You might have guessed, based on my rather strong opposition to gay marriage, that I would oppose gays in the military. I don't, though with some provisos.
My opposition to gay marriage is based on my view that marriage is a sacrament, an expression of God's love on earth, and that it is intended for heterosexual unions. I believe that homosexual sexual conduct (not homosexual desire or homosexual love without sex) is sinful. I strongly oppose any discrimination against homosexuals, and I have many gay friends and colleagues and patients for whom I have great respect and affection.
I'm no fan of gay culture, and I believe that marriage is intrinsically heterosexual. But people who are gay deserve (and generally earn) the same respect all people deserve.
What about gays in the military?
First, there have been countless gays in the military. In the U.S., there were gays at Valley Forge and Gettysburg and Omaha Beach and Kandahar. There were gays at Ground Zero on 9-11-- Father Mychal Judge, a priest and Franciscan friar who was the chaplain of the New York City Fire Department-- was gay, and he died as a hero, ministering to victims as the towers fell.
Military cemeteries have thousands of gay men and women who gave their lives so we could live in peace and freedom. I honor their sacrifice, and I'm deeply grateful for it.
The real question about gays in the military is: is it consistent with the military's mission to have gay soldiers who are openly gay? That's a real question, and it's the question that matters.
I am an Army veteran (enlisted man and medic in 82nd airborne division, 1973-1976 and a physician in the army reserve from 1987-1991). I never served in combat (thank goodness), but I know quite a bit about military life.
When I was an enlisted man, we had a number of gay soldiers. They were closeted, but were widely known to be gay. They were generally respected, and generally deserving of respect. One of my sergeant majors at Ft. Bragg was known to be gay (he had a relationship with his jeep driver). He was also our best sergeant major; a humane and good man devoted to the welfare of the soldiers and loved by the troops.
I always thought that the administrative discharges given to gay soldiers who were exposed were unfair. Many of these folks were good and brave men and women who had served their country with great distinction. Exposing their private lives and throwing them out of the military was unjust.
But homosexuality in the military has its problems, if homosexual conduct encroaches on a soldier's performance. The danger to the military of gays serving openly in the military is two-fold.
First, while individual gay soldiers are generally good soldiers, the gay culture is not likely to help the military advance its mission. Gay behavior (like straight behavior) can be a real problem. Sexually transmitted diseases place a burden on military medicine, and AIDS is obviously a real problem. Heterosexual problems impair military performance. Why add homosexual problems?
Second, military life is often quite intimate, with soldiers sharing close quarters, showers, etc. Obviously men and women are not put in such intimacy, so why should openly homosexual soldiers be put in such intimacy, either with other homosexual soldiers or heterosexual soldiers? What about the rights of heterosexual soldiers not to be forced to be in intimate situations with soldiers who are openly sexually attracted to them? Is it really in the best interest of the military to add sexual attraction to the issues of personnel management and logistics in combat?
I believe that 'Don't ask, don't tell' was an enlightened policy. It accomplished two important things: it allowed gay soldiers to serve as long as their sexual interests did not become an explicit part of their military service, and it protected the military from encroachment of gay culture that could be quite a distraction from its mission.
Homosexuals will complain that the DADT policy violated their 'right' to publicly affirm their orientation in the military. I reply that they have no such right. If they want to say and do whatever they want, they picked the wrong career.
I think that openly gay service in the military is a mistake, not because gays don't contribute enormously to the military's mission (they do), but because the encroachment of a deeply problematic culture on military life will likely degrade the military's ability to perform its mission.
'Don't ask don't tell' was a better idea.
My opposition to gay marriage is based on my view that marriage is a sacrament, an expression of God's love on earth, and that it is intended for heterosexual unions. I believe that homosexual sexual conduct (not homosexual desire or homosexual love without sex) is sinful. I strongly oppose any discrimination against homosexuals, and I have many gay friends and colleagues and patients for whom I have great respect and affection.
