Spot on Dafydd. I totally agree that if someone would get all upset over the thought that someone might perv on him in the shower, then he has no business being in such a dangerous calling. If he can't stand someone admiring his ass, how in the hell could he stand being shot at?

As for those idiots who use the bible to back up their beliefs about gays, let them follow all the laws of the bible. I expect to see them offering sacrifices and burnt offerings before I will believe they are intellectually honest, not to mention all the people they have to smite because of not following all Biblical Laws or the way they have to treat their slaves. I don't recall any place in either the Old or New Testament where it says you can pick and choose among God's Laws. When they obey every last one of God's laws enumerated in the Bible, then I will respect them. That does not mean that I will agree with them, but I will respect them. Until then they are nothing more than bigots.

Nor is allowing gays to shower with straights -- where about 3% of the parties would be with those they might find sexually attractive -- at all the same thing as having men and women generally shower together... where the vast majority of both parties (97% of the males and 98% of the females) would be showering with those they might find sexually attractive.

I see. So as long as we can hold the number of gays to a mere 3%, (or is it the number of attractive straights?), we don't have to abide by the PRINCIPLE involved. And if we accept that now, later we can bump the standard up a little higher, say to 97%, and we can save a lot of money on shower facilities, with men and women sharing. If you're really going to be consistent to principle, though, you can't say it's OK for gays to shower with potential bedmates but that straights cannot.

The whole argument hinges on whether a soldier is openly gay or not. Black people can pretty well be picked out of a crowd in the shower, but gays cannot. But saying you are gay is an element of behavior, and that makes all the difference. Don't ask, don't tell.

Snochasr:

Sorry, perhaps I wrote too quickly and wasn't clear.

About 3% of the male population is gay, and about 2% of the female population. Thus, if a group of 100 men were showering together, we would expect that about three of them would be showering with people they potentially could find sexually attractive... though of course that's assuming they're thinking about sex while showering, instead of (say) worrying about whether they'll do well on the shooting test, or irritated that they have to spend the day peeling potatoes, or nervous about the upcoming operation in Fallujah.

By contrast, if 50 men and 50 women were showering together, every single person would be showering with someone he or she might conceivably find sexually attractive (I erred by saying 97% and 98%, forgetting that any gays in the group would also have naked persons of the same gender around them). All right, excepting people who are literally asexual.

So we have two questions:

• Is it worth it to have either separate showers or at least separate showering times when otherwise, every single person showering would be around naked people of the particular sex that could be attracted to them and vice versa?

To that question, I answered yes; that affects everybody, so it's worth making a minor change.

• The other question is whether it's worth it to worry about showering factilities when only a tiny number of people might conceivable be attracted to the people around them.

I think the answer to that one is no, it's not important.

As far as "principle," people make them up on the fly. My principle is to react appropriately to each situation... even if that means you don't have a "one size fits all" solution.

If that fails to meet your aesthetic standard, so be it.

Even if you think it a downside that some gay guy over there might conceivably be checking you out, the upside is that we don't kick out good soldiers just because they're DC rather than AC, which has nothing to do with soldiering. If the person causes a disruption, fine; kick him out. But if some straight guy is the one causing the disruption -- pitching a hissy fit because he won't shower with some gay guy -- then kick the heterosexual guy out.

The principle in that case would be to kick out whichever person is the jackass.

Similarly, I personally know at least half a dozen women who would make better soldiers than a great many male soldiers (soldiers, Marines, sailors, airmen, whatever) I've met. I consider it absurd that we tell people like Sgt. Hester (whom I don't know personally, alas) that she "can't" be a soldier, but somebody like Isaac Asimov can (by his own admission, he was a wretched soldier when he was drafted just after WWII ended), merely because one has an "innie" and the other had an "outie."

Oh, that's another principle of mine: I am at war with mindless, bureaucratic, "zero tolerance" rules. There is no physical reason to say that women are incapable of combat ops; it's a social prejudice, and we're not even consistent in how we apply it.

So some straight guy may feel uncomfortable showering in the same shower, albeit at a different time, as some woman; and he may feel even more uncomfortable thinking that Chuck over there could, under some other circumstances, fancy him. But the upside of not barring people from service for stupid reasons trumps his momentary discomfort.

Dafydd

Excellent post, Dafydd. And I'm not saying that just because I agree with every word you said. Oh ok, maybe I am.

Having served in submarines where the privacy issue is a high concern, I wonder if attitudes have changed enough to allow openly gay individuals in such tight quarters. I would say the same thing for women. I sometimes wondered about one of my shipmates 40 years ago, but no one seemed to care about his antics. He was teased about being gay but he took it well and returned the sarcasm quite effectively. I guess since submarine sailors were (are?) a little more outlandish (gross?) than most, he fit in well.

