The fact of the matter is that DADT wasn't going to last forever.
What can one say about Arizona Senator Jon Kyl's comments following the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? During an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Kyl argued the repeal could "cost lives." To be precise, Kyl said, "When it comes especially to the small units that do the fighting on the ground . . . [the repeal] could disrupt unit cohesion . . . and cost lives."1
Perhaps it's a case of sour grapes. But his comments are quite frankly irresponsible. How does the presence of gay soldiers in a combat unit "cost lives"? Why would it increase casualties? Where is the empirical evidence to support his assertion? The onus is on Kyl to back up his statement. If Kyl can't back up his assertion then he ought to keep his mouth shut because not only does Kyl cast aspersions on soldiers who happen to be gay he also demonstrates a lack of confidence in America's fighting forces.
Of course, Kyl isn't the only one who cast the repeal of DADT in such bleak terms. Consider what Family Research Council President Tony Perkins had to say:
Today is a tragic day for our armed forces. The American military exists for only one purpose – to fight and win wars. Yet it has now been hijacked and turned into a tool for imposing on the country a radical social agenda. This may advance the cause of reshaping social attitudes regarding human sexuality, but it will only do harm to the military's ability to fulfill its mission.2
Like Kyl, Perkins doesn't say how permitting gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military would impede it from fulfilling its mission. Regrettably, Perkins is content to blindly assume that all military personnel who happen to be gay are inherently incompetent and incapable of fulfilling their service. The tragedy here isn't allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. The tragedy here is that in Perkins' America there is no need to give the individual an opportunity to prove himself/herself on their own merits. If you are gay or lesbian in Perkins' America you are seen as beneath human and unworthy of inclusion in society. Well, if that viewpoint isn't un-American then I don't know what is.
But the fact of the matter is that DADT wasn't going to last forever. Barry Goldwater knew that when he publicly opposed DADT back in 1993.3 One cannot indefinitely sustain a public policy that rests on an unstable foundation of an inordinate fear of homosexuality. In the seventeen years that have passed this inordinate fear has slowly but surely abated in the United States. As a result of gays and lesbians gaining greater acceptance in the general population it has become increasingly more difficult to justify the DADT policy. Those who oppose the inclusion of gays and lesbians in the military are reduced to leveling ad hominem attacks that are simply beneath their dignity.
So now that DADT has been repealed I can state with absolute confidence that the sky will not fall on our armed forces. It isn't to say that the military won't need time to adapt and implement the policy. But the military has responded to far greater challenges. If our military can undertake a surge in Iraq they can openly accommodate gays and lesbians amongst their ranks.
Yet perhaps the most insulting aspect of DADT is the underlying assumption that Americans who happen to be gay or lesbian are somehow less patriotic by virtue of their sexual orientation. Our armed forces need all the good men and women they can find. Telling gays and lesbians that their service to this country is unwanted and unwelcome only serves to alienate them from having a stake in our country's success.
Of course, the reality is that our military already has gay and lesbian personnel who have served or are serving with distinction. Do their contributions to our military suddenly and irrevocably become meaningless should they make it known if they are gay or lesbian? If that is the case then do we want a military that places greater value on a person's sexual orientation than either their competence or their character?
The repeal of DADT was long overdue. Now it's time for our military to soldier on.
Endnotes
3. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/bulgarians/barry-goldwater.html
Aaron, you have obviously not served in the field with a military unit. I am in almost constant contact with troops in small units e.g. special forces and marines. The feedback is diametrically opposed to that of the rear echelon and large unit troops e.g. many of the small unit troops will leave the military rather than reenlist in this brave new gay world. Why? Good question unless you have lived in the field with them. Do we now need 4 latrines to cover all bases? 4 sets of independent quartering? All achievable in comfortable surroundings not so doable in the hills.
So you worry about studies and let the force enlistment and reenlistment numbers for these elite groups speak for themselves. If enlistments fall the response given by these front line warriors will speak for itself as our ability to protect ourselves deteriorates. If they don’t fall things will be interesting including things like rape in small units where such never existed before.
It’s not just Kyle who disagrees with you Aaron, it’s the overwhelming majorityof those front line combat troops for whom unit cohesion is the most important.
Where is the empirical evidence to support your assertion that “As a result of gays and lesbians gaining greater acceptance in the general population it has become increasingly more difficult to justify the DADT policy” as regards those front line troops? The onus is on YOU to back up YOUR statement. If you can’t back up your assertion then you ought to keep your mouth shut because not only do you cast aspersions on front line combat troops when you say “Those who oppose the inclusion of gays and lesbians in the military are reduced to leveling ad hominem attacks that are simply beneath their dignity”, you also demonstrates a lack of understanding of America’s fighting forces.
If you are gay or lesbian in Perkins’ America you are seen as beneath human and unworthy of inclusion in society.
Err, not exactly. Many good, wonderful, honest, hard-working people of all walks of life are denied inclusion in the military for a variety of different reasons. Being excluded from military service is not remotely the same thing as being “unworthy of inclusion in society” and “beneath human”. To suggest that the former implies the latter is every bit as stupid and hysterically hyperbolic as you suggest is opposing open homosexuality in the military.
Now that the military will be fully integrating openly homosexual soldiers for service, I would also suggest that the spirit and letter of “equal protection” demands the full integration of male and female soldiers, regardless of sexual persuasion, as well. If sexuality is not a concern for the practical functioning of soldiers in the field, then there is no reason to separate male and female heterosexual soldiers anymore than there is to exclude homosexual soldiers from service. Anything less is nothing short of “reverse discrimination”. Anyone truly concerned with civil rights will demand this equality unequivocally.
Mr. Goldstein’s main point is demonstrated by the comments of Mickey G, nmleon, and Mr. Mulligan. If allowing openly gay persons to serve in the military does NOT bring about the disasters hoped for by opponents, then the positions of these opponents were always little more than expressions of bigotry.
Gestell,
Please point to the exact quotation in my comment that discusses or addresses “disasters” that would be brought about by allowing homosexuals to serve openly, let alone my hope that such disasters will come to pass, or otherwise I demand an apology and retraction for being called a bigot. This bullsh*t line you trot out in every discussion of mindlessly resorting to sliming anyone who disagrees with your opinion as a racist, bigoted, fearful, repressed, latently violent scumbag is beyond old. I know that it’s been the only logical or rhetorical device in the “liberal” arsenal since Gore Vidal called Bill Buckley a crypto-fascist in 1968, and is so over used as to render it about as meaningful as saying “bless you” when you sneeze, so I usually don’t even dignify it with a response, but seriously, it’s enough. If you can’t keep your disagreement more substantive and civil than the intellectual equivalent of calling someone a poopy face, either don’t bother at all or vent your idiocy in a more sympathetic venue, like the DailyKos.
Gestell, as usual talking from the other end of the body. My projections are already coming through as the first to come up for reenlistment are taking one of two paths, out of the military, or out of front line units to the rear echelon where private quarters are available.
Get ready for the reduction of our special forces capability unless of course we create “segregated” units.
Opponents of the revocation of DADT make claims about consequences they believe are likely–Mickey G says these consequences are already beginning to appear–and these developments would be a disaster for our military by reducing its effectiveness. Similar predictions were made about the presence of blacks and women in the military. I defer to IC readers with military experience to answer my question of whether these earlier changes brought about declines in combat readiness. Does the United States have a less effective military today than it did before it was desegregated? What evidence do you have?
As for my use of ‘bigotry,’ I employed it to suggest a judgment made in the absence of or before evidence pertaining to something has been collected. A bigot prejudges, and so Mr. Mulligan is a bigot if he prejudges that allowing openly gay soldiers to serve in the military will produce harmful results. He would be proven not to be a bigot if his predictions came true.
As with the Navy allowing women to serve on ships at sea, the “disasters” that await may be of a more subtle nature, but not hard to see or imagine in the least. In the Navy, pregnancies have become a problem. How big a problem? How big does a problem have to be to incur some cost to readiness? More importantly, why must any branch of the service be required to suffer those costs at all and those that go along with “tweaking” they system in order to abide the whims of the so-called victims of what is laughably called civil rights abuses?
