E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Few issues currently create as much debate as allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the United States military. Even President Obama doesn’t seem to know which side of the debate he’s on!
So when cartoonists weigh in on such a controversial subject, as Mike Keefe of the Denver Post did with the cartoon to the right (view more of Keefe's cartoons here), you can expect some readers to respond in kind.
Allowing gays to serve openly in the military has become an important issue to Keefe. Here is what he has to say on the subject:
"The question of whether gays should be permitted to serve in the military is basically a question of civil rights. I know of no study that says sexual orientation affects job performance in any legitimate area of employment including military service. Twenty-two of the twenty-six countries that contribute military forces to NATO permit gays to serve. Denying gays the opportunity to serve their country is denying them a basic right of citizenship."
Keefe has weighed in with multiple cartoons about gays in the military. Here are some of his best. What's your opinion?
Leave a Comment:
The hyprocrisy of it all. You can kill another human being as long as you don't mention that your gay! You can be given any number of medals for valour as long you don't openly admit your gay! What type of logic is this? Only in the States and other backward developed countries. Hang your head in shame. And this is how you honour some of your heroes?! A new saying by the bigots, "better off being "dayed" than Gay"! The stupidity of it all.
These cartoons are excellent - they make sense! Back in the day, when prejudice based on color raged supreme, I am sure a lot of bigoted White soldiers didn't like having to work along with Black and Latino soldiers, but what happened? They were told, they didn't have a choice, right? And it's worked, now the US military is a much better cohesive unit. The same will happen - I don't think a soldier is going to care what sexuality his or her fellow soldier is, as long as they feel part of the same team. And the gay soldiers are not going to feel part of the team, as long as they have to keep their sexual orientations hidden. The best way to eliminate prejudice and increase cohesion is to follow Gordon Allport's Contact Hypothesis - it works! Research suggests that increased contact with gay men predicts attitudes towards gay men much better than anything else. Of course, there is the possibility that possible negative experiences with gay men will probably make the ones who are prejudiced more so, but well, either way, it boils down to making people part of the team, and that they cannot be, if they have to hide who they are.
We need to get one thing "straight" though....it's NOT who they are, it is who they have chosen to be. Please don't buy the lie that people are born homosexual. There is not one shred of evidence to support such a claim. Until such time, one must default to the belief that it is a lifestyle choice.
Amazing that you still believe there is "not one shred of evidence." Could it be that you refuse to believe the evidence?
A mother's estrogen level in the last trimester of pregnancy is the greatest predictor of a child's future sexual orientation. Homosexuality is a trait that is passed to a son by his mother during the last trimester of pregnancy -- depending on her estrogen levels. Scientists have found nothing that is a better predictor.
But what if it was a lifestyle choice? It does no harm to you. When you force your religious views onto others, you do something that is very unChristian.
Beyond that, the Military has no business enforcing any lifestyle -- so long as it doesn't interfere with a soldier's ability to do his/her duty. Many gay soldiers were decorated and celebrated by the military until the military learned of their lifestyle. Now that is prima facie evidence of discrimination, something that should be stopped in its tracks.
Suppose Scott, you do honestly believe it's a choice. I still have to say... So what! It's still irrelevant to their ability to serve their nation.
It does not matter what consenting adults do in the bedroom, whether by choice or genetic predisposition.
As someone who served for 31 years, all I cared about was whether those serving with me could do their job.
Addressing the artist's statement:
"Denying gays the opportunity to serve their country is denying them a basic right of citizenship."
Wrong. There IS NO RIGHT to serve in the military. The military can discriminate in admissions based on whatever criteria they like, and discriminates against all manner of people... some of them physically fit for duty. Being a communist didn't prevent you from "shooting straight" either, but you still couldn't enlist. The Military is a special situation in society, an anti-Democratic force to protect a democratic republic. This is why they exist and live under different rules than the civilian world. This is why they have their own police force, courts, and medical system. If you don't want to live under these rules, then don't enlist. Period. But don't demand that the military become some kind of half-ass entitlement. No one is entitled to enlistment or a commission. No one.
