Gays in the military: What would George Washington think?

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

[Kaslin]

For the first time since the "don't ask, don't tell" law was enacted in 1993 by President Clinton, the House Armed Services Committee has scheduled hearings to review it. The law disqualifies gays from serving in the military.

Individuals are deemed gay, according to this ruling, if they publicly state so. However, the military is prohibited from asking. Thus, "don't ask, don't tell."

Activists are now pushing for change to allow gays to serve openly.

We can anticipate a technical discussion. Does the presence of openly gay soldiers undermine cohesiveness of units, morale, and discipline? How would retention rates of troops or enlistments be affected?

We can be sure, though, that a discussion about the general moral implications of such a policy will not take place.

Early last year, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace called homosexuality "immoral." More fire and brimstone rained down on him than fell on the residents of Sodom and Gomorra for engaging in this behavior.

Rebukes came from Democrats and Republicans alike. GOP Sen. John Warner, a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, writing his own scripture, challenged Pace's view that homosexuality is immoral.

Although a recent Zobgy poll of military personnel shows more opposed to allowing gays to serve openly than favoring (37 percent to 26 percent), the direction of polling of the general public favors the pro-gay forces.

When "don't ask, don't tell" was enacted in 1993, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed 52 percent opposed to homosexuals serving openly and 43 percent in favor. By 2004, Gallup polling indicated 63 percent in favor of allowing homosexuals to serve against 32 percent opposed.

The culture war is like the recipe for boiling a frog. If you drop it in hot water, it jumps out. But if you drop it in cold water and slowly turn up the heat, you get frog soup.

Concession by concession, traditional values are being pushed, inexorably, to the margins of America.

It's a sign of this moral war of attrition that each battle is fought with less and less attention to what it means to the overall war.

Acceptance of openly gay people in the military means the next discussion will be qualification of gay couples for the same benefits received by traditional military families.

[Lucky Dog]

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. (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 or the term “greed” defines one as a thief.)”

That was really what I was taking issue with.

Not to be trite, but I take issue with those who would take issue with my statement.

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.

I think you will agree with me that a man who is attracted to multiple women and wants to be married to more than one simultaneously, but does not do so, is not called a polygamist. Similarly, I think you will agree the same conditions are true concerning an individual and the term prostitute.

Despite your citation of authorities and learned sources, you have not defended with logic why the term homosexual should be any different from the terms I have cited. You are herewith invited to logically defend your position with other than mere resort to authorities.

Let me remind you that authorities and learned sources, including the Pope (and, possibly, your great-great-great-great grandmother), once adamantly maintained that the sun rotated around the earth. Still other highly respected authorities maintained, and were backed by an overwhelming number of scholars and the military of that day, that everything was composed of earth, fire, water and air.

Your position seems … that no psychological construct existed unless it could be observed directly.

You have misconstrued my position. I do not maintain that no psychological construct exists if cannot be observed directly. In general, my position is that in the absence of psychoses, psychological constructs are irrelevant to the status of individual rights. In particular, my position is that in the absence of psychoses, only the US Constitution, statutes and judicial pronouncements that do not violate same and individual behavior are relevant to the status of individual rights.

[Kahonek]

Sorry for the absence. Back now...

“I think you will agree with me that a man who is attracted to multiple women and wants to be married to more than one simultaneously, but does not do so, is not called a polygamist. Similarly, I think you will agree the same conditions are true concerning an individual and the term prostitute.”

I would definitely agree with you. However, these are different words than the word we were discussing. They are behaviorally defined terms. I don’t see why the fact that they are behaviorally defined has any bearing on the meaning of a completely different word. It’s like trying to argue that “Hispanic” denotes a race, just because it’s commonly used together with words like “Black.” The terms are not parallel — one is an ethnicity and the other a race.

“Despite your citation of authorities and learned sources, you have not defended with logic why the term homosexual should be any different from the terms I have cited. You are herewith invited to logically defend your position with other than mere resort to authorities.”

In our discussion so far, I have used dictionary definitions, citations from both culture and law, and the infallible word of my grandmother. The lexicon of a society is derived from cultural consensus. Thus, the sources I have used seem to me to be the most relevant. You are the outlier here, and I am afraid that you cannot change the meaning of a word through analogical argument. Try convincing a Chicago car mechanic that the compartment at the rear of his car is really a “boot,” and not a “trunk.” Try convincing a hoodlum in a London pub that his favorite sport is not “football,” but “soccer.” For that matter, it makes no logical sense to place the period in that last sentence inside the quotation marks. It has nothing to do with the word I’m referring to, and it would be much more logical to place it outside the quotes, as the Brits do. Does that mean that my fifth grade grammar teacher (and all the other authorities on the subject in the U.S.) are wrong?

