There's no reason a homosexual person shouldn't serve. The policy of our country is to let women serve, even in the face of staggering arguments and statistics about increases in fraternization, decreases in readiness levels due to "deployment pregnancies", training dollars wasted when single moms need to cross-train into a non-deployable billet, etc. These aren't the norm, either, but being a soldier/sailor/airman/marine is a tough enough job without having gender-related problems. As far as homosexuals serving, I'm more in line with NateBishop's thinking. The policy of our country is to segregate quarters, facilities and policies based upon gender. Personally, I think it's relatively hypocritical for someone to say that "Whites Only" on a bathroom is bad, but "Women Only" is fine. The only difference b/w a gay sailor and a straight sailor is the manner in which they have sex. Period. Just like the PC answer is that the only difference b/w a female sailor and a male sailor are the anatomical sexual differences. Yet the military segregates quarters and facilities. IMO, if they didn't it would be worse than it already is, but we're talking philosophy here--no one clamoring for this change cares about the practical application of this. And that includes CNO, the President, Members of Congress, etc. And yes, I've had the experience of being the an officer onboard a sub inport when one of our sailors sexually assaulted another sailor in a non-consensual homosexual way. We lost two productive members of the ship (one in the brig for sexual assault, one in the brig for beating the crap out of the guy assaulting him) for the rest of the patrol, which on an already undermanned ship was not good for morale, readiness or mission accomplishment. Sure, that's one small anecdote in a sea of experiences, but this isn't an Ivory Tower Philosophical point. It's a real-life potential problem stemming from a desire for social engineering. And I don't necessarily like that it's being foisted upon the military.
That really doesn't make any sense as point, IMO (whether in practical terms or in Ivory Tower philosophical terms). The problem your anecdote highlights is that it's bad to have criminal personalities (like sexual offenders) in the military. What does that have to do with "social engineering," unless your implication is that homosexuals are particularly prone to criminal behaviour? Do you also feel allowing women to serve alongside men is "social engineering foisted on the military" due to the possibility of male/female sexual assault?
Practicing homosexuality in the military is criminal behavior. From the UCMJ Article 125 (Sodomy): Same as DUI, bouncing checks, rape/sexual assault and a host of other (sometimes antiquated, like duelling) things. For my anecdote, it wouldn't have changed had it been consensual. Both would've been kicked off the ship for their criminal, homosexual behavior. To be fair, had someone brought a woman on board for heterosexual intercourse, they would've been heavily disciplined as well. The social engineering aspect comes when politicians/activists/etc state that there should be changes to the military law to allow unsegregated open homosexual acceptance into the military for whatever reason, but not limited to (in the words of Mullen) First, DADT doesn't make anyone lie, and it's a lie by the CNO to say that it is. No one is permitted to ask, and the homosexual isn't forced to tell. Secondly, open homosexuality is forbidden in our military and has been since the Declaration of Independence. So while a homosexual patriot may want to, say, fly a fighter plane or drive tanks or shoot sniper rifles or cook for soldiers...when the dotted line is signed he/she knows exactly what he/she's getting into. If their sexuality isn't a workplace issue (as many in here seem to be saying), then why is it even a problem? Answer: It's not, unless the criminal makes it so. The only thing that makes someone homosexual is their method of having sex. Yet there is an element in our society (who I termed the Ivory Tower Philosophers) who think that unsegregated open homosexuality is progressive (in the good way, not the political way) and is a civil right. In the military it isn't and never has been. It's a criminal act. And changing that just b/c there is a minority segment of society that wishes their wishes to be respected at the cost of others is what I'm terming "social engineering". Maybe my definition is off. Sorry, I thought I made it clear that my personal opinion is that having women in close-quarter live-aboard situations (or in the field) is a bad idea that was "prejudicial to good order and discipline" (military term). Notice, I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to serve. But a) there's segregation in place based solely on sex; b) even with this segregation there are numerous reliefs-of-command, fraternization cases, sexual harassment/assault cases, pregnancies detrimental to readiness and manpower, etc. My personal opinion is such that close-quarter situations exacerbate problems that a little "personal space" would remedy. Personally, I don't care if people are having sex however they have sex as long as it's legal. Our government has decided that it's fine to do so, except in the military. In our volunteer military, there's a different (higher?) standard of living that you must live up to to serve honorably. You're more than welcome to not join if you feel you can't do so. And if you'd like to do both, then serve another way: as a firefighter, or policeman, or Department of Corrections Officer, or nurse, or whatever. EDIT: There's a lot of rambling there...it's what I get for trying to cover all the perceived bases in the argument all at once.
Practicing sex, straight or gay, in the military is criminal behaviour, I believe. That doesn't change my point at all. Your anecdote about how someone forced sex on another simply points to a defective personality, it's not a telling point about how homosexuals living in close quarters with others aboard a ship is a problem.
