disciminate against someone based on whom they are attracted to.
Of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO, 22 of them allow open gays and lesbians to serve, including the UK. For fuck's sake, even Israel allows open gays and lesbians in the military.
You could have found this out with 30 seconds of research on wikipedia, so your claim that we can't know the consequences of allowing open homosexuality in the military is just crap. Or are you saying the US is *that* much more homophobic than everyone else?
@Tenocticatl Yeah, apologies, it was a bit of an emotional outburst. I guess I was just very frustrated to see such a disappointing (and narrow-minded) analysis of this issue from someone whose videos I've appreciated before.
I suppose at least it shows that you don't have to be "liberal" (an American word which means something different in most of the rest of the world) to be in favour of action on climate change.
Your missing the point, it's our army that we are considering not others. This country is filled with bigots and racists. Data is different for every country and not one law or school of thought is globally befitting. And yes he is right there are more pressing matters than gay rights in the army. Such as people dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, poverty, famine and i could go on with many more.
Think with our brains and not with our hearts. I also do believe in equality no matter what.
@plevyman Countries are different. There might be special circumstances present for USA, so the experiences of the other countries can't be transferred just like that.
USA is much more puritan than the European countries. Homosexuality tolerance, same-sex marriage, nude beaches, etc. This could make a difference.
@thelleht I think it must be a simple explanation. You see, straight people in other countries, like Israel and Canada, have special koodie armor that allows them to be in the same locker room or bedroom with a gay person without anything weird happening. Straight people in America are so much more attractive than anywhere else on earth, that gay people can't resist touching them. Koodie armor is useless here. It's very scary. (and yes this is snark).
As for the demand for data, hello! It's already out there -- ever heard of the Israeli military? The Canadian military? Both allow gays to serve openly and I guarantee you there is a wealth of data not to mention anecdotal experience from both showing that it does not impact morale.
Heroic presidents like Truman laughed at arguments like yours, which were once used to keep blacks out, integrating the military by executive order at a time when only 19% of the country agreed with his decision.
I must say, I am disappointed with your thinking here. You don't need to have an internal survey when, as many have pointed out, you have international precedent on the issue. Furthermore, as again many have pointed out, if it were a racial minority (or gender), you might be less comfortable holding your position. And even if that weren't the case, the only reason you'd support an argument that applies to both instances is that there are more pressing issues., which is trivial. There always are
Furthermore, are you saying the government is SO incapable as to not manage multiple issues at once? How the hell are they supposed to run a country if they can only deal with one thing at a time!? If the government cant at the very least handle human rights, environmental and economic issues at the same time then the world is a darker place than imagined. We can not yield on civil rights issues just because the government is F'in up our response to AGW This is a matter of principle.
Your argument is ludicrous. I'm sorry, but "imperfect world" and "compromise" are not in any way compatible with the concept of equal rights. If you think otherwise, then I'm sure it was a worthy compromise when blacks were counted as 3/5 of a human. Maybe it was a good compromise when Japanese were put into internment camps during WW2. Or when Jews weren't allowed in private country clubs.
We either mean it when we stand for equality, or America is one big fat fucking joke.
Every military officer who is forced to resign under DADT policies costs our government between 22,000 and 45,000$ to replace. We recruit past convicts from failed rehabilitation programs to fill our armies when there are thousands of gay people with perfect records who would willingly join.
Prioritizing with people is the deadliest decision you can make. Also, I think this video invalidates a great deal of your global warming videos. Aren't countries like Sudan a more pressing issue?
He said at the very beginning that he wasn't fully informed, which is why the video isn't directed at his own opinion. He just throws that in at the end for those who want to know.
The issue he's directing his efforts at here is the fact that most people arguing it DON'T have a properly informed opinion, which is why he suggests that the Democrats wait until the military poll results come out on December 1st.
Another thing, why does the Pentagon need to poll any data about what military personnel think or feel anyway? My D.I. didn't ask any of us recruits what we thought about; waking up at 4am; marching all day; having 6 mins to eat; or if we liked the color green. We were given orders and expected to follow them. If you want to BS and wait around for some data I got some for you. About two weeks ago a federal judge ruled that DADT is unconstitutional. Enough said. End the hunt and 'carry on.'
Also, it's true DADT does not bar gay people from the military but rather bars them from being open about it. The problem is gay soldiers are being outed and kicked out. Highly skilled and decorated soldiers at that. As far as the timing...if not now, when? Many minor issues, bills and repeals are debated every day in congress that are not as pressing as other matters, why not this one?
our army is so fuckin weak..just go look at south koreas army ..and chinas army...wtf..you think they got gays and women in there ??....not that im hating on gays and women....but it sucks to see our army like this
pjyg51241 2 months ago
This is some of the most idiotic casuistry on this topic I've yet had the displeasure f viewing. Crypto-bigotry masquerading as even handed fairness.
10mintwo 4 months ago
You are saying that denying citizens equal rights is the right thing to do? That now is not the right time to do it? It's always the right time to fix a wrong no matter how hard or inconvenient it is... shame on you!
Gr33nAtheist 8 months ago
@combativesuniversity That's ridiculously narrow minded view. Human sexuality is a lot more complicated than "you like women" or "you like men".
There's bisexuals, pansexuals etc. then there are the obvious straight (heterosexual) and gay (homosexual).
With so many straights, gays, bis etc. out there, there is no way a statement like "there is only straight and gay" can be true. Seriously, it's not made up.
Jamessc13 9 months ago
Comment removed
GracieJadeMarie 11 months ago
Anyone who isn't lock step w/ the Dems will see this. I'm from an extremely liberal state and I have to say-this isn't helping the party except among a tiny minority of gays serving the military
PtAltmVansanTarr 11 months ago
The law is the Dem equivalent to GWB saying he will prevent gays marrying w/ the constitution. Anyone who'
PtAltmVansanTarr 11 months ago
Strangely, since being in your algebra class this year Mr. Craven, I think I can understand where you are coming from. It takes too much to right the wrongs of our own past. Take segregation for example...how long did it take to settle that one? So the DADT will take probably just as much time since there are too many zealous homophoics out there. I for one actually get along great the with bisexual, homosexual and heterosexual individuals but my parents do not. Otherwise, great suggestion Sir!