That rights are being abused at all assumes that one had a right in the first place. Such a right, the right to serve, does not exist. Military service may be a privilege, may be a duty, may be an honor, but it is not a right. One serves at the pleasure of the military and under the terms set by the military for service. That is, until now.
Now, one need only cry foul and the military must bend over backwards to accomodate. To imagine this must be done and can be without harm to readiness and effectiveness is the height of naivete.
It is said that homosexuals have served with honor and distinction. If this is so, I would wager it was a result of the homosexual putting the military first and his “orientation” aside. Such people are to be commended, just as any other enlisted man or woman who puts the military first. DADT gave some guarantee that this dynamic will remain. Elimination of DADT now means that one’s proclivities has priority. The military must adhere to the terms of the one enlisting as opposed to the other way around. Obviously, readiness and effectiveness is compromised when the military must accomodate those who insist on enlisting on their own terms.
What’s worse than their inclusion in the military, is what that inclusion condones for the nation. The push to force this behavior on the nation as a benign endeavor no different than heterosexual behavior has been a battle waged without regard to facts, science and reason. There has been little of any involved with the efforts to repeal DADT, just as there has been next to none in the overall debate regarding legitimizing the behavior in the general culture. 2% of the population is forcing their morality down the throats of the rest, and there is little care for the consequences so long as that 2% gets their way. THAT is the most shameful aspect of the whole business.
A bigot prejudges, and so Mr. Mulligan is a bigot if he prejudges that allowing openly gay soldiers to serve in the military will produce harmful results.
Leaving aside the idiocy of defining “bigot” as “one who prejudges”, since the very act of being alive would qualify every human being who has ever existed for the title, in this specific instance Mr. Mulligan did not make any predictions as to the results of allowing openly gay soldiers to serve in the military or express a desire to see them come to fruition, and hence the demand for the apology and retraction still stands. If you’re going to redefine a term so that you can apply it at your whim, at least take care to redefine it in such a way that it is actually applicable in its modified form.
Using the more common dictionary definitions of the term “bigot”, which are:
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.”
One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
I can’t help but wonder whether the term better applies to one who ascribes all opposition to his political orthodoxy as sinisterly motivated, if not outrightly evil. Maybe we’re all bigots now.
In ideological warfare, it is appropriate to ascribe sinister motivations, indeed, evil, to one’s opponent. It is inappropriate to do so in everyday, nonpolitical situations. There are, of course, other understandings of politics besides those centered on ideological warfare, but if such warfare is one’s chosen path, then we are indeed all bigots now. If politics is understood as a variety of processes involving bargaining, mutual accomodation, etc., then sharply polarized ideological stances and the combat they require will be minimal, even absent.
The major challenge the military will face with the revocation of DADT is not the enlistment of openly gay soldiers. Gay and lesbians have been serving in the military for generations. When I was in the USMC, we ‘knew’ the sexual persuasions of the personnel in our unit; even if they weren’t ‘openly’ broadcast: And command made exceptions regarding accommodation assignments. They also routinely failed to select gays for deployment exercises where ‘close’ quarters were likely to be present. Commanding Officers just didn’t want to take the chance that such situations would make an already challenging mission that much more complicated.
The major problem the Congress has unleashed upon the military is not gays openly serving. This is the ‘camel’s nose’ if you will. What is to stop a person from enlisting in the military and then declaring himself to be a ‘she’ trapped in a male body. Do we issue class ‘A’ female uniforms to said physically male soldier? Does he/she go to the female side of the recruit training depot? Does the military health care program begin performing sex reassignment surgery? Do transgendered persons still serve in front line combat units?
To the progressive the answers to these questions are yes, yes, yes, and absolutely yes. Progressives have little use for the military anyway; it being a core belief that the United States’ ability to project power is an affront to civilization to begin with. There are unspoken, stealth reasons for all this. Mainstreaming the lifestyle is one. Using and indentured pool of citizens as the control for such a social experiment is another.
Progressives feel this to be a win win for them. If the repeal of DADT results in no major issues; then progressives will point to the situation as a red herring argument from reactionary conservatives. If it causes significant change to the military culture, progressives will happily accept that result as well; it long being accepted conventional wisdom that the progressive left sees the military’s mission as little more than a uniformed version of Kennedy’s Peace Corps. In their eyes, an attitude adjustment is exactly what the military needs.
I predict that once this policy has expanded to openly serving GLBT’s; the ACLU will be suing over there being no GLBT generals, no GLBT Joint Chiefs, no GLBT commanders of front line units.
The results are predictable as well. The US military will fall into more of a logistical support role for the warfighters. The warfighters will be independent mercenary contractor units hired by the government to do the actual fighting.
reply to Mr.Wavering,
I expect conservatives to expect the worst consequences from allowing openly gay people to serve in the US military, and thus far IC has not disappointed me. Slippery slope arguments are speculative, at best, and a desperate ploy at worst. As a liberal, I like to ask those questions conservatives don’t really want to consider, such as: what assumptions do conservatives make about the conduct of openly gay military personnel? Do they assume that gays and lesbians will pursue their love lives openly, in plain sight? Do they assume that gays and lesbians are all frantic to try to ‘turn’ good old American boys and girls into devotees of single-sexed evils? Do they worry about that come hither stare from a fellow soldier in the shower room? Why should conservaties assume that gays and lesbians will simply act out the worst stereotypes imaginable? I know the ire that IC writers vent on me when I argue that conservatives, if they understand their own ideology, should be racists. Often they throw bitter invective at me for indulging in what they see as the worst stereotypes about white redneck conservatives. Can’t conservatives see that what they often do with regard to gays is pretty similar? Nah. Not bloody likely.
The article and follow on discussion has raised some good and/or interesting points; for which we have more opinion than proof (either way). So, I made an attempt at gathering background and evidence. Before giving you my gleanings, however, I will begin by recapping what I see as the issues raised and questions in need of answering. Because this is a lengthy response, I am going to post it in three parts: a recap, response section, and relevant links. I apologize if these become jumbled or separated as sometimes occurs.
Goldstein assertions:
1. insinuates gays in the military will not cost lives; and that it is irresponsible/indelicate of Senator Kyle to argue it will/can
2. refutes Perkins assertion repealing DADT will impair the military’s primary mission (war-fighting); interestingly, AG takes no issue with Perkins primary assertion repealing DADT has more to do with radical agenda politics than principles that could possible justify the change; he also makes no better case than Perkins in proving it can’t
3. faults Perkins, specifically, for not showing how repeal impedes military mission
4. Goldstein’s characterization [of opposition to repeal] as ‘inordinate fears’ is similar enough to calling us ‘homophobic’ as to be non-differentiable (polite, yet impolitic)
5. reasons military has adapted to far greater challenges, as though that were a justification for doing so
6. acceptance in general population of gays has made DADT unjustifiable
7. equates the keeping of gay behaviors under wraps with calling gay service men and women “unpatriotic”; and “unworthy of inclusion in society”
8. Regards DADT a dead-letter issue no longer worth discussing because there exists a high level of acceptance within today’s military of gays (not really true other than opposition is somewhat weakened from pre-DADT)
9. Posits because our military has already adapted to blacks and women, that proves it is up to one more challenge to its effectiveness (doesn’t show how these equate, and it is unclear that they do)
Mickey G assertions:
1. feedback from combat troops is overwhelmingly opposed to repeal
2. many small unit troops (commanders and non-com’s) poised to early-out if repealed (he’s right in that the exodus has already begun; several high ranking officers have made public announcements they’ll early-out which they cannot now reverse without losing face; so this is already a bigger exodus than the British experience on which the DOD report relied)
nmleon assertions:
1. feedback from combat troops is overwhelmingly opposed to repeal
2. questions Goldstein assertion #6 and demands evidence how that applies to frontline troops
3. raises ‘military culture’ issue (i.e., military culture and values matter to effectiveness)
Patrick Mulligan assertions:
1. disputes exclusion is the equivalent of bigotry, that some jobs simply demand standards are necessary, and that qualifications be established and vigorously maintained (e.g., it may be un-PC that severely handicapped people are excluded from fire fighting jobs, but there are amply reasons against allowing it). DADT is, in fact, is a non-exclusionary policy, so I question that argument even applies here. The only thing gays are excluded from is ostensibly gay behaviors and declarations of gayness while serving to minimize frictions.
