Topic: Gay Rights
Three Reasons Gays Should Not Serve "Openly" in the Military Codifying gays serving openly in the military will cost taxpayers more money, violates the privacy rights of military servicemen, and enshrines weakness as acceptable in the militaryby Paul Benedict
(libertarian)
Sunday, February 7, 2010
We all know a straight guy on a three month submarine tour would rather hot bunk with a co-ed, but for the glory of his country or the promise of seeing the world, he's taken a deal he doesn't like much he's bunking, in shifts, with dozens of smelly guys he'd rather only play poker with. As folks grow older and wiser, they look back and can't even understand how they managed to live with their fraternity brothers in the "good old days." This resiliency of youth should be guarded and protected. This resiliency, the ability to live as brethren with those who are nearly strangers, is, among other things, an ability to ignore sexuality. Those that want gay rights in the military would force sexuality into every inch of these dormitories of patriotic celibacy. However, we are to believe their motives are selfless, kind, caring and good. I guess gay rights are more important than the rights of our soldiers to the last vestiges of their personal privacy.
Homosexuality is about sexuality. The esprit d'corps critical to military service, especially where heterosexual men and women serve together, is about ignoring sexuality. There is no reason for it to be a "gay right" to inject sexuality into that mix. If it is a need for individual homosexuals to do this, they shouldn't serve. This is as it is for heterosexuals as well. Heterosexuals who cannot contain themselves, who must overtly express sexual intentions in the workplace, end up out of today's military also. The sacrifice of our youth in the service of our nation is heroic enough. Their unit cohesion depends on brotherhood and trust. That brotherhood (and, where applicable, sisterhood) depends, to a great extent, on the ability to overcome the need to make overt one's sexuality and sexual intentions. Making "gay rights" an issue by injecting sexuality into dormitories, showers, and foxholes is not in the best interests of the military.
There are many areas of life and society in which America willingly chooses to help those who are, in any way, limited by the conditions or birth or nature. We willingly place wheel chair ramps for the handicapped and provide brail for the blind in public education. We are a kind a magnanimous people. We consider the effects of poverty on educational development and seek to compensate so that the playing field is level for all. We even allow for mental disease to mitigate in our judgments of criminal offenses. However, in the military and in emergency services, ability, and only ability, should be the criteria for service. Weakness, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should not be enshrined in the military codes as "protected" in any way.
A domestic partner is not the same thing as a spouse. If an entire branch of government wants to open up the flood gates of the "government treasury" (what's the national debt15 trillion) and allow people to freely sign up for benefits with any single friend they know, the tax payers have a right to know about it and vote on it. It is a matter of somebody's rights. It is a matter of the right of taxpayers to their property.
Nor is demanding gays openly serve in the military like integrating blacks and whites. To insist that it is, is racist. Insisting on such an analogy, when the comparison is unmasked and shown for what it is, is to say that being black is a disability that runs contrary to the evolutionary natural design of mankind. Hitler would love you.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 11 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Paul Benedict only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Paul Benedict is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2010-02-07 03:10:12
"The esprit d'corps critical to military service, especially where heterosexual men and women serve together, is about ignoring sexuality."
No, esprit de corps is not about ignoring sexuality. That's patently false. Esprit de corps is about maintaining a common belief about the organization and it's goals. In the words of psychiatrist Alexander H. Leighton, "morale is the capacity of a group of people to pull together persistently and consistently in pursuit of a common purpose". By defining morale in terms of sexuality, you incorrectly suggest that the morale of the military is dependent on sex rather than actual military purpose. You also fail to distinguish between declaring one's sexual preferences on the one hand and engaging in sexual activity on the other hand. Heterosexuality is considered problematic in the military because affairs between soldiers can cause problems. What is not considered problematic among heterosexual soldiers is their declaration of their own sexuality preference.
"Nor is demanding gays openly serve in the military like integrating blacks and whites. To insist that it is, is racist."
By this same reasoning, insisting that gays not serve openly in the military is sexist.
Also, if I were gay (which I'm not), I'd be offended at your implication that gays are somehow responsible for the national debt (which is currently, officially at around $12.4 trillion. Congress raised the ceiling to $14.3 trillion, and we will certainly hit that ceiling very soon, but let's at least be accurate about where it currently sits). Gays didn't cause the national debt; nor are they responsible for the bulk of it. That responsibility lies primarily with heterosexuals, who created the bulk of it.
What you're really objecting to is granting to gays the same access to the public trough that heterosexuals currently enjoy. What I want to know is this: why do you insist on picking on gays but not on heterosexuals where this issue is concerned? The only answer I can come up with to that question is that you're prejudiced against gays.