I had a seemingly gay room mate in our college rooming house (no male dorms then) in the mid 1960’s in Philadelphia. He did not act out his gayness as we now see in San Francisco (where I have lived), I did not ask, and both of us were so broke we needed each other to make the rent. We got along just fine. I have worked and socialized with gays at times over these many years all over the US. And yes, I have been propositioned, but I take the tack that it is a backhanded complement and after a polite no, I don’t let it bother me. I am one who is more tolerant of people who are civil and polite even if they are different from those who were around me during my small town upbringing. My best friends in college were an enlightened Iranian Moslem, a religious Roman Catholic and a not so religious Jew; me, I was an agnostic leaning Episcopalian. We did run together a bit. I sometimes wonder what others thought about that match up, but no one ever said anything to me one way or the other.

But I believe that I am an exception for my generation. My children are tolerant also because of their upbringing and our more tolerant culture, but I have read too many stories about young adults attacking gays to believe that even my children’s generation is ready for an open mix of gays with straights in the military. When I used to tell my college story to some of the young guys on our construction projects to get their reaction, I found that they had a lot of difficulty handling it; their perception/reaction to me afterwards was different, to my amusement. Since I worked in a construction environment, I was around the type of men who fill the military ranks.

The military should not be used as a social experiment lab since it is too vital an organization, especially in these times. The policy the Boy Scouts have of not prohibiting gays but not allowing overt gay behavior while in their scouting position seems to be similar to what Mrs. Clinton was suggesting, but what the Left, ACLU and PC crowd find is too intolerant for the Scouts. In our present political environment, I don’t see how the rules on gays in the service could be changed, as Mrs. Clinton proposed, without placing the all volunteer military in a extremely awkward position, far worse than it is in now with the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. If we had a draft, that might be a different story. The slippery slope fear could be operable in this case. What conduct will be considered outside of the UCMJ rules? Please note that an officer committing adultery can be discipline or even court-martialed. Adultery has not been illegal in the US for many decades nor is sodomy after a fairly recent Supreme court decision. Also officers are not allowed to date enlisted personnel. The military can not tolerate adultery and social fraternization oblivious of rank since it is outside of the acceptable conduct of a leader. On these and other issues the military is definitely not in step with our society. In 1997 1st Lt. Kelly Flinn, the first female B-52 pilot, seemed to be winning the battle for adultery’s acceptance but the military prevailed; so should adulterers unite to protest the military’s backwardness on adultery?

The Israelis supposedly no longer have women in combat organizations because the men were inclined to place themselves in more risk if a woman was in trouble. Here combat experience has prevailed and Israel is a country that is fighting for its survival. And yes, I know that what President Truman did to integrate the military was disruptive and the military survived and that the old security risk over fears of gays being outed are no longer in play; but I don’t place gays in the same civil rights category as blacks. In the military self discipline is a must and one who can not control an appetite is generally not allowed to remain in the service. Gayness is an inclination, whether genetic or not, but not a physical characteristic that can be used to differentiate in order to discriminate.

I also don’t believe that small stature men or women should be police officers or fire fighters for justifiable reasons. Police officers need an intimidation factor to suggest to the criminal that he will not prevail. And I don’t want someone to try to rescue my 240 pound self from a burning building if they can’t carry 100 pounds. Both are in effect safety issues. The rather large “don’t tase me, Bro” college student in Florida was certainly not intimidated by the small stature male and female officers shown in the video who tried to stop his questioning of Senator Kerry.

I just don’t like the idea of changing or lowering reasonable and necessary standards to satisfy some political agenda. I live outside of the beltway and have experienced a full range of life’s experiences and survived quite well without having to indulge in overt PC conduct to meet someone’s expectations.

Even if you think it a downside that some gay guy over there might conceivably be checking you out, the upside is that we don't kick out good soldiers just because they're DC rather than AC, which has nothing to do with soldiering. If the person causes a disruption, fine; kick him out. But if some straight guy is the one causing the disruption -- pitching a hissy fit because he won't shower with some gay guy -- then kick the heterosexual guy out.

Sorry, but I'm still not seeing your usual brilliant logic, here. If some "gay guy is checking you out," then the number of potential bedmates is a lot higher than 3%, it's closer to 100% unless you are willing to posit the infallibility of "gaydar." Even at that, though, it isn't a problem unless someone breaks the "don't tell" rule. Having someone stare at you in the shower is a bit uncomfortable. Having a known gay stare at you is something much worse. Why is the normal human response (heck, it's legally sexual harassment, or peeping tomism) the fault of the victim, not the perpetrator?