Marshall Art assertions:
1. problems ascribable to an openly gay endorsing policy may be similar to those of integrating women
2. a right to serve does not exist
3. As with the transition to women in service, we can be certain political-correctness will (in some cases) trump other concerns that ought to be paramount (‘dumb-downed’ physical training, sexual-tensions [Is he a great physical-training partner because he’s a natural or is he getting off on the physical contact? Did he just grope me in close order march or am I just imagining it, the way he swears?], conflicting cultural signals, values, facility-separations affecting unit cohesiveness [people who eat, sleep, bath and train together are more cohesive than those who eat and train together; and work better with the former more than the latter], uniform-identity factor [we work best with those most like ourselves and with whom we don’t have to compensate for differences]) especially in combat
4. there hasn’t been (any real discussion of merits/demerits due to political-correctness
5. 2% who gay are deciding for 98% who aren’t
Bill Wavering assertions:
1. repeal of DADT is a ruse by the left for weakening a military they have long opposed anyway
2. using the military as a laboratory for lifestyle mainstreaming is a corruption of purpose
3. trend will make necessary the hiring of mercenaries to do our fighting
Questions in need of answering before repeal goes into effect (and should have been):
A. What are the possible negative impacts of having openly declared gays in the military?
A.1. riots, mutiny, lynching, … (unlikely, but with all those homophobes running around in our military [we have the MSMs word on that], who’s to say it won’t happen; we have to consider worst case scenarios, right?)
A.2. dwindling recruitments and early retirements (a significant number of officers, some in combat roles, have already declared an intent to resign early if DADT repealed)
A.3. yet another restructuring of military facilities, this time to accommodate a large number of subcategories of non-heterosexuals representing a small fraction of the military (Integrating black males into the military was mostly an attitudinal change. Integrating females involved a segregation of facilities that more than doubled infrastructure and led us away from highly economic barracks to uneconomic dorms [aboard ship the segregating is, per female, even more expensive]. Integrating openly gay people means a further segregation to avoid in-your-face exposures and conflicts. Not only will men need segregating from women, but gay-men from straight-men, gay-women from straight-women not open-minded about lesbian intimacy, transvestites from gays no more tolerant than straights of this behavior, and gender-changers, beasty-philes and pedophiles from just about everyone else [on the assumption this trend continues to its logical ultimate]).
A.4. Will an advancement/entitlement expectation accompany repeal of DADT that puts political pressure ahead of competence and merit (i.e., gays have been held back for so long it’s only fair to put them at the head of the line for promotion); and might this lead to some greater incompetence in key leadership roles? How much resentment might this create, even if largely speculative?
B. What are the possible gains to be had from inclusion to the military’s primary objective of national defense?
B.1. Gays will make up the deficit from exiting heterosexuals. But, don’t hold your breath because gays are 10 to 100 times less common (depending on whose estimates you believe and who you include as gay) in the general population.
B.2. Gays will enrich our military culture as they have our civilian (i.e., gay-pride military parades replete with transvestites and semi-clad provocateurs, gay training films demonstrating optimum method of penetration with HIV avoidance, teach military-wives how to dress, diversity training of mil-brats, teach homophobic soldiers how to hug without making a scene, films, books and magazines so erotic as would make straight sailors blush, &c) BTW, ‘enrichment’ was an arguments that many gays used back in the early days of their movement, so don’t blame me for including it here.
B.3. Gays are statistically ( http://www.narth.com/docs/domestic.html ) and historically (http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=PinkSwastika ) more-aggressive/better-warriors than straights, so they will make up in ferocity, identity-cohesion, and technique what they lack in numbers? They can slap the enemy into submission?
B.4. Gays have shown great persistence and that they can outmaneuver political adversaries by getting DADT repealed, and by conditioning our children to gay acceptance under our very noses, so they should be really good at deposing crazed-terrorists, murdering-despots (e.g., Omar al-Bashir, Jose Eduardo dos Santos, Joseph Kabila, Paul Kagame, &c), nuke-armed Iranians, and truly hardball politicians (Putin), right?
Yeah, I know I’m laying the aggressor-gay thing on a little thick, but seriously, what do gays bring to the military that compensates for the potential exodus of straights as will justify this policy change?
C. What are the presumed secondary (i.e., societal) benefits to be had from repeal?
C.1. Gays can confidently say they are mainstream once accepted by and within all of our society’s emblematically prominent organizations (forced inclusion isn’t really acceptance, but as Nancy P likes to say, we’ll have to “pass it to find out …”)
D. What is the opinion of ordinary servicemen and servicewomen regarding DADT, especially those in combat situations? One thing no study has done (and this latest report is no exception) is to differentiate between frontline troops (less than 1/3 of the military) and REMFs. Since we are mainly talking about impacts to combat-effectiveness and unit-cohesion, shouldn’t that have been emphasized in at least some studies?
E. What is the truth about gays currently serving under DADT, and how has that worked out?
E.1. No one has reported on this, so we’ll just have to take our government’s word all is hunky dory under DADT. The same can be said of other governments who have had gay-friendly services for some time (i.e., conscientiously under reporting frictions). No soldier is perfect and at least some frictions must exist, yet it is taboo to suggest as much. Therefore, we are left with more an impression of frictionless relations than the higher than previous record of disturbance implies.
E.2. One of the few reports on gay misbehaviors in the military is a 1993 study (recently updated, http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2010/03/1993-report-on-gays-in-the-military-updated/ ) recounting a consistent pattern of rule-breaking, self-centered (i.e., lots of it, some clearly narcissistic) behaviors unbecoming of officers, networking to thwart rules and shield one another against discovery/discipline, falsified records, fraternizations highly disruptive of good order, AWOL having sex while in combat, dereliction, sexual extortion, stacking the deck (reassignment scandal in which a gay officer redirected young recruits to temporary shore-duty thereby giving himself and friends better selection), promotion/demotion abuse, pedophilia, rape, violence, an accidental slaying in what appears a rape, and a Pentagon restroom openly commandeered for semi-public sex while on breaks
F. What is the history of gays in the military generally?
F.1. Gays love to cite both ancient and recent history for examples of puissant gays fighting for country and liberty, but the truth is less flattering because
F.1.a. there isn’t all that much to tell (at least not incontestably or inseparably from non-gay majorities)
F.1.b. what there is of it was sometimes so brutal and treacherous it speaks well of the greater temperance and constancy of barbarians
F.1.c. Sparta, frequently cited as an instance of a gay-friendly military system, is problematic because, though, openly tolerant of homosexuality was more an effect of prolonged isolation from family and female companionship, and an intensive physical regimen leading to sexual relief than to a culture of homosexuality we’d recognize today. The Theban Sacred Band is likewise cited; but formed only a small part of the Theban military, and was short lived and poorly recorded. Although a number of ancient regimes used homosexual cohorts, the grouping itself was mainly to segregate them to preclude the havoc merging them with ordinary troops would have caused. Moreover, ancient armies were mostly conscripts or militias who did not live and work together daily, but were called up on an emergency basis. Therefore, the relevance of ancient gay warriors to modern standing and peacekeeping armies is purely subjective.
F.1.d. The gays of other countries’ services are as small and fractious as our own. What we do know of them is nearly as anecdotal and underreported as our own, mostly due to a culture of studied tolerance to behaviors we’d not stand for were straights regularly engaging in them.
