This is a tough post to write, not merely because I’m not that interested in the subject – I’m retired, after all and of an age and condition unlikely to engender lustful advances of any sort, unwelcome or otherwise – but also because the topic seems to bring out the worst in people. But the president has made certain promises to an important constituency, and now, it seems, the military – having more important wars to fight – is ready to back his play, or at least roll over:
In a packed committee room, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff looked hostile Republican senators in the eye and told them unwelcome news: He thinks gays should be allowed to serve openly in the armed forces he commands.
“Speaking for myself and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do,” the nation’s top military officer told the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me personally, it comes down to integrity — theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.”
The last president to tilt at this particular windmill was Bill Clinton in 1993. His attempt to change the UCMJ by presidential fiat ran into strong, bipartisan political opposition which pointed out that while the president might be commander-in-chief of the armed forces, the Constitution assigned to the federal legislature the exclusive right to write military laws and regulations. They were supported in this by senior military officers, for whom the latest in a series of enthusiasms to come out of San Francisco and New York salons represented nothing but a world of potential pain. Your average soldier, sailor, airman and Marine charged with defending the defenseless having less evolved opinions on the heterodox employment of wedding tackle than did their betters in the cocktail party set, and there being so many more better things to do in a world of constrained attention spans and resources.
“Don’t ask/Don’t tell” was the legislative compromise, and for all true patriots that could have well been that. After all, people of every persuasion have said “non sibi sed patrie” for generations, served their country well and bled as red as any man could bleed. They could and can serve today, honorably and bravely.
But then we had this strange little problem recruiting and retaining Arab linguists that weren’t 1) gay, and 2) possessed of an uncontrollable urge to talk about that fact (in English), at a time when it might have been useful to recruit and retain Arab linguists. So now it appears we’ll have “sibi et patrie“, for the truth must out regardless of the cost if we are all to be very highly self-actualized.
Now, I’m quite certain that I served with gay and lesbian sailors who did their jobs remarkably well, and for those efforts I both loved and honored them. If we never quite got around to talking about the ins and outs of their preferred activities between the sheets, perhaps it reflected a certain prudish delicacy on my part, for neither was I all that interested in positions and preferences for those I took to be straight. That sort of thing forming no ordinary part of a professional discourse.
As I have said in these pages before – and as I continue to believe – no one chooses to be gay or straight; they are as their God has made them for reasons known only to Himself, and if God is love – as he surely must be, or else he be not God – then he cannot want any of his children not to know him. Those of a more secular bent will no doubt agree with me that, God notwithstanding, the more love there is in the world, the better off we all will be.
Is my opinion, anyway.
But the national culture has subtly changed, and now the love that once dared not speak its name is all too happy and in fact compelled to trumpet itself from the parapets, desiring not merely tolerance but also approbation. Because of the peoples’ need to know, or something. So tomorrow, or next week, or next month the law will change, the military will dutifully tack to the winds political, a half a dozen servicemen will announce that they prefer it this way rather than that, and their comrades will mostly say, “Yeah, I always kind of thought so,” yawn and move on.
Which is where it will get interesting, because the bureaucracy is nothing if not persistent. Rules will be written to ensure that gays and lesbians in committed partnerships have precisely the same access to housing, medical care, insurance coverage, tax preferences and all of those cohabitational benefits traditionally assigned to those whose procreative potential serves to raise the next nation of tax payers. Which, you know, was rather the point of all those benefits, the next generation typically being troublesome beasts and tyrants until they’ve learned their manners, not to mention an enormous drain on the family fisc.
Military law is federal law, and can be cited in non-military federal courts as precedent. The military’s rules and regulations will be cited by an enthusiastic cohort of civil rights lawyers intent on reforming Alabama, Mississippi and anyone possessing antiquated, traditional or religious notions of the cornerstone importance of the nuclear, two-parent family until once again they are ground under the heel of a benevolent national government. Their opinion will become your obligation. The movie script writes itself
Which was, I suspect, the point all along.
Glad I am 20 days from retirement. I don’t recall ever discussing with anyone that I was serving openly as a heterosexual and I don’t want to hear anyone elses business either. Among all the other issues, if “family” support issues are tough enough now, just wait.
Congratulations on the successful journey…and Thank you!
Congrats Grey Eagle. Keep the blue side up-at least on landings. Hopefully a Stinson is in your future.
Congratulations on being so close to retirement Dust. Thank you for the time and sacrifices you have made during your journey.
Soon, another adventure begins. Not sure what that will entail, though I also will soon find out.
Expect it to be a good challenge, not just “a” challenge. Interesting times.
v/r
Thanks for serving our nation, sir. This civilian truly appreciates your years of hard work and service to the nation.
Thank You, Sir, enjoy your retirement!
ALCON, Thanks for your kind words. Never saw myself doing anything else since I was 3. Thought it was going to be in blue instead of green and thought I would be an aviator. When the opportunity presented itself I opted out. No regrets, mostly. I was very recently reminded that I am in the debt of the people I worked with over the years as I was more lucky than good. Especially those “Iron O-4s” who, in reality, are actually the ones that make it all the services run. And the E-7s/8s/and 9s that get it done. I will serve vicariously thru my three sons, all in ACUs now. I was blessed to have been able to administer the Oath to all three. They will serve in a very different environment than I did in my 32 years and not for the better I am afraid. DADT worked, getting back on topic. The second and third order effects of its demise will be far reaching. Not that everything was great during my tenure. I had heroin addicts in my infantry platoon when I arrived in Germany in the late 70s.
