Gays in the Military and DADT

[MillCreek]

Millcreek, what you have done is properly described as "category error."

Allow me to point out that I am not David Horsey, the award-winning editorial cartoonist who drew the cartoon that I posted.  Perhaps you and Fistful should point out the logical fallacies, as you perceive them, to him.

[MechAg94]

Allow me to point out that I am not David Horsey, the award-winning editorial cartoonist who drew the cartoon that I posted.  Perhaps you and Fistful should point out the logical fallacies, as you perceive them, to him.

When you post the cartoon without comment, it is natural to assume you agree with the sentiment.  If you don't agree, you should say so when you post it.

[MillCreek]

Oh, I very much agree with ending DADT.  I believe that sexual orientation is biologically-based, don't think homosexuality is a choice nor do I have the moral or religious qualms about it that some people do.  My denomination (United Methodists) has many gay pastors in the Methodist church with varying degrees of official support depending upon the conference.  I served with gay men and women in the fire service, and I did not ask people's orientation before they pulled my butt out of a burning building.  My ex-wife was a Navy medicine lifer and served with many gay personnel.  She always said the straight sailors caused more problems.  

I am quite sure that with the passage of time after the abolition of DADT, the advocates against DADT will be seen as increasingly peripheral to the discussion.  Just like the people who were initially against gender and race integration of the military have largely faded away.

Of course, I defend the right of people to believe that being gay is incompatible with military service, that being gay is a choice and that being gay is a sin.  I just don't share those beliefs.

[MechAg94]

Do you think "being gay" is a sin?  I believe I was taught the act is a sin, not the state of being.  Same as sex outside of marriage, adultery, etc, etc. 

I've never been in the military so I consider myself on the periphery in this debate.  I just see a lot of military guys who don't like it and understand comments like I saw early on in this thread concerned about what sort of PC BS will come along with a rule change like this.

[MicroBalrog]

Being homosexual is also a choice.  I'd like to see someone prove it s not, rather than make unsupported claims*.

Define “being homosexual”.

Being homosexual is not the same as “performing homosexual acts”. One can be homosexual and perfectly celibate.

[DustinD]

Being homosexual is also a choice.  I'd like to see someone prove it s not

Some of the people who commit suicide over it or try and fail to turn strait provide some pretty compelling evidence that many people do not choose it. I never chose to be strait, but maybe my upbringing and the media conditioned me to be that way.

[roo_ster]

Define “being homosexual”.

Being homosexual is not the same as “performing homosexual acts”.

Define the scientific method.  Apply to the most common definitions/conceptions of homosexuality and determine which are strong enough from which to make statements of fact such as, "Homosexuality is / is not XYZ."

OK, I'll do your homework for you...

Yes, they are, as far as hard science can determine, as far as is pertinent to .mil service, and as far as is significant WRT relations with other humans in general.

One can be homosexual and perfectly celibate.

Right, and horny adolescent males can be gigolos and perfectly celibate, too.  What matters is they want to be gigolos, not that they have yet to have sex with anyone and that no one has ever offered them money for sex.

[Keep it under your hat, but I am English royalty, yet have no physical/genetic/marital connection to the house of Windsor.  Also, my dog is a millionaire, yet has neither bank account nor any money.  The desire of my dog to be filthy rich and up to his *expletive deleted*ss in milkbonez is what matters, not objective reality.]

You keep writing this, but it doesn't make it any more real or pertinent with repetition.  It is an unprovable article of faith and, moreover, insignificant when dealing with humans.

For instance, one can write the following:

Define “being homosexual a criminal”.

Being homosexual criminal is not the same as “performing homosexual criminal acts”. One can be homosexual a criminal and perfectly celibate law-abiding.

The appropriate response, is, "So what?"  You wanna break the law, but never do.  Give me a call when you do break the law and we'll talk criminality.

IOW, what folks think/feel is mostly inconsequential WRT interacting with other humans.  What matters is how people act.

[MicroBalrog]

Yes, they are, as far as hard science can determine, as far as is pertinent to .mil service, and as far as is significant WRT relations with other humans in general.

