Am I the only full-blooded social conservative to be glad to see an end to “don’t ask, don’t tell?”
The policy seemed designed to encourage deceit and place military men and women in a position to be blackmailed.
If homosexual practice is a vice, then it is incompatible with being an “officer and a gentleman/lady,” but I do not see that we have ever required very genteel behavior from our officers. Surely if we were not going to discharge those soliciting prostitutes abroad, then it was hypocritical to remove those engaged in this particular vice?
I think homosexual behavior is morally wrong. It is dangerous, however, to make every wrong the basis of employment or participation in parts of society. Just as all vices need not be illegal, all vices are not relevant to all jobs.
I also have no background in the military and must be open to the idea that certain vices are particularly onerous in combat zones, but the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was pure Clinton. It was a policy built on lies and lies make rational decision making hard.
Let’s assume contexts exist where serving with a homosexual person is difficult. Surely many in a unit would know or guess the “not telling” person’s orientation? If serving with a practicing homosexual is a problem in some contexts, then isn’t it better to know when those contexts occur than have to guess?
If there are good reasons that make this particular vice incompatible with military service, then I do not understand the historic success of the British navy. Churchill assures his readers that the Royal Navy could not have expelled every person participating in it.
Of course, one potential problem is that the military will now demand all members approve of homosexual behavior. I trust not. Ignoring vice not relevant to service is one thing, but forcing religious people to approve of it is another. That is the place to fight on this issue, I think.
October 5th, 2011 | 6:00 pm | #1
I join you in disagreeing with the policy. Homosexuality is not a precondition for not being able to serve one’s country.
October 5th, 2011 | 10:53 pm | #2
I too agree with you, John Mark.
October 6th, 2011 | 12:03 am | #3
The problem is less that homosexuals serve in the military than that the military accepts the open service of homosexuals. The Royal Navy, during its period of greatest power, punished sodomy by death. Churchill is right that not every person participating in it was punished, but it forced them in almost all circumstances to be very circumspect.
It is possible that if no one is bothered by the fact that the man next to them may view them in a sexual light, then the open service of homosexuals may not have any detrimental effect on the effectiveness of the military. The Greeks handled it just fine thousands of years ago. But as long as it is viewed negatively and with even a little apprehension, it will be detrimental to morale and unit cohesion and effectiveness.
The same reasons are those for not having a military that includes women. I know that ship has sailed. Women are, of course, at much greater risk when captured than homosexual men would be since there isn’t necessarily anything about homosexuals to distinguish them from the rest of the group. But both present more and greater opportunities for creating division through sexual or romantic relationships with others in their unit.
On the more limited point you raise, I too agree that the specific policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” was a perfect compromise; it left everyone unhappy.
October 6th, 2011 | 7:39 am | #4
For what it’s worth, the military has punishments for soliciting prostitution, even in countries where it is legal (such as Australia). This applies to contractors as well. How much this is enforced is another story.
October 6th, 2011 | 9:55 am | #5
“The policy seemed designed to encourage deceit.”
Precisely why is it considered dishonest to refrain from revealing all ones vices? I would not usually want to know much about the vices of other people. Not saying “I am homosexual” is not a lie.
For that matter why is this not applicable to any other sexual state? Is it necessary for honesty for people to say, “I am virginial” or “I am monogamous” or “I am asexual” or for that matter,”I had a crush on my seventh grade teacher?”
The literal words, “Don’t ask, don’t tell” whatever the policy, are perfectly sound. You don’t ask strangers about their sexual state unless you are a therapist. Likewise you don’t tell. Keep the bedroom in the bedroom.
October 6th, 2011 | 10:00 am | #6
DADT was an imperfect compomise, aren’t they all? But what was right about it was that it inisisted on discretion, a discretion that will no longer be required and if inisted upon, will only provide an occasion for a lawsuit over the restriction of the aggreived rights.
Believe me, as one who served a military career during which women in the service came of age, you will not be allowed even to have problems with it, much less object. If you do, your opportunities for promotion will be severely constrained. Look for senior officers to begin including in their speeches with words that celebrate the beautiful mosaic that is the US Armed Forces, white, black, and brown; men, women, and…others.
October 6th, 2011 | 11:19 am | #7
“The literal words, “Don’t ask, don’t tell” whatever the policy, are perfectly sound. You don’t ask strangers about their sexual state unless you are a therapist. Likewise you don’t tell. Keep the bedroom in the bedroom.”
Okay, one admitting he or she is homosexual is not tantamount to telling tales of graphic bedroom exploits. DADT meant that one couldn’t say he or she had a partner back home; he or she would have to write that person off as a “cousin” or “good friend.”
Plus, it’s not like military men don’t talk about their sexual relationships with their wives. Since heterosexuality isn’t harmed by DADT, one could discuss at any length anything regarding heterosexuality.
“Believe me, as one who served a military career during which women in the service came of age, you will not be allowed even to have problems with it, much less object. If you do, your opportunities for promotion will be severely constrained. Look for senior officers to begin including in their speeches with words that celebrate the beautiful mosaic that is the US Armed Forces, white, black, and brown; men, women, and…others.”
The rights of people to serve their country (such as women and homosexuals, who both have that right) outweighs one’s ability to object to their being able to do so. I think it’s wrong that it’s seen in the military as insubordination for objecting to a policy, as it seems you’ve made out the case to be. One should be able to express dissent. But that dissent shouldn’t come at the cost of people’s fulfilling of what they see as their duty to their country.
I fail to see why homosexuality precludes someone from being in the military. If we’re going to turn away people from the military based off of sins, then we’re going to have to start looking for all other sorts of people from the military.
October 6th, 2011 | 11:57 am | #8
“Are you a homosexual?”
We’d be better off recognizing that’s been the wrong question since it was first posed.
October 6th, 2011 | 12:54 pm | #9
One has a “right” to vote. One does not enjoy a similar “right” to serve in the armed forces. The state cannot deny one the vote because of mental or physical handicap. It both can and does deny service in the military for precisely those reasons, and more.
The “more” is that one’s behaviour or very presence is “prejudicial to good order and discipline”. So long as homosexuality remains the very small minority predisposition in any society, whether it’s a sin or not, its indiscreet practice will place a strain on that good order and discipline, and especially so among young heterosexual males who will always constitute the bulk of serving soldiers, sailors, and airmen.
The chief reason for setting aside this common-sense prohibition would be because of the value added to the successful completion of the core mission of the military that would follow from permitting its open practice. But, as far as I can tell, there is no value added. (I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise.) Instead, there is only the unnecessary introduction of a host of distracting problems that complicate rather than simplify the successful execution of that core mission, a mission in which in a very immediate sence, men’s lives are at stake.