So using your same logic, it would OK to bring back racial segregation to mililtary then?
By the way; beyond trumpeting your own obvious prejudice, you still haven't explained to us how gays and lesbians in the military would affect it's "readiness"
"Wrong. There IS NO RIGHT to serve in the military."
Ummm, that's not what he said; he said OPPORTUNITY to serve is a right.
"Being a communist didn't prevent you from "shooting straight" either, but you still couldn't enlist."
Sure you could; Lee Harvey Oswald was quite open about his communism, that didn't stop the US Marine Corp from letting him join them.
Always interesting for an outsider to follow this very unique debate in the U.S. though I remember we had similar issues concerning the role of women in the military here on the other side of the Atlantic. Personally I'm usually a bit surprised about the enthusiasm that the LGBT activists show in treating this subject. I wouldn't necessarily subsume the right to kill somebody else in a war under "civil rights" and I would probably not looking forward to doing this for a country which disregards my sexual identity in lots of other ways. I know it's not patriotic and I know that the DADT rule is hypocritical, but it shouldn't be the top priority in my opinion. Why don't you leave it to the Gay Republicans...
As a Vietnam veteran, I fail to understand how allowing gays to serve openly in the military would compromise "military readiness" as some contend. At this point in our military readiness, it seems that we need all of the highly qualified personnel we can recruit and who are willing to serve. Who the guy or gal next to me sleeps with is none of my business nor am I remotely interested in their love life.
I'm not sure that it is a "civil right" either, BUT absent demonstrable proof that gays in the military compromise military readiness, it seems that the exclusion of gays qua gays is unconstitutional. The military guys who have their panties in such a bunch over this issue need to "grow a pair" and get on with the business of soldiering.
And that's why the rest of the world has less respect for the US anymore. It used to be that we were at the forefront of new and progressive ideas, and others followed us!
I wonder if those same 22 countries also allow gay marriage?
I wonder if those same 22 countries also allow gay marriage?
For Canada, yes.
... and if there is no articulable reason the support for which can be demonstrably justified, the excclusion is STUPID as well. As one commenter said, the military was againsr racial integration of the troops at first too, and that has worked out very well.
Since reliable unbiased data from western countries regularly show about 2-3% of the population is gay, I wonder where he gets his numbers from? Even now begrudgingly the NYT accepts that number.
Actually, back in early Greece, thousands of years ago, there was at least one of those notable city states that had an army group composed entirely of gays. They were vicious fighters, and did their jobs well.
In these days of finding it hard to get people to serve in the military, the US should consider the same. This is how blacks paved their way into integration. You may want to read about the Tuskegee Airmen....
I find it astounding, how small "C" US Citizens are usually very good at making money, and complaining, but totally ignorant about most anything else, including their own country's history. Any US Citizen, who is not interested in his Nation's History, Constitution, or Declaration of Independence, should have his/her citizenship stripped. The loss of these few will easily be replaced....
There would be several scientific advantages to using "all gay units". All are historically proven.
A few, to wit, are:
Better integration of a united group of soldiers. No problems with sexual harassment of any females around. Since gays can do the job very well, this would free other men for other work. Since gays do not reproduce, as a rule, then you are not sending "the best hope of a bright new generation" off to war, from whence they do not return, leaving less mentally and physically fit people to reproduce, thus causing harmful genetic drift in the population. Historically, units of mostly gays, have been very effective with very high kill ratios, and superior effectiveness in difficult conditions. War is not a child's game. (Although, in certain places use of child soldiers has been very effective.) Modern technology requires soldiers who are intelligent, hard working, well trained, and well integrated into a cohesive team unit. One or more all gay units would give you exactly that sort of group.
A wise commander once wrote that: "Your enemy will not cripple his effectiveness to give you a chance at victory. It would be unwise then, not to follow that example."
In repley to Scott: Really? So please outline the "proof" that all people are born straight...
The whole anti-homos thing is bigotry. It is ugly, disgusting, and unConstitutional, too! That is all we need consider.