I'm no fan of gay culture, and I believe that marriage is intrinsically heterosexual. But people who are gay deserve (and generally earn) the same respect all people deserve.
What about gays in the military?
First, there have been countless gays in the military. In the U.S., there were gays at Valley Forge and Gettysburg and Omaha Beach and Kandahar. There were gays at Ground Zero on 9-11-- Father Mychal Judge, a priest and Franciscan friar who was the chaplain of the New York City Fire Department-- was gay, and he died as a hero, ministering to victims as the towers fell.
Military cemeteries have thousands of gay men and women who gave their lives so we could live in peace and freedom. I honor their sacrifice, and I'm deeply grateful for it.
The real question about gays in the military is: is it consistent with the military's mission to have gay soldiers who are openly gay? That's a real question, and it's the question that matters.
I am an Army veteran (enlisted man and medic in 82nd airborne division, 1973-1976 and a physician in the army reserve from 1987-1991). I never served in combat (thank goodness), but I know quite a bit about military life.
When I was an enlisted man, we had a number of gay soldiers. They were closeted, but were widely known to be gay. They were generally respected, and generally deserving of respect. One of my sergeant majors at Ft. Bragg was known to be gay (he had a relationship with his jeep driver). He was also our best sergeant major; a humane and good man devoted to the welfare of the soldiers and loved by the troops.
I always thought that the administrative discharges given to gay soldiers who were exposed were unfair. Many of these folks were good and brave men and women who had served their country with great distinction. Exposing their private lives and throwing them out of the military was unjust.
But homosexuality in the military has its problems, if homosexual conduct encroaches on a soldier's performance. The danger to the military of gays serving openly in the military is two-fold.
First, while individual gay soldiers are generally good soldiers, the gay culture is not likely to help the military advance its mission. Gay behavior (like straight behavior) can be a real problem. Sexually transmitted diseases place a burden on military medicine, and AIDS is obviously a real problem. Heterosexual problems impair military performance. Why add homosexual problems?
Second, military life is often quite intimate, with soldiers sharing close quarters, showers, etc. Obviously men and women are not put in such intimacy, so why should openly homosexual soldiers be put in such intimacy, either with other homosexual soldiers or heterosexual soldiers? What about the rights of heterosexual soldiers not to be forced to be in intimate situations with soldiers who are openly sexually attracted to them? Is it really in the best interest of the military to add sexual attraction to the issues of personnel management and logistics in combat?
I believe that 'Don't ask, don't tell' was an enlightened policy. It accomplished two important things: it allowed gay soldiers to serve as long as their sexual interests did not become an explicit part of their military service, and it protected the military from encroachment of gay culture that could be quite a distraction from its mission.
Homosexuals will complain that the DADT policy violated their 'right' to publicly affirm their orientation in the military. I reply that they have no such right. If they want to say and do whatever they want, they picked the wrong career.
I think that openly gay service in the military is a mistake, not because gays don't contribute enormously to the military's mission (they do), but because the encroachment of a deeply problematic culture on military life will likely degrade the military's ability to perform its mission.
'Don't ask don't tell' was a better idea.
@ Mikey,
ReplyDeleteActually, your view of marriage reflects your delusion of human history and your irrational belief in an eternal unchanging god, who manages to change regardless.
Humans have been pair bonding for most of the 200,000 years Homo sapiens has lived on Earth, without the ceremony of marriage. The Bible isn't exactly a great role model. Solomon, said to have been the wisest of rulers, is supposed to have had 300 wives and 700 concubines (or was it the other way around? One is more than enough).
I'm certain your homosexual friends will be pleased at your condescending support.
DADT was a fine compromise. Bill Clinton proposed it, both parties accepted it.
DeleteBut you have to understand that no compromise you make with a liberal is ever a done deal. They just come back for the rest of what they want at a later date. We're not allowed to do that.
"Hey guys, we know we agreed to this Don't Ask Don't Tell Thing, but we'd really like to roll it back now and just have the old policy--We're Asking, and You'd Better Tell Us."