October 6th, 2011 | 4:43 pm | #10
“The “more” is that one’s behaviour or very presence is “prejudicial to good order and discipline”. So long as homosexuality remains the very small minority predisposition in any society, whether it’s a sin or not, its indiscreet practice will place a strain on that good order and discipline, and especially so among young heterosexual males who will always constitute the bulk of serving soldiers, sailors, and airmen.”
That’s fine if you believe that. However, the majority of the Armed Services will disagree with you. Well over half say it would make little to no difference if they were actually aware (keep in mind, it makes more sense if one is going to use the “maintaining morale” defense to argue for ridding DADT, because it’s better to know than be paranoid and suspicious) of their fellow soldier’s sexual preferences.
“Instead, there is only the unnecessary introduction of a host of distracting problems that complicate rather than simplify the successful execution of that core mission, a mission in which in a very immediate sence, men’s lives are at stake.”
There’s nothing “complicated” about it at all. The same rules still apply to homosexuals as to heterosexuals; the fact that soldiers can out themselves while in service doesn’t mean that they get a whole new code of conduct. Allowing homosexual men and women into the service doesn’t silence dissent either; there are citizens of the United States that are homosexual, but the fact that they exist in the country doesn’t mean that dissent against homosexuality is prohibited.
I agree that the lives of men and women are at stake when the military undergoes missions. I’m saying (based on the words of servicemen and servicewomen themselves) that repealing DADT does not make the military a worse place.
October 6th, 2011 | 4:52 pm | #11
I think Tom is looking at this the right way. Why categorize people as gay or straight, homosexual or heterosexual? There are males and females. Sexual identity is ontological. Sexual preferences and desires are not in the same category.
October 7th, 2011 | 12:53 pm | #12
“Okay, one admitting he or she is homosexual is not tantamount to telling tales of graphic bedroom exploits. DADT meant that one couldn’t say he or she had a partner back home; he or she would have to write that person off as a “cousin” or “good friend.””
Aside from the point that covering-up is innate to the practice of vice and separating them is absurd, why should he have to say such things? He can just keep his mouth shut.
And my sympathy for gays in a society that disdains involuntary celibates is limited. Their difficulties are no greater other then being allowed to grouse. Someone who is to introverted to get a girl is just as frustrated as a gay, especially as no one cares any more if gays debauch themselves except the Church and the Church’s concern is hypothetical, not individual.
October 7th, 2011 | 4:12 pm | #13
“He can just keep his mouth shut.”
First of all, you’re not addressing the fundamental issue. Whether or not you want to hear him admit his sexual proclivities, it is, in fact, his right to state who he is as a person. I don’t understand why heterosexuals can be out and open about their orientation but homosexuals can’t, even if one believes homosexuality is a vice. I don’t agree with homosexuality based on my beliefs regarding marriage and the relationship between man and woman, but I reject DADT roundly.
But even more than that. Why should we keep quiet about our vices a secret? Brilliant Christian logic: “If he shuts up about being gay, then he’ll magically turn straight!” If you as a Christian reject homosexuality, then you should be willing to openly dialogue about it. We may not convince everyone, sure, but if we go ahead and act like stuck up, pompous moralists then we’ll never effectively spread any of the joy and love Christ calls us to.
“And my sympathy for gays in a society that disdains involuntary celibates is limited.”
Wow.. that’s a really great standard. “People treat me bad, therefore I’ll be just as bad to them back!” Christ called us to respond to ALL in love, whether or not we disagree with them or find their actions sinful. I do disagree with disdaining involuntary celibates, but just because society rejects celibates doesn’t mean we should be extra jerkish when dealing with homosexuality. That is not demonstrating the love of Christ.
“Someone who is too introverted to get a girl is just as frustrated as a gay…”
This is so beyond offensive that I’m not even going to respond to it.
October 7th, 2011 | 5:53 pm | #14
I don’t think it will be a problem once we have gotten through the “growing pains” and have established a single code of conduct for all persons desiring to be soldiers or sailors.
But right now we do not have a single code of conduct. We do not even have equality before the law. There are a good many people who – apparently sincerely – believe that if a conflict arises between someone from a “majority” group and someone from an “oppressed” or “minority” group, the answer should automatically be decided in favor whichever person is from the group with the least “privilege” (where “privilege” is a euphemism for whatever is popular, widely believed, or even long-enduring).
The problem here is that the military is not the best place to work out these problems. The purpose of the military is not to provide jobs for citizens, and it is normally understood that when one joins the military, the generous compensation on the one hand is linked to the sacrifices demanded on the other. The two go together. And the nature of the sacrifices demanded are just this: whatever the military needs, that is what the soldiers and sailors must do.
It is disturbing to see the needs of the military take second place to the needs of people who want jobs.
I have no doubt that someday, gays and women will make excellent soldiers. But as of this day, there are still different behavioral norms, behavioral expectations, and even different rules that apply to heterosexual men as opposed to homosexuals of either gender.
For instance: how will gays be protected from harassment? It will be their word against the other fellow’s word. How will such conflicts be resolved when the evidence is not conclusive (which is most of the time)? Will we err on the side of presuming guilt on behalf of the majority of soldiers, granting gays the power to make demands and terrorize anyone they don’t like? How would such a policy affect morale?
Or will we err on the side of presuming innocence, and let the military be dragged through the mud as people insist that the military allows harassment to go on?
It’s a lose-lose situation.
It may be true that “equality” requires that gays and women “need” special protections, lower standards, different rules, or different expectations – but the military’s role is too important to use it for social experimentation.
October 8th, 2011 | 12:58 am | #15
“It is disturbing to see the needs of the military take second place to the needs of people who want jobs.”
This would be a valid point if it already hadn’t been proven that allowing homosexuals to admit their sexual preferences does nothing to the military’s efficacy.
“I have no doubt that someday, gays and women will make excellent soldiers.”
Homosexuals and women are excellent soldiers. Many have already fought and died for this country, and we owe them great honor for it. These men and women continue to work to defend our country still today, as they have the right to do.
“For instance: how will gays be protected from harassment?”
Um, how are they protected from that now? Gay people can still be harassed in the military, it’s just more subtle now. Your claim questions not just abuse of gays in the military but abuse in the military as a whole. Gays already put up with enough harassment; I don’t see how this is a concern. This claim isn’t unique to repealing DADT at all.
“the military’s role is too important to use it for social experimentation.”
This isn’t social experimentation. At all. We’ve already “experimented” with homosexuality in our society writ large; it’s come to be largely accepted by many, and it is perfectly legal for one to admit his or her homosexuality. Whether one agrees with that or not, it certainly means that this isn’t a case of social experimentation. It’s a case of letting people state their self-identity without being discriminated against for it. It’s especially not social experimentation in light of the fact that we’ve already asked the entirety of the armed forces about their opinion on this matter, and a substantial majority say it would not at all effect their military operations.
October 9th, 2011 | 6:48 pm | #16
“For instance: how will gays be protected from harassment?”
Um, how are they protected from that now? Gay people can still be harassed in the military, it’s just more subtle now.
