Kevin Marshall's America
A common response I’m seeing to the Senate’s repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” from friends and family members on Facebook and Twitter is that homosexuals who want to serve have a right to do so.
Then they add, “why should I care if they’re gay?”
Though well intentioned, I think “why should we care?” is the wrong attitude towards gay marriage & military service, because it implies ignoring a person’s sexual orientation rather than accepting it.
There’s a huge difference, and though it may seem like arguing semantics, it’s a vital distinction to make. Theirs is a community that long has had to hide who they are, even in present day, and telling them you don’t care if they’re gay might as well say “I allow you to engage in basic liberties but still consider you invisible.”
In the past, I might have said it was a minor point in language and did not matter. I know now the folly of that and how easy it is to feign acceptance when really what you’re doing is ignoring the difference and pretending certain people aren’t there.
It is no different than those who say “I don’t care what color you are” or joke that “we should all just have sex until we’re one color” (by the way – that joke’s so old even Carlos Mencia won’t steal it). That isn’t embracing diversity, it’s a cry for us to abandon those things that make us unique people in order to coincide with your standards and sensibilities.
I am not saying that people who say this are bad people, just misguided. Ignoring diversity is not the same as advocating discrimination.
But it does make the voices of the intolerant seem that much louder.
Share it!
49 Responses to Why Should I Care if a Soldier is Gay?
Leave a Reply
STALK ME
“…and though it may seem like arguing semantics…”
Yeah, it does seem like that.
I’m sure I’ve said variations of “I don’t care if someone is gay” throughout my life, but I usually don’t care if someone is straight either. And it’s not that I’m ignoring diversity around me. I think everyone should feel free to just be who they are. It’s just that things like orientation don’t add or subtract from whether or not I like a person/how well I treat them/whether or not I am able to work with them/etc… and I think most people who say that mean it that way.
Now I’ve seen statements like “I don’t care if you’re gay + I don’t want to know about it/keep it at home/as long as you don’t show off or shove it in my face all the time.”
Yeah. That’s ignoring diversity and wishing others would hide their diversity from you.
Instruct us, Comrade Kevin, as to how we should think and what we should say. Your group-think will certainly keep our minds right.
I totally get what you are saying and agree. Nice Blog
It’s a dodgy/apathetic statement to make, although you are right when you say that some people just say it without trying to mean anything about it. But in the end, we should care if someone is homosexual when we live in a society that doesn’t provide a wholesome environment for those people, and where certain freedoms that are entitled to some aren’t entitled to all. It’s fallacy to pretend that some war on bigotry has been won, and that is why we should care.
Snark,check.
Communist Russia reference, check.
Obvious Presence on Tea Party’s Liz Lemery Joy’s Blog, check.
Frank, formulaic and expected, I am disappointed.
Ha, consider this payback for that grapefruit hipster Subaru band! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HHT_V294Co
Well Kevin and Cihan,
How do you propose we go about embracing diversity? I can guess that you will say that people should just drop the “I don’t care if you’re gay”. But like I said above, most of us mean it in a context of “we care about the person/soldier regardless of their orientation”. I’m sure your friends and family who were celebrating the repeal meant it that way.
Is that still too dodgy and apathetic? I get the feeling that you want us to focus MORE on people’s homosexuality, but that doesn’t sit well with me since it’s something those who oppose equal rights do entirely too much.
Maybe I’m mistaken in that inference, but I really am curious as to how you guys think we should go about “car[ing] if someone is homosexual”?
I don’t care that you care that I don’t care.
Cihan – Frank can’t help it. He suffered permanent brain damage when he read “Atlas Shrugged” as a child, without adult supervision.
Kevin Marshall is another bricks on the wall, of the social intellect
ethical quzzlings, of the bonapart Left!Naturally he does not care.
A major of American’s today have no moral compass, nor any thought
of what a society comprises of as per values and integrity.
