Gays in the military: What would George Washington think?

Townhall.com ^ | July 21, 2008 | Star Parker

[Kahonek]

I guess I partly don’t understand it because I’m not using it as a behavioral label. My dictionary defines the word “homosexual,” when used as a noun, as “a person, especially a man, who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex.” It doesn’t say anything about behavior. This is the definition that I think is most accepted by scholars and non-scholars alike today.

“No one except God can know how you, or anyone else feels about your genitalia unless you take some action.”

I think I understand what you’re saying here, but what if the action you take is to tell others about it, or to date other people of the same sex? Clearly, there is a difference between a young man who says “I have never been attracted to women, but I find men arousing,” and one who says “I have never been attracted to men, but I find women arousing.” I think you recognize this, which may be why you didn’t respond to my inquiry about your sheep comment. You asked the question, and I responded. Do you agree that there’s a difference between someone who is aroused by sheep and someone who is aroused by women?

Frankly, I fail to see the false dichotomy. Most research shows that the vast majority of young men find women (and only women) attractive, while a small minority of young men find men (and only men) attractive, and that there’s not much in the middle. Sounds pretty much like a dichotomy to me.

[Citizen Blade]

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” works. It allows patriotic gays (and there are a number in the military) to serve in the military, but protects military cohesion and prevents the armed forces from being used for political purposes by gay activists.

The only people opposed to the current policy are fanatics on both sides of the political spectrum. The current policy works for the military and it works for gays who want to quietly serve their country.

[Lucky Dog]

I guess I partly don’t understand it because I’m not using it as a behavioral label. My dictionary defines the word “homosexual,” when used as a noun, as “a person, especially a man, who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex.” It doesn’t say anything about behavior. This is the definition that I think is most accepted by scholars and non-scholars alike today.

Ok, let’s tackle this issue once more:

A man who marries more than one woman, is called a polygamist and suffers legal sanctions if caught. However, his merely being attracted to, and wanting to marry, more than one woman does not result in him being called a polygamist or suffering legal sanctions.

What do your dictionary, scholars and non-scholars say about this word?

A woman who sells her sexual favors is called a prostitute and suffers legal sanctions if caught (except in Nevada). However, if a woman merely wants to sell her body, but does not, she is not called a prostitute.

What do your dictionary, scholars and non-scholars say about this word?

Does polygamy involve sexual activity? Does prostitution? Is some one who merely feels like they wish to engage in these activities but doesn’t labeled with these words? Does homosexual behavior involve sexual activity? Why should someone who merely is attracted to the same sex but does nothing about be labeled such? In short, unless it is a psychosis, why is the term “homosexual” any different? Is the logic clear, yet?

No one except God can know what attractions a person feels absent some action. … what if the action you take is to tell others about it, or to date other people of the same sex?

Is a person called a thief who merely tells others that he or she is attracted to taking the property of others? Is a person who picks up some else’s property, looks at and replaces it called a thief? How about someone who picks up another person for a movie and drops them at their quarters? How about some one who says “you make me mad enough to kill you” and then slaps the object of his or her hatred but does no real damage. Is this person called a murderer merely because he or she says the activity was attractive?

Clearly, there is a difference between a young man who says “I have never been attracted to women, but I find men arousing,” and one who says “I have never been attracted to men, but I find women arousing.”

You are correct, there is a difference assuming they both are being truthful. This is a different dimension of the discussion. See below.

I think you recognize this, which may be why you didn’t respond to my inquiry about your sheep comment. You asked the question, and I responded. Do you agree that there’s a difference between someone who is aroused by sheep and someone who is aroused by women?

Yes there is a difference. However, let me point out that it was originally my question about whether there was a difference. My purpose in posing the question was draw a parallel between being “men being attracted to sheep” and “men being attracted to other men” (from your earlier question). Carrying the point just a bit further, most people would see being sexually attracted to a sheep (or any barnyard animal) as a psychosis. Now, do you see it?

Frankly, I fail to see the false dichotomy.

Your dichotomy presented to me was Would you distinguish between which one you’d want to marry your daughter. (Note: a dichotomy is, by definition, only two choices. A false dichotomy is where there are more than two choices despite the presentation of only two.) I answered that I would choose neither of the alternatives you presented, but a third option, on which you did not comment.