A homosexual is defined in every dictionary as a person whose sexual orientation is directed solely or almost solely towards others of his own sex. A person who has had, for whatever reason, a sex act with a person of his own sex and then proceeded to (say) have an exclusively-heterosexual sex life is not a homosexual. A man who has a sexual desire for both men and women is not a homosexual, but a bisexual, even if he proceeds to engage in a monogamous relationship with a woman.

IOW, what folks think/feel is mostly inconsequential WRT interacting with other humans.  What matters is how people act.

Except that, under DADT, it is not the homosexual act that is prohibited. Revealing your homosexual orientation in any way is prohibited.

[longeyes]

I incline to the ancient Greek view: that it is a character issue, about spiritual "effeminacy" and lack of bravery, not sexual orientation per se.

Note this entry from Wikipedia on "malakia:"

In ancient Greek society, cowardice was an especially condemned character trait, and malakia (Greek: ἀνανδρία – anandria; μαλακία – malakia; Latin: mollites) was a particular kind of spinelessness, softness, lack of perseverance, and moral weakness which was associated with effeminacy in men. To the ancient Greek, bravery was so essential to manliness, that its absence was associated with femininity. Malakia was a condition of failure to live up to the ethical and social standards expected of a male citizen. It could also refer to races, cultures, and societies as a whole.
One of the most well-known ancient Greek words for effeminate was "kinaidos" (cinaedus in its Latinized form), a man "whose most salient feature was a supposedly 'feminine' love of being sexually penetrated by other men." (Winkler, 1990) Another Greek word for an effeminate man is μαλακός – malakos (literally "soft"), which is still used in modern Greek in that derogatory sense.[citation needed] Another Greek word for an effeminate man was ἀνδρόγυνος – androgynos (the origin of English androgyny). It is made up of two Greek words: ἀνήρ – anēr "man" and γυνή – gynē "woman". It literally means "man-woman".
The English word comes from the Latin, ex, meaning "out", and femina, meaning woman. It generally means "being like a woman" metaphysically. From classical antiquity, this meaning of effeminacy passed into Christianity through the Bible and affected Western culture especially English and Victorian Culture. This reflects the gender connotations the concept (and especially the word "androgynos") had in classical Greek society, where women were seen as naturally subordinate to men. However, it may also carry connotations of sexuality which were not present in the Greek concept. Homosexual relationships were not considered indicative of effeminancy, and were sometimes seen as essential to the proper development of a male citizen (like the relationship between as erastes and eromenos).

[roo_ster]

Some of the people who commit suicide over it or try and fail to turn strait provide some pretty compelling evidence that they are unstable and/or mentally ill.

FIFY

Allow me to point out that I am not David Horsey, the award-winning editorial cartoonist who drew the cartoon that I posted.  Perhaps you and Fistful should point out the logical fallacies, as you perceive them, to him.

You are playing his proxy, as you point out in later posts.  It is still category error.

A homosexual is defined in every dictionary as a person whose sexual orientation is directed solely or almost solely towards others of his own sex. A person who has had, for whatever reason, a sex act with a person of his own sex and then proceeded to (say) have an exclusively-heterosexual sex life is not a homosexual. A man who has a sexual desire for both men and women is not a homosexual, but a bisexual, even if he proceeds to engage in a monogamous relationship with a woman.

Err, wrong.  Not every dictionary.  "Sexual orientation" is a relatively recent horse manure political/psychological concept with grounding in objective science only so far as observed behavior.  Show me some hard data besides, "But this is how I feeeeel!"  If the claim that this is genetic, bring on some data grounded in our understanding of DNA, too.

As for defining "bisexual," observed behavior is the gold standard, again.  It doesn't matter if the man in your example desires both men & women to the rest of us.  If the man is an accountant, does his job diligently, but has desires to fly jet planes for a living, he is not "bi-employed."  He is an accountant with a whimsy for flight.  We ought to weight that whimsy accordingly.

Also, aren't you happy to know I am royalty and own the richest canine in the world?  Or, maybe I am making a serious logical error in making such claims?

