Seems to me the big debate here is about the word "openly." Left without all the micromanagement, political correctness and personal moral guidance commanded from on high, most soldiers of either persuasion are going to be just fine with their current state and the state of their fellow "soldiers first, gay second" soldiers. Those who are trying to blend in will continue to do so, and there will be a few whispers but general respect for a "good soldier" and no problems. But what happens if the rule changes and we get "openly" as in downright offensive, demanding all sorts of privilege and special treatment, generally "incompatible with good order and unit cohesion"? Would THAT be a mistake? Sure it would.

I keep trying to understand what would be gained by the de jure repeal of DADT, EXCEPT that we would go seeking inter-unit confrontation of the kind that we would not have under the current policy tempered by just the kind of interpersonal tolerance and reasonableness that would eventually lead to its de facto dissolution?

Snochasr:

I keep trying to understand what would be gained by the de jure repeal of DADT, EXCEPT that we would go seeking inter-unit confrontation of the kind that we would not have under the current policy tempered by just the kind of interpersonal tolerance and reasonableness that would eventually lead to its de facto dissolution?

Under the current de jure law, if a longtime, very effective, and inoffensive member of the military has a secret enemy (or blackmailer), that enemy can send an anonymous package containing evidence that the member was in a homosexual relationship -- even before joining the military -- and that evidence can be the basis for discharging him OTH.

Assurances by the Obama administration that they won't carry out such prosecutions will be small comfort to that member and others who are good soldiers, sailors, Marines, or airmen... but also gay. What if Obama changes his mind? What happens when a new president is sworn in?

Try this: What would be lost by changing the de jure law so that sexual activity is judged only by whether it reasonably could affect good order and discipline? -- where "reasonably" doesn't include "I'll just like totally freak out if I find out Jack is gay!"

That way, "downright offensive" behavior is still prohibited for gays, but in exactly the same way it's prohibited for straights: adultery, sexual harassment, sex with minors, rape, public sex, making porno movies, and so forth. But we'll no longer be booting someone out because he is in a long-term, committed relationship with another man -- while keeping in the ranks a serial seducer who specializes in ruining teenaged girls who are just "barely eighteen" (and bragging about it to the parents).

Dafydd

You've added a bit of mauve to the near-white color of our differences, thank you. And I understand the distinction you are making at the edges, where an occasional unobtrusive case suddenly blows up. But I'm thinking it equally likely, at the margins, that instead of some guy bragging to his fellows about that hot waitress he bedded last night, and which others might find boorish or titillating, depending on the hearer, we might have someone inclined to talk about that hot waiter he (whatever)ed last night, thus setting off some sort of "disorder," depending on the hearer, but of an entirely different nature (and probably degree) than the former.

At root you are trying to make gay behavior "normal" in a part of society least able to accommodate it. You deny the "social norming" that society uses to maintain its cohesion and values. In the larger society, we already see increasing acceptance of gays, for good or ill. Forcing it on the armed services is a social experiment not worth the risk, IMHO.

Maybe another way to look at this is "Who wants it?" If we had large numbers wanting to enlist but fearful of being discharged if discovered, that would be one thing. I very much doubt it. If more importantly, we had large numbers of straight soldiers just clamoring to have some gays recruited to serve with them, that would be another. Instead what I believe is that all of this pressure is coming from people and groups who have no desire to serve in, or to even have, an effective US military. They just want to force people, by law, to accept as normal and proper what we do not want to accept as normal and proper.

Snochasr:

At root you are trying to make gay behavior "normal" in a part of society least able to accommodate it.

No. I'm advocating that it be unpunished (and unthreatened), except in circumstances where heterosexuality is likewise punished or threatened with punitive action. Homosexuality is not normal, any more than promiscuousness is normal. Both are natural, but neither is normal, where "normal" means "what most people do."

You deny the "social norming" that society uses to maintain its cohesion and values.

Again, no. I deny that one's sexual preference is an essential element of that social norming, unless it's so extreme that it interferes with the mission.

If a few people get so hysterical about homosexuality that they refuse even to serve in a unit that has a known homosexual, even if he does his job wonderfully and leaves those people strictly alone, then any interference with the mission is on the heads of those hysterics, not the unbothersome gays they hate. Just as people who simply refuse to serve alongside "fornicators" are the ones causing disruption then -- and they should suffer, not the wick-dipper who offends their delicate sensibilities.

We already draw a distinction among heterosexuals between those who merely have sex while unmarried -- and those who commit adultery: The latter involves betrayal, so it's much more odious and dangerous to the mission than the former. I suggest we do the same with homosexual behavior.

They just want to force people, by law, to accept as normal and proper what we do not want to accept as normal and proper.

For a third time, no; you again misunderstand my point.

The military doesn't ask that you accept, say, Wicca as normal or proper; only that you don't refuse to serve alongside a Wiccan. Nobody demands you accept as normal or proper atheism, drinking alcohol (not to excess), or an unmarried girl having sex with a guy; and there are some religious soldiers who believe each of those things is a serious sin.

However, you are told you must accept such people as your squadmates. You can even tell them you think what they're doing is immoral, so long as you don't become harassing about it.

You confuse tolerance with support; there is a distinction. I suggest that we have placed non-disruptive homosexuality in the same category of intolerance as adultery or sexual harassment. We must discriminate between activities that create a victim and those that don't.

Two consenting, adult gay guys living together create no victim; neither does a husband having oral sex with his wife, which technically is also "sodomy" but is never prosecuted. (I want that out of the UCMJ as well. Perhaps it already is; my information dates from the 1980s.) Nor does a teenaged sailor who takes a girl out and ends up sleeping with her.

I would have no difficulty serving alongside a gay man or a lesbian. Contrariwise, I would not feel that I could trust a person who betrayed his wife, so I would feel very uncomfortable serving alongside him; what if next time, he betrayed the unit just as casually?

Dafydd

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...)