Is it no wonder that a questionair given and answered by the U.S
Marine Corps, resulted in an overwhelming 70% vote against homosexuals
serving and posterioring with them in the Military.These perverts will
denegrate any decenty and integrity..that that the Marines have sstrived for over the decades. And to think that Mr. OBAMA..a known aassociate of former tresonairs,who HATE the very country they live in
claim he’s concerned about homo-sexuals(nothing “gay about this ccrowd!)being denied to serve in the armed forces.Where’s Mr. Obamas
military service??? aka Bill’s)WHAT A “CLASSIC FRAUD!!!!
Did the liberal Obama controlled media present the view point of the Marines?? NO..Does their voice count? NO..How about many others, parents whose children have been violated and molested, and have lost
their innoscence!!!What about their conscious? America has become the lost world, a world void of a moral compass.Are people aware that the S.S. formed the Pink Triangle, a fraternal order for sadistic
Nazis, who perpatrated inHuman barbarism upon 6 Million Jews and millions of other Innocent persons.Yet we have public schools with this symbol(PINK) as a safe zone for children who have been brainwashed, by the media, HOLLYWIERD,and other societial degenerates
who think being perverted, is a normal way of live. BULL!! The gay lifestyle is a repudiation of Creation of man.
I’m fed up with all this abismal lifestyles being shoved in my face as, many others I know. The billboards supporting this , will be torn down. There will be many conflicts to come as Americans..are fed up!
When push comes to shove…well we know the answer..
Gee, Frank Davis, we’ve tolerated some 2000 years of “divinely dictated” groupthink about how evil homosexualty is, let’s give Kevin’s type a shot.
Mr. Marshall is correct. I suggest you spend about 10 minutes in a gay-themed shop sometime, and that you feel kind of creeped-out about it…then I suggest you experience some kind of epiphany that gay men and lesbians feel that way just about everywhere else in the straight world.
That ain’t groupthink, Muchacho…what’s groupthink is the intolerance behind the well-funded political campaigns featuring euphemisms like “sanctity of marriage” and “family values” that drives self-professed people of God to deny those who differ their equal rights under that God.
In the light of morning sun (and coffee) I’m taking another look at this and wondering where Frank Davis’ comment is coming from, it has the vibe of someone showing up for a basketball game with a catcher’s mitt. What I read Kevin say was the opposite of group-think, a common view is what has been described (“I don’t care if…”) and it’s something I’ve said many times myself without a second thought. The difference between tolerance and acceptance – I’ve given that a lot of thought before and it seems to me that tolerance is a stepping stone. Our world has changed so much in the years we’ve been alive, we’ve seen a reunified Germany, the end of Apartheid, the Cold War ended and an endless “war on terrorism” began, and yesterday a new mark in civil rights was achieved. It takes a lot of people time to catch up with it all, but they will have to eventually when it finally occurs to them that we have no color, religion, political identity, sexual orientation, etc., when the boat we’re all sitting in is listing and out of wind.
And Frank, I think your beef is with “political correctness” if I might read between the lines, what people couldn’t be taught as manners had to be dictated by society and policy memos from HR. I’m going to point to the analogy I closed the last paragraph with. Should we figure out how to fix things, or call each other names?
I think both statements can go both ways. Someone who “embraces diversity” by giving me a pass on behavior that they would judge straight people for is only feigning acceptance. “It’s wrong for men to own cats, but you’re one of _those_ people so it’s okay for you.” I have more respect for someone who is rational enough to be accepting of both feminine personality traits and homosexuality, but as separate concepts. But maybe that’s not what you’re talking about when you say “embrace diversity.”
LOL Fatbob!
Thank you for making my day, when I glanced at your comment and just observed the obvious structure, I knew it was going to be great. Then I actually got to the delectable content, and my day was made.
I saw Nazis, I saw a lack of spellcheck, allegations of brainwashing by super-gay-dominated media personae, and much mention to improperly calibrated moral compasses.
Oh yeah baby, I’m not gay, but at least I’m a proud fornicator, I hope that is thoroughly abismal for you.
But on a more serious note, I find it incredibly obnoxious that you insist that Obama is not qualified to speak on the subject of the military in any capacity, because he has not served in the military. You clearly fail to understand the position of the President as Commander and Chief, and that a main purpose of the President’s role is to serve as a citizen-elected check to the military. If having military experience was key and core to being president, it would be a requirement. Note that it is not, and should stay that way.