The current situation works quite well. The Army is not responsible for saving gays from being harassed, and the gays do not have the “right’ to have a “sexual identity” that requires protection.
When we shift this around, the needs and “sexual rights” of the workers will be prioritized over the needs and rights of the institution. That’s going to be a real problem, because it turns out the military does not exist primarily as an institution that is tasked with the work of finding gainful employment for its workers. It is tasked with the work of defending the nation against threats at minimum loss of life.
Minimum loss of life means it must operate at maximum efficiency and cohesion.
Eventually, of course, gays will earn respect the hard way – the ones who are wimps will either leave or be beaten, and the ones who are good soldiers will actually help harass the ones who are not. Only then will gays be accepted in the military – in fact, gays who are soldiers first and foremost already are accepted in the military.
A “gay identity” and a soldier’s identity are not compatible. You can be a “gay” (who happens to be a soldier) or you can be a soldier (who happens to have homosexual preferences). Both identities demand a commitment that precludes full commitment to the other.
If you want to be a soldier, you have to be unambiguously male. Even if you’ve got a woman’s body (or at least a body that becomes female when you’re not on duty). If you can’t – or won’t – then you will fail as a soldier.
If gays aren’t willing to do what it takes to become soldiers, they’ll never be soldiers – they’ll never be more than drags on the system.
Black soldiers understood this. They didn’t run to the media when they were harassed. They understood that by accepting sacrifice, they were winning something “for their people” – which is what a soldier does. The act of accepting abuse to prove you can “take it” – so that future generations of black soldiers will benefit from that earned respect – is in its essence the same act as laying down your life so that your people can have freedom.
The more gays try to skip the part about earning the respect, the more they send the signal that people who identify as gay don’t make good soldiers. They signal that they don’t ‘get’ what sacrifice is, what respect is or how it’s earned, or what it means to be a real soldier. No soldier is ever going to trust a guy who allies himself with a movement that relies on whining instead of proving.
October 9th, 2011 | 7:02 pm | #17
This isn’t social experimentation. At all.
Yes it is.
The idea that you can whine your way to being respected involves all sorts of group experimentation.
The usual way soldiers establish trust involves proving their worth. But gays don’t like that. They don’t like that their masculinity is suspect, and they are therefore called upon to participate in that barbaric masculine code whereby any soldier whose masculinity is suspect is immediate subject to horrible tests by which one proves one’s ability to endure abuse with stoicism, prioritizing group loyalty above all.
So the gay identity warriors run to the press to “tattle”. That would be a funny way to demonstrate group loyalty – except we all know that these identity-warriors are not loyal to the military; they’re loyal to their “sexual identity movement” first and foremost, and would sacrifice the fellow they’re sharing a foxhole with in a heartbeat if it would make good press for The Cause.
We will see how well it will work, when tattle-tales get to boss the real soldiers around.
October 9th, 2011 | 7:11 pm | #18
Whether or not you want to hear him admit his sexual proclivities, it is, in fact, his right to state who he is as a person.
This statement here is THE difference between the gays who succeed in the military vs. those who do not.
The good soldiers understand that this statement is not only wrong, it’s nightmare-level stupid from the standpoint of earning respect or being taken seriously as a soldier.
October 9th, 2011 | 7:18 pm | #19
“If you want to be a soldier, you have to be unambiguously male. Even if you’ve got a woman’s body (or at least a body that becomes female when you’re not on duty). If you can’t – or won’t – then you will fail as a soldier.”
I mean, beyond how sexist this is, it isn’t true. Not all gays are the stereotypically effeminate men. You show no reason why gay people are necessarily not “unambiguously male.” Moreover, you haven’t shown how gay people are doing a bad job at serving our country right now. They ARE, in fact, doing a good job, and as a result they don’t feel it’s fair to be discriminated. The claims for DADT to be repealed by all of the “whining” people (who aren’t whining, but actually have a legitimate claim) aren’t from within the military but from within society. The gays in the military have been “not telling” for quite some time. And our military hasn’t collapsed. Funny.
“Black soldiers understood this. They didn’t run to the media when they were harassed. They understood that by accepting sacrifice, they were winning something “for their people” – which is what a soldier does. The act of accepting abuse to prove you can “take it” – so that future generations of black soldiers will benefit from that earned respect – is in its essence the same act as laying down your life so that your people can have freedom.”
So it was right to be racist against black people for that reason? No, it wasn’t. Plus, gay people have put up with it for plenty long. Abuse and discrimination of that regard is never justified. This crazed masculinist fantasy of the military that you have leads to awful mistreatment of people, which I roundly reject, as should the military.
October 9th, 2011 | 8:14 pm | #20
Whether or not you want to hear him admit his sexual proclivities, it is, in fact, his right to state who he is as a person.
This statement here is THE difference
I should elaborate: there is NO right – ever – to talk about your sexual desires or sexual activities to people who do not invite such intimacy.
Just as you violate a boundary when you show your body to people who do not want to see it, so too you violate a boundary when you force people to know things about your sexuality that they neither need nor want to know.
It is not accurate to compare gay men who wish to talk about their lovers to straight men talking about their wives. A wife is family – mother of your children. A gay lover is not the same thing, and can never be – no matter how many children are procured, or by what means, the gay lover will never be either “family” nor the children’s “mother”, except in fantasy.
There is NO right to force other people to listen to intimate details or play along with fantasies that are not grounded in truth. You can’t make me pretend your blow-up doll is your wife, no matter how sincerely you “need” latex to feel a certain way, and I do not want to hear about how you make your wife lie in a cold bathtub (as necrophiliacs do to simulate corpse conditions) or dress up as a child. Sexual deviance has always existed, and probably will always exist; I have no problem with you indulging *whatever* excites you, following the “consenting adult” rule – but if you want to change or rearrange categories, then the way to go about this is *not* to pass a law restricting my right to be disgusted at your behaviors, including your unwanted intimate revelations.
October 9th, 2011 | 8:15 pm | #21
So it was right to be racist against black people for that reason?
You can’t fake trust.
Outsider groups or individuals, and/or those whose loyalty is suspect, or whose capacity is questioned, have to prove themselves.
The more they cry about it, the more they prove the point.
October 10th, 2011 | 8:34 pm | #22
Blake,
I’m ending the conversation here, as I feel that this is going to get beyond heated for me, and I don’t want to get angry. The second you dismiss institutionalized racism as:
“Outsider groups or individuals, and/or those whose loyalty is suspect, or whose capacity is questioned, have to prove themselves.”
Black people are not “outsider” groups. The highly privileged and racist white culture that discriminated against black soldiers in the military was evil. It was not right in beating up black people so as to see if they were loyal. It was racist and evil. Likewise, gays and women are not “outsiders.” They are part of our country, and more importantly part of the human race. Your masculinist, exclusionary fantasy of the military is inherently dehumanizing and discriminatory. I will reject it roundly.
