Buried Truths About Gays in the Military

Townhall.com ^ | February 7, 2010 | Steve Chapman

[Kaslin]

There are lots of reasons for excluding gays and lesbians from the military. But current supporters of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy insist that really, it all comes down to cohesion. Keep gays out, and soldiers will stick together through thick and thin. Let gays in, and every platoon will disintegrate like a sand castle in the surf.

John McCain sounded this theme at a Senate hearing the other day, arguing that the existing law rests on the belief "that the essence of military capability is good order and unit cohesion, and that any practice which puts those goals at unacceptable risk can be restricted." A group of retired military officers said the ban on gays serves "to protect unit cohesion and morale."

Maybe this concern is what really underlies the exclusion of gays and lesbians. But I'm not so sure. In 2007, Gen. Peter Pace, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked about it, and he offered a different rationale. "I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," he said. Could the opposition stem mostly from a simple aversion to gays and their ways?

It's not completely implausible that in a military environment, open homosexuality might wreak havoc on order and morale. But the striking thing about these claims is that they exist in a fact-free zone. From all the dire predictions, you would think a lifting of the ban would be an unprecedented leap into the dark, orchestrated by people who know nothing of the demands of military life.

As it happens, we now have a wealth of experience on which to evaluate the policy. When you examine it, you discover the reason McCain and Co. make a point of never mentioning it.

[longtermmemmory]

There is a large difference in the two services.

There is also a difference in the total lack of privacy.

It is very rational and very logical. The sole reason for this administration to foist homosexual practitioners on the military is for the campaign donations to the democrats. This is a social experiment that has no place in the us military.

homosexuality is ONLY about recreational sex. The military forbids forms of recreational sex conduct. no adultery and no fraternizing with the lower ranks. homosexuality is a recreational behavior not an imutable trait.

This whole exercise is just a backdoor way of imposing the junk science of “born that way” upon society in general.

[savagesusie]

Gist of my incomprehensible post:

I believe in Natural Law (as defined by the Catholic Church).

I believe in the innocence of childhood and that all behaviors are learned through interaction with others and the environment, including morality and character (unless there is some physical and/or neurological damage).

I believe that sexual immorality (learned) is destructive to society in all forms--adultery, homosexuality, pederasty, fornication, polygamy, bestiality, etc.--because it always results in the defiling and demeaning of self and destroys important relationships and/or families--children are particularly harmed.

I believe that happiness can only be found by the pursuit of virtue.

I believe that societies should never direct the glorification of evil at children, ever, through media (as defined by the moral absolutes) and if caught, they should be heavily fined and put out of business because it affects how children think.

[johnnycap]

Now see, that was beautiful.

Here are three thoughts:

First, I believe in my heart of hearts that the corruption of children as a means for intentionally furthering the homosexual lifestyle, while most probably NOT non-existant...is probably a minor (less than 10%), phenomenon...and yes, it is wrong, criminal and sinful.

Second, I am not a Baptist. If I were, I could quote chapter and verse of both the old and the new testament. I am a Catholic as well and we are notoriously bad at remembering the Bible. As a result, I am left with the emotional impression which is the reflection of collective reading. As I learned Paul and reflected on his life, I found him the embodiment of the old adage “Converts make the biggest zealots.”

Paul does nothing half way...and in the process, while he is bold, he certainly does not bring to Christ the love of the little children that Christ deeply admired. I believe in Paul’s zeal, is a loss of both nuance and subtle understanding. He delivers the bold buttresses of a cathedral, yet Christ taught us that you can make a church with children, a rock and an open field.

Third, I know this is hard to believe or fathom or grasp regarding this passage:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

I have met loving gay couples who exemplify this passage and in one case, exemplified the passage more than any other couple, straight or gay, that I have ever met. I was truly amazed. They were not pedophiles. They sought not to corrupt or coopt children. They only sought to live within these words in a world which felt they were to debased to even have access to these words. I do not believe that Christ would condemn them nor curb their lives so they could not be fully lived at the same level as others.