I keep doing variations of a thought experiment on this. Let us suppose that we decide we're going to segregate by sexual orientation, rather than gender. The idea here is to eliminate this whole naked-in-the-shower problem by separating those inclined to ogle males from those inclined to ogle females. 98% of women end up in the women's barracks, which is good. But 50% of men would suddenly declare themselves gay, and the other 50% would be clamoring to have the female lesbians in their showers!

I keep coming back to the same solution, which is the current policy. Since I can tell the black soldiers from the white soldiers, but not the gay guys from the straight ones, the only way there is a "bigotry" problem is if somebody TELLS me they are gay. All that's being asked is the same kind of self-control that prevents fraternization and adultery. What's wrong with that?

Dafydd is mostly right, partly wrong here. And it is a tough problem where no answer is perfect, and there is no neat "zero tolerance" rule that works.

First, to Dafydd's basic error: "if 50 men and 50 women were showering together, every single person would be showering with someone he or she might conceivably find sexually attractive... All right, excepting people who are literally asexual"-

Not really- you probably have 50 men, and at most 15 women, with the other 70% of the women not fundamentally asexual, but more "take it or leave it, depending on mood and circumstances". There are maybe 30% in the female libido distribution tail that overlaps with the male libido distribution, and are interested in sex in the way a male is. The mean for each distribution, of course, is wildly offset. For example, I doubt there is more than one female out of one hundred who would *seek out* and read porn. Most women are just not made that way; they show different levels of tolerance in accommodating the husband or boyfriend, but if he's not there potentially getting crabby or straying if neglected, she can make popcorn, not love, and be perfectly contented.

But in general, Dafydd is absolutely right- the standard for military conduct is not feelings or inclinations, it is behavior. If I had a nature that has a problem with alcohol unless I absolutely controlled my actions, I would be a far greater threat to the military mission than if I was a gay person who behaved impeccably on duty, but hung out with romantic targets when on leave.

There is a very good case to be made for "don't ask, don't tell", and the best policy of all is a moderate extension of this- don't flaunt, don't do anything a straight person wouldn't do in the ranks. Now that there are women in the modern warfare equivalent of combat zones, so that the sexes mix constantly when deployed, there is no reason whatever to exclude gays or to fire them if you find out that that is the case.

I oppose gay marriage, but this is nothing whatever similar. In my years of close involvement with the military, I have become convinced that this issue is nonsense. The military has rules against adultery and other forms of fraternization, but they are enforced quite selectively (if not, they'd lose a lot of very good officers) and pretty much according to the philosophy of the local commander.

They wink at a lot of unauthorized heterosexual congress, so knock off the hypocrisy and leave gays alone.

Dafydd is entirely wrong and this is a shockingly poor post.

The military has rules against adultery and other forms of fraternization, but they are enforced quite selectively (if not, they'd lose a lot of very good officers) and pretty much according to the philosophy of the local commander.

They wink at a lot of unauthorized heterosexual congress, so knock off the hypocrisy and leave gays alone.

WTF???

Don't you understand this is an argument against your position, Kurmudge?

Openly gay service members? Hell no, hell no, hell no!!!

And I love how we now manipulate the numbers to say 2% or 3% -- what the hell happened to the 10% - 15% of years gone by??? You can try to minimize all you want, hell no!!!

Snochasr:

Having someone stare at you in the shower is a bit uncomfortable. Having a known gay stare at you is something much worse. Why is the normal human response (heck, it's legally sexual harassment, or peeping tomism) the fault of the victim, not the perpetrator?

In the first place, if someone is staring at you in the shower, that is a "disruption;" it's probably even a crime. I would have no problem with kicking such a person out... if, that is, there's some reasonable evidence he really was doing that (say, several people noticed at one time or another).

But if Pvt. Fred Derf insists that each of the gay guys in his outfit (known or suspected) was staring at him in the shower, and nobody else has reported any such thing... well heck, you may put the burden on the gays to "prove" they weren't staring, but I'm going to conclude that the disruptive influence is Pvt. Derf and his phobia.

Second, if by "the normal human response" you mean violently attacking some known or suspected homosexual because one thinks he might have been staring -- well, again, we're living in different universes.

Let us suppose that we decide we're going to segregate by sexual orientation, rather than gender.

Let's suppose we segregate by gender -- and tell the brave soldiers to get a grip and stop freaking out.

Honestly, Sno, I just don't see what the ruckus is about. Generally, soldiers in a unit know if one of them is gay, even without being explicitly told. It doesn't seem to cause a problem.

RattlerGator:

And I love how we now manipulate the numbers to say 2% or 3% -- what the hell happened to the 10% - 15% of years gone by??? You can try to minimize all you want, hell no!!!

RG, the numbers in "years gone by" were deliberately fabricated and exaggerated by liberals to make homosexuality seem much more common and normal than it is. For example, Kinsey counted as "homosexual" every person who had even one or two homosexual fantasies in his life -- even if he or she had never acted upon them.

