Paul Ryan against DADT reversal

[AlpsStranger]

It's looking like military gays are in luck no matter who wins in November. This is wonderful news and I couldn't be happier to hear it. Once we have a few decades of military homosexuals behind us we can seal this lid for good.

EDIT: No pun intended, but it's actually pretty funny now that I read it

 

[warpus]

Military homosexuals - that sounds rather fabulous

 

[JohnRM]

Meh, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. It sounds like he really means it.

 

[kramerfan86]

Good, these early years are the key ones, after a certain amount of time the current status quo will become too entrenched to be reasonably removed.

 

[Ajidica]

Military homosexuals - that sounds rather fabulous

Of course, you military fairy!

Link to video.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Paul Ryan doesn't want to repeal this?

I don't either, but I'm more libertarian minded either. I would have thought Paul Ryan, as conservative as he is, would be first in line to repeal DADT.

I think that when the policy was changed there was some reasonable question as to what effects it might have had on soldiers morale, and so the concerns about a change during wartime were valid. At the same time, this was a change that ultimately needed to happen. Being in the military should have nothing to do with your sexual orientation. Unlike gay marriage, in this case the issues literally have nothing to do with each other and so it really shouldn't be banned by any logical metric.

At the same point, mankind isn't fundamentally logical and I am no exception. Honestly, I'd be uncomfortable with people who are gays in the military. Not because I'd have a problem being with them, being friends with them, or serving with them, I'd have no issues there, but I'd honestly, and probably understandably, feel uncomfortable changing around them. And I would darn right be ticked off if a man wanted to flirt with me (I'm usually vocal enough about my Evangelicalism that it would be downright rude at that point).

On the other hand, even if I don't trust our government on a whole lot of things, a poll on "Are you comfortable with the repeal on DADT" is pretty hard to screw up. I think I trust the Pentagon when it says most people in the military aren't too uncomfortable with it, even if I personally am.

TLDR: I'm personally a bit uncomfortable with the fact, but I don't think we should go back to it, and I think the policy change to repeal DADT is appropriate, my personal discomfort with it aside. I explained specifically why I'm uncomfortable with it in the "Longer" version above.

 

[JollyRoger]

Ryan is probably relieved that DADT is still enforced within his party.

 

[Arakhor]

There's plenty of things that I'm uncomfortable around that I wouldn't dream of trying to legislate against, mainly because I'm (a) fairly unreasonable with which to live and (b) fairly reasonable in my political views.

 

[dirtyparrot]

I think that when the policy was changed there was some reasonable question as to what effects it might have had on soldiers morale, and so the concerns about a change during wartime were valid.

There really weren't any reasonable questions surrounding this issue. They've been answered time and time again by all the countries who have allowed gays to openly serve in the military without complications. The reason that this was opposed is for the same reason that they booed that gay soldier asking his question at the Republican debate.

 

[GhostWriter16]

There really weren't any reasonable questions surrounding this issue. They've been answered time and time again by all the countries who have allowed gays to openly serve in the military without complications. The reason that this was opposed is for the same reason that they booed that gay soldier asking his question at the Republican debate.

Well, I think there's a valid reason to wait until your out of war to change it. I think the majority of people knew it was going to change eventually and were fine with it.

Overall, however, DADT makes little sense, however comfortable it might make me feel. I'm glad it was repealed

 

[Azale]

Gay rights is one of the few things to like about Paul Ryan's politics. The rest is a condescending catastrophic mess.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Like stating that repealing DADT was a "step in the wrong direction" in this very speech, supporting constitutional amendments to ban SSM, and voting to ban adoption by gay couples?

Paul Ryan as VP Matches Mitt Romney on Homophobia

ButI do have to give him credit. Now that it is quite clear that banning DADT didn't affect the military in any substantial way, he now claims he would no longer want to re implement it as many Republicans still wish to do. But I still bet he wouldn't violate his loyalty oath if it ever comes up again.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Well, I think there's a valid reason to wait until your out of war to change it. I think the majority of people knew it was going to change eventually and were fine with it.

Not really. We need as many soldiers as we can get. And if the experience of Israel teaches (they face nearly constant warfare on some level on their homefront, much less 2k miles away), changing this policy wouldn't and didn't change anything for the soldiers.

And while many soldiers lean conservative, they are also mostly young. Young people see many less problems with being gay on the whole than older folks do.

 

[AlpsStranger]

The gay issue is a "great wheel of history" sort of thing. The opposition seems strong when stuff like Prop 8 happens, but Liberals have a distinct advantage in the long haul: we need win only once. Liberalism is actually strategically easier than conservatism because we release cats from bags, but our opposition actually has to catch cats and put them back in.