“Let me remind you that authorities and learned sources, including the Pope (and, possibly, your great-great-great-great grandmother), once adamantly maintained that the sun rotated around the earth. Still other highly respected authorities maintained, and were backed by an overwhelming number of scholars and the military of that day, that everything was composed of earth, fire, water and air.”

Again, the analogy breaks down. The issues you raise above are empirical questions of science, not semantic and lexical questions. The former require empirical and logical evidence. The latter are culturally defined.

[Lucky Dog]

Sorry for the absence. Back now...

Welcome back.

… polygamist… prostitute… etc.

I would definitely agree with you. However, these are different words than the word we were discussing [homosexual]. They are behaviorally defined terms. I don’t see why the fact that they are behaviorally defined has any bearing on the meaning of a completely different word… [homosexual]

OK… here is the question you have failed to answer now directly addressed to you:

If a man who is attracted to multiple women and wants to marry all of them simultaneously, but takes no action is not called a polygamist, why is a man who is attracted to other men and wants to engage in homosexual behavior, but does not take action called a homosexual?

In both cases previously cited, a desired action not indulged is a component. In both cases there is no way to know what the individual feels and/or desires unless he engages in an action (speech, probably, at the minimum). Therefore, please define your difference without referring to an action.

In our discussion so far, I have used dictionary definitions, citations from both culture and law, and the infallible word of my grandmother. The lexicon of a society is derived from cultural consensus.

Please look up the dictionary definition for the word witch (which would probably be agreed upon by culture and law, and the infallible word of your grandmother) and tell me how you would determine that an individual fit said definition(s) absent some action on the part of the labeled individual. Similarly, please look up the dictionary definition for the word manic and tell me how you would determine that an individual fit said definition absent some action. Dictionary definitions exist for both of these descriptors (again, probably be agreed upon by culture and law, and the infallible word of your grandmother). However, it is impossible to knowledgably and validly apply to the terms to any person without the labeled individual, first, having engaged in some action (and, perhaps, not even, then).

… I am afraid that you cannot change the meaning of a word through analogical argument.

“The glass is half empty.” “The glass is half full.” “The container is at fifty percent capacity.” These are potentially true statements that can be verified one hundred percent of the time by direct observation. However, correctly calling an individual a “homosexual” is never a true statement that can be verified one hundred percent of the time by direct observation unless the labeled individual engages in some behavior, activity or action.

Try convincing a Chicago car mechanic that the compartment at the rear of his car is really a “boot,” and not a “trunk.”

Determining what is either an automobile “boot” or a car “trunk” will require nothing but direct observation. To wit, simply looking at two, motionless, silent and potentially identical sedans will determine that either term is the compartment at the rear of either car. However, can you tell me by direct observation of two motionless, silent, identically dressed and groomed men if either, neither or both, are a homosexual?

Let me remind you that authorities and learned sources, including the Pope (and, possibly, your great-great-great-great grandmother), once adamantly maintained that the sun rotated around the earth. Still other highly respected authorities maintained, and were backed by an overwhelming number of scholars and the military of that day, that everything was composed of earth, fire, water and air.”

Again, the analogy breaks down. The issues you raise above are empirical questions of science, not semantic and lexical questions. The former require empirical and logical evidence. The latter are culturally defined.

Either you chose to ignore, or have completely missed, my point. Therefore, let’s try it once more: In the absence of, either individual actions or telepathy, semantic and lexical terms, whether determined by consensus among learned authorities, or other wise, used to label a person based solely upon that individual’s feelings and/or desires are nothing but arbitrary and subjective, and, thus, potentially, totally false.

In summary, your arguments and citations notwithstanding, you have failed to meet my challenge: You have, as of this juncture, not defended with logic why the term homosexual should be any different from the terms I have cited. Therefore, you are, once again, herewith invited to logically defend your position with other than mere resort to authorities. (By the way, a dictionary is nothing more than an authority.)

To save time for the remainder of our discussion, I will concede the following: homo means same, hetero means different and sex means the property or quality by which organisms are classified as female or male on the basis of their reproductive organs.

