This is going to sound like a moral rant or something, I'm sure. I am, of course, morally opposed to homosexual behavior. Obviously, then, this must be about that. Well, it isn't. It isn't a rant. It's a serious question. And I've not heard any serious answers, so maybe someone can help me out.
The President is moving toward eliminating the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military and allow homosexuals to serve openly. Top military brass are troubled by "a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are." So the goal of those who testified before the Senate are hoping that heterosexual and homosexual will just serve alongside and everything will be hunky dory. Yes, hunky dory -- I believe that was the very term they used.
Now, I'm not questioning whether or not a homosexual can serve well in the military. Admiral Mike Mullen affirmed, "I have served with homosexuals since 1968." That's fine. There is nothing about people who are attracted to the same gender that would preclude them from being able to do the tasks required by the military. And while I obviously have a moral objection to their sexual behavior, no one could safely argue that the military is a bastion of high moral character even among the heterosexual population. And, frankly, I think that whole "shared blood may bring about AIDS" is a specious argument. I mean, heterosexual members may have diseases (STDs, hepatitis, even HIV or AIDS) as well, so let's not even go there. In all cases you screen for bad stuff and hope for the best. I'm fine with that. And prejudice in the military against homosexuals will just have to be dealt with. They dealt with racial prejudice. They always have to deal with a whole host of other prejudices. Deal with it. No, none of those "standard" problems disturb me. My problem is in envisioning how to ... how do they put it ... "accommodate" homosexuals.
Given "normal" conditions, you have men and you have women in the military. Men and women do not share accommodations. Why? Well, it's quite obvious. There is this standard condition which almost all humans encounter in which they prefer not to be made constantly and without invitation a sex object. It is standard for women to not undress in front of random men and, despite what some might thing, the same is true in reverse. Especially in the military, but anywhere else, public encounters are stressful enough without the accompanying sexual tension that opposite sexes bring. That, of course, is under "normal" conditions. So, a group of guys in a dorm room in the military aren't too concerned about being in various states of undress around a group of heterosexual males because there is no sexual tension there. Ditto for women. Have someone of the opposite gender walk in and it's "cover up quickly". We all know this. And so we house male and female separately.
Currently, under the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, we don't quite have these conditions. We understand that there are those males being housed with males who may be sexually attracted to males or females with females. Some estimate that it's up to 60,000 of them. That's roughly 4%. So it might be (has been) argued that heterosexual and homosexual members of the military are already living alongside each other. Here's the problem. First, in a "No homosexuals in the military" environment, it would be highly unlikely that this would be the case. But even in a "Don't ask, don't tell" environment, while the odds are higher (4%), you just don't know. So, here I am, Joe Hetero, serving in the military, living in a dorm with other guys. Are any of them possibly looking at me with lust? Well, there is only a 4% chance that they are, and I'll not know if they are. Therefore, I can tell myself it's not a problem and be done.
Now we shift to the third scenario -- from "no homosexuals allowed" to "Don't ask, don't tell" to openly homosexual. How do we now deal with this new demographic? Most guys would be uncomfortable living openly with males who might be producing this sexual tension. So what do we do with the homosexuals? We can't put them in their own housing because we'd be building in sexual tension. I suppose, since they're not attracted to females, we could put them in with the women, but that would clearly not be the right thing to do. Besides, wouldn't the male homosexual population be uncomfortable in those circumstances? You can be quite sure that housing female homosexuals among the heterosexual males would be a catastrophe. It seems like the only answer would be to house each of them separately from the rest. But that's not practical at all. Without bringing up any of the moral issues, questions of their ability to serve, or the vague "threat of AIDS", how would we accommodate the homosexual population in the military? Often the military is housed in group settings. How will the military deal with this thorny problem? I don't have an answer. I can't even imagine an answer. Is the best we have to make the rest of the male (and female) population suffer? I can't see where this is going.
13 comments:
Most guys would be uncomfortable living openly with males who might be producing this sexual tension. So what do we do with the homosexuals?
If you're looking for an answer and would like me to offer an opinion, here it is:
What do we do if "the gays" are openly admitted in the military? Deal with it. Be adult. As you rightly note, gay folk are already in the military. Always have been.
You think "most guys" would be uncomfortable living with gay guys? They already are, does that make them uncomfortable? If so, they just need to move on, get over it. Be adult.
If I were in a room of 20 guys and one of them was gay, the thing is, I'm not interested in him, not being gay myself. So, there's not really a likelihood of an affair developing. Right, so far?
If the guy is not a sexual deviant, then there's not a chance of him wanting to rape me. Agreed?
So, from my point of view, I'm not uncomfortable being in a barracks-style room with a gay guy. I don't know of any studies that indicate that "most guys" would be uncomfortable with this situation. I sort of doubt that, given that it's been the reality for a long time. But even if that's the case, that seems to be their problem, not the gay soldiers' problem.
Now, the greatest problem that I can think of is for the gay guy (or lesbian gal). Are they the sort who would be unduly distracted and "turned on" by the notion of sleeping around a bunch of guys who aren't attracted to them? The word I hear is, no, they would not be.