Victoria,
I would say you’re totally off base and assumed a bit too much there. My mention of caring doesn’t equate to laser like pointing precision.
Anyone else read FATBOB’s comment in the voice of that dumb as rocks Miss Teen USA South Carolina girl?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
Take it from a new veteran (as of June 26, 2010): I spent ten years in the Navy in the submarine service. I know and worked with gay men. I did not care about their sexual preferences. I cared about whether or not they could keep my ass alive when there was a fire, when there was flooding, and when we were rigged for ultra quiet while listening in on conversations that were meant for our ears. I trusted them to keep the reactor operating safely while I was eating, sleeping, or doing paper work. Those same men, expected the same from me. A man with dolphins on his chest has been tried physically and mentally. Those dolphins prove that they have what it takes to keep that steel tube moving–quietly and safely. What they did at home, on liberty, was their choice. Same with me. As long as no laws were/are broken, then it is no harm, no foul.
That is all. Carry on, smartly.
“I would say you’re totally off base and assumed a bit too much there. My mention of caring doesn’t equate to laser like pointing precision.”
Well then what the heck does it equate to? That’s all I’m trying to figure out. You both made assumptions about how people mean the “I don’t care” phrase. I attempted to clarify the true intent people usually have when they say that.
It would be nice if you clarified what you meant when you only offer broad concepts of “embracing diversity” and “caring about whether someone is homosexual” as a better way to react to this great news.
I’m not trying to be a dick about this, but when you say that your friends and family are misguided in saying they don’t care, but offer nothing but grand sweeping statements in return, it starts looking like a high-horse fest around here.
What is a better thing to say? How do you go about showing that you care about gay people? How exactly should we embrace diversity on this occasion?
Come on guys, I’m on your side about this. I’m just trying to figure out what you mean.
Geeze, this is a semantics debate after all.
Nice rant! In a nutshell, FATBOB is fed up with things that FATBOB doesn’t like or can’t understand. The world is changing faster than FATBOB can keep up and FATBOB is mad! Others are too! It might surprise you to learn that everyone who breathes is fed up with things they don’t like, that we’re all confused and confounded by change. We live in an accelerated era. The common sense approach is to adapt and learn, but if it’s easier to listen to radio and hear for hours a day how the world is “us” vs. “them” and not just “us,” go ahead and get buried.
PS, the word is spelled quisling. Don’t know why you used it, I’m sure it was impressively toxic sounding when you heard the angry guy say it on the radio, but it has a dictionary definition that doesn’t apply to anything here.
Marshall- it doesent matter what your opinion is. The Marine Corps has spoken for everybody.If the people in the military don’t want it to change, then it shoud remain as is. Catering to the minority despite the majority- You interjecting your opinion into something you have no clue on is just typical for a liberal. Im guessing you have never served in the military? No, actually I’m quite certain you have not.
Holy big conversation here…. Agreed Kevin. I don’t care if you’re a heterosexual caucasion upper class man. ha ha
Big Jer – Sorry, but if we let one group speak for the whole, then nothing will ever get done. The time will never be right if we say it’s not the right time. All this defense of NOT repealing stinks an awful lot like segregation in the 60s, when many opponents put forth concern about terrible outcomes of racial integration as a defense for the continuation of the policy. I know people HATE when that comparison is made, but it’s apt.
Victoria – I think the problem is that you’re trying to frame the argument from your perspective rather than what’s stated. I say we shouldn’t say “I don’t care if you’re gay,” because it gives the impression we’d rather not know they were gay. You’re asking what alternative their is to not saying something?
But to answer you, embracing and accepting is different than ignoring. Pretending a person’s differences aren’t there is an action. I’m saying we shouldn’t do that.
Victoria:
I mean what Kevin stated. My laser comment was that you can care about someone’s preferences, without examining them and picking them apart so strongly that you melt them under your gaze.
If someone is homosexual, then that is a preference that I can respect. But respecting someone is a form of caring and requires some modicum of effort. When I hear “I don’t care”, I think “out of sight, out of mind.” I think it’s hard to respect a preference that you don’t literally care about at all.