 

[holy king]

 

[GhostWriter16]

I honestly don't know why that fact (That libs only have to win once) is. I think its because conservatives are consistently becomming less and less so, at least socially. Not saying that's all bad, but it seems to be the case.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I honestly don't know why that fact (That libs only have to win once) is. I think its because conservatives are consistently becomming less and less so, at least socially. Not saying that's all bad, but it seems to be the case.

That's exactly it; they will always be conservative, but the things they support are comparatively less and less conservative wrt to past beliefs. Think about it: you don't support women not having jobs, slavery, minority disenfranchisement, etc.

In my mind, the ultimate job of a conservative is to keep things from changing too much, too fast. But you can't stop the inevitable march forward (in the grand scope of things; I'm speaking here about issues now seen to be universal human rights, they weren't always so), you can only pause it for a while.

The gay issue is a "great wheel of history" sort of thing. The opposition seems strong when stuff like Prop 8 happens, but Liberals have a distinct advantage in the long haul: we need win only once. Liberalism is actually strategically easier than conservatism because we release cats from bags, but our opposition actually has to catch cats and put them back in.

Mad props dude. Seriously good analogy.

 

[GhostWriter16]

That's exactly it; they will always be conservative, but the things they support are comparatively less and less conservative wrt to past beliefs. Think about it: you don't support women not having jobs, slavery, minority disenfranchisement, etc.

In my mind, the ultimate job of a conservative is to keep things from changing too much, too fast. But you can't stop the inevitable march forward (in the grand scope of things; I'm speaking here about issues now seen to be universal human rights, they weren't always so), you can only pause it for a while.

Well, I certainly see a big difference between what conservatives are now fighting for, whether I agree with it or not, and supporting slavery and minority disenfranchisement.

I shudder at the thought of a world when these things really were looked at at the same. The thought is scary, and awful. Then again, maybe some people thought that about segregation back in the 50's. Maybe people were saying "Well, its wrong, but at least we aren't like the slavers of the 1850's" or something. And they weren't. It was bad, but it was an improvement. And what we have now is undoubtedly an improvement still. At least overall.

I guess for me I can't see me changing my opinion unless I really did change my opinion. I mean, that might seem like common sense, but I can't see myself saying "Oh, gay marriage is legal now, so now I agree with it." But then again, my kids probably will. So yeah, it probably takes a generation to eliminate an issue from the public scope.

Granted, SSM is at the bottom of my priorities, so I don't really care if that one leaves the public eye anyway.

Does the same thing happen with fiscal issues? Or have those always been equally a battleground as they are now?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Well, I certainly see a big difference between what conservatives are now fighting for, whether I agree with it or not, and supporting slavery and minority disenfranchisement.

I shudder at the thought of a world when these things really were looked at at the same. The thought is scary, and awful. Then again, maybe some people thought that about segregation back in the 50's. Maybe people were saying "Well, its wrong, but at least we aren't like the slavers of the 1850's" or something. And they weren't. It was bad, but it was an improvement. And what we have now is undoubtedly an improvement still. At least overall.

I guess for me I can't see me changing my opinion unless I really did change my opinion. I mean, that might seem like common sense, but I can't see myself saying "Oh, gay marriage is legal now, so now I agree with it." But then again, my kids probably will. So yeah, it probably takes a generation to eliminate an issue from the public scope.

Granted, SSM is at the bottom of my priorities, so I don't really care if that one leaves the public eye anyway.

What an enlightened post, thank you. Also, thank you for realizing I wasn't trying to equate you or modern conservatives with slavers. I was merely making a point about how the definition of conservative will continually change as people react to shifting morals and ideals and I appreciate it that you took it this way. Liberalism shifts as well, as what is liberal today is conservative tomorrow, re: 'Back to Africa'.

(It was a fashionable and liberal idea at one point that slaves should be freed and then sent back to Africa. Which later became something of a co-opted idea by conservatives after slavery had been abolished.)

Does the same thing happen with fiscal issues? Or have those always been equally a battleground as they are now?

No. They always will, and always should be a hot topic/battleground. Neither side should ever 'win' that argument: the country will implode.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I honestly don't know why that fact (That libs only have to win once) is. I think its because conservatives are consistently becomming less and less so, at least socially. Not saying that's all bad, but it seems to be the case.

Cultural conservatism is based on a system of taboos. Taboos take hundreds of years to make and have to be remade from scratch if they are shattered. Most of the more strategic thinkers in the anti-SSM movement are well aware of this if you read their literature.

The exception is if you start gunning people down and have a conservative minority overrule the actual attitude on the streets, but I don't think even 99.99% of far-right Republicans are that messed up.