More careful, honest research in recent years has shown, with remarkable consistency across many different cultures, that the percentage of homosexual men is about 2%-3%; for women, it's a little under 2%; and for true bisexuals, it's a small fraction of one percent.

But the prohibition against admitted gays in the military flows not from any actual misbehavior, disability, or unit cohesiveness problem; it flows entirely from the universal belief in earlier centuries, still held by a substantial minority of people today, that homosexuals are morally corrupt... and therefore, their very presence stains the honor of a military unit. That if a man loves other men, he must also be a liar, coward, cheat, and villain.

Yet militaries have frequently tolerated the presence of men who actually steal, commit rape, plunder the innocent residents of towns they sack (that used to be an ordinary part of a soldier's compensation), and commit murder of civilians. Fortunately, the American military has outgrown such tolerance of actual criminal behavior; it's time we also outgrew baseless fantasies of the universal moral turpitude of homosexuals.

(I have no problem with people who believe homosexual activity is a sin; but many of the same moralists believe that promiscuous heterosexual behavior is also a terrible sin... yet we don't cashier admitted lotharios.)

The idea that a murderer or rapist could be moral enough to be a soldier -- but not a homosexual! -- seems so absurd today that nobody would seriously advance it... not even the French. But we still have that vestige of moral superiority, tarted up in the rags of "military efficiency," without any evidentiary showing that admitted gays in the military cause any significant problem whatsoever.

Although I advocate change, I make the perfectly quotidian claim that preferring the same gender as a sexual partner has no effect on one's ability to fight a war. Those defending the status quo are the ones making the extraordinary claim that a minority sexual preference translates into poor soldiering.

I think it's time the status-quo defenders ante up and show us something, anything, to back up what they claim.

Do you have any evidence that gayness implies weakness, tendency to panic, inability to follow orders, lack of team spirit, lack of patriotism, or inability to shoot straight? Anything at all?

Dafydd

Dafydd - Why do you only limit the discussion to homosexuals? Why not also include all "sexual orientations"? Including those with sexual attractions to children.

No, this is not some trick question here. This issue of sexuality is no longer about simply same sex attractions, ie homosexuals. We are now in an age where all "sexual orientations" must be tolerated and accepted and, in some opinions, celebrated. So, wouldn't this argument also have to include people of all "sexual orientations", including transsexuals and those with sexual attractions to children?

Or, like the homosexual marriage argument, are you advocating allowing homosexuals in the military, but not allowing transsexuals and those with sexual attractions to children?

I'm curious as to your opinion here, because whenever I see the "sexual orientation" issues discussed, the focus seems to be only on homosexuals and leaves out other sexuals, including those attracted to children (I don't say pedophile here, because I don't believe someone who has a sexual orientation of being attracted to children is actually a pedophile, unless of course they act on that attraction towards a child, correct?).

I think the reason there is such a societal resistance to changing "don't ask, don't tell" is because we are well beyond this simply being about homosexuals, and the people on the support side of the "don't ask, don't tell" issue are worried about a "slippery slope" of basically allowing every type of sexual orientation found in San Francisco to be allowed into the military.

Imagine a man who believed himself to be a woman and who dressed as a woman, etc. Imagine that man was a good soldier, but his "sexuality" freaked those brave warriors out. Wouldn't it be better for that man who wanted to be a woman to keep his "sexuality" to himself, as "don't ask, don't tell" promotes?

Baloney, RattlerGator. My point is perfectly consistent. If the military is going to tolerate heterosexual behaviors that are prohibited- and it does all the time because the old boys club would empty out if it didn't (I was at the infamous Tailhook convention for the entire event- I know from years of experience what a significant minority of career officers do for recreation after hours), they have no business suddenly claiming that gays who follow the rules on duty and indulge their social lives completely away from the base are any kind of threat to anyone or anything.

And, Michael, pedophilia is illegal, and there are no children on active duty. Lawrence v. Texas is not dispositive in the Army. Uniform regulations prohibit cross-dressing on duty, and I will bet you that there are some very macho and straight active duty officers out there who cross-dress away from the base.

Don't make assumptions, though- this is not a cultural slippery slope issue. Openly gay scoutmasters (for males or females) definitely is a problem, and gay marriage, in my judgment, would not be a positive development, though a uniform contract suite equating to a civil union for any two adults (even the Brewster sisters) is not a problem. This is not a civil rights issue; those who would equate skin color with sexual habits demean the historic struggles of our African-American brethren.

But getting all hung up over gays in the military is puerile nonsense.

Kurmudge - I understand that pedophilia is illegal, but having a "sexual orientation" where one is attracted to children, that is not illegal, is it? There is a difference between the "sexual orientation" and the acting on the "sexual orientation", correct?