As an example, for me at least.
“I don’t care if you’re gay.” or “It makes no difference to me that you are gay.”
Could be replaced by something along the lines of:
“I understand and respect that.” or “I would treat you the same regardless of your preference.”
I think that in a society where it is quite common to not feel the latter sentiment, that it is important to make that kind of distinction. I don’t believe in PC for the sake of PC, and only suggest the above verbal distinction if you are someone who agrees with the sentiment. For someone like Fatbob, I fully encourage him to say what he feel about others, because then it makes it easier for the more tolerant to completely avoid him and not operate under a level of deception.
I’m sorry if that came off too aggressively in my initial response.
Big Jer:
Catering to the Marine Corps for the entire military would in fact be “catering to the minority” especially since the Defense Department determined that the majority of those in the armed services would be alright with homosexuals serving openly in the military. Also let’s remember that the military’s purpose is to serve and protect the general population. They are beholden to laws enacted by representatives elected by the general populace, and if DADT is repealed, it could be said that the majority *has* spoken.
Kevin,
Thanks for answering me. I appreciate that much more than a quick, snippy dismissal.
I only frame argument from my perspective (because that’s how debates work and) because I know my intentions behind my words when I say something like, “I don’t care if you’re gay”. You were framing your arguments from your perspective after all with your assumptions of what people mean with those words.
In case I haven’t tried to get my idea across enough already, I don’t ignore people’s differences, but rather try to embrace the whole person rather than focusing on their orientation.
Similarly, I think most of your family/friends might have meant something like they appreciate the job a soldier can do and realize that their orientation does not affect their ability to serve, like opponents of the repeal might think. In fact, the “Why should I care” sentiment is probably just a reaction to those opponents who have been focusing on orientation entirely too much.
“You’re asking what alternative their is to not saying something?”
I’m asking what you mean by accepting and embracing.
If your friends who said “I don’t care…” were in favor of the repeal and were happy it went through, then isn’t their support and acceptance of homosexuals implicit?
I know I can be wordy sometimes.
In short, I think you’re being a little hard on said friends. They might not necessarily care if someone is gay, but it doesn’t mean they would rather ignore that they are gay. Nor does it mean that they will ignore that there are still rights that need to be fought for.
Victoria – What I mean by accepting and embracing means that you not only are okay with who they are, but that you encourage them to be open and free about it.
Saying “I don’t care if you’re gay” is like saying “I don’t care if you’re Hispanic.” As in, I am indifferent towards those things that you wish to take pride in. That’s the wrong message to send.
Just being in favor of the repeal is not necessarily implicit of their embracing of homosexuality. It implies they think it should have passed, yes. But support of a policy that doesn’t directly affect them and applies to an organization – ie the military – that is far removed from their day to day lives does NOT automatically imply that they embrace others.
It’s like the old “NIMBY” phenomena: people who were for civil rights when they saw blacks being sprayed with hoses on television, but still uncomfortable and apprehensive when a black family moved into their neighborhood. It’s a phenomena that still happens, because saying you’re open to it is different than being open to it.
Now, I’m not saying they’re bigots, or homophobic, or not accepting. I am saying that “I don’t care” sends the wrong message, and may be more indicative of a stance on a specific issue than on a people as a whole.
Homosexuals shouldn’t be able to serve in the military or get married simply because you don’t care if they’re gay. They should be able to be proud of who they are and have the right to serve and get married.
Most importantly, “I don’t care if your’e gay” is the attitude behind DADT in the first place. DADT says that you CAN be a homosexual and serve in the military…I just don’t want to hear about it, because “I don’t care if you’re gay.”
That’s why it matters and is not a mere matter of semantics, regardless of intentions.
JGR – well said. As to people in the military wanting or not wanting it to change, when survey a survey was taken of soldiers and their spouses, 70% said that repealing DADT would have “a positive effect or a neutral affect” on the whole of the soldiers. The same survey, done amongst 100,000 citizens, showed 56% thought DADT would have “a positive effect or a neutral affect”
Obviously, citizens who are better at judging others than taking action to ensure our freedom think that DADT should stay enacted.