G. Are there secondary effects of repeal rebounding on civil society we should be considering
G.1. Since military family-housing does not currently extend to same-sex couples, it is clear pressure will increase for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in order to secure those benefits to gay service people also. Repeal of DOMA will, thereby, be given an added moral push (i.e., discrimination on a basis that has been venue outlawed). In that regard, repeal of DADT and DOMA are linked, and part of a larger objective of gay political power out of all proportion to their numbers.
My Response to Goldstein’s assertions:
1. Repeal won’t cost lives: We can’t say with absolute certainty lives will be lost due to repeal, but we can say with some confidence repeal won’t do anything to tone down already prevailing indiscretions and attitudes; and will, more than likely, provide greater license to those gays flagrantly assertively flaunting military-decorum and good-order. We do have a past history of gays in the military we can consult, and that record is less than assuring. I am assuming a high percentage of aggressive than passive gays in the military, as the warrior-culture appeals more to those. Aggression, assertiveness, and sexually-flagrant behaviors are linked, so we can reason aggressive gays are disproportionately high in our military as compared to the civilian gay population. We are safe in reasoning the proportion of straight assertive males in the military is also disproportionately high, and that makes for a powder-keg when you mix these two (much easier mixing passive-gays with passive-straights). Now, assuming the lid is removed such that discovery is no longer an issue, what is to keep flagrantly gay behaviors in check? We know of at least one case where lives were lost because a gay PFC abandoned his post to have sex, so the argument does have some merit in that lives can be lost due to policy changes, especially if a protected status arises from the change. We know of sexually-derelict straights also, of course; but the argument itself is valid, particularly if it can be shown the incidence of lethal dereliction may increase because of it. Whether dereliction is gay or straight matters less than the overall pattern of abuse.
Couple that with the greater tension of alpha-males living in proximity with overtly promiscuous gays, and unit cohesiveness and trust and must suffer and unit friction increase. I know and appreciate the militaries of other countries are reporting few problems from their policy relaxations (including recruitment), but recall there are powerful political pressures to under report these problems or reassign causes; making such reports unreliable. Better are news reports of violence and disciplinary proceedings of those countries giving an impression that is less reassuring. Britain refuses to allow members of its services to be interviewed regarding frictions at all. What I have read thus far of the official findings and their almost total lack of detail does little to assuage me on this point. Also unclear is that the policies of those countries’ military services (cited as proof DADT is unnecessary) are significantly different from DADT. The fact gays are openly admitted into their military units, does not mean those gays are free to behave as they wish (just not automatically thrown out for discovery). They can still opt out on the basis they are gay; and, if they misbehave, become disruptive, or engage in political activities disallowed by their condition of service, they are just as subject to codes of discipline.
2. repealing DADT won’t impair the military’s primary mission:
2.a. Again, we don’t have to consult tea leaves because we do have a past history; both of gays serving honorably, but just as often dishonorably or acceptable careers ending dishonorably after long service; moreover (according to one source) the rate of dishonorable discharge for disciplinary action has been significantly higher for gays than other groups since studies first began over thirty years ago. Note, I am not including procedural discharges here (e.g., gay decides she doesn’t like military life, so discloses is gay to get out), only discharges for grievous and flagrant misbehaviors (rape, public sodomy, fraternization, abuse of authority, extortion, violence, &c) for which there are ample instances.
2.b. repealing DADT has more to do with radical agenda politics than principles that could possibly justify such a change
2.c. Goldstein makes no better case repeal won’t hamper the military’s mission than Perkins (allegedly) makes that it will.
3. Perkins failure to prove his case makes ‘mission-compromise’ a red-herring: Others have already answered this charge, so I won’t belabor it
4. ‘inordinate fears’ (aka, homophobia) charge: This is, of itself, an ad hominem attack of the very sort Goldstein condemn from the opponents of repeal, one that is used to silence further argument by forcing your opponent into a defensive posture. Really, Aaron, you’d pull that one on us!?
5. Goldstein reasons the military has adapted to “greater challenges”, so it ought to be able to adapt to openly declared gays: Unless you have direct experience of unruly gays (especially in a military setting), you are not qualified to argue thus. I have had some near brushes with some fairly aggressive gays while I was in the Navy (also as a teen). Most were civilians, but one was a CPO with a reputation and some power over those of us exiting the service. I was warned by others, and was fortunate in having a cousin in San Francisco (where I was being transitioned) with whom I could stay with when not restricted to base. The guy made a pass at me because I was a reasonably good looking kid, but I was able to fend him off. He gave me some grief after that and held up my discharge process by reporting me as out of quarters. After a couple of weeks of that, however, he seemed to have lost interest (or found easier pickings). Pray tell, Aaron, how does that equate to women gaining entry into the service or to blacks? For those, it was straight-white-males who were the problem, but not especially because of sexual aggression, whereas to straight men and straight women (regardless of color) it is those now demanding entry (i.e., gays) that are the percieved sexual aggressors. For women, there was the possibility inclusion would put them at greater sexual risk, whereas this time around, the sexual risk is from those demanding inclusion; the exact opposite of past policy changes.
6. Acceptance in the general population has made DADT unjustifiable: I’m sorry, but I just don’t see this acceptance. When I look at actual survey responses, I get a very different picture from that which the media and administration portray. Moreover, I am pretty sure from the amount of blowback we are hearing the civilian population isn’t overly keen on it either. Add to this the continued, sometimes violent, friction within the military between gays and straights, and I have to believe many of the more positive responses to the questionnaire are ‘wishful’ thinking. Many of us who are parents and have seen GLSEN sponsored programs at work in our schools, programs that override our judgment regarding what, when and how sexual messages should be taught. We have watched while radical-gays declared their intent to re-educate us, starting with our kids; and have made good on that promise. Many of us have come to the realization the radical-gay community has been behind much of this nonsense, and we are pretty steamed about it. Given this declared agenda and what we have so far experienced of it, why should we be sanguine regarding repeal of DADT; which is another of those long ago declared gay objectives? Taken together, I see more a pattern of anxiety than acceptance regarding repeal. Yes, there is some acceptance, but only among liberals willfully blind to what goes on in plain sight.
7. keeping openly gay behaviors under wraps is the equivalent of telling gay service men and women they are “unpatriotic” and/or “unworthy of inclusion in society”: Others have already answered this point and I see nothing I can add to this other than: most of us distinguish between the individual and the behavior.
8. DADT is dead-letter issue no longer worth discussing because of the high level of acceptance within todays military: Only if you accept the scripted version. Isn’t that an awful lot like the climate change claim of consensus we’ve been hearing so much about? I have read the study currently cited, and the administration reported version does not square with its own findings (see http://americayouaskedforit.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/service-members-do-foresee-negative-impacts-of-dadt-repeal/ or read the study Q&A section). Gee, just like those IPCC execs telling us the proof is in!
9. Since our military has previously adapted to blacks and women, that proves it is up to one more challenge to its effectiveness: Goldstein fails to show this capability, and it is unclear it exists. The fact I begin by carrying 100 pounds, and someone burdens me (unasked) with another 100 pounds, and I continue on (albeit a little slower), and have adapted (grown a little stronger) due to the additional load, does not mean I can carry 500 pounds. At some point, the beast is overburdened and collapses, after which we must put it out of its misery. The adaptation to blacks was strictly an attitudinal change that removed a self-imposed burden. In that case, it actually reduced the burden by spreading the load to additional combat-effectives and helped reduced racial-tensions overall. It also required little in the way of structural change.
The addition of women, on the other hand, significantly swelled the military ranks, but not especially or immediately with added combat-effectives. To compensate, our government invested heavily in armor and technology as made it possible to keep women out of hand-to-hand combat while providing them with a combat role. We are, indeed, much stronger for that as a system, but not especially more effective because the issue will always and ultimately be decided by those fighting hand-to-hand. There is still a lot of friction (tension) from having women in the military, especially in combat; and just because our troops have handled it well does not mean the tension is not there.