Okay, I just looked it up and found that "pedophilia" is deemed a mental disorder. But I don't think someone can be thrown in jail simply being being a pedophile unless they act on their pedophilia, correct?

Also, I know there are no children on active duty, however as we have all seen in the reports from Afghanistan and Iraq, military members in combat come in contact with Afghani and Iraqi children all the time. So it could be an issue, in that respect.

Anyway, I think the major issue that people have regarding homosexuality is that it used to be considered a mental disorder just like pedophilia. However, because of the arguement that it is sex between consenting adults and "it doesn't hurt anyone", homosexuality was taken off the mental disorder list. But, just because that was done, not everyone has progressed to no longer seeing it as a mental disorder.

I think that is really the issue still. There are some very good arguments made for getting rid of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy (as well as many other homosexual-focused policies in this country), however, for the people who still see homosexuality as a mental disorder, those arguments will not work. And they basically see all these policy changes as validating a mental disorder.

So that stigma is what needs to be eliminated prior to getting these policy changes accepted.

Michael in MI:

Why do you only limit the discussion to homosexuals? Why not also include all "sexual orientations"? Including those with sexual attractions to children.

Because our society has a firm consensus -- in the strongest use of the term "consensus" -- that pederasty is a crime and a moral outrage; hence we don't allow those with such a predeliction into the armed forces. Just as we wouldn't allow those who advocate rape, let alone practice it.

There is no such consensus on homosexuality; in fact, I suspect that a majority of people would reject the idea that homosexual activity should be a crime... which is why the outrage at Lawrence v. Texas was very limited to a very small number of people.

Because the military takes a great portion of its value system from society but requires some obvious exceptions to function in an atmosphere of trust and honor, which are vital to its mission, Congress should change the law and allow gays to serve openly... but retain the UCMJ prohibition against adultery.

There is nothing inconsistent in this position.

And note that the UCMJ already takes its cue from civilian law, even on this question: You needn't have been married by a chaplain in order to be considered married for purposes of the adultery code section; being legally married by any means is sufficient.

We are now in an age where all "sexual orientations" must be tolerated and accepted and, in some opinions, celebrated. So, wouldn't this argument also have to include people of all "sexual orientations", including transsexuals and those with sexual attractions to children?

No. There is no logical connection.

Behaviors that are harmless should not bar people from military service; behaviors that are harmful -- whether gay, straight, or pederastic -- should.

A potential recruit who plays "AIDS roulette" (having sex with multiple partners, knowing that one has HIV, but not knowing which one) should be rejected, just as we would reject a person who plays Russian roulette.

Or, like the homosexual marriage argument, are you advocating allowing homosexuals in the military, but not allowing transsexuals and those with sexual attractions to children?

That's not my same-sex marriage position, Michael; I oppose SSM because, while the secular nature of government does and should require us officially to tolerate homosexuality (I support Lawrence v. Texas), it certainly doesn't require us to celebrate it.

As for transsexuals, I'm somewhat torn: I personally have no objection to them serving, so long as they can do the job. But it's possible that a person who voluntarily undertook what is euphemistically called "sex-reassignment surgery," but which in fact produces a sexually mutilated person of the same gender he was in the beginning (except in the rarest of cases), may be too emotionally or psychologically unstable to serve.

I probably would demand a battery of psych tests; but if he or she passed, then I have no objection.

I don't say pedophile here, because I don't believe someone who has a sexual orientation of being attracted to children is actually a pedophile, unless of course they act on that attraction towards a child, correct?

Other way 'round: A pedophile is attracted to children; a pederast acts upon it. (And an ephebophile is attracted to adolescent minors -- teens below 18 -- but I don't think there is such as word as "epheberast.")

[T]he people on the support side of the "don't ask, don't tell" issue are worried about a "slippery slope" of basically allowing every type of sexual orientation found in San Francisco to be allowed into the military.

We have a fundamental disconnect here in our rules of inference... our basic rules for deciding whether something is proper or improper: Sexual preferences that involve only consenting adult sentient beings -- including heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, polygamy (partners, not spouses), polyandry, polyamory (which would include multiples of both genders), sadomasochism, bondage and discipline, foot-fetishism, or a desire for sex with intelligent aliens from a planet orbiting Barnard's Star -- should never even enter into the calculation of whether to allow a person to serve in his country's military.

Contrariwise, it is a deal-breaker when we're talking about sexual preferences that unwillingly involve those who refuse consent, or that involve those unable to consent (children and animals, people in a coma, drunk or drugged, or even people so traumatized by events that they cannot think straight... for example, sex with a person who has just see his or her entire village wiped out and is still in a state of acute mental shock).