I wrote about this over on the Homefront Blog when the repeal was first spoken about… http://www.blog.timesunion.com/homefront … and was quite disgusted by a small percentage of the comments…but to each his own i guess.
sorry thats http://blog.timesunion.com/homefront
“When I hear ‘I don’t care’, I think ‘out of sight, out of mind.’
OK, I can see that. I can explain over and over again what I mean when I say those words, but there certainly are people who mean them more like, “I don’t care, I don’t want to know, shut up, shut up, shut up, lalalalalalala – I can’t hear you.” And I guess the context of “I don’t care” from different people might not always be so clear.
“I don’t care if you’re gay.” or “It makes no difference to me that you are gay.”
Could be replaced by something along the lines of:
“I understand and respect that.” or “I would treat you the same regardless of your preference.”
OK, those seem like good alternatives. Thank you for the suggestions.
And I was about to point out the “catering to the minority” inconsistency to Big Jer, but you got right on that. Good job.
In case he’s still paying attention, I’d like to add that:
NO ONE IS TRYING TO MAKE THE MAJORITY CATER TO THE MINORITY. When the minority only wants to be treated the same as everyone else, that is anything but catering.
Thank you, and goodnight, Kevin Marshall blog.
Good night, Victoria Roth, and thank you for your conversation.
Sincerely,
Kevin Marshall Blog
(I’m going to legally change my name to that)
@Big Jer- neither have you, for if you had served in the military, at least in the officer’s corp, one of the most important things you would be taught is that the US Military serves for the US public and is beholden to it. This is why the President is the commander in chief and more than a few civilians command at the top and not generals.
You might want to read up on your history a bit about this important piece of our armed forces, for countries do exist still today that are beholden to their militaries and whose policy is set by generals and not elected officials. These countries are called totalitarian and military despotism.
It is the corp of all the armed services, appropos of their name to serve. They serve the policy set forth by their civilian masters. Any opposite of this power structure is an invitation to disaster.
I think Victoria’s assessment is correct in that sexual orientation really doesn’t matter in the capacity of being a soldier – at least that is what I took from it. Why should it matter to soldier A if soldier B is a is gay if the latter can still fire a machine gun at the enemy? On the other hand if for some reason (and I don’t pretend to know if and/or why) that does make a difference isn’t it better to just not know and go about your business as a soldier?
In spite of the fact that our US Senators represent all of us I think in this case they should be representing the soldiers and only the soldiers of their respective districts after all it is them any policy of this kind would effect and it really isn’t up to the majority of us to sit back and tell the soldiers they have to do this or have to do that if it really doesn’t effect us at all.
Great post. I’m also beginning to feel a sort of way about the argument that gay people “didn’t choose to be that way.” It is connotative of my life — as a gay man — existing in some unhappy reality not of my own choosing. I embrace who I am and sincerely don’t mind the cards that I’ve been dealt.
What is this, Fox News? Stop taking peoples words out of context to get them riled up on the comments.
:p
BREAKING NEWS: Em tries to tell you what you should and shouldn’t talk about! Has totalitarian socialism found its way to the mainstream?
[/Kevin Marshall as Fox News Correspondent]
“Has totalitarian socialism found its way to the mainstream?”
Of course, with a dollop of facism on top.
Amidoinitrite?
Ms. iknowthetruthisminor, you continually express what appears to be personal animosity towards me. I probably should care why, and who you are–but I don’t.
Cihan’s diappointment is hardly my concern.
To Gman, that self-proclaimed government operative, you are, of course, free to reject any values you choose–“traditional” or otherwise.
Tim, there are, I can assure you, many things you don’t understand.
Kevin is, more or less, a gentleman–a very misled gentleman to whom I am, no doubt, often rude. Unprovoked rudeness is somewhat shocking. These, admittedly small shocks sometimes cause one to question thinking patterns. That simple act can be the beginning of a break in even the strongest mental conditioning; conditioning which, tragically, we have all been subjected to since first we emerged into this reality.
Fortunately, I was born when the mental haze was not nearly so dense. Despite frequent protests from my all-too-few compatriots, I do what I can.