[Kahonek]

“If a man who is attracted to multiple women and wants to marry all of them simultaneously, but takes no action is not called a polygamist, why is a man who is attracted to other men and wants to engage in homosexual behavior, but does not take action called a homosexual?”

Because, as I have already pointed out, these are two entirely different words with two entirely different meanings. The first behaviorally anchored. The second is not. It is defined by an attraction.

You are arguing by analogies that don’t work. It is entirely possible for a noun to be valid in the absence of behavioral corroboration. It is fully possible (though certainly not fully optimal) for a “leg man” to be married to a double amputee.

“However, correctly calling an individual a ‘homosexual’ is never a true statement that can be verified one hundred percent of the time by direct observation unless the labeled individual engages in some behavior, activity or action.”

To some extent, you are correct here. However, I am not talking about the proper application of the word to a specific target, I am talking about the definition of the word. I have absolutely no idea how to diagnose a medulloblastoma, but I can define it. The latter does not necessarily require the former. By conflating the two, you are painting yourself into a corner. After all, people can lie about their orientation. If you must actually observe someone having sex with another person of the same sex before that person is a homosexual, then I doubt there are very many homosexuals out there, and the military shouldn’t have to turn many people down.

“However, can you tell me by direct observation of two motionless, silent, identically dressed and groomed men if either, neither or both, are a homosexual?”

I can’t. Are you suggesting that means that they aren’t homosexual until someone SEES them having sex with another man? Your argument is getting pretty weird at this point.

“semantic and lexical terms, whether determined by consensus among learned authorities, or other wise, used to label a person based solely upon that individual’s feelings and/or desires are nothing but arbitrary and subjective, and, thus, potentially, totally false.”

I wholeheartedly agree that one can potentially misuse words. However, that’s not the same as saying they are meaningless or insisting that they must have behavioral anchors. We use PLENTY of subjective terms — words like love, funny, pervert, or attractive.

[Lucky Dog]

“If a man who is attracted to multiple women and wants to marry all of them simultaneously, but takes no action is not called a polygamist, why is a man who is attracted to other men and wants to engage in homosexual behavior, but does not take action called a homosexual?”

Because, as I have already pointed out, these are two entirely different words with two entirely different meanings. The first behaviorally anchored. The second is not. It is defined by an attraction.

“However, correctly calling an individual a ‘homosexual’ is never a true statement that can be verified one hundred percent of the time by direct observation unless the labeled individual engages in some behavior, activity or action.”

To some extent, you are correct here. However, I am not talking about the proper application of the word to a specific target, I am talking about the definition of the word.

Herein lies the crux of the issue.

After all, people can lie about their orientation.

In deed, this is my point exactly!!! Even telling a lie (ala corporal Klinger of the TV show MASH) about being a homosexual, whether it is true, or not, is in itself an action (speech). Therefore, we are back to my contention that neither you, nor anyone else, can know if another individual is a homosexual unless that individual takes some action.

If you must actually observe someone having sex with another person of the same sex before that person is a homosexual, then I doubt there are very many homosexuals out there, and the military shouldn’t have to turn many people down.

Direct observation of a behavior is not the only objective source of evidence. Consider the following: an individual is correctly diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, syphilis, chlamydia and hepatitis C, simultaneously, shows no evidence of intravenous drug use and denies such, has never been seen in the company of females, is identified by another, known (observed), homosexual practitioner as his partner and the individual, himself, claims to be a homosexual practitioner. While you may never directly observe the individual in question participating in homosexual activity, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that he is not lying.

Please note that the diseases cited above can only be acquired through one of three actions, intravenous drug use, heterosexual activity and homosexual activity. Two of these actions can be ruled out through circumstantial evidence. The individual’s claim to be a homosexual practitioner is an action (speech). The actions, their effects and the circumstantial evidence are sufficient to draw a valid conclusion without having to directly observe the homosexual activity directly.

“However, can you tell me by direct observation of two motionless, silent, identically dressed and groomed men if either, neither or both, are a homosexual?”

I can’t.

Again, my point, exactly!!! …no behavior, no homosexual label, regardless of whether or not the definition of the word, homosexual contains feelings.

Are you suggesting that means that they aren’t homosexual until someone SEES them having sex with another man?

