US is 40th in gay friendliness in the military

I'm pretty sure ending the segregation policy of the military started under Truman.

 

What you just described is what "gay friendly" means in this context. You're arguing with the choice of words, rather than the actual concept. Meanwhile, others in this thread are arguing for banning homosexuals from military service. That is the opposite of "gay friendly" (or whatever you want to call it).

 

I'm also pretty sure that it didn't happen "without social engineering", as Tram Law had implied. Desegregation of the military was forced and it was phased in methodically. It didn't simply happen organically.

 

I stand corrected. It was Truman. But that faux pas doesn't weaken my point. Which was that desegregation and affirmative action can't change the hearts of men and women. Where as some believe those measures gave minorities everything they needed to reverse 300+ years of institutionalized bigotry in just few generations

 

No, I dont think being neutral/indifferent to gays is the same as being friendly to them.

 

Fair enough. You don't like using the word "friendly" in association with homosexuals. Then don't use that word.

I still get the impression that you aren't opposed to allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military. Am I right, or wrong?

 

I don't have anything against having the word friendly in association with homosexuals if that's whats actually being said. But in this case some people are really talking about indifference, and therefore using friendly is quite simply wrong. It's a misuse of the language. I just don't like that.

Actually, I'm so bothered by it that if you were to ask me "do you like gays?" I'd answer "No, I don't care about them" because if I liked gays that'd mean I am for some reason positive to them being gay, which I'm not. I just don't care. Of course, too many people would interpret my no to that question to mean that I dislike gays, but 'not like' and 'dislike' are two completely different things, and I want them to understand that. So yeah, my grudge is with people using the wrong words.

No, I am not opposed to homosexuals serving in the military, nor am I opposed to women serving in the military, per se. As I've said, the military should only care about efficiency. Now, if it turns out that having homosexuals and women in the military somehow affects performance negatively, That'd be reason enough to do something about it, even if that'd mean 'unfair' treatment. That's just the principle though: as far as I know gays and women don't decrease performance.