There is also the question of what happens to our cultural values, and is that a gain or loss. Nature (or our creator, depending on viewpoint) has made us protective of women as our child-bearers and nurturers. Seeing women in combat forces men to view them indifferently; as warriors rather than nurturers, blunting our outrage at seeing them killed, and, likely, coarsening our social attitudes toward them. We must do this, else suffer psychologically; and not all can adapt this much. Is there little doubt then, that the respect we see in the field is often contrived, strained and based on a non-intuitive substitute value? This kind of value-substitution confuses, makes men indecisive, and forces us to become dependent on others (most of whom never experience the things they require) for our judgments. Having never experienced combat myself, I can only guess at the strain; but it must be substantial. [Perhaps, some reader who has will weigh in on this point]
Now, we have yet another situation in which a few more personnel may be added, but not really many effectives should unit cohesion be lost; and that much only if our ranks aren’t depleted by exiting straights. If the military must sideline gays to support roles to minimize friction, does that really free up straights to serve in combat roles, or, as is more likely, significant numbers of non-combat straights with no intention of remaining in if reassigned to combat will cycle out; and that these will outnumber the gains in gays? Yes, our military will continue to exist; so in that sense Goldstein is right we will adapt, but at what cost? What will happen to our values and must we suffer yet another distortion of values to accommodate.
I am currently reading the 2010 DOD-DADT study, which was the basis for Congressional passage, to determine how misleading the report’s summary was (or did politicians simply substitute their own). I hope to report back on that before this thread closes. If not, please take time to read through it and give me your own impressions, as I am interested in hearing what others make of it.
I did take the time to verify some of what one critic is saying about how the DOD study was presented in the news. For this I focused on the series of questions relating to unit-cohesion. The study asked these questions twice, first as they relate under the current DADT situation and second as responders view the effect repeal will have on them, though without revealing to the respondents that is what was sought. These paired questions are well separated and the wording is somewhat altered, but when you compare them you will see the study authors were looking for the attitudinal shift attributable to repeal. In the interest of time, I limited my comparison to just four of these questions, but took them a little further than the critic took the entire set. Where he notes a generally unfavorable attitude toward repeal, I also looked at the change in attitude from first to second paired questions. Where he tallies (and somewhat overstates) the negative responders, I found a really astounding drop in confidence not only among the negative responders, but also among the positive responders. For example, question-pair 14a/68a asks: does responder’s unit currently work well together versus will work well together post-repeal. The positive + very positive responses change from 88.4% pre-repeal to 15.4% post-repeal; a 73% drop in confidence and a 574% reversal in attitude! On the negative side, these numbers are 0.8% pre-repeal to 40.8% post-repeal, a 40% drop in confidence, and a 5100% attitude reversal (i.e., convinced conditions will be intolerable). My cursory review of other linked questions indicated the same pattern. For our administration and media, then, to downplay these finding as “insignificant” takes some real chutzpah!
Mr. Goldstein is a solid conservative and libertarian in most respects and has been a good friend, so we should cut him some slack if he’s a tad naive on this one. After all, he does live where liberals dominate the conversation and has held his own pretty well there. Clearly, he hasn’t given this one nearly as much thought as some of us, or he wouldn’t be so sanguine about repeal. Probably, too, he has gay friends to whom he feels obligated to take a stand on this. I, too, have had gay friends (though not many, and maybe none after reading this), acquaintances and coworkers, but that does not obligate me to defend faulty ideas with great potential for mischief with little gained; nor remain silent in deference to friendship. Gays, too, need to realize when they are being duped to serve radical ends. Repeal may gain greater access and a license to frolic, but it is no guarantee of acceptance or even tolerance. Like respect and trust, those can only come from behaving consistently as though worthy of them. Those are goals that can only be achieved individually, for when they are achieved collectively it can only be from ousting the host culture. Nor is conditioning the answer (which is what, so far, has been the gay strategy); as conditioning only runs so deep, and is easily shed when reality intrudes. So, which is it to be: the freedom to frolic … or the freedom that only comes from mutual respect and self-regulation?
Further readings:
http://www.soldiersperspective.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/DADTReport_FINAL_20101130secure-hires.pdf – most recent DOD report resulting in Congressional passage of DADT repeal
http://www.soldiersperspective.us/2010/12/18/dadt-repeal/ – analysis of the report by an opponent of repeal
http://americayouaskedforit.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/service-members-do-foresee-negative-impacts-of-dadt-repeal/ – alleges study-report was stacked
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-1204-dont-ask-hearing-web-20101203,0,5690873.story – Chiefs of Staff requested a delay of repeal but were ignored; not while we’re heavily engaged in Afghanistan they pled
http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=PinkSwastika – this may not be a blueprint for what to expect from modern gays, but it does demonstrate gays are not immune to externalizing their frustration with being a minority and underappreciated
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/owens/10/homosexuals-military.html – another study favoring gays at odds with its own data
http://www.libertyeducationforum.org/downloads/belkinstudy04.pdf – this one from a liberal think-tank, so what do you want to bet was their finding
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL30113.pdf – Official 2009 Congressional finding endorsing repeal and mapping out the path to overcoming opposition.
DV, disease and mental-health among gays:
http://www.narth.com/docs/domestic.html – gay male couples significantly more violence prone than straight-males in stable relationships
http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html – higher instance of mental issues found among gays, including: hypersensitivity, sexual/substance-addiction, suicide (3-6 times higher than norm), narcissism, depression, anxiety, bulimia, antisocial/promiscuous-personality, conduct disorders (aggression), codependency, self-rejection, &c
http://www.cdc.gov/STD/stats08/surv2008-Complete.pdf – STDs 3.5 times higher among MSMs (Males having Sex with other Males) than hetero-males seeking care
http://www.ncfamily.org/stories/100316s1.html – HIV & P/S Syphilis 44 times higher among MSMs than hetero-males and 40 times higher than all females (straight + lesbian). Confirmed here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/msmpressrelease.html
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/10/military_HIV_armedforces_100608w/ – military HIV rate has been held to about half the civilian rate, no doubt in some part due to DADT (though also due to the higher than average moral standards of most recruits). Other STD rates are similarly lower in the military than in the civilian population. If DADT is repealed, might that result in HIV rates closer to civilian rates? One of the things young volunteers look for when joining is a culture and community in which they are comfortable. They look for and expect a value-minded culture that mirrors their own, and one that cushions them from the low standards of the civilian community; something our military supplies as no other. Regardless the potentially greater risk of HIV exposure from repeal, it is also this culture that is under attack simply to placate gays and gratify radical anti-militarism.
http://cmrlink.org/CMRdocuments/CMRPolicyAnalysis-September2009.pdf – militaries of other nations not really comparable
http://cmrlink.org/problemgays.asp – Problems with Gays in Military
http://www.cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=337 – some possible consequences of repeal
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2442845/posts – apparently opinion within Britain’s military has not altered nearly as much as DOD report alleges since restriction was lifted
http://cmrlink.org/cmrnotes/HIV_Statistics100107.pdf – HIV positive individuals ineligible for overseas deployment or on ships in any capacity; 1993 law proscribing gays has dramatically reduced HIV incidence in the military despite DADT
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Couples_and_Domestic_Violence – alleges (among other things) gays are far more promiscuous than straights, and much higher DV and murder incidence rates; this is something I have studied previously, and find only a little exaggerated. Regarding murder-rate, I do find one significant difference between gays and straights in that the former have a cultural bias against snitching that sometimes extends even to violence and murder. Straights, however, may be catching up to gays in this respect; especially in our gang ridden cities. Such an anti-snitching bias may underlay the difference in homicide rate if it encourages violent offenders, whatever the sexual preference. There is also the question of greater mental-instability among gays, be this intrinsic or extrinsic (i.e., discriminatory pressures), and higher drug-abuse.
Gestell,
“Why should conservatives assume that gays and lesbians will simply act out the worst stereotypes imaginable?”