Is this comprehensible? It's certainly consistent.

Imagine a man who believed himself to be a woman and who dressed as a woman, etc.

In my world, Cpl. Klinger would be court-martialed for refusing to obey a direct order. When a member of the military is required to wear a uniform, that means the uniform appropriate for a person of his own gender (and the time, season, work situation, location, etc). If a man thinks he's "really a woman," he can wear high heels, suspenders, and a bra -- in any situation where a uniform is not mandated.

In all other circumstances, he must wear the uniform prescribed for a person of whatever gender he was born.

Dafydd

Michael in MI:

I think that is really the issue still. There are some very good arguments made for getting rid of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy (as well as many other homosexual-focused policies in this country), however, for the people who still see homosexuality as a mental disorder, those arguments will not work. And they basically see all these policy changes as validating a mental disorder.

So that stigma is what needs to be eliminated prior to getting these policy changes accepted.

I don't care what such persons think about homosexuality. When they're told to "shut up and soldier," I, as an American citizen, expect them to jolly well shut up and soldier -- or go find somewhere else to be. It is an all-volunteer military.

The service has often led the way in social reform: While racial prejudice was still completely acceptable in nearly all parts of the United States, President Truman integrated the Army.

Back in the 1960s, when drug use was still considered quite acceptable, the military led the way in drug testing and zero-tolerance laws (which make a great deal of sense in any field where lives are at stake, from fighting in Vietnam to driving a schoolbus).

And in many areas, the military has led the way towards assigning people to MOSes on the basis of ability, not gender (with the one glaring exception I limned above); there is no reason why a woman cannot be a truck driver or a man be a nurse.

Dafydd

Is this comprehensible? It's certainly consistent.

Dafydd - Yes, thank you. And yes, I believe you are being consistent here as well. I also appreciate the nature of your response. My questions were sincere and I like reading your site, because you have a good way of thinking through things logically. So I knew that I could pose these questions to you and get a good response which would help me think through this issue more.

The service has often led the way in social reform.

You're right and so it does make sense that it would be the military which would lead the way with the homosexuality issue as well.

Again, thank you for your responses. You always give me a lot to think about.

Because the military takes a great portion of its value system from society but requires some obvious exceptions to function in an atmosphere of trust and honor, which are vital to its mission, Congress should change the law and allow gays to serve openly... but retain the UCMJ prohibition against adultery.

But you have already admitted that "proven ogling" is a "disruption and probably criminal," then how can you turn around and suggest that the military can discharge its responsibility to maintain good order and discipline by assigning known oglers to close quarters with potential "oglees"? I contend that it is simply not reasonable to assign men and women to the same quarters (and showers) and not expect some seriously unmilitary hanky-panky. If we accept the separation of the sexes as essential, then we must accept the separation of the orientations on the same basis.

The problem is that gays present a unique problem. You cannot house gay men with hetero men any more than you can men and women. But you cannot reliably house gay men with women, because half the men would suddenly proclaim themselves "gay." You can't have 4 barracks, either, especially for 3% of the troops, but also because putting all gay men together is almost a guarantee of inappropriate behavior. There is no housing solution that will serve "openly gay" soldiers that is consistent with military service.

I don't know what is the problem with the current policy, anyway. Our soldiers can "suspect" anything they want, but we would expect them to behave professionally up UNTIL the suspect soldier engages in some inappropriate publicly-known behavior (on post). ANNOUNCING that you are gay qualifies as inappropriate. Let them be gay on their own time, that's fine. Let them be soldiers first. Isn't that why they supposedly enlisted?

Snochasr:

Sno, this is what I call a "magic bullet" argument. I ran across these all the time from gun-controllers when I debated them... rather than really think about the issue, they hunted for some killer quip, some too clever by half argument that would leave the gun-rights debater flummoxed. For example, a favorite was, "fine, let everyone have any kind of gun he wants... but make all ammunition illegal!"

The object was never seriously to engage the issue or even admit there was any merit on the other side, but to come up with some "magic bullet" gotcha that allowed them to walk away chuckling.

Normally, Sno, you're a lot more rational than you are here; but you're doing exactly what I describe above.

The problem is that gays present a unique problem. You cannot house gay men with hetero men any more than you can men and women. But you cannot reliably house gay men with women, because half the men would suddenly proclaim themselves "gay." You can't have 4 barracks, either, especially for 3% of the troops, but also because putting all gay men together is almost a guarantee of inappropriate behavior. There is no housing solution that will serve "openly gay" soldiers that is consistent with military service.

Ta-DA! Can't have those pesky gays at all. Of course, if they just have the decency to hide their sexual preference, that's fine. But one longing glance at Tom Cruise or Harrison Ford, and heck, that's pretty much the same as announcing they are gay...