A gay person admitting he or she is gay is not tantamount to forcing a whole lifestyle upon a person. It is a recognition of a fact. The fact that gay people exist does nothing to change my view of them. Allowing people to state a fact of their personality does not mean moral judgments are or aren’t being made. You obviously do not understand the point of DADT, and as a result I feel like this is two ships passing in the night.
But more importantly, I pray you realize the weight of your words. Saying that racism is okay as long as it gets people to prove themselves is wrong and perhaps, more importantly, not Christian. Christ didn’t beat anyone up to see if they were loyal to the Christian message. He showed love to all, even those he felt worked against the Christian worldview.
October 11th, 2011 | 6:12 pm | #23
Saying that racism is okay as long as it gets people to prove themselves is wrong and perhaps, more importantly, not Christian.
The question is not whether racism is wrong.
The question is whether punishing people for having politically incorrect thoughts or feelings makes it go away.
I have no doubt whatsoever that civil rights are won by persuasion, not by heavy-handed laws that try to push a morality. “I Have A Dream” and Sidney Poitier – not affirmative action and punitive anti-discrimination laws – are what wins civil rights.
Gays, instead of giving us “Dream” speeches, give us lies. They say they only something small, when they really want something big. They just want to not be persecuted. Okay, except now they just want to not be discriminated against. Okay, except now they want to change what it means to be “discriminated against”. Where does it end? We can’t ever know, can we? Because they aren’t talking about their “Dream”. They aren’t being honest at all about what they want – but to the extent that we can guess what they want, their “Dream” appears to be all about special privilege. Blacks bent over backward to prove they could be good soldiers – gays claim nothing less than the right to define what makes a soldier good in the first place.
I believe the reason that the gay rights movement can’t produce its own “Dream” is because they know perfectly well America would not go for what they really dream of. Most Americans don’t believe that cherry-picking your gender (or the obligations that go with being a man, woman, husband, wife, son, daughter, mother, father, or soldier) is a “basic fundamental right”.
That’s because ultimately, your analogy relies on hoping nobody notices that discrimination based on ethnic traits is inherently different from discrimination based on behaviors or political identities.
Nobody has ever – ever – suggested that we should reject soldiers who have ‘gay genes’.
October 11th, 2011 | 6:19 pm | #24
Black people are not “outsider” groups.
They were then.
I recommend you rent one of many “inspirational” movies (usually based on true stories) about how blacks proved themselves and won respect.
Compare what they did to the foot-stampers in today’s gay rights movement and ask yourself if these men and women have the traits that make a good soldier:
- loyalty (to the military unit, not to the gay rights movement)
-commitment (to the military unit, not to the gay rights movement)
- courage
- stamina
- endurance
- willingness to sacrifice
- ability to tough out harsh conditions
- ability to follow orders, even when those orders feel wrong or unfair
Throwing a temper tantrum for respect is like fighting war for peace. It’s either ignorant or dishonest or both.
October 12th, 2011 | 1:47 pm | #25
Again, I’m not adding any positive matter to this conversation, as I fear that I will get a little more angry than I’d like to be. Using the phrase “blacks” no doubt made it a bit worse.
Ultimately, you have failed in any respect to prove the following arguments, all of which actually have to do with DADT:
(1) How admitting one’s homosexuality (not enforcing it upon others, but merely admitting it) effects troop morale, when studies have conclusively proved that members of the military of any stripe don’t care if a soldier does so;
(2) (a) Why admitting one’s homosexuality prevents him from being “loyal,” “committed,” and “courageous,” and (b) why those are mutually exclusive;
(3) Why repealing DADT, which allows gay people merely to be open about who they are and not force other people into doing so, means that a normative moral judgment is being made;
and (4) Why allowing homosexuals the same openness about their identity that heterosexuals have is a “special benefit” that only gay people have.
October 14th, 2011 | 6:56 am | #26
Ultimately, you have failed in any respect to prove the following arguments, all of which actually have to do with DADT
I suggest you go back and reread my arguments when you’re through being angry.
You might also try picking up the Oxford Illustrated Guide to Military History, since you have repeatedly made statements that suggest you don’t really know very much about war or how the military works or why things are the way they are. You need to understand why soldiering is a different kind of job from waiting tables. You need to understand, for instance, that being a soldier involves waiving certain rights and being a soldier is itself an identity – one that is not compatible with rival ideologies that embrace competing starting-assumptions about values, goals, or life’s purpose.
You might also do well to stop assuming that anyone who disagrees with the gay rights movement’s political agenda, governing assumptions, or stated beliefs, must somehow hate gay people. There are plenty of gay people in the world who do not embrace those assumptions or political views, so it’s a false equivalence. I have little doubt the gays who are soldiers first and foremost – who know how to be good soldiers, who are accepted and even defended by their peers – will probably be the first to seriously harass the gays who are making unreasonable demands and using identity politics claim to cover over how unreasonable – even childlike – they are being.
October 14th, 2011 | 3:10 pm | #27
“You need to understand why soldiering is a different kind of job from waiting tables. You need to understand, for instance, that being a soldier involves waiving certain rights and being a soldier is itself an identity – one that is not compatible with rival ideologies that embrace competing starting-assumptions about values, goals, or life’s purpose.”
Even if that’s true, my point remains: you haven’t proven why being allowed to admit one’s homosexuality is antithetical to all of the things you just said.
October 14th, 2011 | 6:22 pm | #28
Even if that’s true, my point remains: you haven’t proven why being allowed to admit one’s homosexuality is antithetical to all of the things you just said.
Actually, I did.
October 15th, 2011 | 1:48 am | #29
Well, we seem to be at an impasse. I guess I’ll keep searching for that which isn’t there.
October 17th, 2011 | 1:11 am | #30
Well, we seem to be at an impasse. I guess I’ll keep searching for that which isn’t there.
You won’t see it as long as you cling to your current beliefs.
You need to come to understand that ultimately being a good soldier involves two qualifications: competence and commitment.
Gays have proved their competence but there remains reason to doubt their commitment – in fact, more than ever: gay “identity warriors” have demonstrated that they can and will betray their units in their service to their real priority, which isn’t the US Military.
DADT is very effective at sorting the ones that are capable of making a real commitment to the service from the ones who are more committed to their “gay identity” and have no room for a second, competing commitment.
The ‘identity warriors’ will still need to be filtered out, one way or another. Having soldiers whose first priority is to a group other than the military is a threat.
If war is “diplomacy by other means’, as Clausewitz has it, then it’s fair to describe the conflict between the gay rights movement and the military as a ‘war’. The military will get rid of those who infiltrate for purposes of treason and sabotage.
October 17th, 2011 | 1:13 am | #31
Which still leaves us right back at what I originally said: how is the military going to handle the transition?
Is it going to err on the side of allowing gay “identity warriors” to bully the troops? Or will it err on the side of giving gay “identity warriors” ammo they can and will use to attack the military with?