Most research shows that the vast majority of young men find women (and only women) attractive, while a small minority of young men find men (and only men) attractive, and that there’s not much in the middle. Sounds pretty much like a dichotomy to me.

Since there are only two sexes, choosing one is obviously a dichotomy. However, since you brought it up, let me put a few facts in the discussion:

Homosexual individuals are incapable of reproduction if they are exclusively homosexual. (If these individuals do not practice exclusively homosexual activity, then, by definition, they can choose not to be homosexual.)

By the principles of genetics, exclusively homosexual practitioners would appear in the population at no greater rate than that of genetic disorders that prevent their victims from procreating e.g., Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria syndrome. This rate is far lower than the currently observed/reported homosexual proportion of the population.

Therefore, we are back to homosexual behavior being a choice or a psychosis. Robbing banks is a behavioral choice and kleptomania is a psychosis. All behavioral choices have consequences. Rational people weight the consequences before engaging in the activity, psychotics do not.

[Kahonek]

I’m quite familiar with what a false dichotomy is. I just don’t think that I presented one. Are you familiar with the term “false analogy?” I appreciate your effort to argue by analogy, and it makes sense up to a point, but all analogies fall short eventually. I could just as easily argue using the analogy of an extrovert, who might be quiet as a mouse while sitting in a library or courtroom, but is no less of an extrovert there.

I would agree that there is a difference between one who has acted on homosexual inclinations and one who has had them but has not acted. However, both are homosexuals, and they are fundamentally different from heterosexuals. Not only science recognizes this, but the Vatican and the Army, as well. Clearly, the Catholic church finds it necessary to distinguish between “heterosexuals,” “active homosexuals,” and those “with deep-seated homosexual tendencies” (even if they’ve never had sex). Who is excluded in ordination and military service? Both of the latter categories, or (in other words) “homosexuals.” In fact, someone who has had a same sex encounter in the past is qualified for both military service and the priesthood, as long as he is not a “homosexual” (meaning, a member of either of the latter two categories).

Clearly this distinction is a meaningful one for the Church, for the military, and I daresay for the marital satisfaction of a spouse. I don’t think I presented a false dichotomy — I am fairly certain that you’d choose someone who is attracted to women, rather than men, if you were choosing a husband for your daughter. I believe that this is likely implicit in the answer you provided.

It’s very clear that homosexual orientation is not a choice, except perhaps in some very unusual circumstances. Homosexual behavior is most certainly a choice. As for whether orientation is a psychosis or not, that’s largely a semantic game. Your arguments about genetics notwithstanding, a genotype does not have to confer a reproductive advantage specific to its bearer in order to persist. Creative evolutionists have found ways to explain the persistence of homosexuality. However, whether it is genetic or not does not have any bearing on whether it is a psychosis. After all, there is very strong evidence that schizophrenia, which is widely recognized as a psychotic condition, is largely genetic.

[supercat]

Summary...

The summary leaves out the most important point: the purpose of the military is to defend the country and win wars. That it can offer any benefit to the men and women who participate in those tasks is a nice secondary feature, but it is not nearly as important as the military's primary function. Those who would compromise the effectiveness of the military to use it as an instrument of social change are at best naïve; note that many of the people who push military social issues don't want an effective military, characterizing such people as 'at best naïve' is being charitable.

[supercat]

By the principles of genetics, exclusively homosexual practitioners would appear in the population at no greater rate than that of genetic disorders that prevent their victims from procreating e.g., Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria syndrome. This rate is far lower than the currently observed/reported homosexual proportion of the population.

Not necessarily true. Suppose that a particular gene were to cause carriers, whether male or female, to be particularly strongly attracted to men. Such a gene might reduce the reproductive success rate of male carriers, but increase the success rate of female carriers. If the latter effect counterbalanced the former, the gene could be passed on indefinitely through generations. If the 'enhancement' effect of the gene on females was reduced at higher concentrations(*) it could achieve a stable concentration in society.

(*)The gene might make females compete more effectively for certain mates, but if too many females carried it they would crowd each other out, thus losing their advantage.

[Kahonek]

p.s. The military doesn’t use “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” lingo — it’s much more specific:

“(1) The term ‘homosexual’ means a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts, and includes the terms ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian.’”

Do you have anything other than an analogy that says they’re wrong?