I was in the Army. We didn’t care if someone was gay or straight because it was a non-issue. Sexuality of any kind has no place on the front lines. Period. My NCOIC was a lesbian. It never affected morale because we didn’t care. Categorizing people by their differences is what leads to discrimination. If you keep making it the focus of debate then you will continue the adversity. No, grunts won’t embrace someone for being gay, and they shouldn’t. The embrace comes when you know the guy in the foxhole next to you has your back and is willing to take a bullet for you and for his country. If he’s willing to do that, why should you care if he’s straight or gay? They don’t care if you’re gay, they only care that you can shoot straight.
I suspect that FatBob has to be a liberal plant.
The bigger question is, why should people care if ANYONE is gay? I can’t remember the last time I was affected by what consenting adults did to each other in their bedroom.
If the idea of two dudes making out or two women living together as a couple, gives you a rash, makes your blood-pressure rise, causes livestock to commit suicide or makes the Dow Jones take a huge dip, then you might have some reason for concern. Other than that, live and let live.
Sh&t.
Frank – Don’t take it so personally. I consider EVERYONE who thinks everything from road-building to health care, should be a free-enterprise operation ultimately the responsibility of the individual, in a society where the rich orchestrate and implement all the rules to benefit themselves, to be an Ayn Rand brain damaged dolt. Its a big club, unfortunately.
A moment of Zen clarity – unprovoked rudeness is unprovoked rudeness. Nothing more, nothing less, and quite unseemly.
Zen’s “methodology,” Government-man, often includes what appears to the untrained–certainly, unaware–mind to be “rude” behavior. These apparent social lapses are, in reality, calculated “nudges” in the direction of enlightenment.
I do not work for the government. I am enlightened enough to know your rudeness is unenlightening.
No, FJD, it’s just rudeness, and you fool yourself if you think you’re effectively convincing and “enlightening” anyone that way.
Tell me, did you arrive at your personal world view through ridicule and derision? If so, that’s really sad. But if not, please have the decency to realize that most other grown adults haven’t either. People usually arrive at their world views (even the ones you disagree with!) through a lot of experience and thought.
If you want to stick by your story that all of us have merely been conditioned to think the way we do, then the same case could be easily, EASILY made for you. You don’t want to open that can of worms. :-)
Come here talking to the rest of us like an adult, with actual discussion points, and you might get less animosity thrown your way. By the way, if your goal is to try and get people to see your point of view, animosity should be a sign to you that you are failing at that.
I see you notice your compatriots to be all too few in number, and the reason just might lie in how you present yourself.
Ms. Roth, do you feel safer as part of a mob? Of course you do. What else would a philosophical democrat believe in, if not mob-rule?
In any event, you’ve jumbled things up so badly, I have neither the energy nor the inclination to attempt an unentanglement.
Am now leaving to address something consequential. You may see this as an opportunity to give your eternally wagging finger a much needed rest.
Goodbye, until we chat again, Frank.
And Happy Holidays. :-)
“Tim, there are, I can assure you, many things you don’t understand.”
Well thank you, Sherlock James Davis, for your keen insight. Perhaps for your next feat of high octane perception you can tell the world how many feet I have at the end of my legs?
That would depend, Tin-ear Tim, upon how many legs you have. And, even that would not necessarily be determinative, as–tragically–not every human being has been fortunate enough to retain a foot at the end of each of his legs. Then, of course, there are the admittedly more far-flung possibilities regarding your species and planet of origin.
You might even be the tiniest of Tims; lacking corporeality; communicating with me through a medium.
Victoria Roth, thank you. Joyous holidays to you. Your graciousness is somewhat disarming.
The repeal of DADT and the movement toward marriage equality are about rights under the law and not how we feel as individuals about homosexuality.
Frank,
If you have something “more consequential” to go tend to, why not stop replying to a thread where you’ve made it pretty clear where you stand, instead of resorting to back and forth bickering with others? And go on, make some ridiculous play on my name, I dare you.
: P
It doesent matter if you care or not you goof, your not in the military. You and the other liberals should get that through your thick heads.