"Don't ask don't tell" is nothing more than institutional discrimination based on sex. It has nothing to do with esprit de corps, and those who claim that it does are masking their own unwillingness to face their own prejudices in the matter with a thinly veiled facade.
What you're really objecting to is granting to gays the same access to the public trough that heterosexuals currently enjoy. What I want to know is this: why do you insist on picking on gays but not on heterosexuals where this issue is concerned? The only answer I can come up with to that question is that you're prejudiced against gays.
"Don't ask don't tell" is nothing more than institutional discrimination based on sex. It has nothing to do with esprit de corps, and those who claim that it does are masking their own unwillingness to face their own prejudices in the matter with a thinly veiled facade.
=================
You've just ignored all the millions of problems the army had with integrating women with men in the military or the workplace. Assuming that human beings keep their sexuality to their "bedroom" is one of the today's greatest fallacies. They don't and a troubled work environment is the result. Men and women in the military are not showering and sleeping together for good reasons. Your idea of forcing people into situations of sexual harassment just shows that irresponsibility and bigotry underlie your obsession with homosexuality.
It's too bad for the rest of us that DADT can't be applied to all other spheres of society. In every non-military job environment that I've been in where there were homosexuals and bisexuals, they constantly attempted to harass others with homosexual behaviors. Constantly. And, in my experience, there are at least as many closeted bisexual women (often married) as homosexual ones.
From 1992 to 1994, Richard Black served as chief of the Army's Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon. He wrote, "At the Criminal Law Division, facts contradicted that party line. Worldwide criminal reports documented serious offenses being committed frequently by homosexual GIs. To be certain, homosexuals weren't the only soldiers committing crimes, but the administration's proposals would have placed homosexuals in situations of forced intimacy, where same-sex attractions invite serious trouble. Activists claim the risk of crimes from same-sex offenders is no greater than it is between servicemen and women. They are wrong. Recruit training is especially problematic. Assaults aren't the only problem. Few things threaten unit cohesion more than consensual sex between homosexuals while others are present. The Fort Hood incident demonstrates how public sex among homosexual officers, NCOs and enlisted men destroys respect for rank. How would men respond to such officers and noncoms in battle?"
I'm a libertarian that believes in non-interventionism and I'm opposed to large standing armies. I find today's foreign policy of invasion and occupation to be in flagrant violation of ZAP (the zero-aggression principle),therefore the modern military is contrary to what libertarianism ought to be or what the wiser of the Founding Fathers intended! The only valid argument against legalizing the openly gay serving in the imperialist armed services is that in the event of a wartime draft, one can't claim to be gay to dodge draft slavery into the imperial military! Having the openly gay help invade and occupy sovereign nations along with straights and commit genocidal war crimes in the never-ending War OF Terrorism isn't progress, it's making a hideously bad problem worse! Forcing the politically incorrect Muslim world to submit to politically correct invaders and occupiers is a propaganda ploy to get the politically correct liberal-left on board with socialist Amerika's unwinnable and insane globalist warfare state agenda!
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2010-02-07 10:20:41
Walt,
I applaud your open attitude towards ideas that are different than your own. It speaks highly of your character. I do resent your conclusion that I am “prejudiced.”
I also disagree with your characterization of my argument that military esprit d'corps depends on sexuality. I think I said just the opposite. The organizational goals of the military certainly do not include the sexual preferences of its members.
I also disagree with your characterization of homosexuality as a gender. Hence, I cannot agree with your characterization of the basis of your criticism of my position as sexist.
I do not characterize homosexuals as being solely responsible for the national debt. I characterize the attempt to add “domestic partnerships” to the military budget would spuriously increase this debt.
I do not prejudge anyone.
I am dealing here with ideas. Homosexuality is not a race, a gender, or a religion. Any argument that is based on one of these premises is fallacious and deserves dispute. Likewise, laws and national policies that are based on illogic are almost by definition unwise and tyrannical.
For instance, I don’t believe that every member of the homosexual community disagrees with my arguments on gay marriage or on gays in the military.
I’m with most Californians in desiring to let people be. On the other hand, when the progressives want to use “gay rights” to push me around; I disagree strongly.
There is no one I would not reach out to on a personal level. There is no one I would shun, but those who would shun me, --for I am unabashed in the depths of those of my convictions I believe based on reason and logic.
Alessandra,
I disagree with government run social programs, in general.
I simply don’t feel qualified to argue against the extent to which the military has become a social program over the last three decades. Many of the arguments for women having increasing roles in the military are based on the economic benefits of a military career. If having women in the military doesn’t make the military stronger, I would also disagree with their employment therein.
Perhaps, Dan M below is on the right track, but watching the Taliban make women put blue bags over their heads is an example of how such wishes may be naive. There are many very bad people out there who want America gone.