Wrong. Sodomy is criminal (Article 125). Rape and carnal knowledge is criminal (Article 120). Conduct Unbecoming and Officer and Gentleman (Article 133) is criminal. You're "in uniform" and subject to the UCMJ 24/7 in the military. So, going into the nearest city on shore liberty and hooking up with someone at a bar is not criminal...unless you're committing one of the criminal acts above. Having sex on the ship of any type is illegal, but that falls under "disobeying an order from the Commanding Officer" rather than a UCMJ specific article. My anecdote was a specific example utilized to refute the "they won't do anything to you" crowd. It's very specialized, and maybe that was the one situation out of a billion where that would've happened. But it did. this isn't just an academic exercise. Maybe it's tough for civilians to understand, and I sympathize with that. That's kind of why I'm trying to explain myself as fully as I can here.
There may be a higher standard, and certainly anyone who's straight or homosexual knows it ahead of time. What your post demonstrates is that there's a double standard for those who are homosexual that isn't fair or good for anyone (including the military). Long standing discrimination practices don't excuse continuing them.
Why is it "discrimination"? What's the double standard? I'm really not trying to be obtuse, but it seems pretty cut-and-dried to me. The US government sees sodomy as sexually deviant behavior and criminal for the military. Whether or not you or I agree with it, it's the law of the land. It doesn't discriminate against anyone except behaviorally. As a Naval Officer, I'm not at liberty to do many things that are "legal" in the civilian world. For instance, every sitcom that ever had an office romance blossom is illegal in the military. Is that another "Long standing discrimination practice" against people who are just trying to find their soul mate? Telling your boss to F*** off might get you fired in the civilian world, but it can get you thrown in the brig and dishonorably discharged in the military. Is that a "long-standing discriminatory practice" against hotheads? Perhaps I don't get what we're talking about. I don't see a double-standard, unless it's from the homosexual lobby trying to turn a behavior into a demographic. I'd happily like someone to take the time to explain to me if I'm not seeing your side on this.
I just like the argument of "since the Declaration of Independence". I guess we shouldn't have changed anything at all since then - definitely going to become a slavemaster.
"You (Mr. Homosexual) can join the army, but you can't marry another fellow." vs. "You (Mr. Heterosexual) can join the army, and we'll give you married quarters." The point being that it's very separate treatment and rules for the two Mr.'s And the real point being that when it comes to military service, the idea is to have folks who are good at kicking asses and breaking things. Being homosexual doesn't preclude these things.
Both the examples you provide impact the ability for the people involved to carry out their military duties as assigned. Engaging in a romantic relationship with someone in your unit could impact functionality and cohesion. Swearing at a superior is insubordination. Homosexual behavior in and of itself has no impact on a soldier's ability to fulfill the requirements of his position. I'm not advocating for or against either position, but I felt the difference needed to be noted. Being ignorant myself, I'm curious if you can provide examples of other military laws that relate specifically to private, off-duty conduct.
Well, Mr. Homosexual has the same right to marry a woman that Mr. Heterosexual has. Similarly, Mr. Heterosexual is identically prohibited from marrying another man. Sounds like they're actually under the exact same rules.
Eh, okay. When you're separating "criminal" from "illegal," it seems very much semantics, at least as regards my point. It may be important in terms of procedure or penalty (and, of course, I think if "sodomy" carries a greater penalty than straight sex, that's bigoted policy), but it's not a meaningful distinction in relation to what I was saying. This is just an academic exercise, when it comes to making broad policy. Anecdotes are bad ways to debate policy. It's like saying, "We'd be better of segregating society by race. Quick anecdote: We had a black guy working with us in an otherwise all-white office and one day, he murdered a co-worker. We lost two productive people...the murderer due to going to jail, and the murdered employee due to being dead. Now, I realize that this isn't a good logical argument due to sample size and one event not characterizing an entire dynamic, but it just goes to show what can happen in the real world." Maybe. Or maybe you have a prejudice toward homosexuality due to your religious views. And I actually do sympathize with that, since religion seems to be hard to see past, but I don't think your views should hold sway in limiting what a non-malicious demographic of people can do.
Your last point is the least relevant, IMO. My religious views don't have any bearing on how someone else lives their life. I'd be happy to explain that seeming dichotomy in another thread (since it seems that whack-jobs with no Biblical foundation get to carry the mantle of "How Christians Think"). What does "sway my view" is being in one uniform or another since I was 17. Being in the field, being in a barracks situation, being at the Academy, being on sub, being an officer, being enlisted, serving with women, serving on male-only crews...that semi-lifetime of experience is such that I have a pretty decent experience base to draw my conclusions on what is "prejudicial to good order and discipline" or not. Notice, I've never said that homosexual patriots shouldn't serve in the military. Honestly, I'd probably rather have homosexual men in combat and on ships than women, b/c of the manpower and readiness issues I've discussed earlier. But that's not what the laws say, and the women-in-combat-and-on-deployed-ships debate is for another time. But isn't it hypocritical to segregate women, yet not segregate based on sexual behavior? I don't personally think that behavior defines a demographic, non-malicious or otherwise. Your race example is not a behavior. I don't care about limiting what anyone does: I care about having them do what they want in a way that is best for the military, not best for them--and that goes for any "demographic". Any "limit" is imposed by the laws of the country.