They know that they will never get their way if they allow the American people to peek at their long term plans. It's also incremental. If a halfway intelligent person says, "Hey, I know what path you've got us on and I know where it leads," they will shout to high heaven that that's not where they're going, and that slippery slope arguments are out of bounds. Yeah, no fair. They can't counter those because they're true, so cut it out.
I'm a veteran who served in the DADT years and I thought the policy was fine but I knew it wouldn't last. They had to "queer" the military (that's a verb now) just like they're queering academia, and yes, even elementary school.
Just as Obama's Safe Schools Czar. He wrote a book about it.
Joey
Sorry, that should say "It's always incremental."
DeleteJoey
Very trick subject indeed.
ReplyDeleteIn Canada we have allowed gays to serve openly for 20 years. We don't run into issues often, but they do happen.
I can only recall two such incidents under my command, and non in my regular service.
One such incident sprung from leave issues. We had been granted leave time for our men shortly before deployment, but only for those who were married - or who had gay partners.
The unmarried but involved men were upset. They felt that if our single (openly) gay soldier was allowed to have a day or two to see his 'boyfriend', then why should only MARRIED heterosexuals get the leave. Why not the lads with 'girlfriends' and those who are engaged.
I asked for clarification on the issue, as my men were clearly upset only days before being shipped to war. Not a cool scenario. I was informed it was 'my call'.
So I decided to throw out the book and let anyone who had a 'girl' or 'boy' go and visit. Of course this resulted in ALL our men suddenly being involved and needing of leave. So be it. That decision pissed of the command, but as they had given me a written consent to deal with it, all they could do is make insulting remarks (usually homophobic). There was two side effects to my actions I could never have guessed at. The first was the devoted loyalty of the gay soldier (later my NCO and adjutant) who said I had turned him from a pariah to hero in a moment, in the eyes of the men. The second was there was two marriages (engaged couples who tied the knot before deployment) and a lot of VERY happy mothers and fathers. Only one person was late for regroup: Me. Executive privilege.
The second incident involved two young Muslim men who were assigned to reinforce our unit after losses. These men were very upset they had to be under the command of a openly gay man. They felt that even though they could shower etc alone (we have tarp stalls - so women can used the same facility despite there was NO women in that position - that their religious values were being ingnored. These men were good soldiers and very good at translating local written languages... but I transferred them to a unit were I knew the commander and knew there was no openly gay servicemen currently deployed. It was a much safer position, so they did not complain. The only negative side effect of this action was once again my colleagues needling me about 'protecting my *** (gay)'. My response was to closely scrutinize my NCO's behaviour to see if I WAS giving him special consideration and, if so, why. I soon came to realize I was, but it was because he was/is exceptionally good. I promoted him to my adjunct. The snickering stopped once he was in the room.
In all honesty I have had MUCH more problems with women soldiers than gay soldiers. That is not to say that I have not met some very competent lassies in our forces, but I find their presence seriously complicates matters. There is problems with relationships forming IN the unit, there are problems with privacy and command. There is the ghost of PC present every moment.
I have often been a proponent of a women's branch of each service for that reason. Mixed units are not just an internal matter either. We found the enemy targets them in hopes of capturing or killing the women - for the press.
So.... I am not an opponent of gays serving in the military, but I am opposed to ANY presence that reduces the cohesion and fighting capacity of a unit under my control.
In truth, I am more against mixed units than I am against gays or lesbians serving.
That said, I'll take what I can get. A good woman or gay soldier is always welcome in this man's forces. A bad soldier of any sort gets permanent leave from my unit.
Anonymous: Solomon isn't really one of the Bible's good guys. Not exactly a bad guy either, but certainly not the model of good behavior.
DeletePeople who aren't particularly religious tend to make mistakes like that. They haven't read much of the Bible, and what they've read was not done in a good faith attempt to understand, but simply to find verses that they can throw in believers' faces. And so you end up saying things like, "King Solomon had 300 wives and 700 concubines!" I think that's supposed to make us feel like hypocrites (a favorite nonbeliever tactic), or as if we don't know much about the faith we claim to profess. Actually, it proves that the nonbeliever doesn't know much about the faith we profess. Your "gotcha" isn't working very well.