EmmaHecate 1 year ago
@Lordes Wait, What? You just came off a point about telling me that its not good to serve openly gay, and then you come back saying that I'm irrational because I can see no benefit in serving openly gay... That's a bit of a contradiction...
jebwatson 1 year ago
@Lordes 1) You know SOME femme guys- you don't speak for all or even any gays here. 2) How would you know? You have no idea who I am, or what I can do. Don't post a comment calling someone stupid when your own comment is dripping with stupidity...
jebwatson 1 year ago
@Lordes So you would fire those from the majority so you could keep the minority? That's what's stupid. There's just no need for someone to be openly gay in the military or any job setting for that matter and that's because, whether you like it or not, there are people who do not like gays. Why would you tell these haters that you're gay unless you had something to prove or a pride issue? I can see no benefit in being openly gay in a job setting, especially the military.
jebwatson 1 year ago
I agree with your points. Their are much bigger things at large than what essentially boils down to gay pride. As long as gays, particularly men, don't behave like stereotypical (though still quite common) gays- far too prissy and silly- then they should be able to fight just as well as the straight man beside them. Whether they're trusted by the non-gays is why the bill shouldn't be repealed. If everyone knows someones gay, this helps breed discrimination and distrust. Gays need to remember- b
jebwatson 1 year ago
Morale has nothing to do with it. Maybe a homo-phobe might feel a gay person in there unit is bad for their morale, but what a lesbian women? Can't say that most men would find that bad for morale, yet lesbians aren't aloud to open about it.
hydrollama 1 year ago
I don't think we should even have a gay pride parade. At what point does someones sexuality need to be paraded? I don't care at any point wither someone is gay, straight, or ETC, because at no point does it even matter. Sexuality is such a juvenile topic in today's society, people think its complex but it really isn't. You love who you love, and you fight for who and what you love. My only concern is if that said person is performing efficiently at their duty. Wither they're gay or straight.
ts404 1 year ago
To those that just want to use this space to get on their soapbox about DADT, here's what the video's actually saying (and why you should look somewhere else to soapbox):
* DADT is an issue.
* DADT is in a stalemate, and has been in a stalemate for quite a while.
* We're gonna be screwed pretty soon if we don't take care of the "big" issues.
* DADT is not (in the author's opinion at least) one of those "big" issues.
* Here are some of the "big" issues
Maginomicon 1 year ago 5
at 1:13 is subscribed
tvzen 1 year ago
Didn't Obama try getting climate change efforts started earlier?
Also, if the Republicans become seen as total bell-ends over issues like this, there is an improved chance of more democrat wins in their constituancies.
Given what servicemen put up with (and I don't just mean combat, plenty of people are fine with danger, it's usually the massive number of rules on everything that are easilly tripped over), I really can't see most servicemen giving half a shit that there be gays among them.
Psychotol 1 year ago
Well said, Greg. You can't judge a book by it's cover, and the substance of the video is fantastic, but the title probably formed more than a few preconceptions. I look forward to hearing more from you about various issues in the future.
Element94 1 year ago
I may disagree with your conclusion, but you are a reasonable guy.
ComprehendingChaos 1 year ago
Your sexual orientation doesnt matter in the military.
DJpoppa35 1 year ago
@wonderingmind42 Your problem is actually a good one... you aren't a politician just trying to tell people easy answers they want to hear. That said... you should have involved yourself with a more pressing issue, like deforestation, GMO nonsense, or the precautionary principle in general. But don't beat yourself up. Even if you had been plain wrong you're redeemable. Instead of backing away though, you could make your mea culpa bigger. IDK, just a thought. Better is just to go w/ the Tao.
nihilozero 1 year ago
My thoughts on the matter dont just encompass this, but go as far as "If you don't like the requirements of the job, dont sign up for it". If it's the only job you can get "beggars can't be choosers." I'm pro gay equality. I'm bi myself; my first relationship was w/ a girl. If i went into my work & said i was gay or liked bondage, it would be inappropriate unless I was a sex worker. Same is said for a military job. This is a non-issue for the majority of ppl.
Yashendwirh 1 year ago
Your position seems to hinge on how members currently in service "feel" about gays serving openly. I suppose there are factions that feel the same way about this as there were factions that felt about freeing slaves, and allowing women to vote. They had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, in to a more civilized world. But we are better for it. The law is there, but there is abundant evidence that gays are still being outed, and subsequently booted.
l0gically 1 year ago
I am sorry, but i must degree. Canada has let gays openly serve in the military since 1992, Britian in 2000. Both of these nations have lent support to the War on Terror in afganistan and have both served well. I would suggest that these examples be brought up.
Still, this is an interesting development in that you have people with more conservative outlooks interested in climate change.
ImperatorZor 1 year ago
YOU SHOULD KNOW DATA ISN'T EVERYTHING! There can be no effective "control" group for such a study since its probable that the entire army has been selecting for homo-phobes since the policy was initiated and the pool of respondents is contaminated! This entire premise defeats its self if you replace the word homosexual with black. During the period immediately following de-segregation there was ALOT of unit-moral-issues, but eventually the army had civility and decency crammed down its throat
PsychoticusRex 1 year ago
Wow. I certainly would not have expected to hear these sentiments from you. I wonder how it's possible to "serve our country with honor" whilst simultaneously denying a central facet of one's being- thus dishonoring oneself.
Furthermore, DADT is an agenda mainly supported by fundamentalist Christians. I find it odd, Mr. Science Man, that you are considering bowing to their misguided ideology. What's next? A vid in which you negotiate a "brilliant compromise" with the Easter Bunny?