Uh; I don’t know: Maybe because that’s the method they almost always choose. Gays are hyper-sensitive about ‘declaring’ themselves. Look at the way they act during their Northern California Gay Pride Parades. Or whenever they gather in groups in order to ensure they ‘shock’ and/or otherwise upset the sensibilities of any other people they encounter during their ‘public’ protestations regarding their view on their status in society.
reply to Mr. Wavering,
Just remember that we’re talking about soldiers. Do you really think that gay soldiers are going to present themselves in the barracks, in training, or in combat the way gays often do in a gay pride parade? By the way, you and others (often at great length) remark on what you understand to be distinctly gay behavior–such as violence and behavioral instability. Last time I look–just to refer to one example that got mentioned a couple of times–a soldier, gay or straight, who disobeys orders, is insubordinate, leaves his position to go have sex, etc. will be subject to military discipline. Why don’t you think the disciplinary practices of the military will keep gays in line as they (generally) do straights? I may have more confidence in the military than you do on this. Do training and indoctrination count for nothing at all in today’s military?
“Do you really think that gay soldiers are going to present themselves in the barracks, in training, or in combat the way gays often do in a gay pride parade?” In a word; yes. Here’s what I believe:
While I cannot speak for all, I can speak for myself. The decision to become a soldier and enlist is primarily patriotic one. There may be secondary drivers; training, education funding, the opportunity to get out into the world, etc. However; since the volunteer Army was created in 1973, the core driver behind enlistment was and still is patriotism.
Now; since the passing of DADT there is another reason. Just as the chaps wearing, sex simulating, ‘Hey-look-at-me-do-something-awful’ stereotypes inhabit the Gay Pride Parades; these same people will find a ‘captive’ audience that not only must watch, as the parade goers have to, but tolerate any and all open displays of ‘affection’ or face discipline at the hands of a military commander for ‘intolerance’.
I’m convinced that gays act out the way they do in these parades, not because of revelry, but because they truly want to alter the sensibilities of society-at-large. There will be an undeniable percentage that will enlist, not for patriotic reasons, but to deliberately ‘disturb’ the institution.
This, of course, won’t occur at the sharp end where the battle takes place; although it will be a different story in the ‘rear’ areas (pardon the pun) as gays proceed to demand that each and every concession/activity they were able to enjoy as private citizens are all available, without reprisal or sanction, from the US Military.
Since this ‘open activism’ began in the 70’s there hasn’t been a homosexual activist that wasn’t always in the face of hetros; and activists seem to be in some kind of contest to see which specific vulgar public actions can draw more shock & disbelief. And if you believe that hundreds, if not thousands, will deliberately pass up the opportunity to sexually misbehave under color of uniform, then you’re much more naive than I originally imagined.
“I may have more confidence in the military than you do on this.” I highly doubt it. I have every confidence in the institution; I have absolutely no confidence in the GLBT community.
Gestell,
I wasn’t going to respond to your serial rudeness and endless anti-conservatism, but you have finally asked a relevant, if still knee-jerk, question: “Why should conservatives assume gays and lesbians will act out the worst stereotypes imaginable?” I assume your criticism was directed at my remarks, though I may be mistaken as you do not identify me as the source of your gripe. On the assumption it was and because you tar all with the same brush, I will recommend you re-read what I wrote; and, this time, do so without superimposing your own biases regarding all with whom you spar.
The simple answer to your question is: I did no such thing. Nor has any other conservative here. The only one doing that is you by assigning a false and irrelevant bigotry you can thereafter attack. The better questions are: why do assume every conservative remark is the result of deep seated bigotry; and, is not that the greater bigotry?
Read carefully, and you will see I made sufficient allowance for those gays who serve honorably, who don’t stoop to turning society inside out, and/or who don’t act the ‘stereotypical’ narcissistic/violent gay (i.e., those capable of reason and self-control). At the same time, there can be no denying a large number of gays are radical, are narcissistic, and the DV statistics don’t err enough to matter to this discussion. I never claimed gays have been violent against straights, only that their domestic-violence suggests a pattern of instability that serves to gauge problems we may expect as restrictions are lifted, especially from unstable individuals (the fairness of such policies unequally applied is a separate issue, but I will come to that) and radicals bent on outraging the culture. Indecent gay parades, public-orgies, predatory behaviors targeting children and young-adults, an inherent instability among same-sex couples resulting in higher than average jealousy, breakups and attendant domestic-violence, greater than average resort to mental-health services, somewhat higher drug abuse, greater STD rates, high frequency of military disciplinary actions, scandals involving corrupt advantages to gays, and outrageous political demands for straights to change to suit gays are all part of the public record. These things do not conjure themselves nor are they part of some anti-gay conspiracy. Gays (and their allies), too, stereotype and malign, and are less than honest in their assignments of blame.
The studies and links I cited (indicating greater than average instability and domestic-violence among gays) dispel some of the highly-combustible nonsense thrown on this particular fire; nonsense making gays out to be hyper-stable, saintly victims of a baseless and vicious ‘homophobia’ (which they are not), and which prevents us from arriving at a reasonable and equitable solution as may reflect the valid interests of both parties. If this ‘phobia’ has some merit, then it is hardly a phobia and deserves better from those who paint it so. I also related some gay behaviors from personal experience. I did that to show I’m not simply taking someone else’s word for these allegations, but can attest at least some of it is true. These are neither stereotypes nor bias, merely reflections from my searches into the truth of the matter. My point in making these observations was not to disparage all gays, but to show Mr. Goldstein’s article misses a great deal and is naively dismissive of the valid concerns of others, many of whom do not swallow the gay propaganda unexamined.
I was trying to get at what are the valid complaints of gays versus what is stealth-agenda; an agenda as can only result in societal breakdown if pursued to its logical conclusion (which is intentional by some). I did not end by recommending a fixed, anti-gay, or unnecessarily precautionary policy, but, rather, invited others to debate my points, raise new ones or suggest some better compromise. Not every complaint raised by gays is valid anymore than all raised by straights; and those which aren’t need debunking. Your presumption of bigotry only serves to maintain the gay v straight hostility as excludes straight-conservatives from all debate from the outset (a debate affecting us as much as gays), while defending some fictions so absurd as invite ridicule. Not every gay argument is invalid, but so much baloney has been heaped on and forced down our gullets by gay zealots it is only natural we look askance at each fresh attempt at ramming through by stealth what cannot be attained openly. The questions and points I raised are neither conservative nor liberal. They are simply questions every thinking citizen ought to ask and satisfactorily answer before rushing pell-mell into something this important and probably irreversible. Should we fail to ask and answer the hard questions (questions certain to draw the ire of fools hostile to debate), we will not have done our duty of defending our republic and way of life.
Radical-gays have been maneuvering to get and keep the upper-hand politically, by whatever means and without much regard for truth or for our children for some time. Children have, in fact, been made pawns in this game and warped to a gay-centric worldview; in some cases causing grievous harm. These are radical-ideologues to whom debate and innocence are merely weapons, and who will not suffer too close an examination into their methods or goals. Whenever a tiny minority gains the upper-hand (especially by means such as these), the result is invariably an oppression of the majority by the minority. A minority finding itself in power out of all proportion to its numbers, must thereafter and forever oppress and suppress to retain power; else face the hostility their usurpation excites. The majority, finding itself out of power and impotent to reassert itself, loses faith hope and trust; and may overreact when restoring balance, the result of which is: we are all of us (gays and straights alike) made less free. And, that will be true whichever faction ultimately triumphs. The majority is not always fair either, but for that we have well defined rights even we must not transgress; the right of self-preservation being paramount. It is these radical-gays who I condemn, and not every gay; except as they embrace and propagate dangerous nonsense. This is no reflection on gays generally nor a suggestion of gay corruptibility greater than our own. It is an observation applicable to all who collectivize supposed grievances to the exclusion of others whom they vilify. Yet, the rest have been made pawns also by their more radical brethren, who excite in them every prejudice and stereotype conceivable in their war on straights. Gays, having observed other minorities acquired a disproportionate power-share in this way, have internalized and inflated some lessons irrelevant to their true situation. They have learned or been taught to play the victim more than is real or seemly. When they do this and when it succeeds, it is they who thereafter victimize; and mostly they victimize those least capable of self-protection.