My concern – my fear – is that the real result might simply be a greater percentage of the real military action “outsourced” to contract labor.
October 17th, 2011 | 4:01 pm | #32
“Gays have proved their competence but there remains reason to doubt their commitment – in fact, more than ever: gay “identity warriors” have demonstrated that they can and will betray their units in their service to their real priority, which isn’t the US Military.”
Again, you haven’t proven that wanting to be identified as gay means that you will disrupt military cohesion and betray your fellow soldiers. Empirical fact, yes, fact, has shown that soldiers wanting to identify as gay do next to nothing to the efficacy of the military or to unit cohesion. There’s no evidence that DADT hurt our missions abroad. These are facts, not conspiracy theories. All I have been saying this whole time, in case I’m not clear, is that you’ve shown no actual reason why gays in the military who want to self-identify as such will necessarily disrupt the military. Your contention is that a real gay person would just shut up about it, which begs the question.
Hope that clears things up.
October 17th, 2011 | 4:01 pm | #33
*I meant to say that there’s no evidence that the DADT controversy hurt our missions abroad. My error.
October 17th, 2011 | 6:29 pm | #34
Blake,
“You won’t see it as long as you cling to your current beliefs”
Funny how that works both ways. If I’m understanding you correctly, and I would like to think that I am, the crux of your argument was first that gays (and women for that matter) don’t have the necessary traits to become soldiers, and that one cannot be both gay and a soldier because being gay requires ultimate dedication whereas being a soldier also requires complete dedication. One cannot be fully dedicated to both, so gays cannot be soldiers. Among other trivial arguments made in the middle, these are the two weights for your arguments.
When considering engaging in discussion with you, I was initially going to answer your question of
“Ask yourself if these men and women have the traits that make a good soldier”
But then you go on to answer our own question later in your discussion with Nikolai in comment #30
“Gays have proved their competence….”
I realize that you later went on in the comment to say that your real concern in gay’s commitment, and I’ll address that later. But if we assume a soldier’s commitment, in reality, you don’t have a problem with a homosexual’s ability to perform as a soldier should. Nothing about being a woman, or a homosexual, inherently limits one’s physical or mental capacity of doing a soldiers task (given their commitment). We also know that nothing about being a heterosexual man necessarily means you have what it takes to perform the duties of a soldier. I myself couldn’t imagine having to stomach the things that soldiers go through. I don’t doubt my commitment to my country, but I do doubt my ability to perform the duties necessary for war.
If we take this a step further, this would make a blanket law that prevents women or gays from becoming soldiers based solely on the idea that gays and women can’t perform the duties of a soldier an illogical and ungrounded law. An individual’s ability to perform the physical and mental duties necessary to be a soldier must be assessed on a case by case basis.
Effectively, you’ve defeated your own argument concerning the physical ability of a homosexual or woman to perform as a soldier.
Now we’re left with the commitment factor.
For this, your basic assertion is that homosexuals operating in the military do not have a commitment to their country, their squad, or their commanders (comments 24, 26, 30). But then of course you make a distinction between the gays that ARE committed, and the gays that AREN’T. You assert that DADT somehow filters out those who are really committed to being a soldier.
First let’s look at your definition of being “committed”, or at least in the context of a soldier.
In comment 26 you give a definition (or at least the closest thing I could find to one) of “ being a soldier is itself an identity – one that is not compatible with rival ideologies that embrace competing starting-assumptions about values, goals, or life’s purpose.”
In context, this translates to “Being a committed soldier means being a soldier not only first and foremost, but a soldier alone. A soldier cannot have competing ideologies about identity. Being a soldier itself is an ideology, and the only one a soldier can adhere to”
First: This definition of a soldier is someone who is effectively a mercenary. Their only ideology is to do as they are told. If we hold to this definition, a soldier should abandon all other ideologies and effectively anything about them that distinguishes them from other soldiers.
However, I’ve always found that one of the things that separates our soldiers from our enemies is that our soldiers represent and fight for the things that we feel are dear and should be protected: liberty, freedom, and security.
But now I’ve realized thanks to you Blake that in fact our soldiers don’t fight for those things. Nor do they actually represent them. They’re simply mindless people who are fighting for…well just being a soldier. The only purpose of doing what they are doing is because they were told to do so. Thanks to your brilliant definition, any and all soldier I’ve heard talking about freedom, liberty, or any of that other bullcrap being their motivation to courageously fight for their country were horrible soldiers because they were fighting for another reason than simply being a soldier.
On a less sarcastic note, you’ve backed yourself into a corner in which either:
A) Any soldier who fights for a reason other than simply being told to do so (for things like freedom, liberty, or their country) are bad soldiers.
Or
B) The definition of a soldier isn’t so simple. And in fact, it’s impossible to read what is on a soldier’s heart, we can only assess their commitment by their actions, leaving the question of what they hold as their “identity” completely irrelevant.
Also, I’d like to point out that if we hold to your definition, Christians should strongly oppose being in the military because in order to be a good soldier you must abandon your faith. Or, at least, you should put being a soldier above being a follower of Christ, or a man of God. God asks for commitment to him above all things, and according to your definition, this makes a “Good Christian soldier” an impossible thing. Because if he is truly a man of God, he would hold his commitment to the Lord above all other things, but this would mean he’s a bad soldier because he doesn’t hold his identity as a soldier above being a man of God.
You’ve created a false dichotomy in which every person in the military should choose either being A) a “good” soldier or B) something else.
Also, let’s look at the applications of this dichotomy you’ve created. If a good soldier must abandon all “rival ideologies that embrace competing starting-assumptions about values, goals, or life’s purpose.” And the best way to sort out the “committed” soldiers from the “non-committed” soldiers is forcing the soldiers to suppress admission of their ideologies (as you said in comment 16) , than DADT shouldn’t apply to simply homosexuals. DADT should also apply to religion, political philosophies, any ideals whatsoever (including ironically patriotism). Effectively, we should strip from them anything that makes them a natural human being. We should strip them of any moral compass that they previously adhere to, including religion.
So my question is this: is it only gays who have the capacity to not be committed? Obviously not. It would empirically wrong to assume that heterosexual men cannot lack commitment (especially the commitment you’re demanding). However, there currently is no blanket law that exists for heterosexual men in order to sort them out from the “non-committed”. Yet we find that our troops are in fact quite effective. So your correlation that you’ve established between DADT and sorting out those that are “actually committed” is a false one. Since we know that being “non-committed” is not limited to only gays, and we have no law in place to prevent “non-committed” soldiers like DADT for straight men, and yet our troops are effective, we can see that no law like DADT is necessary for our troops to be effective.
This raises the assertion that maybe the military ALREADY has functions that test one’s commitment. In fact, they must have them since no law like DADT exists to “test” heterosexual men.