ChieftestofSinners 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Greg,
There are already other armed forces with openly gay personnel with all the data. We need not wait for December. This survey is just a delaying tactic.
DADT has already objectively caused harm to our military readiness by depriving us of key people.
Kill it now.
hecateus 1 year ago
Greg,
There are already other armed forces with openly gay personnel with all the data. We need not wait for December. This survey is just a delaying tactic.
DADT has already objectively caused harm to our military readiness by depriving us of key people.
Kill it now.
hecateus 1 year ago
I may disagree, but a well considered and back up argument. Thanks for raising the quality of the debate!
huntingape 1 year ago
Your suggestion that polling current members of the military lacks merit I think. As an older man who grew up in a military family I'm old enough to remember segregation during the 50's and 60's and the rancor that existed when the military became fully segregated in spite of the objections of many politicians and citizens. were the same sort of poll taken back them regarding the issue at the time I suspect you would have had a high number of people objecting to it... you see where I'm going?
Vulcanscienceacademy 1 year ago
Your suggestion that polling current members of the military lacks merit I think. As an older man who gre up in a military family I'm old enough to remember segregation during the 50's and 60's and the rancor that existed when the military became fully segregated in spite of the objections of many politicians and citizens. were the same sort of poll taken back them regarding the issue at the time I suspect you would have had a high number of people objecting to it... you see where I'm going?
Vulcanscienceacademy 1 year ago 6
Please...most other country in the world repealed anti-gay policies years ago. They taught their men and women that homophobia was NOT TOLERATED. And today, everything's just fine.
microwe 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I didn't realize I had an opinion on it, but I'm straight, but bi-sexuals and gays don't bother me a bit. I think however that gays should be able to be in the military. I don't think the people who aren't comfortable with it should be catered to. Just like anything else in life you might not be happy about, or comfortable with, you have to learn to cope with it, whether you understand it or not. I wasn't always comfortable with gays, but I had to deal with it then too.
steviesama 1 year ago
the people who say "Wait for justice, it will come someday!" are the ENEMIES of justice. That's why you're wrong. We must repeal DADT NOW! not later!
glevine333 1 year ago
i think gays/lesbians are a disgrace against humanity
JUNIORMICH 1 year ago
Does this alter your opinion at all: Over the course of a decade, DADT has ejected 13,000 troops from the military. Just curious.
Bobbiethejean 1 year ago
are men and women allowed to share barracks under the united states DOD? no. why? conflicting sexual orientations. are men who like men allowed to share barracks with other men? no. why? conflicting sexual orientation. it isn't that they are gay. it is that their interests don't provide a sexually neutral ground for military missions. if openly gay people were allowed in the military there would have to be gay barracks for the same reason there are women's baracks.
tafka92 1 year ago
@tafka92 Exactly. Efficiency over other.
Fridabeekman 1 year ago
I normally don't do this sort of thing but I feel the need to comment rather than anonymously unsubscribe.
The idea that the army is too full of fanatical fundamentalist Christians, skin heads, and other implicitly homophobic groups and thus the answer is to prevent gays from serving openly is false. Simply because it implies that such an army is desirable in its current state. I'd argue that this is not the case, and I would argue that, if not for the annoying character limit...
GaiusIuliusTaberna 1 year ago
well said!
well done!
personkid20 1 year ago
Equality and safety must take priority over political process. You're full of shit, Greg and you've lost a subscriber.
ChrisWhitney55 1 year ago
This is a matter of priority. As the US military draws on increasingly circumspect sources of recruitment - including ex-cons - any barrier to maintaining the kind of quality recruiting needed to sustain a modern army in frustrating counter-insurgency operations is essential.
Case in point: The recent civilian murder accusations in Afghanistan, which themselves are linked to similar atrocities in Iraq.
Who would you rather have protecting you - gays (acting professionally) or ex-con felons?
thinkingguy87 1 year ago
@thinkingguy87 In my opinion that would depend on the felony, and degree of rehabilitation, as well as the degree training/expertise between the two. That's my opinion anyways.
wooki33man 1 year ago
@wooki33man Good point, however, evaluating such criteria would consume far more resources than simply allowing all members of society to serve.
thinkingguy87 1 year ago
@thinkingguy87 Youre just being ridiculous! It is not in any way a priority, and you trying to sound smart with how you word your comments, common buddy, you can't fool me. But I will agree with you on one thing, US recruiting could definitely use fixing. Yeah US has a huge army, but that does not mean it's infantry is quality. The old quantity vs quality debate. Who would I rather have overseas fighting? An ex con or a homosexual. Personally I dont give a shit. You are just too biased.
msteeves01 1 year ago
@msteeves01 How am I not foling you? You're not refuting the argument.
The US military needs high quality recruits, as it's a high-tech volunteer force conducting small wars. Automatically exclusing possibly good recruits on the basis of preconcieved notions about gays is therefore detrimental to the maintenance of a high personal standards among your soliders. How is this a "biased" opinion?
thinkingguy87 1 year ago
This is like saying that "uncloseted" blacks shouldn't be able to serve. Fucking bigots.
JonO387 1 year ago
Since men and women in the service should not be having sex while on duty or in combat, PERIOD, their sexual orientation is no ones business. Openly gay? You're right in one sense, it's a damn fool thing to worry about.
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
This video isnt bullshit. The sexuality of the people in our armed forces shouldnt be a matter for inquiry of any form. Its down to the soldiers who are are gay to gauge the situation on a personal level and tell the comrades that they choose. All this does is put sexuality up for political legislation which is b.s. Interesting video wm!
hanson666999 1 year ago
Out of 26 NATO participants, our country is on of very few that have this policy. Among the few others? North and South Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Yemen...etc..COME ON PEOPLE..Our country is BETTER than this. I STRONGLY DISAGREE with this video. It affects people's lives on a daily basis, and that should be enough to say that it affects our country, and that it needs to be overturned NOW
calimntgirl34 1 year ago
@calimntgirl34 "COME ON PEOPLE..Our country is BETTER than this."
