Thursday, September 22, 2011

Giving credit where credit is due: Barack Obama deserves credit for allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve in our military

Even a blind hog can find an acorn now and then. 
Barack Obama deserves almost all of the credit for allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve in our military. 
Good for him. 
Here's a map of all the countries that realize that sexual orientation is as relevant to military service as, say, hair color, right-or-left handedness, ethnicity, or preferance for NFC vs. AFC teams in Super Bowls.  In 30 years, it won't make any difference at all. 

Think of the countries where you'd be willing to live. 
I bet they're all red. 
It took us a while, but we got there. 
Now all we have to do is bring 'em all back home. 

Cartoon came from here.   


ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

Being of the opinion that sexual orientation is irrelevant I have a couple of questions: Of the nations indicated, how many have a likelihood of being engaged in a "combat" situation? Would you relate to us your own military experience as regards to overtly homosexual personnel in the unit in which you served?

As for a willingness to "live in" a country, I note that regarding my own choices, Chile is not red and New Zealand is not shown.

The Whited Sepulchre said...

Great hearing from you, sir.
Considering that we have troops sitting on their asses in 130 nations (give or take), I believe that less than 1% of our military has a chance of being in a combat situation.
The purpose of most of our military is to consume the output of military suppliers. We would do well by following the lead of those other countries (who aren't bankrupt, BTW) and staying out of some of these combat and non-combat situations.
To think otherwise is to believe that we should continue to defend Asia from China with money we've borrowed from China, etc etc etc.

I've never been in the military. I've employed dozens and dozens of ex-military personnel, though, and only one of them ever fired a shot in combat. Their chances of injury were far higher in my metal shop than in the U.S. military.

We currently have something like 50,000 troops in Western Europe. They have a far-greater chance of being shot while taking time off than while on "duty". We keep troops there because we've always had troops there.

Our troops stationed at U.S. stateside bases have a far greater chance of being shot by Muslim Majors than by our nearby enemies in Canada and Mexico.
The current purpose of most of the U.S. military (45% of the world's military) is to consume the output of American military suppliers. Gay troops can do this as well as straight ones.

Dr Ralph said...

Well said, sir. This is one of the reasons I put up with some of your other less appealing posts.

And one of the things, in my mind anyway, that separates the Libertarians from the Tea Party and their followers.