In simple terms, there is no causal link to suggest that laws like DADT “sort out” the committed from the non-committed. Additionally, your definition of a soldier leaves no room for religion either.
So we have
A) Blake’s world: Soldiers can have no competing ideologies besides what makes a soldier (traits in comment 24). The most effective way to ensure good soldiers, is to force them to suppress admission of any of these ideologies. If they claim ANYTHING, religion, sexuality, freedom, liberty, as principles that come before being a soldier, they must be discharged from the military.
Or
B) The Real world: Defining a soldier isn’t so simple, and in reality there is no way to determine what is on a soldier’s heart. They’re actions translate their commitment, gay, straight, Muslim, Christian, or Jew. We realize that sexuality has nothing to do with being a good soldier.
You’ve made a lot claims that seem to fit into some fantasy land you’ve created when in reality there’s no logical or empirical evidence to support…well any of your claims. And this is ignoring the near racist claims you’ve made that attempt to justify racism and that people SHOULD prove their race is equal to others. I’ll side with Nikolai in saying that these smaller trivial claims are so offensive and flat out wrong that I’m not going to address them.
I pray you really take to heart Nikolai’s recommendation and really assess the weight of your words. Do you really think it’s necessary that in order to be a good soldier we should denounce our identity as being a man of God before all else? Should it really be necessary for someone to PROVE that their skin or sexuality has nothing to do with their ability as a soldier? Or should they be judged by standards that are outside of being black, or gay, or straight, or a woman? A “soldier” does not require a specific religion, sexuality, or race, so I see no reason for DADT.
October 19th, 2011 | 5:54 pm | #35
Effectively, you’ve defeated your own argument concerning the physical ability of a homosexual or woman to perform as a soldier.
The physical ability is not what’s in question.
It’s loyalty, commitment, and motive that is at questioned.
It’s whether they’re interested in serving, as well as being served.
It’s whether these people who are so focused on their own entitlements are capable of making any sacrifice at all – let alone the ultimate sacrifice.
It’s whether it’s realistic to trust a group of people who behave like crybabies and run to the newspapers every time their feelings get hurt.
The behaviors exhibited by the “gay rights movement” suggests they are not serious.
October 19th, 2011 | 5:55 pm | #36
at questioned
Excuse me – meant “in question”.
October 19th, 2011 | 6:01 pm | #37
And the best way to sort out the “committed” soldiers from the “non-committed” soldiers is forcing the soldiers to suppress admission of their ideologies (as you said in comment 16) , than DADT shouldn’t apply to simply homosexuals.
Nobody has a right to force TMI about their sex life onto unwilling participants.
I don’t care whether you want to tell me about your latex, your bestiality, your whatever – it is your responsibility to make sure that your audience does not mind sexually explicit information.
Forcing unwanted intimacies upon unwilling victims is a violation of a sexual boundary – no different in kind really from showing off body parts to people who don’t want to see.
You want us to take your gay lover as being equal to a wife, but the problem is that’s a lie. A wife is a member of a family – you unite two family trees when you marry; marriage is a relationship that is only partly about love, and also equally about continuing a family. A gay relationship is different in kind, and so any attempt to present the two relationships as same in kind is inherently dishonest.
But there is no “right” to talk about sex and have the other guys affirm you. This isn’t discrimination against gays; people with other non-mainstream tastes are expected not to go around demanding people listen to the details of what they did to their goat.
October 19th, 2011 | 6:17 pm | #38
“Nobody has a right to force TMI about their sex life onto unwilling participants.
I don’t care whether you want to tell me about your latex, your bestiality, your whatever – it is your responsibility to make sure that your audience does not mind sexually explicit information.
Forcing unwanted intimacies upon unwilling victims is a violation of a sexual boundary – no different in kind really from showing off body parts to people who don’t want to see.”
First of all, TMI? Cool 90′s catchprase, bro. Second, please explain to me, as I’ve been wanting you the whole time, how merely being allowed to say one is homosexual is tantamount to going through one’s diary of graphic sexual exploits. It isn’t. Moreover, I think it’s inappropriate for straight people to do this, not just homosexuals. If someone is getting too “TMI” with their sexual exploits, all a soldier has to do is… not listen. Or tell the person to shut up. This is the same for straight and gay people. I don’t see the correlation between saying “I’m gay” and “Oh, let me tell you what threw down at Tigerheat last night.” You haven’t proved that.
By the way, homosexuality and bestiality are not the same thing. Such comparisons are how the Christian church gets stereotyped and caricatured nowadays.
October 19th, 2011 | 10:39 pm | #39
By the way, homosexuality and bestiality are not the same thing. Such comparisons are how the Christian church gets stereotyped and caricatured nowadays.
In this context, they are comparable: they are both sexual deviations that others find disgusting.
You do not have a “right” to share potentially disgusting personal information with people who don’t want to know about your bedroom tastes.
I question why anyone would demand a right to tell other people such information. I think it’s unhealthy and it’s a violation of personal boundaries. It’s also rude.
I don’t care if you have a latex fetish. I don’t want to know, I don’t want to “affirm” you, and I don’t want to pretend your dolly is your wife.
I don’t care if you are into necrophilia, whether you actually seek out corpses or just make your wife soak in an icy tub for awhile before sex. That’s just not something I need to know.
Now, why do you need to tell us something we don’t want to know? That is the real question, mmm?
You can correct me if I’m wrong, but the answer appears to be this: the soldier who has to talk about his homosexuality is having a problem with the fact that the military bosses him around, and he would rather be the one bossing the military around.
Does that sound about right?
Because, you know, that’s how the military operates. They issue orders, you follow them. If you can’t or won’t do that, then you fail as a soldier.
It really is that simple. If you want a job that is “fair”, then the military is not an appropriate career path for you.
October 19th, 2011 | 11:09 pm | #40
“The physical ability is not what’s in question.”
Oh, okay.
Okay then the traits of courage, stamina, endurance, and ability to tough our harsh conditions as you’ve listed in your comment #24 aren’t actually what we need to ask ourselves. So what you really meant to say was “ask yourself if these men and women have the traits that make a good soldier, but only focus on the traits concerning commitment.
Thanks for clarifying.
“The behaviors exhibited by the ‘gay rights movement’ suggests they are not serious.”
That’s quite the statement. Still looking for solid warrants for your claims
***looking…..looking…nope***
Can you please provide systematic proof of gay men that join the military just to prove a point?
“Nobody has a right to force TMI about their sex life onto unwilling participants.”
I don’t care whether you want to tell me about your latex, your bestiality, your whatever – it is your responsibility to make sure that your audience does not mind sexually explicit information.”
I’m still wondering if you really know what DADT actually is. DADT wasn’t “If you’re audience doesn’t want to hear it don’t say”. It was “If you say it, you have to leave”.