If we were talking about gays being given equal access to jobs or public services, I would not have raised these particular points. I raised them because they are relevant to repeal. I do not disagree the present situation is unfair to gays, but perfect equity has never been possible in law and is absurd in war. Assuming a reasonable formula can be arrived at, one that advances the valid interests of gays without compromising those of our military and military-personnel, then, I am all ears. But, don’t expect me to swallow liberal bilge there is no downside to repeal; that there is no idiot correctness enforcement, that findings are not manipulated, that integration of gays into the military is somehow the equivalent of integrating blacks, or that there is no reason to segregate quarters and make other costly alterations as we did for women (or forego such alterations, compromising straight sensibilities). Otherwise, I must hold to the present law limiting gay participation as unnecessarily risky. The business of the military is war and war alone. When that is sacrificed to political-correctness, the result is a weakened military. Patton preached giving our guys every advantage and denying every advantage to the enemy; and niceties be d@mned. Sun-Tzu taught the same, as has every other military strategist since war became something more than two tribes going at each other. You still haven’t answered my question regarding what advantage gays bring to our military as outweigh the risk they represent. Assuming the next enemy we engage of comparable strength ignores such correctness, who spends more of theirs on combat effectiveness than we in satisfying correctness, which of us do you suppose will suffer for it?
Bob,
I had to write to say how much I appreciate your well-reasoned and well-supported comments on this issue. Especially gratifying is the defense of those opposed to the repeal against the knee-jerk charge of bigotry and hate.
One area where I would disagree with you is whether the present situation can truly be described as fair or unfair to homosexuals. To me, that seems no different than saying that laws against theft are unfair to kleptomaniacs and they are not given a free pass to steal. There’s been no evidence to suggest that the psychological aspects of this issue has been truthfully and factually settled. Thus, to regard homosexuality as some level of mental disorder, though politically incorrect, is still a legitimate concern. It seems more than likely, in fact, given the realities of human biology and the sexual compatibility of the sexes. Indeed, the same considerations are not given to others with different desires, such as masochism, bestiality, pedophilia. They are all generally, and rightly in my opinion, viewed as disorders. I’m sure those who lean toward any of these and other behaviors feel life is unfair as well. What’s far more unfair is to have gotten this far without having settled the question properly. It is unfair to the rest of us. It is also unfair to they who now believe they are “normal” despite this obviously abnormal desire.
reply to Mr. Wavering:
You’ve begged the question of whether or not openly gay persons should be able to serve in the military by setting up what you evidently believe to be a fact-based case that the “stereotypical” gay is “narcissistic/violent.” Is this the latest conservative ploy in arguing against repealing DADT? Many conservatives used to claim that gays were passive sissies; now they’re violent narcissists. The “sufficient allowance” you make for “those gays who serve honorably” is very simple—they must not identify themselves as gays. Period.
I took a look at some of your references. I dismiss their relevance because you could produce data about incarceration rates, among other things, for blacks and, by your logic, conclude that blacks should not be in the military.
The massive hole in your case is surprisingly easy to identify. Interestingly enough, it suggests that, on this issue, you are no more of an individualist than the crudest Soviet Marxist. You seem to assume that the gays who volunteer for military service simply embody all of the harmful or dangerous behaviors you’ve found in your websearch. You assume—or else your case falls apart—that the gays who volunteer are not, in some sense, persons who self-select into the military. Now what does this selection entail? Among many other things, it entails a choice to join an organization with a command hierarchy and discipline much more serious than what may be found in any civilian occupation. You choose not to assume that the gay who volunteers has some understanding of this and a basic willingness to accept it. And, once more, your position seems to require that the military is massively ineffective in its instruction and training, that it fails to inculcate those virtues of obedience and initiative without which its main function—waging war—cannot be carried out successfully. Not only must gays be untrainable, but the trainers are assumed to be inept bunglers who don’t know how to do their jobs
reply to Marshall Art,
The old cause never dies among conservatives. Somewhere, somehow, there just has to be some sort of ‘mental illness’ at the base of homosexuality. And someday the psychologists–I assume, conservative psychologists–will discover what this is. Then discrimination against gays will have a sound basis in science. Amazing how you expect science to line up with your own biases.
“Amazing how you expect science to line up with your own biases.”
Not nearly amazing as how you deny it in your own self. If you can produce the research that supports your position, please do so. I’ve encouraged many others to so so without results. If such proof existed, it would be common knowledge at this point, even if it was still dismissed by conservatives.
In the meantime, one can easily research the archives of the APA to find that the removal of homosexuality from the categories of mental conditions was a matter of vote by their membership, but not even half the membership, and after activism within the organization, not a result of conclusive evidence that proves its benign nature.
The fact is that the discovery you think will someday come as a result of bias on the part of conservative psychologists has existed for quite some time. It is and has always been plain to see. There are two sexes and each is designed to be with the other. To desire another of the same sex indicates an abnormality. No degree is required to understand this simple fact. What we do with information is the real issue and you and others like you demand that we ignore it as if it has no meaning, relevance or negative effect on society whatsoever. Who’s really being objective here?
Bob can do far better than I in defending is own statements, but I have to say that the notion that military leadership and training can do little to alter the attitudes of an individual who’s beliefs are strongly held, either homosexual or normal person. Bob’s links are hardly the be all and end all of oppositional support. I don’t think you could find similarities amongst or parallels to any other demographic that would match those that support the case against inclusion of homosexuals in the military.
“The “sufficient allowance” you make for “those gays who serve honorably” is very simple—they must not identify themselves as gays. Period.”
The same is true for every other behavior prohibited by the UCMJ. Don’t self-identify and don’t engage openly in the behavior and there will be no problem. Anyone who is serious about serving in the military on the military’s terms would do this. You insist the military adjust its terms to serve the interest and demands of a small group simply because the small group insists on it.
Gestell,
Actually; that is only partially correct. I didn’t say the ‘stereotypical’ gay is ‘narcissistic/violent’; I painted the picture of gays being ‘narcissistic’ period. While some may be honestly expressing their opinion that they ‘just want to be left to their own devices’ a significant majority of these people seek out the attention that ‘public’ displays of their orientation/preference provide to them. And the more shocked the bystanders are the more satisfied the narcissistic gays become.
No one can deny the fact that such narcissistic public displays are part & parcel of the activist segment of the gay population. They constantly push the envelope; desiring to purposefully offend the sensibilities of as many ‘breeders’ as possible. The message is; “This is how we roll, and given an opportunity we’ll teach this to your kids as well.”
That gays are the societal equivalent of the Shakers; who eschewing procreative sex, could only increase their numbers through recruitment. This is the unspoken reason gays have spent the last generation attempting to ‘mainstream’ their lifestyle. You never know when a ‘recruitment’ opportunity may present itself. This is the overriding reason behind trying to insert themselves openly into as many niches of society as possible.
Another point that I think should be brought forward. Just as there is no ‘right’ to a job, there is no ‘right’ to join the military. People are denied the ‘right’ to join the Army every day; and anyone who joins, then purposefully disrupts all around in order to collect the proper command ‘attention’ to his/her condition is not something I care to force on the military chain-of-command during a time of combat operations.
reply to Mr. Wavering,
I knew that eventually you wouldn’t be able to keep yourself from indulging in the conservative fantasy that gays are involved in ‘recruitment’ of straights. Just imagine how appealing this would be. “Young man, do you want to be hated and despised by some large fraction of the population? Do you want to enjoy the thrill of being the object of acts of violence because of who you are? Are you looking forward to rejection by members of your family and at least some of your friends? Do you want to be told that God hates people like you? If all this really makes you salivate with anticipations of delight, then have we got an offer for you? Join us. Turn gay. Why not today?”