Think of it this way: If you were tending to a bunch of young children, changing the diapers of both boys and girls, is that a problem for you? No, of course not. Or at least not for me. I'm not attracted to children, so that's not like there's any temptation there.
From what I hear, it's more like that (slightly different situation, of course, but in the ballpark of being like that). Yeah, some times, a gay guy might joke around about how "hot" Brad Pitt is or a lesbian might drool a bit about some straight woman. But from what I hear, it's sort of like that whole gaydar thing - if there are no "gay vibes" coming from someone, there's not that much of a problem setting the straight group aside as untouchable. They aren't interested in someone who's not interested in them, as a rule.
That's what I hear.
Now, of course, there ARE some more lusty gay and lesbian types out there. Folk who are turned on by anything that's breathing and the same gender. Of course, that's true for straight folk, too (except, of course, lusting for the opposite gender - and by my estimations, the problem is largest with young straight guys, am I right?)
But we expect our doctors to be able to examine men or women without it being a problem - we expect professionalism from them. The same is true for our soldiers. We expect professionalism. And, if a soldier has a hard time being professional around whichever gender he or she is attracted to, then that's a problem that soldier has and they need to be weeded out, probably. Gay or straight.
But as long as our soldiers, like our doctors, can be professional about it and compartmentalize their sexual urges (and I see no reason why they can't, in general), then this is not going to be a problem.
Speaking as a non-gay person, that has been my impression. I have not seen anyone writing first hand about the situation, but that's my impression, for what it's worth.
Since you asked.
I posed this very question elsewhere. Mixing homo with hetero is akin to mixing men with women. Since we already provide separate accomodations for each sex, it only makes sense that there must be separate accomodations for homos and lesbians. That would be four separate sets of barracks and possibly separate units of soldiers based on sexual orientation, in order to prevent the problems that accompany sexual attractions.
Seems to me that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is the best option for homos who wish to serve. More importantly, it seems to me that like we to live on God's terms rather than He on ours, the recruit is to live on the military's terms, not the other way around.
Personally, I'm more than tired of the whiney demands of this very small segment of society upon the rest of us, particularly over a changable condition.
Apparently, Dan, you aren't aware of the "rules of the bathroom", so to speak. Sure, the link is humorous, but it's based on real life. Most guys are uncomfortable with other guys "checking out my package". It's just not done. I'm not talking about rape. But if a guy is attracted to a guy, then he will be likely to express that attraction, and for the standard heterosexual male that is unwanted.
The argument that "it has been a reality for a long time" is, I think, short-sighted. It has been the reality, but an unspoken reality. Like young people who don't take into account their own mortality. "Can I die from doing this stupid stunt? Well, yeah ... but that's not what I'm thinking about." In the same way, as long as we're in a "Don't ask, Don't tell" environment, if I don't bring it up and they don't bring it up, it's not something that will be considered.
It seems to me that your perspective is, "If it makes people uncomfortable, forget about 'em. It is not the job of the military establishment to be concerned in the least about whether or not their soldiers, airmen, or marines are having personal problems with the living arrangements. They need to set aside their problems and move on." To me that's neither a practical nor caring approach. On the other hand, if it is reasonable to simply tell them "Get over it", then why are we bothering to house men and women in different barracks? It would be cheaper and more pragmatic to simply house them together. "You don't like guys checking you out naked? Everyone is naked under their clothes. Everyone has to change clothes. Everyone gets naked to do it. Get over it. Be professional." Why not?
Marshall Art, this is what I've never understood. What makes "serving in the military" a Constitutional right? The military has always had standards and has always rejected people who don't meet their standards. Why are they not allowed to have standards here? Makes no sense to me.
Dan, wow you just don't get it. That's about as ludicrous as me saying I should be able to sleep and shower around a bunch of women who aren't interested in me. Who cares? I can stare at them, think lustful thoughts, etc. They should just be "adult" and move on. GIVE ME A BREAK! I'm with Marshall on this - give them their own barracks...no, not really. I guess "Don't ask don't tell" is better than what they are proposing. Seriously? You compare it to changing babies diapers? Wow. That's really something. Sorry, I'm miffed...time for some decaf!
You asked a question. I provided an answer. I doubt that you want me to continue to respond to your questions, but I'll let you make that call.
You say...
But if a guy is attracted to a guy, then he will be likely to express that attraction, and for the standard heterosexual male that is unwanted.
Do you know any gay folk as close friends? Someone you can talk to honestly? Ask them. Trust me, gays in the military will not "likely express that attraction."
As noted, we already have gays in the military and always have. How many gay-on-straight harassment incidents do we have on record? Any?
I'd be willing to bet Zero and, if there ARE any, I'd be willing to bet even more that there are a WHOLE LOT (exponentially) more straight-on-straight harassment incidents on file than there are gay-on-straight.
It's not a problem in the real world. I doubt that you have any evidence to support your conclusion that "But if a guy is attracted to a guy, then he will be likely to express that attraction." Again, if you have any actual gay friends, ask them. They'll tell you.