No group of people is all bad. No segment of society should be ostricized because of the worse criminal nature of a small subset among them. Hard working black mothers and grandmothers struggle every day to raise their children on meager subsistance. They should not have their opportunities curbed to reflect the activity of inner city gangbangers whose use of drugs and violence predominates news reporting. Loving gay men and women who only seek to do a competent, professional job and live and love in freedom and peace, should not have their lives limited to the rights and access of the worst pedophile who may be a small subset of their world.

All I am saying is that these are things for us to think about and reflect on...

[johnnycap]

You know, back in the 1940’s and 1950’s when the services were being integrated, similar arguments about that decision were floated as evidence of a failed idea. Today, we don’t give it a second thought.

If you deny people the right to a domestic agreement then you force them into a world of “recreational sex”. How dare we give people no alternative but “recreational sex” then condemnt them as somehow “not serious” because they only have “recreational sex”.

I guess Henry Ford should have held all drivers of black cars in disdain in 1915 even though the only color car he was offering was black. I gotta tell you its lame to box people into corners and then tell them that people who decide to be in corners are inherently bad. People who do this are commiting violence against others. VIOLENCE.

[trisham]

As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.

~Jim Robinson

[Clemenza]

Supposedly, "swing parties" developed in the Air Force in the 1950s, before spreading to the rest of America in the next two decades.

My favorite military sex scandal occurred back in the early 1980s at the naval training center north of Chicago. Investigators spent much of their time looking for a ringleader named "Dorothy." It turns out that they were merely clueless as to the use of "Friend of Dorothy" by homosexuals to identify themselves as such.

[savagesusie]

This is where my thinking diverges from yours:

You think you can judge the goodness of people and their intentions. I say only God can do that. People can always be deceived. You can never know what is truly in the hearts of others. Many have been fooled and no person is perfect. You can make an educated guess, but it is only your opinion.

Actions always have a moral component to them. I guess you can pick and choose those passages in the Bible which you decide are relevant, but then, can you really be called a Christian?

I do not believe in ostracizing anyone. On the contrary, I believe in treating everyone with compassion. I have homosexual relatives and would never be anything but kind to them. I would not approve of the relationships, though, and would always be civil unless they are disrespecting my family and beliefs. Everyone has a cross to bear, and I am not in the business of playing God.

St. Paul is awesome and his zeal and passion would not be lost on little children. They love drama. The Bible needs a balance—as do all people— and St. Paul provides it.

The loss of virtue is what causes most of the suffering in the world. Happiness can only come with the pursuit of virtue. We have free will and make our choice and need to be held accountable for those choices even on earth. God understands that and that is why he gave us the greatest blueprint for happiness.

Living in California and participating in the arts, I knew many gay people who never stayed with anyone in particular. They would have on/off boyfriends/girlfriends for awhile and then completely flake out. A Lesbian I’ve known for a few years ended up in the hospital because of a jealous lover who ran her over. One male that worked with my children ended up in San Quentin for molestation of several boys. (Although I liked him and he was extremely talented, entertaining and friendly, I never allowed him to be alone with my children.) The only gay people that were together for any length of time were ones who were over 50 and had no prospects of attracting younger partners. I worked with a man who died of AIDS in the early 90’s. I’ve known extremely nice gays—actually, all were extremely friendly except for one vile Lesbian whose hatred for men was truly disturbing. The sad thing though was that most were self-absorbed and their interests in life seemed exceedingly shallow. I would never classify any gay person I knew as particularly well-grounded, although their talents were pretty amazing.

[Grizzled Bear]

It's really funny. Twenty years ago, we had "open showers." In the main scheme of things, no one really cared. You got in the shower, washed your @$$ and got out. No one paid any particular attention to anyone else. Everybody assumed nobody had any other interests. I certainly didn't! If someone was "funny," they were usually quickly removed from service for one reason or another.

I recently returned from a deployment. We now have private shower stalls on the FOB. I'll admit, it's nice to have your "personal space." The fact that many of the guys disrobe and dress inside the stalls is somewhat conspicuous.