Let me guess, your next argument is going to be to reach for the ol' Jesus saves the adulteress from stoning argument, which you will use selectively and without regard to the actual meaning of Jesus' words.
The Bible is filled with flawed personalities. That's a recurring theme in scriptures--the imperfection of man (or humans, if you will.) Even the good guys have warts. Peter lacked faith when he walked on the water and began to sink. He denied Christ three times before the cock crowed. He still went on to be the first pope and a martyr. Thomas doubted the resurrection. Paul was a pharisee who persecuted the Christians.
Read the Bible for comprehension, not to trip up people you hate. Your ill will is obvious and it makes you look foolish.
TRISH
@ Trish,
DeleteActually the story of Jesus and the adulteress being threatened with stoning was actually added to John towards the end of the first millennium. It's a nice story though and contains an inner truth, even if it wasn't original to early scripture.
I hate to say it but 'Gotcha!'. Jesus didn't use these words because the story was added by scribes, perhaps inadvertently, as expressing a profound truth that everyone should take note of.
I don't hate Christians. I just hate Christianity. I think it's silly to take a perfectly good idea, such as marriage is a very useful institution, and then to try to interpret scripture to justify a form of marriage that has evolved over centuries.
Solomon isn't really one of the Bible's good guys.
DeleteNo. But many other polygamists in the Old Testament were. For example Jacob.
Bach,
ReplyDelete"Mikey,"
If you are not Michaels father or older relative, the tone of this address is deeply disrespectful and childish in North American culture. I am not sure you mean to be, so I inform you of this. Mike is the appropriate familiar.
"Actually, your view of marriage reflects your delusion of human history and your irrational belief in an eternal unchanging god, who manages to change regardless."
Your disrespectful attitude reflects your arrogant and irrational assumption that because you believe yourself and all mankind to be a randomly generated, purposeless, selfish, and listless animals.
"Humans have been pair bonding for most of the 200,000 years Homo sapiens has lived on Earth"
Pair bonding? The animal speaks again. You go ahead and pair bond with partners. The rest of us will marry.
"...without the ceremony of marriage."
Better take YOUR word for it then, Bach. After all you were there, right? Maybe you were 'evolving your brain' back then? (unlike the rest of us who were born).
Maybe from your view from the trees (or pond water?) you could see these early humans rutting like wild dogs? As for the rest of us, we will wait to find out what the prehistory of man reveals while consulting the myths and revealed words of the ancients - who married.
I suspect we will eventually find that people have been getting married, in one form or another, since there was the first pair to make the oaths.
"The Bible isn't exactly a great role model"
No...it's a book. Role models generally have a pulse. The Bible is a book full of examples, histories, genealogies, and the word of God. Don't try to act like the Bible unless you intend on sitting on shelves and being read frequently.
"Solomon, said to have been the wisest of rulers, is supposed to have had 300 wives and 700 concubines (or was it the other way around? [..])."
This speaks volumes about your biblical knowledge. If you think Jews or Christians are supposed to emulate King Solomon or his various disobediences to God - you're spun.
Solomon is an example of the contrasts and paradoxes of mankind.
"...One is more than enough"
Sure is. That's what we call marriage. One man, one woman joined together before God and swearing an oath of loyalty and obedience to one another.
Oh yeah...and EAT MY BANANA, Clown.
@ Crus,
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think I'm Bach (born 1685 died 1750).
I use the term Mikey, because Michael Egnor, MD doesn't deserve ANY respect when he's blogging on anything he shows such ignorance. Anything not doing with the technical specifics of neurosurgery.
And marriage isn't a god given institution. It's a human invention.
@Bach (as anon)
ReplyDelete"I use the term Mikey, because Michael Egnor, MD doesn't deserve ANY respect when he's blogging on anything he shows such ignorance."