No. I am maintaining that neither you, nor anyone else, can correctly identify an individual as a homosexual unless, and until, that individual has taken some action. Therefore, any sanction, such as refusing to allow homosexuals to serve in the military, is inapplicable purely on how that individual “feels,” i.e., attracted to others of the same sex. The individual must exhibit behavior, and, in effect, earn the label, the definition of the word, homosexual, based upon feelings, notwithstanding.

Your argument is getting pretty weird at this point.

On the contrary, my argument is logically valid and factually sound.

“semantic and lexical terms, whether determined by consensus among learned authorities, or other wise, used to label a person based solely upon that individual’s feelings and/or desires are nothing but arbitrary and subjective, and, thus, potentially, totally false.”

I wholeheartedly agree that one can potentially misuse words. However, that’s not the same as saying they are meaningless or insisting that they must have behavioral anchors. We use PLENTY of subjective terms — words like love, funny, pervert, or attractive.

I have never maintained all words must have behavioral anchors. Similarly, I have never maintained that all subjective terms are meaningless.

What I have maintained is that those words, such as homosexual or polygamist, etc., for which sanctions or restrictions can be applied, must have objective behavioral anchors in contrast to unsupported, subjective assessments of how another individual feels. Without such behavioral anchors, any such sanctions or restrictions become purely arbitrary and cannot withstand the test of legality or common sense.

[Kahonek]

Well then, that’s easy. I agree that one should have some sort of evidence (most likely behaviorally based) before imposing sanctions or restrictions. The military does that now. However, it seems to me that you’ve been arguing over the definition of the word “homosexual,” which is an entirely different matter. A person can be a homosexual without ever having engaged in sex, attempting to marry someone of the same sex, or admitting his homosexuality to others. However, that person won’t be kicked out of the military, under current law. Kicking a person out requires behavioral evidence, of one sort or another.

[Lucky Dog]

Please allow me to reprise part of my original comment:

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. (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 polygamist or the term “anger” defines one as a murderer or the term “greed” defines one as a thief.)

Any human behavior (not driven by autonomic or instinctual responses) that is not voluntary is, by definition, a psychosis.

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

If homosexual behavior is a psychosis, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure. Nonetheless, treated or not, like other psychoses, it is grounds for exclusion from military service.

If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal and/or military behavioral regulations as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc.

If you agree that one should have some sort of evidence (most likely behaviorally based), you are, in essence, agreeing with me that homosexuality is "defined" by behavior unless it is a psychosis. If there is no homosexual behavior (which includes speech claiming to be a homosexual), no one is objectively a homosexual.

[Kahonek]

hehe. I said that one should have some sort of evidence (most likely behaviorally based) before imposing sanctions or restrictions. I did not say that behavioral evidence is needed for someone to BE a homosexual, which is what you were suggesting in your original comment. Not all homosexuals are kicked out of the military.

I agree that without evidence you cannot PROVE that anyone is a homosexual. That does not make them any less gay. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen the term “objectively homosexual” before. Does one only “become” homosexual when you can prove it?

[Lucky Dog]

Does one only “become” homosexual when you can prove it?

Does one only become a polygamist, if you can prove it?

[Kahonek]

Well, Lucky Dog, it seems that our discussion has come full circle. If you are not willing to admit that “homosexual” and “polygamist” are not parallel terms, you are welcome to go ahead and use your own private definition of each word, and the rest of the world will use another. Problem solved...

[Lucky Dog]

It appears that we have reached an impasse. However, let me be very clear with our difference.

It is not that I disagree with your citation of the definition of homosexuality as including a "feeling" of attraction to members of the same sex. Rather, my difference with you is that (back to our original discussion start point of taking the action of prohibiting homosexuals in the military) unless one classes homosexuality in the same category as psychoses, including "feelings" in its definition is a meaningless distinction.

“Feelings” are phenomena completely internal to their possessor(s). No human can know any other human's "feelings" without that other human engaging in some behavior from which those "feelings" can be inferred. Therefore, outside of mental health terms, defining a classification identifier, i.e., homosexual, based exclusively on a human's "feelings," from which other humans must take action, e.g., exclusion from military service, apart from any action is an exercise in futility.

Consequently, my position remains that classifying another human being as a homosexual (or not) is completely dependent upon that individual’s behavior. In other words, the identity is established, or is completely dependent, if you will, based exclusively upon the individual’s behavior.

Again, unless one has engaged in behavior from which an observer can classify him or her as a homosexual, he or she is not a homosexual from the perspective of required action. Stated another way, from a practical standpoint, ie. beyond a psychosis, homosexuality is defined by behavior.