Such rubbish! One point of so many stands out. "Homosexuality is about sexuality" Buddy, Heterosexuality is also about sexuality! If it were not, there would be no human breeding – babies! In Australia, and many other parts of the civilized world, gay and lesbian persons have been serving their Country with equal distinction for many years in the armed and police services. Also in the USA several police departments openly encourage G/L persons to joing their ranks for public duties. However, very sadly, the USA still contains far too many religious bigots. Your President is correct in moving in the direction of change against this outrageous DADT nonsense. He has the full support of civilized, properly edicuated people. Thumbs down to your backward attitude.
That statement could not be more laughable or ignorant. I tell you what, Paul. Here's a pic of my ol' Gay Self. I want you to tell me that my existence in the military would 'enshrine weakness.' What Crap!
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2010-02-11 19:27:18
The weakness referenced is not physical-- A weakness for cigarettes, alchohol, or the inability to keep oneself from lavishing attentions on members of the same or opposite sex is the weakness mentioned in this article.
Again, when arguing with what is written is impossible, make something up. Why not? Everyone else does.
And are you suggesting that homosexual men are less able to restrain themselves "from lavishing attentions" than heterosexual men? Is that *real?* Do you believe that straight American soldiesr will succumb to recruitment, or run away in tears, or be thoruoughly unable to defend themselves from the attention of gay men? Are American soldiers that fragile?
Come off it. You have made no serious arguments here. This entire article is like some trite cliche out of the mouth of June Cleaver....
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2010-02-12 16:20:27
No, June wasn't in my article, nor any comparison of the relative strengths and weaknesses of anyone.
The point is that serving in the military is often about IGNORING the inherent problems of one's sexuality. Consider the submariners... Homosexuals should be no different. They too should ignore the inherent problems of their sexuality. If they can't, if they must advertise in the locker room, they SHOULD be gone.
Paul, you're arguing in an ivory tower vaccuum. This has nothing to do with advertising in a locker room (and btw, this takes place NOW, between men who present a public image of being straight and are often married....proving that being "out" has nothing to do with the realization of your fears)
No, this has to do with the fact that if you're living together 24/7/365, and you're gay and you happen to mention your partner back home, or the letter your received, or share a memory of great vacation and mention your partners name....you are now subject to ejection, the loss of your pension, and a dishonorbale discharge...regardless of your meritotious and chaste service.
This is asinine and a growing number of Americans know it.It's time to end these rice-paper-thin arguements that are merely excuses for theocracy or homophobia.
The overwhelming majority of homosexuals and bisexuals I have known throughout the years do not fear anything. They constantly hit on people of all orientations and are harassful whenever they want, and nothing or very little happens because they are being so coddled. And as many other people can attest, they can easily get preferential treatment not based on merit or professionalism, but as a consequence of a pink or pro-homo mafia dynamics is often formed in many liberal organizations.
Furthermore, the reported number of "hate" crimes based on sexual orientation is laughably low. I say laughable in light of the picture painted in pro-homo propaganda (not that even one crime is funny). (less than about 1500/year)
However, the number of homosexuals who beat each other senseless is not laughable at all. In civilian society, for sure, homosexuals are much more of a vicious danger to other homosexuals than anyone else.
The Gay Men's Domestic Violence Project reports estimates of one in four homosexual men suffering domestic violence. And it's not the only one to report very high numbers of dysfunctional, violent homosexuals.
http://www.gmdvp.org/
Using a very conservative estimate of the total male homosexuals in the country, that yields about 750,000 violent homosexuals in domestic violence cases. Compared to the number of sexual orientation "hate" crimes, it's ridiculous (750,000 to 1,500).
I am former military officer who was responsible for assigning billeting and showering arrangements. I have one question for the people who are advocating that we allow gays to serve openly -- how do I billet them? This is not a rhetorical question, and I'm not asking it to be difficult; I really would like to know how we would solve this problem.
In my experience it's not solvable. And please, don't come back with "Canada, Israel, etc. have solved it" because they haven't. I served in NATO for a couple of years, and the militaries that allowed homosexuals to serve openly were struggling mightily with these problems. From what I saw their answer was to essentially create units that were homosexual "ghettos" and to treat homosexuals so poorly that they would get out at their first possible opportunity. This is not a answer, and it certainly detracts from military readiness.
Back in the '80s there was an gay airline mechanic. (well, probably more than one) Everyone knew he was gay. He was never harrassed, shunned or anything that might be considered insulting or degrading. Mechanics worked alongside him with - if not camaraderie - at least civility and the same friendliness accorded others.
On night the gay mechanic was working, lying on the floor in a particularly crowded area of the plane cabin and another mechanic said, "I'm going to have to get through here, I'll try not to crowd you." The gay guy said, "That's OK, I rather enjoy it."