[Citizen Blade]

Those who would compromise the effectiveness of the military to use it as an instrument of social change are at best naïve; note that many of the people who push military social issues don't want an effective military, characterizing such people as 'at best naïve' is being charitable.

Very well stated. If allowing open homosexuals to serve would improve the effectiveness of the military, I would be all for it, regardless of whether it might piss off certain civilians. But that is clearly not the case- military effectiveness would be hampered.

Some homosexual activists like to draw the analogy to desegregating the military in the 50's. But there was no evidence that a segregated military was more effective, and 50 years of evidence shows that an integrated military has been more effective. There is no evidence that changing the policy regarding homosexuals would be a positive move.

[supercat]

Do you have anything other than an analogy that says they’re wrong?

Since the military defines what it means by the term, for purposes of its own rules it means what it says.

With the exception of "intends to engage in", the list all refers to overt acts. Even the "intends to engage in" term relates to a level of motivation that extends beyond mere desire, fantasy, or inclination.

[supercat]

If allowing open homosexuals to serve would improve the effectiveness of the military, I would be all for it, regardless of whether it might piss off certain civilians.

I wish more politicians who oppose gays in the military would make a statement like the above. It would help remind the public what the military is supposed to be about, and would counteract any implication that politicians trying to keep gays out of the military value bible-thumping above military effectiveness (since they're kicking out people who would otherwise serve oh-so-nobly).

[Kahonek]

A “propensity” is not an overt act, but for the record, I was directing the question to Lucky Dog, who’s been arguing against the military’s definition of the term (via analogy) with every post.

[Lucky Dog]

Suppose that a particular gene…

Let’s just look at facts and logic rather than supposition.

Do you find anything that is not a fact or is a logical fallacy in the following statement?

Homosexual individuals are incapable of reproduction if they are exclusively homosexual. (If these individuals do not practice exclusively homosexual activity, then, by definition, they can choose not to be homosexual.)

All of the suppositions you propose could be applied to the disease I cited (Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria syndrome). Yet there is not the proportion of those disease sufferers in the population to match homosexual behavior practitioners, is there? Your assertion fails the test of logic.

[Lucky Dog]

The summary leaves out the most important point: the purpose of the military

Perhaps you missed the first part of the post (reprinted below for you):

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION Preamble. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [emphasis added]

In the very first paragraph of the foundational document of our country, the purpose of the military is defined. The military exists to provide for the common defense not to provide a specific “right” to serve in the military. As military service is not a “right,” all kinds of people are excluded for very good reasons, e.g., those physically, mentally or emotionally incapable of performing required tasks, as well as certain categories of law breakers such as felons, etc.,

[Lucky Dog]

p.s. The military doesn’t use “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” lingo — it’s much more specific:

“(1) The term ‘homosexual’ means a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts, and includes the terms ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian.’”

Do you have anything other than an analogy that says they’re wrong Perhaps you missed part of my earlier post (reprinted below for you):

Uniform Code of Military Justice

925. ART. 125. SODOMY

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

The following excerpt (passed in 1993) is from Public Law 103-160, Section 654, Title 10—"Homosexuality is incompatible with military service." (See Senate and House Reports, pages 293 and 287, respectively.)

Constitutional challenges to former and current military policies concerning homosexuals followed in the wake of the 1993 laws and regulations. Based on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) that there is no fundamental right to engage in consensual homosexual sodomy, the courts have uniformly held that the military may discharge a service member for overt homosexual behavior.

I think you will find that the Uniform Code of Military Justice is exactly the lingo that the military uses. Therefore, let me call your attention to a particular portion of the above cited reference: font color="red"> Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense,

You will, perhaps, note that Penetration requires an action, i.e., a behavior. Merely being attracted does not qualify.

If you re-read my posts… never mind… here is a portion (reposted for you, again):

Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (The term sexual orientation merely clouds the issue and refers to a “feeling.” Contrary to popular opinion, the term sexual orientation does not define one as a homosexual any more than the term, “lust” defines one as a rapist or the term “anger” defines one as a murderer. “Feelings” are irrelevant to voluntary, reasoned behavior.)

Now, perhaps, you will tell me, again, with which portion of my discussion you are disagreeing?

[Lucky Dog]

I’m quite familiar with what a false dichotomy is. I just don’t think that I presented one.