But then, you probably have no gay friends that you know of, do you? Maybe it's time?
I'll assume you don't really want me answering your questions and quit commenting again, as that is what you have said. But if you DO want me to answer, just post this and tell me you would be interested in more comments.
Interesting assumption, Dan. "But then, you probably have no gay friends that you know of, do you?"
"Assume the ignorance of those with whom you disagree" is not a good way to converse.
Having been on the receiving end of homosexuals who express attraction, I don't comment out of ignorance. And the two closest (as in readily available for comment) homosexual friends I asked, both answered, "Yeah, sure, why not? If I thought there was a possibility, why not ask?"
You're probably right. I figured that if you "played nice", we could have a conversation. I was wrong.
My apologies if you assumed that I intended anything unkind in my thinking you probably had no close gay friends. I wasn't. I know that in my life, when I was strongly opposed to gay marriage, I had no one I knew personally who was gay who I would have called a close friend.
Gay folk, in my experience, tend to not get that close to people who think they are evil. I DID have gay friends, of course, but I didn't know it because, you know, I considered their "lifestyle" evil and so they were not inclined to tell me they were gay.
Anyway, I apologize if it sounded like I was criticizing you.
I'm not opposed to gay marriage. I think that people who marry should be gay. Being somber at a time like that would be out of place. I don't actually believe in a "homosexual lifestyle", so that can't be a problem. I believe that there are people who experience sexual attraction to the same gender. Only when someone acts on it does it fall in the category of "sin" for me.
Funny thing, though. I work, as an example, with a Hindu. I don't believe in Hinduism. I believe it is a false religion. He knows it. Yet it doesn't stop him from talking to me about it. How odd.
Yes, it sounded like you were criticizing and the apology confirmed it. The suggestion appears to be either that one cannot converse with people if you believe they are sinners or, conversely, if you get to know them, you'll end up believing they're not sinning.
I posted the apology because I believe you would have wanted me to. And I am not offended. But you were correct. It's best if we don't hold conversations. They don't turn out well.
Ultimately, they're probably just going to go with the "just deal with it" mentality. But that is based on the flawed idea that most people are generally good. Separate housing for the gay population would not solve the problem, just make the hetero population more comfortable. One of the reasons men and women are housed separately is to try to reduce sexual encounters. If you separate the homosexuals into their own housing, well they now have free reign to have "sex" with each other.
Dan T, you must remember, most people in the military are under 30. You stick a bunch of 18-, 19-, 20-year-olds together and see how they act. It is uncomfortable enough to be showering around guys who are assumed to be straight, when you are at that age. Throw in known gay men? I remember how ti was when I was in basic. Some people were so uncomfortable, they would break curfew to shower alone.
Another reason they separate the genders is for comfortable privacy. Most girls don't want guys leering at them as they change. All straight guys definitely don't want gay guys leering at them as they change. Guys are guys, gay or straight, they are sexually charged and will not make their desires quiet if they are given the freedom to do so.
Dan T you say there are no gay on straight harassment indictments. That is really ignorant. There are none (or very few) because if someone were to admit it, they would be booted from the military. "Don't ask, don't tell" means, if we find out, you're out. So there would be no indictments because of the fear of losing their job.
The answer to your question, Stan, is that there is no practical answer to allowing gays in the military. More than likely there will be no change in the way they house people, but I guarantee there will be a drop in recruitment because of the stigma that is still prevalent in our society about gays. They may be gaining some freedoms legally, but they are still not openly free to be "who they are" in public without facing that stigma.
A few items on this:
I am a member of a gym where there are (obviously) only a men's and a women's locker room. Now it's quite likely that some of the men are gay. I live near Seattle, so actually it's VERY likely. If they are though, I don't know it. We all walk around naked in there, we shower, we sit in a sauna. It's never been a problem that I know of and there are no rules like "don't Ask, Don't Tell."
I'm assuming this would be a similar situation to being in close quarters in the military as well.
The other point I wish to bring up is this: apparently most folks feel that someone is going to be uncomfortable no matter what the situation is. Either the homosexuals or the heterosexuals. To me, it only makes sense that if someone has to be uncomfortable, it's the 4% rather than the 96%... dontcha think?
All Dan's homosexual/lesbian friends are the most saintly people one could find anywhere. No matter what you know, think, have heard, have read or any other insight you might have regarding the behavior of homosexuals is wrong if Dan's friends tell him something different. That's pretty much the way it works.
I have seen stories regarding homosexual issues in the military, though I don't have them at hand for reference since I never saved them. It's always a good practice to save such negative stories so that the enablers can't say you're making stuff up. Because if you're not an enabler, you're a liar. That's pretty much how it works.
What a coincidence! I found this very insightful blog article through AmericanThinker.com, that racist and poorly written site I like to visit. (Inside joke) The comments that follow provide even more info relative to the discussion. One of the best parts is when she cites Chesterton regarding the tearing down or "reforming" of established institutions. It works for the marriage question quite well.
Post a Comment