Also, I’m not sure how this response you’ve provided actually answers…well ANY of my objections. The portion of my comment that you quoted was pointing out a response to what you later went on to repeat in your last comment. Let me clarify. You said:
“You want us to take your gay lover as being equal to a wife, but the problem is that’s a lie. A wife is a member of a family – you unite two family trees when you marry; marriage is a relationship that is only partly about love, and also equally about continuing a family. A gay relationship is different in kind, and so any attempt to present the two relationships as same in kind is inherently dishonest”
As a Christian it is ontologically true. A sexual relationship between two people of the same sex is different than a marital relationship between a man and woman (although I know Bret disagrees, but as a general note). But as Christians we would also say that a non-marital sexual relationship between a man and a woman is different than a marital relationship, would we not? Moving away from sex, we would also say that belief in the Muslim God and the Christian God is different, would we not? Yet they’re treated equally in the military.
My point is that you’ve effectively said:
A) Homosexuality is false (or at least not equal to homosexual relationships in honesty).
B) Because homosexuality is false, soldiers should not be allowed to talk about it.
C) Therefore, DADT is necessary.
The problem is that if you affirm this logic you must also affirm that this would apply to religion, or any other belief. Islam is falsehood, therefore Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to talk about it.
“Forcing unwanted intimacies upon unwilling victims is a violation of a sexual boundary – no different in kind really from showing off body parts to people who don’t want to see.
Is it only homosexuals that can cross sexual boundaries? My point is that DADT doesn’t apply to everyone. It only applies to non-heterosexuals. You’re saying that DADT exists in order to keep out unwanted intimacies. But the fact is that the only one’s who can’t talk about their intimacies are gays. Why is it that heterosexuals don’t have any sexual boundaries concerning talking about their sex life?
Saying “I’m a homosexual” says just about as many details about one’s sex like as saying “I have a wife”. So if you really want to prevent unwanted “intimacies” (which isn’t actually an intimacy, but you think it is), at least be consistent: make a law that mandates ANY ADMISSION OF ANY SEXUAL PREFERENCE results in being discharged. I wouldn’t want to hear about a man having sex with his wife any more than I would want to hear about a man having sex with another man.
I’d also like to point out that it’s really interesting that you took the route of asserting that soldiers deserve the right not to hear about others sexual orientation after previously saying that gays are a bunch of whining crybabies?
Really??? This coming the guy that is effectively “whining” about not wanting to hear about other’s sexual orientation.
So you’re going to have a make a choice Blake. What comes first? The needs of the military, or the feelings of the soldiers???
If it’s the needs of the military, than the military SHOULDN’T CARE about a soldiers sexual preferences, whether they admit it or not. All that should matter is if they are a good soldier. If they are, than who really cares what their beliefs are? Soldiers are complaining about hearing about gay guy? Who cares. For “real soldiers” they sure do complain a lot.
Except that we find that soldiers don’t really complain about serving with a gay soldier. Maybe you should be reminded that many of the soldiers that objected to being discharged for being gay weren’t just the discharged soldiers, it was also their fellow squad and unit members. Heterosexual men coming forward to defend their homosexual brothers in arms.
The image you’re depicting are soldiers alienating their brother’s in arms for their beliefs and practices, not based on their ability and commitment to the unit.
For someone who’s advocating loyalty, you really expect the soldiers to have none.
The fact still remains that you’ve done nothing but rant stereotypes and false situations that don’t exist in the military. You have yet to answer the fact that the logic behind DADT is completely backwards and that there’s no evidence to suggest that homosexual soldiers are less committed than heterosexual soldiers. Also, you’ve failed to answer the fact that the definition of a “good soldier” you’ve outlined prevents Christians from joining the military as well.
Cheers.
October 19th, 2011 | 11:16 pm | #41
“You can correct me if I’m wrong, but the answer appears to be this: the soldier who has to talk about his homosexuality is having a problem with the fact that the military bosses him around, and he would rather be the one bossing the military around.”
Okay, I’ll correct you. This is not the correct analysis at all. If this were the case, than the DADT law would also apply to heterosexuals. NEWSFLASH: Not everyone like’s hearing about heterosexual sex either.
The fact is that saying “I practice homosexuality” says just as much detail about sex as “I practice heterosexuality”.
Yet it is only when one says “I practice homosexuality” that they are discharged.
Just by that fact alone we know that the law isn’t about soldiers being grossed out by sex stories. You act like the soldiers sit around in a circle like a bunch of Junior Highers
***Ooohhh sex! It’s so gross!!!***
The fact is that it’s leaned against homosexuality.
“If you practice homosexuality, you may not be a soldier.”
That’s the problem.
October 19th, 2011 | 11:23 pm | #42
“I don’t care if you are into necrophilia, whether you actually seek out corpses or just make your wife soak in an icy tub for awhile before sex. That’s just not something I need to know.”
Maybe my response to that should be
“It really is that simple. If you want a job that is “fair”, then the military is not an appropriate career path for you.”
Wait who’s the whiner???
October 19th, 2011 | 11:27 pm | #43
“You can correct me if I’m wrong, but the answer appears to be this: the soldier who has to talk about his homosexuality is having a problem with the fact that the military bosses him around, and he would rather be the one bossing the military around.”
Saying “I’m gay” doesn’t mean the soldier is going to spill his/her life story and sexual exploits. All DADT does is allow soldiers to state their identity. That’s it. That doesn’t mean there needs to be any details. People are plenty aware gay people exist; it’s hardly going to offend anyone if someone who they suspect is gay affirms it with his or her words. Being allowed to state who you are isn’t “bossing around.” That isn’t enforcing a belief. It’s just stating who one is. I don’t understand how you don’t see this distinction, which is what I’ve been trying to get at all of this time.
But, even worse, even if you find homosexuality morally reprehensible, that doesn’t give you ground to compare it to things that it isn’t analogous to: homosexuality is not like bestiality, necrophilia, latex fetishes, or blow-up doll fetishes. They aren’t direct parallels, and you undermine the credibility of your position when you do so. It’s just a cheap shock tactic used to make one’s opponent worse than he or she actually is.
October 20th, 2011 | 12:14 pm | #44
But, even worse, even if you find homosexuality morally reprehensible, that doesn’t give you ground to compare it to things that it isn’t analogous to:
Who are you to decide how I must feel about homosexuality?
There we have the crux of it in a nutshell: your desire to make me share your beliefs about homosexuality.
Your ideological, faith-based beliefs in the role, purpose, and meaning of sex, family, kinship, marriage, and human nature.
I am far less judgmental than you about sexual deviations, by the way. I have far more compassion than you do for people stuck with desires that aren’t socially acceptable. Do you imagine that the pedophile or the person attracted to animals or pain or death is somehow different from you? Do you imagine yourself to be better, because the desires you didn’t ask for happen to be a luckier draw than the desires they got stuck with?
Why would you imagine you deserve the right to talk about your sexual issues, but they do not? If having a “sexual identity” is a right, then wouldn’t everyone have that right?