From one of your earlier posts: Do you seriously think that there’s no difference between a guy who has the hots for guys and one who has the hots for girls, as long as they’ve never had sex?

From my reply to you: Is there a difference between a guy who has the hots for sheep and one who has the hots for girls?

From one of your earlier posts: Would you distinguish between which one you’d want to marry your daughter? From another of my earlier posts: The reason I raised the issue of a false dichotomy is because you presented one, not I. In that spirit, I will answer your question thusly: I want a mentally and physically healthy, gainfully employed, committed Christian, man to marry my daughter.

The false dichotomy with which you presented me was a choice between perverted sexual practitioner and a sexually normal man as a husband for my daughter. Note that my selection specified neither of the choices you proffered. Therefore, since there was an option other than those you specified, you were guilty of a false dichotomy.

Are you familiar with the term “false analogy?” I appreciate your effort to argue by analogy, and it makes sense up to a point, but all analogies fall short eventually. I could just as easily argue using the analogy of an extrovert, who might be quiet as a mouse while sitting in a library or courtroom, but is no less of an extrovert there.

If you were not previously acquainted with the extrovert you cited above, and saw nothing of his or her behavior before you saw the person sitting quietly in the library or courtroom, how would you know he or she was an extrovert? Could you accurately predict that the person was going to engage in extroverted activity merely on seeing him or her so quietly seated? Your attempted analogy proves my point exactly, i.e., Homosexuality is defined by behavior… Being an extrovert or introvert is a mental proclivity that is completely unknown to any but its possessor absent some action. Similarly, having a homosexual attraction is completely unknown to any but its possessor absent some action.

I would agree that there is a difference between one who has acted on homosexual inclinations and one who has had them but has not acted. However, both are homosexuals, and they are fundamentally different from heterosexuals.

Yet again, I would ask you, are polygamists or prostitutes are fundamentally different those who practice monogamous sexual activities? I would, yet, again, also ask if someone merely wants to marry multiple women or sell sexual favors are those people polygamist and prostitutes? If you are going classify someone solely on the “feelings” that he or she has but does not act upon, then you are in the realm of mental illness descriptions, i.e., bi-polar, schizoid, etc. Is it your position that homosexual behavior practitioners are mentally ill, i.e., psychotic?

From an earlier post of mine: Any human behavior (excluding autonomic or instinctual responses) that is not voluntary is, by definition, a psychosis.

Therefore, homosexual behavior is either a voluntary choice or a psychosis.

Your earlier statement (… they [homosexuals] are fundamentally different from heterosexuals) is true only if you concede that homosexuality is a psychosis.

Not only science recognizes this, but the Vatican and the Army, as well. Clearly, the Catholic church finds it necessary to distinguish between “heterosexuals,” “active homosexuals,” and those “with deep-seated homosexual tendencies” (even if they’ve never had sex).

These same organizations find it necessary to distinguish between those with kleptomaniacal tendencies and those who have actually stolen. Is it your point to hold that homosexuality is a psychosis similar to kleptomania?

It’s very clear that homosexual orientation is not a choice, except perhaps in some very unusual circumstances.

I disagree with. However, I also maintain that whether or not your statement is true or false, it is irrelevant outside the bounds of mental health classifications.

Homosexual behavior is most certainly a choice.

At last, we agree.

As for whether orientation is a psychosis or not, that’s largely a semantic game.

I would agree with you except for a very important issue. Homosexual behavior activists have managed to get the term “sexual orientation” codified into anti-discrimination laws in a number of places. Additionally, they are using this stalking horse in an attempt to get homosexual practitioners accepted into the military. Therefore, it cannot be simply brushed off and ignored as largely a semantic game.

Your arguments about genetics notwithstanding, a genotype does not have to confer a reproductive advantage specific to its bearer in order to persist.

However, a genetic disorder that creates a reproductive dis- advantage specific to its bearer specifically as in no reproduction will persist only as a genetic disorder in the quantities of population similar to the disease I cited.

Creative evolutionists have found ways to explain the persistence of homosexuality.

Without facts and logic such are mere flights of fantasy and should be regarded as such.

However, whether it is genetic or not does not have any bearing on whether it is a psychosis. After all, there is very strong evidence that schizophrenia, which is widely recognized as a psychotic condition, is largely genetic.