I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but we elected Bush twice then had to choose between a wimp or another Bush. My neighbors preach that we have the best healthcare in the world as well... I'm not so sure our country is better... :(
eviltube1111 1 year ago
Interesting ultra-conservative point of view of a liberal mind .... kind of contrasting ..... why do we need to conduct a public poll? .... the real question is are we equal or not? or must we conduct a poll for include afroamericans, women, etc?
pascaweb 1 year ago
Interesting ultra-conservative point of view of a liberal mind .... kind of contrasting
pascaweb 1 year ago
@pascaweb I woulnd't call it ultra-conservative. Using such labels takes away from the individuality cherished by liberals.
thinkingguy87 1 year ago
You're not thinking like a government, you're thinking like a single person. Any competent government gets everything done simultaneously, its about allocating resources to every problem. The US will always be in a war with someone or other, to wait until you're not you'll be holding your breath a long time. Being part of a government is also a matter of diplomacy, and you don't give up on any of your goals if you can't achieve the whole thing at once, you try to gain as much ground as possible
Philosification 1 year ago
er...
So if it were 'good for morale' you'd support an openly discriminatory system against gay people who don't hide their sexual preference? What do you think that does for the morale of people who happen to be gay?
One wonders what else you would support if it were good for morale...
terrificpaul 1 year ago
@daveff66 OH, and that's not fear mongering. It's a statement of doctrine and Christians will understand the underlying meaning.
Analogy: Look both ways before crossing the street because there are cars driving both ways and you could get hit.
Wash your hands before eating after working with birds because you could get salmonella.
Don't jump in front of a moving train because you could get killed. The advice is based on the principle of the doctrine. You don't have to listen to it.
BewareofFlatteries 1 year ago
@daveff66 The same thing happens on the other side. "If you believe in God, you're stupid," kind of stuff. But God is a vague word meaning "object of worship." What ever you worship, that's your god. Or it could be simply Good Orderly Direction. It occurs due to a refusal to accept people as they are. Bigotry knows no creed, doctrine, color, ethnicity, or lack thereof.
BewareofFlatteries 1 year ago
I agree there are more pressing issues for the US, but I cant see how letting the Government discriminate people will bring victory in Afghanistan.
I think a lot of people have problems with gays just because they never met one.
If the have the opportunity to meet normal gays and they still have a problem then this is a really big issue for the US!
Guff1e 1 year ago 2
Your point is well taken.. However, something is wrong when this is happening:
notalott 1 year ago
Lastly, Greg, I am a HUGE fan of your climate change videos, and have shared them with many people I know. They are some of the most thorough investigations and considerations of the topic that I have seen. It is thus shocking to see such a shallow, uninformed opinion piece that smacks heavily of a climate denialist rant come from you.
I must say that I am, in a word, disappointed.
However, like you say, you're not perfect and that you expect to be proven wrong. Well, here's your wake-up call.
ArchaeanDragon 1 year ago
@ArchaeanDragon Are you going to go ahead and prove him wrong, or are you merely upset that someone disagrees with you?
thinkingguy87 1 year ago
@thinkingguy87 already done, thanks. :) He's not disagreeing with me; he doesn't know what he's talking about in the first place.
ArchaeanDragon 1 year ago
Secondly, Greg, the specific amendment did NOT immediately repeat DADT AT ALL. It was specifically intended to allow for the completion of the DoD study and, if the study found in favor of getting rid of DADT, it AUTHORIZED the DoD to implement such an action AS IT SAW FIT.
Thirdly, Greg, DADT has been used to actively harass AND pursue gay members of the military IN THE ABSENCE of anyone asking OR telling. See the cases of Major Margaret Witt and Major Mike Almy.
ArchaeanDragon 1 year ago
Firstly, Greg, you really know better than to criticize something before you understand what you are criticizing. The so-called "don't ask don't tell repeal" vote was for CLOTURE (ie, to stop the filibuster so that actual, you know, DEBATE could proceed on the bill before it actually GOT to a vote) on an amendment to the 2011 defense authorization bill, which is the legislation that FUNDS ALL of our military for the next year. In the last 42 years, it has NEVER failed to be passed.
ArchaeanDragon 1 year ago
Is a survey really the way to decide such matters? Should they make all gay combat units, as they did all black units in WWII? If heterosexual men and women can serve together, then why not homosexuals? Sometimes structures need to be changed from above and perhaps this is time for this one to change. Let gays and lesbians hug their partners before going to war... openly. Let them have photos, talk about their partners and be open as anyone else gets to be.
Need more kitten videos.
MegF142857 1 year ago
There will ALWAYS be more pressing issues than civil rights, so does that mean we always put it aside?
Believe me, as a gay individual, I have no interest in being in the military not simply because of this ridiculously stupid policy but also for the fact that I cannot marry. I have no interest in protecting a country that will not grant me equal rights.
Pragmatic or not, I don't think that some politicians should be able to tell me whether I can or cannot protect my country. I am unsubscribing
Than211 1 year ago
Anyone concerned about "morale and military effectiveness" should ignore the BS gay issue and instead protest the war machine itself. Ask yourself which of the following is most important and which are most reported in the media: soldiers coming back with PTSD; soldiers killing themselves when they return; soldiers killing civilians in negligence or just for sport; war profiteering; gays serving with straights. You know your answer. DADT is a distraction from what's important. As usual.
adt33 1 year ago
@adt33 But if we were not overseas in current messes, then the issue discussed in this video would still apply. There should be room to think about all the topics you bring up and also discuss DADT. What "news" needs to stop covering is the latest movie and how much money it made over a weekend. They'd have more time for information if they would stop wasting time "telling us what they will be telling us" after the break.
MegF142857 1 year ago 2
This is a horrible video. You haven't done much research at all which makes me question the content of your other videos. Also, human rights are a HUGE priority. I couldn't disagree with you more.