But it all comes back to this interesting line:

But you have already admitted that "proven ogling" is a "disruption and probably criminal," then how can you turn around and suggest that the military can discharge its responsibility to maintain good order and discipline by assigning known oglers to close quarters with potential "oglees"?

Sno, I was talking about men actually caught ogling other men in the shower. In your mind, this somehow triggered the idea that all gays are "known oglers."

In fact, we all know that is false, even if we haven't thought it through:

• We all agree that many gays have served honorably in the military without revealing that they are gay;
• Ogling other men in the shower would pretty clearly indicate a sexual preference for men;
• Ergo, these gay men somehow managed not to ogle other men in the shower during their entire tenure in the military.

(Bear in mind that the verb "to ogle" means to stare overtly in an amorous or lascivious manner; you can't subtlely ogle.)

Openly gay soldiers would be "under the gun" not to ogle other (straight) men. If one causes problems by being sexually offensive, he can be disciplined on a case by case basis.

What may be a problem are straight soldiers who experience gay panic and make false claims of advances; in which case, those heterosexuals are the problem and need to be disciplined, not the unoffending gay soldiers they victimize.

The reason we don't have men and women shower together is the sheer numbers involved, and the embarassment that virtually everyone would experience... but mostly the women, who -- being physically weaker -- would feel a constant sexual threat.

A tiny number of gays showering with a huge number of straight men who would be very angry at being ogled, fondled, or otherwise approached... not going to be a problem; it would be suicidal.

But a huge number of men and women, most of them raised in a religious atmosphere that teaches modesty in the presence of the opposite sex... that would be a huge problem.

We don't need a "lightswitch rule" that fits all sizes and situations; what is not a problem with a tiny number of people can be a major problem if it affects a much larger number. So we ignore the trivial problem of gay men showering with heterosexual -- but we set policy to deal with the much more significant problem of men showering with women.

Second, you're also ignoring the other side of the coin:

• Gays, along with everybody else, have the moral right to serve their country... and if physically qualified, to serve it under arms. Denying this to gays is like denying it to blacks or Catholics or Democrats.
• If gays are forced to serve clandestinely, keeping such a central element of their lives hidden, then they are therefore very vulnerable to blackmail -- which means the military itself is vulnerable to espionage or sabotage.

Note, it's not "being homosexual" that makes such troops vulnerable to blackmail; it's "being secretly homosexual." And the only reason they must keep it a secret is that if they don't, they will be discharged from the military... perhaps even with an OTH discharge.

Imagine if we barred people who like dogs from military service; then any dog lover (get your mind out of the gutter, you know what I mean!) who nevertheless wanted to serve his country by enlisting would have to hide his like for dogs from his fellow soldiers.

He would be constantly terrified that somebody might see him petting a dog or throwing a stick and report him. And if someone did, the observer would have a very effective blackmail tool to hold over our dog lover's head.

But the problem here would not be the unique moral failings of dog lovers... it would be the demand for secrecy driven by irrational dog hatred.

Similarly, the problem with gays in the military today is the demand for secrecy driven by irrational homophobia.

And unlike liberals, when I use the term "homophobia," I mean it in its literal sense: an unwarranted fear of homosexuals and homosexuality, gay panic.

I don't mean opposing same-sex marriage (as I do) or other special rights for gays. I want only that they be treated like everybody else: Allowed to sleep with whom they please (because, unlike the public institution of marriage, this really does fall within the zone of privacy); to speak, petition, and assemble; to vote and own property and such; to be free of unreasonable search and seizure -- and allowed to serve their country in its military, without it having to be a clandestine operation.

That doesn't seem particularly unreasonable to me.

Dafydd

Here is where you and I are miscommunicating:

Sno, I was talking about men actually caught ogling other men in the shower. In your mind, this somehow triggered the idea that all gays are "known oglers."

What I am trying to say is that OPEN gays ARE in fact "known oglers" by definition. It is as disruptive, inappropriate and objectionable as putting a man in the women's showers, but with one ineluctable difference. That is, a gay man in the men's shower is essentially indistinguishable from the other men UNLESS and until they "tell."

We all agree that many gays have served honorably in the military without revealing that they are gay;

Yes, we do. So why do you want to change to a policy that will make all of that questionable? What is to be gained?

Gays, along with everybody else, have the moral right to serve their country... and if physically qualified, to serve it under arms. Denying this to gays is like denying it to blacks or Catholics or Democrats.

I think you're mixing apples and pears. Gays, Democrats and Catholics are alike in that all can serve in the military, even the radically "bigoted" military you postulate here, by simply keeping quiet about who and what they are, and by not engaging in any obvious "Democrat" behavior (like saying stupid stuff :-). I am certain many Democrats have easily served their entire military careers without revealing their terrible secret.