I've noticed that the demographic that's open and accepting of gays in the military are very careful to avoid exposing themselves in front of others. Just throwing in an observation.

[behzinlea]

I used to be against having gays openly in the military until I gave it rational thought. Gays have served in the defense of this country and have served it well. After learning how well it has worked for the Israelis how can we rationally say it would not work here?

Because it will be implemented here along a liberal Democrat model complete with touchy-feelly mandatory indocrination sessions, victim group status, EEO bull____ complaints, forced sharing of showers with "bigots" being discharged and punished for not being progressive enough.

The military is about breaking things and killing people--not groups hugs, drama queen antics, and male-male bonding in the bunk.

[Grizzled Bear]

kAcknor,

Isn't this where you usually try to tie heterosexual values to racism? Why haven't you posted your manifesto where you've changed the word "homosexual" to "black?"

you're slacking!

[Grizzled Bear]

Why haven't you posted your manifesto where you've changed the word "homosexual" to "black?"

Oops! You did! Post 38 was "Zotted" off the thread!

[Grizzled Bear]

What is the expected result when someone tries to use Jesus’ word to justify sin (hint - it’s extremely unpleasant and lasts forever)?

[Grizzled Bear]

Ping to post #125...

[metmom]

Excellent points.

Homosexuality is wrong.

There’s no way that homosexuals should be permitted to serve in the military on their conditions of being able to do it *openly*.

Nobody is saying that homosexuals can’t serve their country and defend it, but they need to leave that part of their lives out of it.

None of this *serving openly in the military* crap when they are in a situation where same sex living arrangements are required. It’s bad for morale and if their sex lives are nobody’s business, like they keep claiming, then they need to stop making it everyone’s business by flaunting it.

I don’t doubt that our society will reach the point of Sodom and Gomorrah before Jesus returns, but no matter how they try to make it legal, it will never make it right and it should be fought as long as possible.

[metmom]

Oh, puke.

Who cares if they’re *loving*. That will never make it right.

Homosexuality is an abomination to God. Telling people that is NOT unloving nor judgmental. God has already judged it. Telling people what He has decided about it is not judging them.

You must think pretty highly of yourself to sit in judgment of the Apostle Paul and condemn his attitude and words.

[kAcknor]

Bear, can you give it a rest?

That is a good list! I quick counted 30 - 32 different items and political/human right views in it and I disagree with a grand total of ONE.

I guess to some folks that means I'm just screwed around here doesn't it?

Just DAMN.

[savagesusie]

I have to agree!

[metmom]

You didn’t pick an insignificant one to disagree with.

Homosexuality is wrong. It is not a victimless crime or activity. It’s destructive to the family and society. It rots away the very fabric of our society and culture.

I doubt you could have made much of a worse choice for something to support.

[kAcknor]

You didn’t pick an insignificant one to disagree with.

It's not like I'm an activist or anything, and open sexual acts or abuse do make my blood boil, regardless of orientation. Just looking at it historically. It's a phenomenon that occurs throughout history, and in other species also. Usually associated with population density. That alone is evidence of a natural population control factor. But no matter.

I am obviously unconvinced by your arguments, as you are by mine. I offer to agree to disagree. That offer to buy the first round still holds.

I am pretty secure in my thoughts and beliefs, and don't often feel the need to share or try to convince others. That's probably why there isn't a large posting history here, even as I've been a part of it for 11 years. But once in a while I jump in, to see if my own arguments still make sense to me, or to see if any others might. I once argued anti-NRA with somebody though a long running post. Never told him I'm a life member.

I offer apologies if my natural inclination towards smarta$$ and satire went too far. Never have figured out to to fully control that. ;)

[metmom]

This sounds strangley familiar, like from playground bullies who get caught and confronted.

*I was just joking. You guys are no fun. You have no sense of humor. If you can’t take a joke, I’m not playing with you any more.*

/walks off in a huff feeling like the misunderstood, persecuted martyr, having convinced no one but himself of anything he said.