I am unsubscribing.
firecat70 1 year ago
My first thoughts when I read the title of this, your latest video were: what is the most appropriate combination of profane language to use in response, and should I unsubscribe to one of my favorite subscriptions. Now, after watching the entire video, my only thought is: WHY THE FUCK CAN'T WE HAVE MORE AMERICANS LIKE YOU!?? Do most smart people just die at an early age, or do ignorant, selfish, jackasses just have a higher birth rate? May the whole world one day hear the voice of reason!
wooki33man 1 year ago
There will always be more pressing issues than minority rights, but that doesn't mean we should ignore them.
fourthirteen 1 year ago
I can't say I agree but I wonder why would lgbt people be so eager to serve a government that oppresses us and a lot of others anyway? I guess they should be entitled to though. Also I really hate it when people start out an argument saying "Now I have a lot of gay friends" like that means anything.
sec0f111 1 year ago 6
@sec0f111 Haha, I know what you mean. Like, "My brother and wife are 'colored' people, but I think the KKK has some great points." :P
rootvalue 1 year ago
@sec0f111: We need a straight-pride parade!
prikhod 1 year ago
@prikhod
we? i'm not straight... but i think that's pretty dumb
sec0f111 1 year ago
@prikhod lol ++++++ ! very true !
rhykko77 1 year ago
Comment removed
sec0f111 1 year ago
yeah dood, i'm gonna have to agree with the top two comments here, no hard feelings tho, i like your videos usually.
jakehm 1 year ago
The problem with forcing gays (or any other group) to stay hidden/anonymous is that it prevents everybody else from having the chance to become educated by direct personal interaction with open members of said group. Thus, it perpetuates ignorance. Since the best way to foster acceptance in society is through knowledge and education, DADT is a step backwards. So, repeal it. Sure, there will be morale issues at first, but we'll get over them. Just like we got over desegregation.
tradain 1 year ago 15
@tradain Wanted to add to this that bigotry is generally based on fear caused by lack of understanding and ignorance, as it is human nature to fear what we do not understand. Keeping a group distant or hidden makes it much easier to vilify.
tradain 1 year ago
@tradain Compromise our military so that we can "educate" people? Um... no thanks.
ace625 1 year ago
D0NT W0RRIE GAYS WE HAVE F0UND A CURE!!!!!!!!
ARJI1979 1 year ago
You know that law commonly referred to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? There is another part of it called "Don't Pursue" that ISN'T being enforced. If it were, the people chasing after LGBT folks in the military would, themselves, be put on trial and booted from the military.
Also, this: blogs.trb.com/news/opinion/chanlowe/blog/flags.gif
sappha58 1 year ago
finity is so lame...
handplanty 1 year ago
Military is about following orders, not about love or sexuality. I wont argue further on that, I'll leave it to you. Why is the 1-2% of population needed for the military service? How is that going to fill up the ranks?
th3dig1tal0n3 1 year ago
@th3dig1tal0n3 Some estimates are as high as 20%, Kingsey estimated 15.3% of males.
thinkingguy87 1 year ago
@thinkingguy87 20% might be overestimated. Even if it is 15%, it wont fill in the military ranks that much. People who want go to war will go regardless of their sexual orientation, so they could be in service already. The rest might boos the military ranks by several percents. Military wont gain much more troopers.
th3dig1tal0n3 1 year ago
Sure, you could wait on that report, or you could look at how armies without 'dont ask dont tell' function...
snownet 1 year ago
i agree with the guy in the video 100% , i don't care what the people in the comments think... so don't reply
jigfar7 1 year ago
Brainwashed homophob! Shame on You!
jaimeanna1412 1 year ago
As I understand you Greg, you aren't opposed to don't ask, don't tell per se, but rather arguing for postponing choosing side until data is collected and then picking side based on the data, which makes perfect sense. If our politicians were even half as pragmatic as you, I'm sure we'd have a substantially better society. :-)
I'm gay, ideologically against don't ask, don't tell, but pragmatic enough to respect if data opposes my belief. :-)
Spiderboydk 1 year ago 21
@Spiderboydk Hey, I pointed this out to someone else a little bit ago, so I thought I would let you know as well. Hopefully the tip doesn't offend you. The word "data" is a plural form of the word "datum", so you are referring to 'THINGS' instead of 'a GROUP of things,' do you see what I mean?
So it would be '...until data are collected...." and "...if data oppose my belief." I know it may look and feel weird, but that's English! :P Hope I helped. Take care.
rootvalue 1 year ago 2
@Spiderboydk so if data opposed anti-racism laws, we should have black slaves again? This logic is nonsense.
Oh, and the Human Rights agree with me.
kriptonis 1 year ago
@kriptonis That's a highly hypothetical question, but for the sake of the argument let's say investigation shows the pros of having slaves are bigger than the cons - every aspect examined (economical, ethical, and so on), well, then yes. But I can't imagine these conditions ever being the case.
What I say to listen more to data (reality) than to ideology, i.e. be pragmatic.
Spiderboydk 1 year ago
Except that the witch hunts do happen.
Gays should be able serve, period. DADT is an abomination.
evilotakuneko 1 year ago
What does the t-shirt mean? We add +up 0 7414??
phamuc11735 1 year ago
BTW - the American military is not our "most macho" organization. That' honor belongs to "Big Twins", a leather/biker dyke bar I wandered into by mistake one night. Trust me - we need to recruit those ladies hard - they'd even butch up a seasoned combat Marine brigade.
47f0 1 year ago
The system works how it is now, trying to change it before knowing how the people it effects think about it seems foolish to me.
Im sure its not the same for everyone, and i am not homophobic by any means, but as far as i can tell, soldiers in the military do not enjoy working with gay members. Ive seen people come out of the closet in the army and get harassed and abused for it. The soldiers that don't harass feel uncomfortable about working so intimately with gays. showers, changing etc. IMO
lazypoko 1 year ago
Hmm. I guess Harry Truman should have waited for a survey before he integrated the military. I wonder how that survey would have turned out? Further, Don't ask, Don't Tell" is actually "Don't get outed by anyone, either". I realize that it's an issue whether the planet melts or not. But the same parties that deny climate change are the ones that favor denying Americans equality. Poking them in the eye on this issue might just distract them from killing our planet and economy.
