Thursday, February 10, 2005

Flyer with Goldwater Quote

I liked Barry Goldwater's quote about gays in the military so much that I made a little flyer. You can see it here in Word format.

In case you missed my previous post, what this grandfather of the modern conservative movement said about gays in the military is:
You don't need to be "straight" to fight and die for your country. You just need
to shoot straight.
What says you? Should we print the flyer and put it up around campus? Any ideas for other flyers?


Adam Scavone said...

I dig it

Anonymous said...

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a second and argue that one needn't be anti-gay to prefer a straights-only military. This isn't about denying gays the opportunity to fight and die for their country. It's about creating the best scenario for unit cohesion, for brotherhood among macho men and... I'm sorry to fall back on stereotypes, but I don't know many straight men who'd want to huddle in a tent with Nathan Lane under the desert sky. Sexual tension has no place in combat. If you disagree, why not break down the walls and make every battalion coed?

spacious-skies said...

Anonymous knows that even under fire from the TaliOsamaBans, I'd definitely refuse to enlist if Nathan Lane were the recruiter come a-knocking on my door. Yes I have at least two gay friends. Yes I accept them as they obviously are. Yes they should just do their thing while I do mine. But no: I simply would not be able to share my cubby with a guy who exudes the sexual "thing" all the time in the manner we reasonably identify as "being gay." Yet I uneasily can picture this American scene: suppose I'm the enthusiastic recruiter in the scenario. I go a-knocking on doors, randomly, and there's Nathan himself answering both the door and the volunteer call to arms. So suddenly I'm the patriot who'd be sneering "no, no, not you sweetie, we are the Brave and we don't want you. And Nathie says, "But I wish voluntarily to serve my country's militia in America's self-defense."

Tough call, since it SOUNDS like pure discrimination even though it simultaneously is 100% rational, 100% in the best interest of heterosexual males to work and fight and recover from battles SANS any gays sasheying flirtatiously around in the lockerroom, the tent, the undercover close quarters. "Unwanted sexual advances" and "Inappropriate sexual attitudes in the workplace."

Again: tough call when you pose it as a legal issue for our 21st c. post-victorian military.

Dan said...

Let's face the fact that neither anonymous nor spacious-skies knows anything about how homosexuals in the military might affect unit cohesion. Have you read any case studies? Here's a notable counter example: the Israeli Defense Forces have no "Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell" no-gays policy, and I wouldn't want to fuck with them.

Also, as for why units shouldn't be made co-ed if they're going to have gays, it's because when you're facing a primitive enemy, any women captured are liable to be raped, something they would be less likely to do to men.

Spacious-Skies said...

Wanted to check back here to reply to clearheaded interesting comment above. I'd always assumed that the Israelis take the Enlightened Victorian position of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Surprised to hear that they do not need this policy. To me, this has sounded like the best plan in that it welcomes all to serve and to earn careers in the military, yet offers a heterosexual baseline expectation for behavior. As the overwhelming majority deeply wants to function in a heterosexual environment, this approach seems profoundly rational and humane. Any other approach sounds like social engineering. Forced bussing does not successfully engineer race relations, neighborhood colorlines, or students' test score performance.
I nonetheless acknowledge your evidence re the Israeli model.

Anonymous said...

Hi - You have a great blog. I have a webpage about self defense schools I'd like you to visit. Here's the link