This whole thing gets very confusing to me. Too often, I suppose, I find that I lack the wisdom to solve all the world's problems. Go figure. Here's one that I can't answer.
A local radio station is reporting on a campaign to accept gays in the military. They want to eliminate the "Don't ask, don't tell" rule and simply allow them to be openly homosexual. Rep. Ellen Tauscher, a California Democrat, also introduced a bill that would ban any discrimination in the military on the basis of sexual orientation.
It seems as if those who are arguing for this aren't taking into account the realities of the situation. In normal human thinking there are two types of humans: male and female. The "standard" perception is that males and females have sexual differences and sexual attraction. Therefore, for the safety and security of both, we provide different facilities. Women are provided different bathrooms, showers, and sleeping facilities from men. While people are quite used to exposing themselves to others of the same gender in, say, locker room environments or gym showers, it is not deemed appropriate to share those environments with the opposite sex. It would produce uncomfortable and potentially dangerous sexual situations. No one questions that we should have "Men's rooms" and "Women's rooms" in venues where both genders are present because it's the right thing to do to protect both.
Now factor in the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transsexual folks. Suddenly men who are sexually attracted to men are allowed the views that men who are attracted to women are not. Heterosexuals of the same gender showering in the same area are not at risk because they are not worried about sexual attraction. However, gender now is not the condern; sexual orientation is. The problem: How would we go about providing sleeping and bathroom facilities based on sexual orientation that would allow people to be safe and comfortable?
This was precisely the problem recently here in Arizona. A "transgender woman" (I'm sorry -- these things get very confusing to me) complained because the owner of a local favorite night spot banned them from using the women's restroom. Why did he do that? Because his female patrons complained when male-looking people went into the women's restroom and used the facilities in a male way (standing up). The female patrons were upset. Of course, the transgender patrons were equally upset when they were banned. They shouldn't have to use the men's restroom; they're not men. Somehow, then, their right to be transgender counters the women's right to be uncomfortable around the whole thing.
The same is true for the military. The right of individuals to be gay, it seems, should overpower the concern of the military to avoid sexual situations in their facilities. I say that because I cannot come up with a single answer that would remedy the problem. You see, if you put heterosexuals with heterosexuals, there is an automatic disconnect with sexual situations. Throw in the rest, however, and the permutations become impossible. Put homosexuals with homosexuals and the sexual tensions will be present. Throw homosexuals with heterosexuals of the same gender, and the sexual tensions will be present. Of course, you can't put homosexuals of one gender with heterosexuals of the opposite gender. That's a mess. Factor in bisexuals and the whole thing becomes simply impossible.
I believe that homosexual behavior is a sin. However, I do not believe that I have the right to throw people in jail for sin. I am not favoring banning homosexuals from society. I am simply asking that people who fall outside of the norm take into account the effects they have on those around them. When my preferences impact other people, why do I think my preferences outweigh theirs? In the military especially, if one's sexual preferences are going to negatively impact the military mission (and, believe me, it will), why should the military be required to allow it? They regulate how you wear your hair and what clothes you put on. They can't regulate who they allow in?
Like "free speech", I don't think this is an issue of freedom of expression of one's sexual orientation (a concept I find bizarre anyway). No one is saying, "You can't be gay." They're saying, "It doesn't work in this venue." It's like "Men and women are equal. It just doesn't work when it comes to sharing bathrooms." The two are different. Why can't people see that?
2 comments:
A good and thorough write-up.
When my preferences impact other people, why do I think my preferences outweigh theirs?
But what if you're a narcissist...?
20 years ago the norm was to treat gays like anyone else. In fact, I've never looked at them any differently than anyone else. But the focus of the activists has switched to something quite different which seeks preferences over other people. When I was single, I would have loved to have a right to shower with women, use their restrooms, and join the military so I could sleep and live in close proximity.
You're exactly right about the problems of where to put gays in the military. You can't put them with men because they are sexually active with and attracted to men. You can't put them with other gays because you will have sexual relations in the barracks which is not allowed. And you can't put them with women because they'll be a flood of straight guys saying they're gay so they can live with young women in close quarters.
The only resolution that is fair to all is to say that they can only work in a capacity where they don't share quarters and showers with others. They cannot complain legitimately because they would be asking for special preference for anything more than that.
These confusions (this article and the Free Speech article) come from trying to apply post-modernism to the realm of rights and ideas. Since pomo is impossible to reconcile with reason, the result is that it has become a tool to get preferences from others. Contradictory ideas cannot be equal. Men and women cannot be made to be the same, and radical feminism (where fems actually protest the innate discrimination of having separate men's and ladies rooms in public places) is collapsing because it's contradictions only become more obvious with time.
This type of postmodern activism only exists to get concessions for the advocates. Once folks in general begin to see the "heads I win, tails you lose" reality of this activism, it will lose steam. I do think it already is.
Postmodernism is a good tool for fooling people for a time, but it's broken at it's core.
They're saying, "It doesn't work in this venue." It's like "Men and women are equal. It just doesn't work when it comes to sharing bathrooms." The two are different. Why can't people see that?
They can't say that, because if they do it completely removes their whole basis for agitating for "equal treatment". The problem with "equal treatment" is how do you define equality? As you've just proven, there is no way to treat everyone equally with regard to comfort and preventing potentially harassing situations in the military. Likewise, I would argue that there is no way you can legislate "equal treatment" for gay individuals in the public sphere because at some fundamental level there IS a difference in behavior, and when you're not comparing apples to apples any more, there isn't equality! Men and women are different, period. All the feminists out there arguing about equal opportunity who ignore the fundamental difference only do themselves and women a disservice. Likewise for gay people to pretend or say they are "just the same as everyone else" ignores the fundamental fact that they are NOT the same, and they DO behave differently, and when you have a difference, how can you ask for equal treatment?
It's quite illogical at the very basic level, and once you get them to admit that, then they lose an argument for advancing what they perceive as equal treatment. What it really is, is creating special treatment just for gay people, but of course just saying that makes me homophobic, right? Because there is no better way to refute a logical counterpoint than by name calling.
Post a Comment