Except that, under DADT, it is not the homosexual act that is prohibited. Revealing your homosexual orientation in any way is prohibited.

[You might want to notice the modifier, "mostly" in my text you quoted. ]

And that is significant how?  So, the person lied to get in the service, but the service is taking them at their word when they come clean and admit they lied?  Honor and discipline-challenged.  Give 'em the boot. 

The .mil also bars folks who say they may be inclined toward murder or treason without having acted on it.

To put a finer point on it, urges/impulses/feelings that flit through one's mind are mostly insignificant to others.  Mostly.  If one acts on those impulses or insists on flapping one's gums about how they are so inclined, folks will take notice.  Really, how many arrests have been made solely on thoughts about beating on someone?  OTOH, actually beating someone is a crime*, as is making believable threats* to do so.

Which gets to the sub-point: speech is an action.  It is not THE act speech might describe, but it is an act, nonetheless.

Shouting "I am something-or-other" from the rooftops isn't being "something-or-other," but it is a sign one might be so inclined.  Changing our own actions with regard to the shouter is reasonable based on his acts (generating newly-obtained data).

If that person is saying they are homosexual, I am likely to take them at their word and leave it at that, unless my circumstances are such that I am required by law/prudence/etc. to do something about it.




* In many circumstances.

[mellestad]

I always sort of figured the fact that animals are often gay was enough to prove that there was a biological component.  Unless animals are capeable of 'immoral' behavior.

[Marnoot]

I'm in the camp where I think having a homosexual orientation is not a sin, but rather acting out on the orientation is (as mentioned, just like pre- and extra-marital heterosexual sex). Keeping in mind I'm a Mormon, and therefore on this subject will align closely with Catholics, and "fundy" Protestants, but my own feelings on the matter are that a homosexual orientation may very well not be a "choice," just as OCD and other mental disorders and other life-difficulties are not a choice, BUT even if not a choice is not something that is to be acted on.

I guess I view it as a cross to bear and something to be overcome or at the very least not to be acted on; part of overcoming the "natural man." I'm just as morally/religiously opposed to heterosexual pre- and extra-marital sex as I am to any homosexual "activity".

As to the thread topic, I think so long as dropping DADT won't have any detrimental effect on the efficacy & safety of the armed forces I see no reason not to do so. But not having been in the military I can't speak as to what the actual effects might be.

[MicroBalrog]

As for defining "bisexual," observed behavior is the gold standard, again.

Are you implying to know, better than me, across 10,000 kilometers, an ocean, and a sea, what my sexual orientation is? Seriously?

DADT is not based on people's sexual actions. To my knowledge all sex acts are equally prohibited within the confines of military bases.

I have never made a choice to be attracted to men as well as women, just as I have never made a choice to like certain foods. I have made the choice not to have sexual intercourse with men at the present juncture of my life, just as I made a choice not to have sex with women other than 2swap.

But presume homosexuality is a choice. This is far-fetched, given it denies most of the scholarship we have on this issue.  Let's compare homosexuality to something which is known to be a choice.

Religion!

How would you feel about the military banning the members of your specific denomination from service? Or about a law that allows people to sign up, as long as they don't mention their Christianity? After all, there's no right to serve in the military, at least not in the US.

(In Israel, there is a guaranteed right to serve in the military for all but the insane.)

[BReilley]

Some of the people who commit suicide over it or try and fail to turn strait provide some pretty compelling evidence that many people do not choose it. I never chose to be strait, but maybe my upbringing and the media conditioned me to be that way.

I never chose to be straight either, but my wife and I seem to agree it's the way to go.  Besides, the parts fit, and somehow the only way that 1+1 can equal 3 is if both partners are straight :D

Anyway, with respect to DADT and the military - it's the military.  It's not some social organization or a political campaign, it's a fighting force.  It is asexual, and it is a privilege to serve, not a right.  When you join the service you voluntarily give up some rights, and one of those rights *was* the right to free speech about homosexuality.
I didn't post earlier because JamisJockey said very well what I would have said; that it's not a problem until it's a problem.  A gay man can fight as well and as effectively as a straight man.  The issue comes up when romantic relationships develop.
Honestly I have a greater problem with integrating women into combat(due to the natural protective behavior of men around women) or naval service(due to redundant/extra facilities and provisions required for women) than I do gay men - as long as everybody can keep it professional.

While I appreciate the point about gay animals, and that may bear on the nature vs. choice debate... gay animals don't want to join the military.

[MicroBalrog]

That's all true, but I have a converse point:

The military is a system which is a closed box. Usually, most of the decisions made are made by people who come from within the box. But because the box is owned by The People - all of those guys who are not wearing uniforms and for whom the soldiers are fighting - it is the right of the people to individually criticize the military, and, as a political entity, to sometimes override the decisions made by people inside the box.

This is a good idea for three practical reasons:

1. People who work within a given system - the military, the school system, even a large company - can sometimes develop and maintain a set of ideas about what's good for the box that people outside the box may disagree with. The Navy recently thought they needed to reduce the amount of aircraft carriers, and Congress disagreed.

2. The people who own the box sometimes have different views of the organization's goals than the people inside the box. 

[Balog]

That's all true, but I have a converse point:

The military is a system which is a closed box. Usually, most of the decisions made are made by people who come from within the box. But because the box is owned by The People - all of those guys who are not wearing uniforms and for whom the soldiers are fighting - it is the right of the people to individually criticize the military, and, as a political entity, to sometimes override the decisions made by people inside the box.

This is a good idea for three practical reasons:

1. People who work within a given system - the military, the school system, even a large company - can sometimes develop and maintain a set of ideas about what's good for the box that people outside the box may disagree with. The Navy recently thought they needed to reduce the amount of aircraft carriers, and Congress disagreed.

2. The people who own the box sometimes have different views of the organization's goals than the people inside the box. 

Totally aside from the whole DADT thingy, wouldn't you say that whether or not .civ forcing ideas on the .mil is a good thing depends on what the ideas are?

[MicroBalrog]

Balog, first let me say I respect your military service and what you did for your country.

Look, it's true that some of the ideas brought in by civilian intervention are bad. We all know, I think, what it did to America in Vietnam. But then, military personnel are equally capable of introducing horrible ideas.

In the end, there are two ways you can control a government institution. Either have it controlled from within, by people who are from within the system, or have it controlled by Ze People. I think that, while both of these are imperfect, one of them is far superior to the other.

You must understand that my experience in this comes from living in a country where the military and most other government institutions are controlled from within by appointees of appointees, and the elected officials have only fairly limited input.

[Balog]

I wasn't disagreeing with your point, merely saying the blanket statement "It's a Good Thing^c when fed.gov tells the .mil to do something it doesn't want to" is overly broad. 

[mellestad]

While I appreciate the point about gay animals, and that may bear on the nature vs. choice debate... gay animals don't want to join the military.

I agree they are two seperate issues, but some had brought up the nature vs. nurture issue earlier so I thought I would pipe up.

As far as the military service issue, I agree with you.  If they can do it without a serious impact on fighting performance, put DADT away forever.  If it will cause problems, then keep it around until the military is ready.

And it *will* be ready eventually.  Statistically, equal rights for gays is inevitable since most opposition is from the older crowd.

[makattak]

I agree they are two seperate issues, but some had brought up the nature vs. nurture issue earlier so I thought I would pipe up.

As far as the military service issue, I agree with you.  If they can do it without a serious impact on fighting performance, put DADT away forever.  If it will cause problems, then keep it around until the military is ready.

And it *will* be ready eventually.  Statistically, equal rights for gays is inevitable since most opposition is from the older crowd.

People say the same thing about the conservatism- it's doomed to failure because it only appeals to older voters...

Funny, though, that demographic seems to keep favoring conservatism even as generations die off...

Might it be that older people, with more experience, have a realization that tossing away traditions willy-nilly because we think they're "icky" might have bad consequences?

[mellestad]

People say the same thing about the conservatism- it's doomed to failure because it only appeals to older voters...

Funny, though, that demographic seems to keep favoring conservatism even as generations die off...

Might it be that older people, with more experience, have a realization that tossing away traditions willy-nilly because we think they're "icky" might have bad consequences?

That could be, but in this case I imagine it is apples and oranges.  The issue about homosexuality is a 'moral' issue.  Kids are rather notorious for moving away from their parents morality a little every generation.

Besides, the statistics are more clear than that in this case.  50 year olds are less likely to be against it than 70 year olds and the trend continues all the way down to teens.  Once you get to the 30-something crowd the momentum shifts towards pro-gay rights.  I don't see 30 and 50 year olds deciding homosexuality is wrong once they retire....unless gay people won't stay off their lawns.

[mellestad]

And, I would add, 100 years ago the statistics would not be anything like they are today (Edit: regarding gay rights).  With conservatism, I don't think you could show the same thing, could you?

[MicroBalrog]

Funny, though, that demographic seems to keep favoring conservatism even as generations die off...

But that's meaningless. The 'conservative' views that appeal to today's 'old' people are not the same that appealed to  them ages ago. For example, most old people today would probably NOT want to do away with the entitlement system.

[Perd Hapley]

Oh, I very much agree with ending DADT.  I believe that sexual orientation is biologically-based, don't think homosexuality is a choice...[and a bunch of other stuff....]

Of course, I defend the right of people to believe that being gay is incompatible with military service, that being gay is a choice and that being gay is a sin.  I just don't share those beliefs.

That's nice, but the cartoon is still an ad hominem argument.  

[roo_ster]

Are you implying to know, better than me, across 10,000 kilometers, an ocean, and a sea, what my sexual orientation is? Seriously?

I neither know nor care what your "sexual orientation" is.  It is meaningless to me.

Just because you think you are something doesn't make you something, any more than the protagonist in "The Jerk" was "poor & black" because he thought so.  In his case, he could be proved otherwise in an objective fashion (no rhythm).

If all you've ever done is think/talk about it, you ain't it anymore than the couch potato who really thinks he would be a great SEEL and tells his buddies how he has always wanted to be and intends to be a SEEL one day is anything other than a couch potato with delusions about being a "SEEL."

Besides, "sexual orientation" as currently taught is utter bullshinola of the fuzzy science/political type.  Once again, if you are claiming this as a genetic trait, do please provide some hard science data to back it up.  I assume you got bupkis, since I have asked several times and you produce nothing but sacks of sentiment masquerading as data.

DADT is not based on people's sexual actions. To my knowledge all sex acts are equally prohibited within the confines of military bases.

Uh, incorrect on both counts.  For DADT to be invoked, the person in question must have acted in some fashion, as the .mil does not yet have a mind-reading device to employ to detect thoughts & emotions.  IOW, they were caught doing something or talked about it, etc.  Even in my near-psychotic unit, somebody had to go out of their way to get that sort of scrutiny.

I have never made a choice to be attracted to men as well as women, just as I have never made a choice to like certain foods. I have made the choice not to have sexual intercourse with men at the present juncture of my life, just as I made a choice not to have sex with women other than 2swap.

Bully for you. 

I presume that your monogamous status is not altered by thoughts/feelings you may have WRT any other humans and intercourse with them?  Or does the "this is how I feel therefore this is how I am" rule apply?  IOW, does any sexual attraction to any other human (or mammal, lets be broad-minded here) void monogamous status and make you unfaithful?

But presume homosexuality is a choice. This is far-fetched, given it denies most of the scholarship we have on this issue.

Once again, social/fuzzy science twaddle pumped out by the Queer Studies Department at Yale does not causation prove.

How would you feel about the military banning the members of your specific denomination from service? Or about a law that allows people to sign up, as long as they don't mention their Christianity? After all, there's no right to serve in the military, at least not in the US.

(In Israel, there is a guaranteed right to serve in the military for all but the insane.)

If my religion were disruptive or detrimental to morale, I'd expect adherents to be barred from joining. 

FTR, there ARE many Christians who are wholly unsuited to .mil service due to the way they practice or their understanding of their religion.  I'd hope .mil kept them out.

I also have no problem barring particular political affiliations from service.  It ain't kumbaya and it ain't beanbag.