47f0 1 year ago
Dont be yourself, to fit it and avoid discrimination? not the best route to tackling discrimination.
Ellisgyl 1 year ago
I thought you were a man of reason but I guess that kind of went out the window.
Prior23 1 year ago
As always well thought out and explained. I think any major policy shift int he Military takes time and forethought. Rushing military policy means bad things for our soldiers. Military culture and previous policy will have to be altered or overturned in order to maintain the rights of every soldier. It's a policy nightmare.
MilesCochran 1 year ago
It doesn't bar gays
it bars uncloseted gays
Are you... seriously implying that gays should have to stay in the closet in order to serve? Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Sorry, as a gay guy, I'm just completely shocked that someone so brilliant as you could be so unperceptive at how horrible an experience being in the closet is. It feels like you're on the run. You have this secret, and everyone is hounding you. You feel trapped.
Sorry, social reform doesn't apply to science.
HouseFantastic 1 year ago
@HouseFantastic absolutely true, the military of all places is where we need people to be open minded about things like homosexuality. I find being in the army i am free to express whatever i want whenever i want. I can yell at my leadership about how bad their decisions are, or comment to the press about how inefficient our systems are. The army seems to be a great place for me to be able to be racist or sexist, because america says i can be. (i have nothing against gays, i just disagree)
lazypoko 1 year ago
@lazypoko
Are you being sarcastic here? Your thoughts aren't very well put together. If you're saying that there's no room for racism and sexism in the military, then there isn't room for homophobia either, because if generals say "Stop being homophobic/racist/sexist," people stop being homophobic/sexist/racist. That's how it works. It's not hard to accept, it happened with world war II, it'd happen again.
Besides, I was ranting about Craven's unintentional bigotry, not the military.
HouseFantastic 1 year ago
@HouseFantastic yes, it was sarcasm, and you are correct. If leadership says don't act sexist/racist/homophobic then the men underneath them will listen. The don't ask don;t tell policy is pretty much the order saying that. Just like you can BE racist in the military as long as you don;t say that you are or act like you are, same with sexism and being homophobic/homosexual.
lazypoko 1 year ago
Hmmm...I wonder what Martin Luther King Jr would have said about your "we'll get to it when we don't have more pressing issues" attitude if you applied it to say...the African American civil rights union? Liberty is the fabric of our society...and I would say to deny someone from serving our country as an openly homosexual person would be to deny that person of liberty.
EmpiricalTruth 1 year ago
Woah, man. I was fully expecting this to be satire.
geminyo 1 year ago
some pragmatic points here, but mostly I disagree. Seeing what the data looks like could be good, but at what point do we have to tell the adults serving that this is what professionalism looks like? You have to deal with people of different races, genders, religions, etc already. The military hasn't fallen apart after involving these different groups.
And a side question to me is, how can we address the nasty negative cultural attitudes that lead to situations like this in the first place?
SereniT03 1 year ago
Don't black up my army
Don't chine up my army
Don't jude up my army
Don't blue eyes up my army
Don't small fingers up my army
Don't big feet up my army
Don't woman up my army
Don't GAY UP MY ARMY!
But pls defend my country with the man that SHOULD DO IT BECAUSE THEY ARE BETTER CAPABLE AND MORE USEFUL TO OUR COUNTRY!
6u6u7o 1 year ago
Aaaaaaand unsubscribed.
no332 1 year ago 2
@no332 Agreed.
HouseFantastic 1 year ago
@no332 I'm with you on that one.
Prior23 1 year ago
@no332 lol, I'm so offended. >.> @--->---
steviesama 1 year ago
Your conclusion does follow from your premises and I agree about more pressing matters. However, you are missing one premise, and another is incorrect.
1) You are missing the claim that the US is based on its constitution, which DADT violates (multiple court rulings, plus an obvious violation of equal-protection).
2) The incorrect premise is that we don't have the data. We do - by comparing the US to other countries that allow openly gay servicemen.
The conclusion does not follow from these.
TempestStormwind 1 year ago
I think this gays in army issue is not one of the most critical to human kind of the issues currently open globally.
Kratax 1 year ago
ANOTHER GREAT VIDEO
EverybodyAVictim 1 year ago
I absolutely agree
ekhaat 1 year ago
As far as I'm concerned, if you're gay, go ahead and scream it out. Yell it from the mountain tops. Scream it and show it right in front of the Taliban. Practice it in front of Al Queda, just before you try to shoot them. You're welcome to live any life you wish. I'll stand back here and watch. :-) Now do you understand why the UN and Nato mainly uses more American soldiers than their own yet? No? Still don't understand? Keep fighting the Muslims under your new crusade.
BewareofFlatteries 1 year ago
@BewareofFlatteries your post is a bit rambling, butn I'll try to address some issues here.
1 - If you're fighting th Taliban, you have very little time to practice any sort of sexuality, so your narrative is moot.
2 - UN/NATO missions don't actually use a majority of American troops. The US commits large numbers of troops to maintain operational control, not because other people are begging Washington for deployments.
thinkingguy87 1 year ago
An analogy I'm going to use on this issue is two people arguing over which pie to have for dinner: Chicken or Beef. Now one insists that all people should eat chicken because he prefers chicken. The other insists all should eat beef, being he prefers beef. Niether likes the other to the point it nauseates them. Which should all people accept as the dinner pie? Chicken, or beef? People would argue it's unconstitutional to segregate (assemble) and let them eat the pie of their choice.
BewareofFlatteries 1 year ago
@BewareofFlatteries Fundamental believers have run for thousands of years, trying to find a land they could worship in peace, but the world always follows them, joins up with them, and then perverts them. You'll find, if you're a fundamentalist that you will become the object of sneering, ridicule, name-calling, and out right persecution. The era of persecution is rising. Either take the mark of the beast, or be denied to buy or sell. Good luck in maintiaining your principles.