Of course conservatives need to believe in the myth of gay recruitment because they cannot deal with the possibility that being gay is not a choice.
Gestell; much like the Great Kreskin can always tell when one of his ideological opponents is indulging in ‘fantasy’.
We are supposed to believe that recruitment to the gay lifestyle is as far away from the thoughts of gays as balanced budgets are from congressional democrats. His statement would work for any group being subject to victimization; “Young man, do you want to be hated and despised by some large fraction of the population? Do you want to enjoy the thrill of being the object of acts of violence because of who you are? Are you looking forward to rejection by members of your family and at least some of your friends? Do you want to be told that God hates people like you? If all this really makes you salivate with anticipations of delight, then have we got an offer for you? Join us.; become a republican.”
Being gay IS a choice. A purposeful biological predisposition not to breed would have solved this debate long ago. Likewise; a purposeful predisposition not to breed requires that some other method of expanding one’s numbers must be considered.
One last point; “The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy now heading toward history does not apply to transgender recruits, who are automatically disqualified as unfit for service. But the military’s long-standing posture on gender-identity has not prevented transgender citizens from signing up before they come out, or from obtaining psychological counseling, hormones and routine health care through the Department of Veterans Affairs once they return to civilian life.”
http://www.newsmax.com/US/TransgenderVeterans/2011/01/11/id/382452
Now Gestell; tell me once again how these are just patriotic people that want nothing other than to honorably serve.
Gestell,
I can’t quite tell if you are being intentionally dense or genuinely incapable of reading prose as written. On the assumption it’s the former and you are doing this to alter the debate more to your liking, I am going to ignore your antics (to the degree possible) so we can stay on topic. Regardless, you are clearly disinterested in honest debate respectful of the opinions of others; and are simply looking for every opportunity to ridicule. You carelessly misattributed my remarks to poor Bill Wavering, who must be wondering what he did to excite your rudeness, then take the remarks out of context to make them seem bigoted (my use of “stereotypical” in double-quotes was directed at your misuse of the term and of reassigning to us your own stereotyping behavior; and not gay-bashing on my part). When you are ready to grow up, have something relevant or interesting to add, or show actual interest in debate that does not begin and end in character-assassination, we will get back to you. Meanwhile, this is still a teachable moment.
In response to your denial to Bill regarding gay recruitment (that you assume you know so much more than others about), this has been going on for over a generation in our schools, numerous parents have complained bitterly about it, GLSEN is up to its collective eyeballs in it (as well as other gay advocacy groups), and radical-gays announced in the late-80s their intention to exploit our kids as a back door to altering the culture in their favor (and have reiterated this theme multiple times since then). These are all matters of public record; not some ‘conservative fantasy’. If gays were not broadly supportive of this garbage, why do you suppose GLSEN is one of the leading advocacies promoting sex-education in our schools, provides bogus sex-consultants armed with gay-friendly teaching guidance, and strongly resists all attempts at curbing or questioning their assistance? Ask yourself: why should gays (especially male-gays) risk the obvious reaction that must come of gays openly tutoring kids? One reason might be to overcome straight fears, but sex-education as their chosen path to reassurance? Surely they could have found some subject less disquieting of our sensibilities. Gays have few children of their own, so little motive for assuring our kids get a wholesome education (beyond altruism); but a huge stake in bringing as many kids (who ultimately become voters) to their view as possible as increases their political clout, clout gays absolutely must have if they are to get the changes they want. Sex-ed has the advantage it is the one topic they can exploit to promote the gay life and forces straights onto the defensive. In this context, they certainly have been recruiting our kids through brainwashing for decades.
But, it does not stop there because there is also the declared objective of ‘liberating’ as many straights as possible from ‘hetero-oppression’ on the bogus conjecture we are all latently gay; and, again, they have concentrated their effort in this quarter on our schools as the easiest, stealthiest path.
In carrying out this program, they have succeeded in supplanting a culture of responsible-parenting with one that exposes children to predators who followed in their wake into our schools (like sharks to blood); who have been operating under GLSEN auspices (with at least some GLSEN awareness), who have knowingly covered their tracks with a smokescreen of gay-outrage as tars every concerned parent and interested party as ‘homophobic’. This, then, is the recruitment you disbelieve, and these are the predatory monsters in plain view you choose to ignore as some ‘conservative fantasy’. Note, I am not alleging every GLSEN sex-ed consultant is a pedophile (far from it), only that their advocacy is political (not altruistic), less than diligent as to whom they send, and indifferent as to collateral damage. Where are the ‘moderate gays’ who ought to be denouncing this depravity as much as parents? Like ‘moderate-Muslims’ they a) tacitly approve what goes on in their name, b) are as willfully ignorant as you, or c) are in hiding. Indeed, they should be angry as we at these pedophiles lurking in their midst for the damage it does their cause. They ignore it because, so far, it has worked in their political favor. But, for how long?
And, where is the left? The silence from that quarter has been nearly as deafening; so silent you haven’t even a clue what has been going on under your very noses. But, there is no real reason for you to be this ignorant. Just scrape the faery-dust from your eyes and take a look see. Search web sites devoted to recovering gays who were both victims of it and, even, some who took advantage. Their testimonials are pretty shocking. Read, too, the several parent web-sites opposed to this educational hijacking, and the descriptions how sex-education is currently taught in some of the more ‘progressive’ districts (guarantee it is not as innocent as you think: 4 year olds taught to think gay is not only normal but ‘the greater norm’, paired 7-9 year olds helping each other put condoms on cucumbers, mind-games stripping down a child’s comfort zone, gay-promoting reading matter, gay-support groups [with no counterbalancing straight-identity support], detailed instruction in copulation and masturbation, partner-intimacy exercises, the over-emphasis of condoms and other defective pregnancy/AIDS/STD preventions, &c). At the middle and high school levels, the discussions become positively erotic, and there have been instances of porn showings. It has gotten so that my liberal nephews have a compulsive need to defend everything gay, and I suspect they worry they aren’t. We long ago passed the point of simple sex-ed for the prevention of pregnancy, and are now openly sexualizing our kids just to alter the cultural landscape. Through all this, parents have been kept in the dark to the degree possible. Ask your school’s principle or kid’s teacher, and you will be politely rebuffed for fear you will cause a ruckus. Why, if so innocent? Ask any non-gay, non-radical teacher how comfortable they are preaching this stuff, and many will start by defending their system only to blurt they are troubled by what goes on in the guise of education. I am married to one such teacher and, through her, have heard several such misgivings.
That is not the only form of recruitment, however, and I gave you at least one example from personal experience. Plus, anyone who has spent any time in the service can tell you it has always been there in varying degrees, but always a little more aggressive in places (like the military) where aggressive gays feel safe to act out, congregate, encourage, and out bid one another for prowess. People tend to forget that, despite the ‘feminized’ view we have of gay-men, these are still basically guys with a guy’s sexual appetite and attitudes; sometimes on steroids.
I can go on with many more illuminations of your ignorance, but I doubt you will make the effort it takes to research this (as we have), and are perfectly content defending liberal gibberish until we all drown in it. Why then should we supply for you what you are unwilling to do for yourself, and can easily verify in an afternoon? I’ve done this research too many times responding to liberal breast-beaters unwilling to make the effort themselves (yet also unwilling to take another’s word for it regardless the findings) that this time around I’ll just let you do your own. You make some effort toward supplying proofs contradicting ours and we can all do a line by line dissection to see whose is the more accurate, honest and relevant.
I am not unsympathetic of all gays, they way you portray us; but I am wary of predatory and radical gays who have stoked and directed much of the anxiety against straights; and am unsympathetic of fools who fold at the mere mention of ‘homophobia’. Gays have complained that at least some of them wish to serve their country; something I applaud in every citizen regardless how this pans out. But you have repeatedly tried to trivialize this discussion of DADT repeal as solely about ‘conservative-intolerance’, a myth of your own trite and fevered imagining.