Black soldiers, on the other hand, are the same as having men and women serve together. That is, it's very hard to apply "don't ask, don't tell" to an immutable visible characteristic like race or gender. It's vastly easier to apply that sensible policy to Democrats and Catholics.

And I'm still not buying the argument that only 3% of the military is involved in this. It's like saying that it's OK to put men in the women's showers, so long as there's only 1 or 2. Of course, if they could hide being male, no harm would be done, right? Isn't it only a problem when they are OPEN males? I think I understand the philosophical argument you are trying to make, but I keep getting bogged down in the practical aspects, and I cannot conceive of a reasonable way to implement what you propose.

Snochasr:

Known Oglers

What I am trying to say is that OPEN gays ARE in fact "known oglers" by definition.

Sno, you'll have to break this one down for me, because I'm just not getting it: Why is every openly gay man automatically a "known ogler?" The words mean entirely different things.

It's like saying all openly Catholic men are known gluttons. An openly Catholic man can be a glutton, an ascetic, or anywhere in between.

Harmed, I'm sure...

And I'm still not buying the argument that only 3% of the military is involved in this. It's like saying that it's OK to put men in the women's showers, so long as there's only 1 or 2. Of course, if they could hide being male, no harm would be done, right?

Consider this scenario: You finish working out at the gym, hit the locker room, and step into the shower. You're showering with nine or ten other guys, and they're all talking about some football game.

Later, you discover that one of those guys, Jed Smith, is gay. You're surprised, because Smith did not do anything during that shower that made you think he might be gay.

• How were you harmed?

Next week, you're at the same gym. You finish your 415-lb bench presses and head to the shower. There are nine or ten other guys, but no Jed Smith.

But while you're rinsing off the sweat, Jed walks in and starts showering. Again, he does nothing more than he did last week; he's talking about a different football game this time, but he doesn't ogle you. In fact, just like last time, it doesn't appear he even notices you're there.

But this time, you know he's gay.

• So how, exactly, are you harmed this time?
• And if you believe you are harmed -- whose fault is it, Jed's... or yours?

Gender enders

If you are going to argue that what matters is not what gender Jed is but whom he's attracted to... then for consistency, don't you have to support same-sex marriage?

After all, that is exactly the argument that SSM proponents make: That the marriage laws discriminate against gays because they can only marry a person of the opposite gender -- not person of the gender to which they're attracted.

That is, SSM proponents say that the important element is sexual preference, not gender.

By contrast, my consistent position is that what matters is what gender a person is, because that is the actual physical difference. Thus, I say that men can shower together in the military or in gym, no matter what their various sexual preferences are; similarly, women can shower together. But men shouldn't shower with women, because that is a traditional cultural taboo.

And for the same reason, men can only marry women, no matter what their sexual preference; and women can only marry men, because opposite-gender marriage is a bedrock of Western civilization. What matters is the gender of the two connubial partners, not their sexual preferences... I have no objection to a gay man marrying a lesbian.

Honestly, if you're on the other side in the shower question -- that what matters is sexual preference, not gender -- then logically, you should support SSM.

Dafydd

Thank you, those are two excellent arguments.

The first: the "known oglers" question. Perhaps "oglers" is not a useful term. I use it in the context that there is an insurmountable difference between suspecting that someone is ogling you in the shower and knowing there is someone there inclined to do so. If my hypothetical man in the ladies shower kept his eyes to himself, or didn't "get caught looking," would it still be a problem? If on the other hand, he managed to conceal his gender (OK, it is a hypothetical question) would the problem not go away? I contend this is an exact analogy. The problem is not the orientation or the gender, but of KNOWING that the orientation or gender differs from your own. Your friend Jed Smith did nothing wrong, but yet YOU are now looking to see if he's looking, not tending to your own business. That's a disruption, pure and simple, with the only difference being your newfound (certainty assumed, as if Jed had said so) knowledge of Jed's orientation.

2nd, the SSM question. I do not support SSM, and I disagree that it is inconsistent with "don't ask, don't tell." In the first case, proponents say that government should not "discriminate" based on sexual orientation-- that it is a rights issue. But in marriage, government is not discriminating on the basis of some innate, immutable characteristic like gender-- anyone who meets the requirements gets the government benefits that society reserves for them and them alone. What SSM proponents want to do is say that behavior trumps gender as a criterion. That is, They want to openly declare themselves as gays and still have society accept them as if they were not. (They also want to force society to accept them as they are, but that's a different issue.) If two gays could get married without, by some magic, telling people they were gay, you would have the exact equivalent case to gays in the military-- people availing themselves of a government-granted privilege (NOT a right) by concealing their sexual orientation, while being denied the privilege for being open about it.

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)