If sexual identity is basic and fundamental, then it’s our job to find a way to simultaneously affirm the pedophile even as we accept responsibility for:
(a) enabling him to have the sexual gratification that all human beings “deserve” and
(b) at the same time protecting our children.
October 20th, 2011 | 12:17 pm | #45
Yet it is only when one says “I practice homosexuality” that they are discharged.
It is right to discharge soldiers who refuse to follow orders.
Especially when their motive is a desire to humiliate, correct, rebel against, sabotage, or otherwise defy their superior officers out of a misguided sense that they, not their superiors, should determine how the military “ought” to be run.
October 20th, 2011 | 1:56 pm | #46
“It is right to discharge soldiers who refuse to follow orders.”
This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Are you purposely avoiding my points or are you simply being daft?
“Especially when their motive is a desire to humiliate, correct, rebel against, sabotage, or otherwise defy their superior officers out of a misguided sense that they, not their superiors, should determine how the military “ought” to be run.”
I don’t really see how wanting equality and consistency is defying superior officers.
Once again, you lack support for anything you say. It seems to be a habit Blake that you make claims without warrants, and it really hurts your argument.
I especially find this last part “should determine how the military “ought” to be run.” particularly odd coming from someone who has engaged in a debate and vehemently insisted on the way the military ought to be run.
October 20th, 2011 | 2:06 pm | #47
“Especially when their motive is a desire to humiliate, correct, rebel against, sabotage, or otherwise defy their superior officers out of a misguided sense that they, not their superiors, should determine how the military “ought” to be run.”
But, again, you haven’t shown at all why being allowed to say that one is gay (not going into details; we’ve already ruled that out) means full-on war against the military’s code of rule. The same rules should apply to straight people as to gay people, and that means that equality should flow both ways.
You also don’t get to say something like “it is right to discharge soldiers who refuse to follow orders,” which begs the question. We’re debating whether or not the order to keep silent about one’s homosexuality is a legitimate one, not whether or not gay soldiers or correct in following that order.
In the words of the great Lebowski, “Why does everything have to be such a travesty with you, man?” There’s always some grand conspiracy behind repealing policies generally regarded as ridiculous. First the ICC, now this. I feel like there’s some stronger argument you’re trying to make, something like “gay people are inherently immoral all around,” but are too afraid to actually come out and say it. That argument is ridiculous, of course, so I hope that isn’t the case, but all of these vague, unliked, unclear arguments aren’t doing anything to help your case.
October 20th, 2011 | 2:17 pm | #48
“Who are you to decide how I must feel about homosexuality?
There we have the crux of it in a nutshell: your desire to make me share your beliefs about homosexuality.”
I’m not trying to make you believe a certain way about homosexuality. You clearly oppose it, as do I. However, comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, necrophilia, latex fetishes, and blow-up doll fetishes is not a moral judgment but an attempt to make a factual comparison. I am saying that factual comparison is wrong. My moral disagreement with homosexuality does not exist for the same reasons that I morally disapprove pedophilia and all of those other things. They are not the same.
I am not saying, “Blake, agree with me on homosexuality.” I’m saying “Blake, stop making comparisons that have no basis in fact.”
October 20th, 2011 | 9:02 pm | #49
I am not saying, “Blake, agree with me on homosexuality.” I’m saying “Blake, stop making comparisons that have no basis in fact.”
Just because you believe that homosexuality is “obviously” different from other sexual perversions doesn’t mean that there is in fact any significant difference.
That’s your religious belief – your way of categorizing “good” or “clean” sexual activities from”bad” or “dirty” ones.
But “good”, “clean”, “bad”, and “dirty” are ideological, religious, subjective judgments. They are beliefs. They are not “facts” and you do not have any right to insist that I accept your beliefs.
Some people categorize “clean”/”dirty” sex according to whether it is healthy. Gay sex fails on that score: it is not healthy. It leads to unhealthy emotional boundaries, broken families, and physical diseases. It is associated with promiscuity. And so on.
Some people categorize “clean”/”dirty” according to a conception of “sin”, by which people are estranged from God. There are many arguments which can be made from this viewpoint that argue homosexuality is in fact “sinful”.
Some people categorize “clean”/”dirty” according to natural law: that which is related to purpose is healthy and therefore clean, and that which perverts purpose is unclean. Homosexuality perverts rather than fulfilling the purpose of sexual activity.
There are many standards by which people can categorize good from bad behaviors. You are outside of what is yours by right when you seek to shove your morality down other peoples’ throats.
I personally don’t care what people do in the bedroom, until and unless they threaten the well-being of my community, myself, or whatever I care about. In this case, the gay rights activists violate my boundaries not with their sexual preferences, but with the aggressive nature of their demands – their intolerance of those who do not share their beliefs or core values, and the mean-spiritedness of the strategies they adopt in their conflict with those whom they fear or hate or whatever it is they feel.
October 20th, 2011 | 9:04 pm | #50
On a less sarcastic note, you’ve backed yourself into a corner in which either:
No, I haven’t.
I don’t recognize anything of my argument in your contorted straw man.
October 20th, 2011 | 11:24 pm | #51
Let me put it more bluntly: how is being attracted to someone of the same sex the same thing as being attracted to corpses? And don’t say “both are sexual perversions;” the fact that you think both are wrong does not mean they are the same. Two things can be wrong and be quite different.
October 20th, 2011 | 11:28 pm | #52
“I don’t recognize anything of my argument in your contorted straw man.”
Okay, you’ve made a claim…..
Warrant that claim.
How is my logical conclusion of your definition of a soldier different or contorted?
Don’t just say it’s a straw man, say why it’s a straw man, than say why that straw man is wrong.
Because as far as I’m concerned, you’re calling it a strawman to avoid the obvious implications and applications that I’ve drawn from your dubious definition of a soldier.
October 23rd, 2011 | 5:35 pm | #53
Let me put it more bluntly: how is being attracted to someone of the same sex the same thing as being attracted to corpses? And don’t say “both are sexual perversions;” the fact that you think both are wrong does not mean they are the same. Two things can be wrong and be quite different.
Please refer to the argument I already made re: that very issue.
October 23rd, 2011 | 8:36 pm | #54
Okay. Referring back to your comment on that issue:
“Just because you believe that homosexuality is “obviously” different from other sexual perversions doesn’t mean that there is in fact any significant difference.”
Then you go on to least a bunch of reasons why gay sex is immoral. But that’s not answering my question: I want to know why, per your argument, things that are bad necessarily must be the same. You’re at the moment effectively saying, “Gay sex is bad. Sex with dead people is bad. Both have to do with sex. Therefore they are both the same.” You aren’t showing me why the reasons for both of those actions’ wrongness must be the same. You look at the conclusion of the argument and assume that the premises that got them there must have been the same. Which is wrong. You can reach a conclusion about the moral wrongness of two independent actions without using the same line of argumentation for both.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact