I’m just gonna use the word “gay”. It’s easier, we’re all adults and know the issues and definitions. In the same way it annoys me to read “him- or herself” in manuals or text, having to slog through “homosexual or lesbian” throughout … just deal with it.
At various times in my life I’ve felt more or less strongly about gay issues, and I think those times have coincided with different gay friends and coworkers I’ve had. For some years I don’t give much thought, other times I wonder why this is such a huge issue when I see my pals living regular lives, much like mine, caring about their pets, their grades, their moms, striving to do quality work, contributing to our community, playing sports, working through life’s strife.
I ponder why conservatives and Christians have such a problem with gays in the military. I’m going to try to keep my focus on that issue. My premise will be largely the same whether I’m talking about gays in other roles of society, but this is the issue of the day. I concede that the Bible has some straightforward things to say about the sexual acts of homosexuality:
I Corinthians 6 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
And
Romans 1 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
So Christians and some conservatives point to God’s word as their reason to deny gays the honor of serving in the military. AND I WOULD ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH THEM! … if … they used the same passages/measurements of worthiness to also deny that honor of military service to people who are adulterers, thieves, greedy, slanderers, swindlers, deceivers, those with malice, envy, the arrogant, insolent and boastful, the gossipers, the heartless, the ruthless as also listed in those same Biblical passages.
The Bible says in Isaiah 59
Surely the arm of the LORD is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear.
But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear.
Sin is sin. And if one sin disqualifies you from military service then all should, because we are separated from God by any and all sins. Equally. We are not MORE separated from God because of homosexuality than we are by greed. Or envy. Or gossiping. We are not FURTHER away from His Grace because of an immoral … or shall I say to many the “distasteful” sexual sin of homosexuality than we are of the quite socially acceptable sin of regular boy/girl sexual immorality. Or even adultery. Are divorced/remarried people unfit for military service? Are men or women who have cohabitated with the opposite sex unfit for military service? Because God’s Word judges those sins on a completely equal footing as homosexuality. Do we disqualify liars from military service? Arrogant men? Greedy women? It is we humans who provide a sliding scale of which sins are worse, or more wrong, or less acceptable, or disgusting. So if it by the Biblical definition of sin that we keep gays out of the military, then I cry FOUL!
I’ve never served but I’m pretty tired of having folks who HAVE served tell me about the morale issues and so on. What morale issues? You think that a soldier who has qualified mentally, physically, emotionally, and psychologically for military service is going to be peeking at you in your well fitting uniform? Leering at you across the shooting range? Copping a feel in the foxhole? SERIOUSLY? The women in the military have learned to deal with blatant sexism and harassment, and you’d be a fool and disingenuous to argue otherwise. Grow up.
There are gays serving heroically and wonderfully in positions and roles with incredibly high stakes already, life and death situations. Doctors. Police officers. Firemen. And yes, in the military.
Now there can be other conversations we have about gay marriage. Gays adopting children. And I will say that any overt sexual display in public whether it be at a Gay Pride Parade, or a Mardi Gras Parade in New Orleans makes me uncomfortable. But that is not tonight’s discussion.
My conviction is that we should accept patriotic Americans as soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, coast guard and honor and respect their dedication to putting themselves in harm’s way and keeping us safe.
Steve Maley
Neil Stevens
Daniel Horowitz
sorry, I disagree, you can't be this naive?
DONTREADONME (Diary) Tuesday, February 2nd at 8:14PM EST (link)as much as you would like all of the homosexuals and lesbians in the military to get along with all of the fine straight soldiers it just wont happen. I am sorry but you are not going to like what will happen with the repeal of DADT and you are not going to like the ostracism caused by the outing.
The only way I could accept homosexuals in the military is to form gay companies or platoons because you can not put the homosexuals with the straight just as you can not put the females with the males. Seriously, ask a few Marines about how he feels about homosexuals in their platoon. Chances are you are not going to like what you hear.
Lastly, I am not quite a big fan of the invocation of “he who is without sin cast the first stone”
This what happens when you get some Talking points from CNN
Richard Mullins (Diary) Tuesday, February 2nd at 8:23PM EST (link)and I mean it too. They really have no idea about the policy and the last rebuff came from a Judge. I don’t see it changing at all and even if does, it’s going to challenged to death. The Military is always the last place you want an openly Homosexual person in. It worked the same way for years, why try to make it worse.
Richard Phillip Mullins BlogThe Squash Satire SiteNews on Happy Jet Airlines
Rmullins Pics
Rpmullins Twitter
Joe Biden is like a Decrepit Park owner with a Meth lab that happens to not only be a dealer but a user.
Let’s Bankrupt the Democratic paty. Make spend all the money to defend thier candidates.
hah
dave_in_atl (Diary) Wednesday, February 3rd at 1:54PM EST (link)You act like “The Gays” are not already serving in the military.
But here is an interesting thought to chew on… When one forces someone to keep a secret in order to maintain a job (DADT) what happens when some foreign government finds out about someone’s sexual orientation, and then blackmails them?
FACTS:
1) Gay people will serve in the military no matter what… openly or in secret.
2) People who have secrets are much easier to blackmail.
So even if only for National Security DADT should be abolished.
non sequitur
gunnerbs (Diary) Thursday, February 4th at 7:50AM EST (link)Even if one accepts your premise, it does not follow that gays would be forced to accept their would-be blackmailer’s terms. All anyone-gay or straight, black or white, male or female, officer of enlisted, whatever-must do when faced with that situation is go to the Office of Special Investigations (in the Air Focrce; NCIS, I think in the Navy, not sure about the Army) on base and report it. This is akin to the FBI
I’m pretty sure the “Don’t Ask” part of DADT would preclude the OSI from actually asking if the victim was homosexual. And even if they did, it’s not like they would say, “Well, you are gay, and you can’t be in the military, so you might as well accept your blackmailer’s terms.” They wouldn’t even say “Well, if you’re not gay, then what’s the problem?”
They would investigate the blackmailer, probably catch him, and thereby enhance national security. They cannot initiate an investigation to find out if the homosexual charges are true.
So, that’s one thing that could happen “when some foreign government finds out about someone’s sexual orientation, and then blackmails them”.
As an aside, adultery is illegal in the military, too. This difference is that the OSI can investigate adultery charges.
I start with the premise that NO ONE has a right to my Life, Liberty, or Property. Beyond that I’m open to discussion.
———————————
When you send a contribution to the candidate you support, send a copy of the check, or at least a note to his or her opponent, telling them why your money didn’t go there!
You never served
gunnerbs (Diary) Tuesday, February 2nd at 9:31PM EST (link)You said so yourself.
So please do not assume you can lecture those of us who have served about morale issues, foxholes, or “well fitting uniforms.” Neither should you lecture us about any “blatant sexism and harrassment” that you assume all of the many women in the military have to deal with, presumably on a daily basis.
I dedicated 20 years of my life to the Air Force, and I am most certainly grown up. So please, get off your high horse.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion about whether gays should be allowed to serve openly or not, but you took a cheap shot at military members, lumping all of us into the homophobic-sexist-neanderthal category.
I start with the premise that NO ONE has a right to my Life, Liberty, or Property. Beyond that I’m open to discussion.
———————————
When you send a contribution to the candidate you support, send a copy of the check, or at least a note to his or her opponent, telling them why your money didn’t go there!
Well I grew a Navy Brat for about 15 yrs of my life
Richard Mullins (Diary) Tuesday, February 2nd at 9:38PM EST (link)so I know a bit about this although my dad was out before DADT. The whole open Homosexual thing never works well in our Military and anyone that thinks it does is very naive.
Richard Phillip Mullins BlogThe Squash Satire SiteNews on Happy Jet Airlines
Rmullins Pics
Rpmullins Twitter
Joe Biden is like a Decrepit Park owner with a Meth lab that happens to not only be a dealer but a user.
Let’s Bankrupt the Democratic paty. Make spend all the money to defend thier candidates.
I tend to agree
gunnerbs (Diary) Wednesday, February 3rd at 6:06AM EST (link)that it doesn’t work well. I understand the debate, given our current culture, but DADT seemed to me to work OK. I didn’t hear of many discharges because someone was gay, nor did I hear of many court martials.
We certainly didn’t sit around wondering if some closeted homosexual was leering at us in our well fitting BDUs. The writer presumes that we did just that AND that we males did nothing but harass the females in our units to prove to them that the military was a heterosexual-males-only club.
I took offense to that characterization of the military–many of whom I consider friends, brothers, and sisters.
I start with the premise that NO ONE has a right to my Life, Liberty, or Property. Beyond that I’m open to discussion.
———————————
When you send a contribution to the candidate you support, send a copy of the check, or at least a note to his or her opponent, telling them why your money didn’t go there!
Wow. Using this diary as an example, I'm going to
mbecker908 (Diary) Tuesday, February 2nd at 9:42PM EST (link)point out that you don’t have to actually know anything to string a bunch of words together.
5 (nt)
discerningconservative (Diary) Tuesday, February 2nd at 9:44PM EST (link)The only consideration here
Third Street (Diary) Tuesday, February 2nd at 9:50PM EST (link)is whether this will enhance or degrade the U.S. military as an effective fighting force. Biblical text doesn’t matter. Conservative theory doesn’t matter. This isn’t about what’s “fair” or what’s “equitable” or any other such hogwash.
I didn’t serve, either, but I have a number of family and friends who did, in various branches, and neither they nor anyone else I’ve ever spoken to who has any knowledge of the military at all believes that allowing gays to openly serve would be anything short of disastrous. No good will come of this; not for the gay servicemen, not for the straight servicemen, not for the Armed Services themselves, and not for the American people who will see the world’s greatest military transformed into a dysfunctional social laboratory with a diminished ability to defend them.
It is arrogant of you to brush off the concerns of people who’ve served and know what they’re talking about, as morale and trust within units of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are what makes the U.S. military work. Openly-serving gays will undermine that. As with marriage and adoption, the primary concern is not over what certain individuals want.
“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.” –Wilkins Micawber, “David Copperfield”
The issue isn't whether or not
aesthete (Diary) Tuesday, February 2nd at 9:54PM EST (link)there are patriotic gays or not, or whether or not gays are living in sin — both issues are irrelevant. The real question is, is the benefit that the armed forces gets from having a non-trivial amount of gays in the military worth the cost (more interpersonal issues, lower morale, MWR funds allocated to gays, etc.)? I don’t know whether the answer to that question is in the affirmative or the negative, but it is telling that virtually all quarters of the armed services (but the Marines, in specific) came out in opposition to DADT. I don’t think that this was a visceral reaction to sin or any such thing; our armed forces are all about discipline and professionalism, and takes breaches of same seriously. Therefore, I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, and I’m not too keen on imposing mandates from special interests over the objections of our servicemen.
The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
Polls show service members oppose gays in military
sharonmcp (Diary) Tuesday, February 2nd at 10:20PM EST (link)IMO, the issue should not be whether the American public supports the repeal of DADT, but whether those actively serving in the military support it that should be considered first and foremost.
“Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.” ~ Ronald Reagan
Sure repeal it!!!
langoley Wednesday, February 10th at 8:25AM EST (link)Lest ye know not what ye ask for!! All of you want it “repealed”,do you really know what that would mean? As “friends” of mine on Milblogging sites have pointed out that would mean that things would go back to the way they were before before the policy was in place!! That means if you are in the military and gay,and you are found out,not only is that now a CRIME but you will also be charged with perjury for lying on your enlistment form!! As it stands you will recieve a discharge,not be prosecuted.The further argument by MILITARY members is if you are going to MODIFY the policy then the next step is to completely desegregate the armed forces,no more separate barracks for male and female soldiers! What is the difference? There would be no differenence in the STARES in the SHOWER From many openly gay men than there would be of men looking at female service members!!!