Regardless, psychoses are treated and, in some cases, cured. Psychosis surfers are not given special rights nor permitted in the military service.

[Kahonek]

I admire your persistence and perspicacity. As for your first response, I did not need to re-read your post to recall that you defined “sodomy” from the Uniform Code. I was quoting from US law that defined “homosexual.” ( http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C37.txt )Your definition of “sodomy,” of course is one that works with members of the same or opposite sexes. The definition of “homosexual” is the one that is germane to our discussion. You are claiming that a homosexual is one who commits sodomy with members of the same sex. I am claiming that the US government has a different definition of “homosexual,” one that is much more consistent with the understanding of nearly everyone else I’ve met.

I’ll get to your next post in a bit...

[Lucky Dog]

You are claiming that a homosexual is one who commits sodomy with members of the same sex. I am claiming that the US government has a different definition of “homosexual,” one that is much more consistent with the understanding of nearly everyone else I’ve met.

Recall that the title of the originally posted article of the is this thread is Gays in the military: What would George Washington think?. Therefore, I submit that the definition from the UCMJ is the appropriate one for our discussion. Your counter arguments using a different source tend to take the discussion into debate territory where it becomes dueling authority sources and there can be no resolution.

[Kahonek]

“Your counter arguments using a different source tend to take the discussion into debate territory where it becomes dueling authority sources and there can be no resolution.”

I am quoting from General Military Law of the United States, which seems perfectly relevant. The difference is not merely one of sources, it is a difference of terms. You quote a codified definition of “sodomy” and then make up from it your own definition of “homosexual.” I don’t disagree with your definition of “sodomy.” I disagree with your definition of “homosexual.” Thus, I quoted from the most relevant source that codifies a definition of “homosexual.” That definition is different from the one which you have manufactured.

Clearly, the terms “sodomy” and “homosexual” do not have the same meaning. The first is an act, and the second is an adjective or an individual. Indeed, the military definition of “sodomy” can be applied to a heterosexual context.

Sorry I haven’t had time to get to your other post, but briefly, I agree that one can’t know someone else’s sexual orientation (yet) just by looking at the person. However, I would also note that one cannot know someone’s sexual orientation by knowing with whom that person has sex. There are heterosexual individuals who have sex with others of the same sex due to environmental pressure (in prisons, ships, and pornography), and there are homosexual people who never have sex at all. The best predictor of orientation is what someone says about their orientation. It is possible for an individual difference variable to exist even if it is not directly observable (e.g. extroversion).

[Lucky Dog]

I am enjoying our little debate. it a pleasure to engage someone who debates subject matter rather than engages in personal attacks as a number of people on do.

Unfortunately, I must leave the discussion for travel. I will attempt to check in at my destination several hours from now.

Please continue with your responses.

In so far as the definition of "homosexual" is concerned, please review my posts and you will note that I have consistently used the phrase "homosexual behavior practitioner" or "homosexual practitioner." These terms refer to one who "practices" homosexual acts, i.e., sodomy with members of the same sex.

Therefore, you may use the term, "homosexual" in whatever context you have defined previously and it still does not affect my points.

C ya L8r,

Lucky Dog

[Kahonek]

Glad to hear that. Unfortunately, I’m traveling tomorrow too and will be away from the ‘net for awhile, so I may not be able to respond. However, I’m not sure how different our positions really are. I was responding to your initial post, where you stated:

“Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual.”

That was really what I was taking issue with. Every major behavioral science, the Pope, the military, and my grandma agree that people who have a propensity, predisposition, predilection, or deep-seated tendency (call it what you will) to have sex with those of the same sex, i.e., those who are sexually attracted to others of the same sex, are “homosexuals,” whether they’ve had gay sex or not. They have a sexual orientation that is correlated with (but distinct from) their behavior.

Your position seems reminiscent of B.F. Skinner and the radical behavioral psychologists of the middle of the last century, who insisted that no psychological construct existed unless it could be observed directly. That advanced some aspects of the science and made for the development of interesting methodology, but it sure didn’t help the study of personality, sexual orientation, or other such characteristics. Fortunately, scientists since then have realized that they don’t have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are ways to triangulate on individual differences that are not directly observable, whether they be extroversion, homosexuality, or narcissism.