What an intellectually weak ad hominem. You're lack of respect speaks far more about you than it does about the Doctor.
"Anything not doing with the technical specifics of neurosurgery."
What a strange thing to say. You must be, at the very least, an expert on homosexual relations, then.
Perhaps you would be so decent as to also declare your expertise on sexual relations in the military...any military will do. Or should we treat you with the same contempt you show the owner of this blog?
"And marriage isn't a god given institution."
Aye. Okay. YOU know Him and asked. Does Darwin speak to you too?
"It's a human invention."
It is actually a convention. If you mean an uniquely human social construct, you'd be right. No other animals get married. Some may pair (like you, apparently) but they do not marry.
@ Crus,
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't claim to be an expert on any of the items you list. But then again, neither is Mikey. He doesn't deserve the honorific when he's commenting ignorantly onto pics outside his area of expertise. Do you understand, Captain (if that's what your rank is...)?
The title is not at issue, the proper use of his name is. Nobody is asking you to call him Doctor or Professor. I am simply suggesting to you that if you want your comments to be greeted with any sort of seriousness, you should not address the fellow in a form reserved for children, younger relatives, and dear old pals. The correct short form for Michael in North American English is 'Mike'.
Delete..and yes that is my rank currently. I am a captain. But you do not need to use it, or salute.
At ease. Just call me Crusader, Crus, Cru, Rex, whatever. I don't mind.
CrusadeRex, the most interesting feature of those two examples is that neither were the product of gays serving, but rather institutionalised intolerance. Sounds like you handled them both well, but the first would be a non issue if gay marriage was legal, and the second is a simple case of religiously motivated bigotry.
ReplyDeleteIt's my understanding that military life is built on discipline, so I'm not sure why that doesn't extend to security. I'd think that it's up to the gay guys to control themselves and not sexually harass other soldiers or engage in sexual behaviour in inappropriate situations, and it's up to the straight guys to not bully or discriminate based on security, race or religious affiliation. And it's up to senior officers to enforce this behaviour.
I'm not sure why it's more complicated that that.
Sorry, sexuality got auto corrected to security twice. Problem with typing on a phone.
Delete"CrusadeRex, the most interesting feature of those two examples is that neither were the product of gays serving, but rather institutionalised intolerance."
DeleteThe first example was of special treatment. I simply levelled the field to satisfy ALL my men.
"Sounds like you handled them both well, but the first would be a non issue if gay marriage was legal, and the second is a simple case of religiously motivated bigotry. "
Thank you. It worked out okay in both circumstances. Gay marriage is legal in Canada (nationally since 2005). The Muslim guys did not come off as bigots, just sincere. They objected to sharing private spaces with people who choose to be gay. I did not engage in any punitive action against them. I simply had both men transferred.
"It's my understanding that military life is built on discipline, so I'm not sure why that doesn't extend to security. I'd think that it's up to the gay guys to control themselves and not sexually harass other soldiers or engage in sexual behaviour in inappropriate situations, and it's up to the straight guys to not bully or discriminate based on security, race or religious affiliation. And it's up to senior officers to enforce this behaviour.
I'm not sure why it's more complicated that that."
I agree entirely. Unfortunately no military command is uncomplicated and soldiers in theatre often get up to things that can cause problems for cohesion.
I think that openly gay service in the military is a mistake, not because gays don't contribute enormously to the military's mission (they do), but because the encroachment of a deeply problematic culture on military life will likely degrade the military's ability to perform its mission.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet somehow the militaries of other nations that have had openly gay soldiers serving for quite some time don't seem to have any problems performing their mission. Why is it that you infantilize U.S. soldiers by thinking they will be unable to handle normal adult interaction in a modern society?
Is it really in the best interest of the military to add sexual attraction to the issues of personnel management and logistics in combat?
ReplyDeleteReally? You're worried that gay soldiers will stare at the butts of their colleagues during combat? Have you considered that gay soldiers might be better at shooting off the dicks of the enemy?