The work environment was never the same. For the guy or the crew. He had made an unnecessary remark that crossed the line. And guess who felt wronged? The gay, of course!
It's is an odd thing that a woman can be sexually harrassed by a man, but a man cannot claim it by another man.
If you are a man who prefers men, is it not normal to hit on any young man you find attractive?
If you are a young man who prefers women, is it not understandable to not want to be considered a pick-up prospect by your shower-mate? Maybe straights will have to sing in the shower, "I only want a buddy, not a sweetheart...."
When (if) we have Open Gays in the Military, will there be disciplinary action against overt sexual advances? Well, it depends on what the meaning of overt is - and fat chance of you ever proving it, fella.
But that is why the uproar about open gays in the military. It's flippant remarks like that that cause trouble in the ranks. You can say it shouldn't. You can call it a perceived threat where none exists - you can call it latent on the part of the "straight" - you can call it anything you want. But no one better ever suggest we just have a separate Gay Army, Navy and Marine Corps. You would have riots in the Castro the likes of which you have never dreamed, by people who have never done any marching except in the Gay Parade in their pasties and spangles and g-strings and nun's habits.
JetDrive One point that is never mentioned is that when a servicemember gets diagnosed with HIV/AIDS it's a 100% service-connected disability. Why should the taxpayers have to shoulder this burden because of their life choices? (This does not include someone who contracted HIV/AIDS through no fault of their own ie.: blood transfusion).
Center of Disease Control: distribution of the estimated number of cases of AIDS among adults and adolescents by transmission category in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2007
Huge number of cases for bisexuals and homosexuals, by far, an overwhelming proportion compared to heterosexuals. And for total cases through 2007 as well. HUGE majority of cases, not to mention that the majority of AIDS for black women through sex acts comes from being infected from their (lying) bisexual men.
Another side of the situtation in this letter to Mike Mullen:
757 F Avenue Coronado, CA 92118 February 5, 2010
Admiral Mike Mullen, USN Chairman, Joints Chiefs of Staff 9999 Joint Staff Pentagon Washington, DC 20318-9999
Dear Admiral Mullen,
Having offered the Benediction at the CNO Change of Command for Admirals Kelso and Boorda, I feel compelled to write to you as the former CNO and current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
While serving as the Command Chaplain at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado from 1994 to 1997, I had a very talented and dedicated Chief Petty Officer who taught our Catholic Confirmation class. In addition to being spiritually very sound, as a Search and Rescue (SAR) swimmer he was also in great physical shape.
As he was approaching his 20 year mark on active duty, he talked with me about becoming a Catholic priest. I took him for a visit to the Seminary in Camarillo. After a period of prayer and reflection, he decided to complete his enlistment; accept the 20 year retirement package; and enter a seminary to become a Catholic priest.
I’m sad to say that within a year of having entered a Catholic seminary, he got tired of being “hit on” by gay seminarians and left the seminary. I felt very bad when I heard about this and regretted ever having encouraged him to become a priest and leave the Navy where he could have stayed for another ten years.
When the Catholic Church decided in the early 70s to make up for its lack of seminarians by accepting homosexual candidates, it failed to consider the impact this would have upon the recruitment and retention of heterosexual seminarians and priests, as well as other complications that would arise.
The Roman Catholic Church in the United Stares has paid out over $3 billion in law suits and legal fees over the past decade for sex acts perpetrated by priests, over 80 percent of whom were homosexual priests like Navy Chaplain John “Matt” Lee who, while HIV positive, preyed on midshipmen while stationed at the U.S. Naval Academy and Marines while assigned to Marine Corps Base Quantico.
I believe you underestimate the importance of sexual privacy in the military and the effect a change in the DoD homosexual policy can have on the recruitment and retention of heterosexuals. I can understand how the President and the Secretary of Defense might not appreciate the importance of sexual privacy after never having served one day in the military, but you, Sir, should know better.
Sincerely,
Gene Thomas Gomulka CAPT, CHC, USN (Ret)
Copy to: Senator John McCain, Congressman Duncan Hunter
When Afghanistan's Taliban government oppressed Afghan women, then it was the Afghan people's duty to overthrow their oppressors! Originally , the US military's duty was supposed to be to guard our national borders, not to run around "liberating" the oppressed overseas! World improving by being the world's policeman is what's naive! The warfare state liberventionist world improvers are just as naive as the welfare state liberal world improvers! Both concepts are imcompatible with limited government, the sovereignty of nation states and liberty! And "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" was the same excuse used to continue the quagmire in Vietnam! Islamic terrorists aren't a serious threat to our nation's sovereignty and liberty, federal government tyranny is!
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
![[link edited for length]](http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1323/827883457_3444b96164_m.jpg){kind=link}