BewareofFlatteries 1 year ago
@BewareofFlatteries You will come to the realization that you are the alien and sojourner. Look for the city whose builder and maker is God. Keep your eye on the high calling and don't worry about the worldy wise machinations. Don't be afraid to be different: it's what makes you, you. If they want inclusion (which they are in there, anyways) then just apply exclusion of yourself. "Separate yourself" from all unclean things. To be like Abraham in this time of growing chaos.
BewareofFlatteries 1 year ago
@BewareofFlatterie Today there is an attempt to force USA to become what so many groups left other countries to avoid under appeal to emotions fallacy arguments that are very similar to those of the Grecian and Roman Empires. But eventually they will then turn to Islamic countries to attempt the same. Muslims are ten times more stronger in their resolve, and more resilient. You can't force people to accept your way of life, just as you can't force religion on someone. s
BewareofFlatteries 1 year ago
I like this video. Obviously thought out, as I've come to learn about your videos. Though I'm not sure you've sold me on the pragmatism of putting this issue off for a later time. You're right that there's no data on the 'morale' issue. I think it's moot. Did desegregation hurt the morale of the South? But to the other point about scarce resources: wouldn't allowing openly gay to serve increase your potential pool of recruits, and prevent the discharge of those who are otherwise fit for service?
mwoolner 1 year ago
What many people don't understand is that you're dealing with a complex social issue here. You're trying to apply judgement upon people who have particular beliefs and values and try to maintain that moral in every aspect of their lives. This is why many people long ago left Europe and other countries: because the govt and people tried to force their cultural values on these small groups. They came here to worship according to their own values. They were outside the norm then and still are.
BewareofFlatteries 1 year ago
@BewareofFlatteries To try to maintain an overall "ethics" upon these subgroups is against their nature. Now if you are trying to apply ethics that is against nature (forcing someone to accept what is to them, immoral) than you are not being logical. To truly be ethical, you must be also in sync with nature that allows for variances and also logical. The world order is not logical and that is why wars constantly start. One tries to subject another to an ideology, and war starts.
BewareofFlatteries 1 year ago
Comment removed
BewareofFlatteries 1 year ago
I & my partner both served in the AF and this is my thought at this time in my life, I would not serve my nation again if it were attacked and Amernca begged me. I do agree gays should not serve openly or in the closet. Why should I fight for your rights to marry etc and not mine?
Clemburke1111 1 year ago
There are gays in the military now, and yes, many other soldiers know about it. There are also problems that occur now with interracial relationships in the military. Many people when they get into charge positions take out their anger and built up bitterness on those who are not like them. In other words, the tables turn against whites and heterosexuals. That's what I've seen when I was in.
As for IQ, all soldiers have to pass a test to show they are competently intelligent.
BewareofFlatteries 1 year ago
Fooky you idiot! Go suck one of your queer friend's dick!
jhi1947 1 year ago
@thelleht
Because the US is an insular country. What works elsewhere couldn't possibly work in the US. Are you kidding? We're #1 in everything. Nothing we do can go wrong, nor is anything we ever do wrong to begin with. Yay America!
/sarcasm
cagnazzo82 1 year ago
Stick to issues about the environment. Thumbs down.
willquestion 1 year ago
pulled "straight" from the Washington post.
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
"According to preliminary Pentagon data, 612 homosexuals were discharged in fiscal 2006, fewer than half the 1,227 discharged in 2001. On average, more than 1,000 service members were discharged each year from 1997 to 2001 -- but in the past five years the average has fallen below 730. The data were provided to The Washington Post in response to a request."
issuesmattertome 1 year ago
We wont be able to do anything constructive about "Dont ask dont tell" until we stop being so scared and hateful about anyone who is different. Not just the gays, but the athiests, etc.
When we let go and realize many of these things are NOT a big deal and we have lived with these people for hundreds of years with civilization marching forward as it has always done...well, what the hell is the flap about?
Yes, there are more important things to attend to...
skeletonmom 1 year ago
but they still do search e-mails and stuff to find out even tho they are not suppose to.then ask them to explain the emails that seam gay.
how would you feel if you could not get married you could not date and you could not even talk about dating? that is what we are doing.
Your married right? what if when you met her you had to pass the chance to be with her because you were in the military?
and its not like they just kick you out they give you a huge fines and remove all honers you earned.
theendofit 1 year ago
they performed the survey during the civil rights era in the same fashion as they are doing it now. The questions were based on how they felt on serving with a person of color. As expected, the soldiers were massively against serving with black soldiers. The president of the time passed anti-descrimination laws for the military even knowing the results of the survey.
Before you poke a hole in my argument, yes i know they passed the law to get more bullet cushions, but we should also use this
TheCrimsonLion 1 year ago
as a measure of the types of people that sign up for the military. i'm willing to bet a salami sandwich that the mean iq and socio economic status of your average soldier is below average.
the easiest way to teach you to not hate something is having it watch your back.
and to poke a hole in your argument, what resources are you taliking about when ot comes to repealling DADT? time and money? a few staffers afternoons wasted writing halfass speeched for their bosses maybe but nothing important.
TheCrimsonLion 1 year ago
@thelleht I agree, but at the same time, America is unique just like every other nation. Consider that America is the most religiously conservative democracy in the world.
satanicaa 1 year ago
I think that this issue is more related to rights & discrimination rather than doing what is best at the moment. The military history of the USA is almost continuous military action, so I do not think that the justification of Afganistan holds as there is never a good time to make a change to the military. The big question is wether it is right to disciminate against someone based on whom they are attracted to.
MikeBogue 1 year ago
Blimey, this video is bullshit.
Of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO, 22 of them allow open gays and lesbians to serve, including the UK. For fuck's sake, even Israel allows open gays and lesbians in the military.
You could have found this out with 30 seconds of research on wikipedia, so your claim that we can't know the consequences of allowing open homosexuality in the military is just crap. Or are you saying the US is *that* much more homophobic than everyone else?
plevyman 1 year ago 37
@plevyman I agree with your sentiment, but dude, watch your language!
Tenocticatl 1 year ago
@Tenocticatl Yeah, apologies, it was a bit of an emotional outburst. I guess I was just very frustrated to see such a disappointing (and narrow-minded) analysis of this issue from someone whose videos I've appreciated before.
I suppose at least it shows that you don't have to be "liberal" (an American word which means something different in most of the rest of the world) to be in favour of action on climate change.
plevyman 1 year ago
Your missing the point, it's our army that we are considering not others. This country is filled with bigots and racists. Data is different for every country and not one law or school of thought is globally befitting. And yes he is right there are more pressing matters than gay rights in the army. Such as people dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, poverty, famine and i could go on with many more.
Think with our brains and not with our hearts. I also do believe in equality no matter what.
casenka1 1 year ago
@plevyman Countries are different. There might be special circumstances present for USA, so the experiences of the other countries can't be transferred just like that.
USA is much more puritan than the European countries. Homosexuality tolerance, same-sex marriage, nude beaches, etc. This could make a difference.
Spiderboydk 1 year ago
Global Warming shouldn't be an exclusive liberal agenda anyway.
BaileysBeads 1 year ago
@thelleht I think it must be a simple explanation. You see, straight people in other countries, like Israel and Canada, have special koodie armor that allows them to be in the same locker room or bedroom with a gay person without anything weird happening. Straight people in America are so much more attractive than anywhere else on earth, that gay people can't resist touching them. Koodie armor is useless here. It's very scary. (and yes this is snark).
nrf91 1 year ago
If there are people dumb enough to want to join the army, let me have a word in their shell-like.
aiyic 1 year ago
The best argument is that ANYONE stupid enough to join in the army should be allowed to do so....
WayAboveYou700 1 year ago 2
@WayAboveYou700 Bill Hicks lives on...
plevyman 1 year ago
As for the demand for data, hello! It's already out there -- ever heard of the Israeli military? The Canadian military? Both allow gays to serve openly and I guarantee you there is a wealth of data not to mention anecdotal experience from both showing that it does not impact morale.
Heroic presidents like Truman laughed at arguments like yours, which were once used to keep blacks out, integrating the military by executive order at a time when only 19% of the country agreed with his decision.
nrf91 1 year ago
I must say, I am disappointed with your thinking here. You don't need to have an internal survey when, as many have pointed out, you have international precedent on the issue. Furthermore, as again many have pointed out, if it were a racial minority (or gender), you might be less comfortable holding your position. And even if that weren't the case, the only reason you'd support an argument that applies to both instances is that there are more pressing issues., which is trivial. There always are
Dewkeeper 1 year ago
@Dewkeeper
Furthermore, are you saying the government is SO incapable as to not manage multiple issues at once? How the hell are they supposed to run a country if they can only deal with one thing at a time!? If the government cant at the very least handle human rights, environmental and economic issues at the same time then the world is a darker place than imagined. We can not yield on civil rights issues just because the government is F'in up our response to AGW This is a matter of principle.
Dewkeeper 1 year ago
Your argument is ludicrous. I'm sorry, but "imperfect world" and "compromise" are not in any way compatible with the concept of equal rights. If you think otherwise, then I'm sure it was a worthy compromise when blacks were counted as 3/5 of a human. Maybe it was a good compromise when Japanese were put into internment camps during WW2. Or when Jews weren't allowed in private country clubs.
We either mean it when we stand for equality, or America is one big fat fucking joke.
nrf91 1 year ago 2
Morality is subjective
ShwangShwing 1 year ago
Every military officer who is forced to resign under DADT policies costs our government between 22,000 and 45,000$ to replace. We recruit past convicts from failed rehabilitation programs to fill our armies when there are thousands of gay people with perfect records who would willingly join.
Prioritizing with people is the deadliest decision you can make. Also, I think this video invalidates a great deal of your global warming videos. Aren't countries like Sudan a more pressing issue?
N495illithian 1 year ago
This guy must get his "data" from FOX NEWS.
Unfair...unbalanced...and uninformed.
Drophammer46 1 year ago
FAIL!!!
I found this a quite ignorant, uninformed opinion. It also seriously weakens detracts from your message on AGW.
1) There are numerous horror stories of unwarranted harassment, pursuit, & expulsion of dedicated gays & lesbians in the military.
2) Gates, Secretary of Defense, & Adm. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, already favor immediate repeal of DADT.
3) There are only 59 Democratic Senators, not 60, so they can't break a Senate filibuster without a Republican.
Duhh??
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k
He said at the very beginning that he wasn't fully informed, which is why the video isn't directed at his own opinion. He just throws that in at the end for those who want to know.
The issue he's directing his efforts at here is the fact that most people arguing it DON'T have a properly informed opinion, which is why he suggests that the Democrats wait until the military poll results come out on December 1st.
Ryshu 1 year ago
Another thing, why does the Pentagon need to poll any data about what military personnel think or feel anyway? My D.I. didn't ask any of us recruits what we thought about; waking up at 4am; marching all day; having 6 mins to eat; or if we liked the color green. We were given orders and expected to follow them. If you want to BS and wait around for some data I got some for you. About two weeks ago a federal judge ruled that DADT is unconstitutional. Enough said. End the hunt and 'carry on.'
Drophammer46 1 year ago
Fag
Foderick 1 year ago
Also, it's true DADT does not bar gay people from the military but rather bars them from being open about it. The problem is gay soldiers are being outed and kicked out. Highly skilled and decorated soldiers at that. As far as the timing...if not now, when? Many minor issues, bills and repeals are debated every day in congress that are not as pressing as other matters, why not this one?
GenerationB0RED 1 year ago