As I type, just received the call from SNT as he and daughter in law are in the labor and delivery room for the pending arrival of grandson #2. Gotta go.
DADT is not the driving force. Those that coach the argument in those terms are either ignorant or intentionally playing games. UCMJ Article 125 is the driving force behind the ban. Sodomy is still a crime in the military under Federal Law:
925. ARTICLE 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Beg pardon, but it’s my understanding that Article 125 is, in practice, like the article prohibiting adultery. They are both “cherry on top” charges brought against someone sleeping with a subordinate or a subordinate’s spouse.
DADT has worked surprisingly well. We would do well to adopt it nationwide – to make the public profession of OR accusation of homosexuality a breach of the peace.
“Cherry on top” laws shouldn’t be merely selectively enforced tools for a prosecutor. If it ain’t the standard, change the standard.
Concur with Mike M. Without getting into specifics, it’s highly unlikely that most heterosexual couples haven’t violated this rule in one way or another. I have never heard of someone being charged solely with Art. 125 – it is always an additional charge; after all, how would one prove it?
Military law is federal law and from thence cometh the storm. This ‘subtle’ shift in federal law is going to ignite an unholy firestorm throughout the nation, being carried in every State by Gay marriage proponents. “If them, why not us?” California and New York, having recently legislated against Gay marriage, will find themselves up against the bulwark defending against charges of discrimination. SCOTUS will have to apply ‘equally, or not at all’ to one side or the other. States will resist encroachment against what was once State purview, and MSM will have found another darling with which to headline our nightly news; which I refuse to watch.
Neither, IMO, can stand without the other. Either we have Gays serving openly and receiving full rights and benefits in their partnerships, applying the same rights and benefits to civilians, or we do not. I would say that we cannot have it both ways, but I suspect Eric Holder and company will make a liar out of me. I was going to say ‘Fool’, but I suspect I crossed that line years ago…
For my part, having worked and served with Hetero and Gay folk, and having found both equally valiant and trustworthy, just keep it out of my face and we’ll get along fine. Cross the line and we’ll be having a ‘discussion’.
Mongo, your points about States Rights is very germane, and those effects are understated IMO. I can see a great many States ignoring or actively prohibiting whatever BHO & the military decide to do (this time).
One of our far too many great challenges that we face is regarding the Federales versus the States -on many issues. My money is on the States this time.
Back in the day- first enlistment in 1963- everybody knew there were homosexuals around. The unwritten rule was : keep it off the ship and don’t rub my face in it and all will be cool. The occasional spat of trouble came when one or both those were ignored.
The current flap is not about tolerance or equality. It is about approval. The activists want to be able to say: the governement says what we do is just fine, so who are you to say otherwise. The insight about using a change in UCMJ as leverage in civilians arenas is well taken. That’s the larger goal.
Just wait until an open homosexual is passed over for promotion. After the legal dust settles, board precepts will have language mandating that homosexuals have the same promotion opportunity as straights and soon we’ll see special reports and justification to CHNAVPERS if a homosexual is passed over. Sound familiar? That’s just how this will play out.
Chaps, you stole my thunder! That’s EXACTLY the way it will play out! Admissions to the service academies also–the “unofficial-official” sub-rosa quota system will with time eventually reach full tidal bore proportions.
“What the Law does not expressly forbid, it eventually actively promotes.”
——Anon
The ieda that you can’t legislate morality is exposed as a lie. Someone’s morality does get legislated and our society uses law to define morality. The founders did not agree with the latter, but who listen’s to them these days.
Repeal of DADT will be highly corrosive to good order and discipline. Just as bad as making the services coed.
Lex, it is only partially true that homosexuals don’t choose to be the way they are. The shrinks removed homosexuality from their list of mental disordes in ’73 because of politics, not because they didn’t know what caused it. In the final analysis we chose how we exercise our sexuality, no matter what form of adultery we choose. All adultery is sinful and immoral. The homosexuals who parade their immorality before the country are having a corrosive effect, and it will be extended into the services when DADT is repealed.
Ok, the first thing here is to differentiate between one’s orientation and one’s expression of that orientation.
For my part, I am partially in agreement with Lex – I don’t think that one’s sexual orientation is a specific choice that one consciously makes at some point in their life. Most of us would say that at some point we became AWARE of our sexuality, but that has nothing to do with choice. However, I can’t quite make the theological leap to say that God created some individuals to be gay, or bi, or whatever. This leads to an individual claiming that his/her perversion of choice is simply how their Creator made them – so who am I (as a minister) to pass judgment on them? Why would God create them to like little boys if they were forever forbidden to practice their proclivity?
Rather, I take the view that one’s sexuality is largely the result of one’s environment and influences, but exactly how this develops is still a mystery. Probably it develops before puberty and has much to do with one’s family of origin. That said, QM is correct in saying that we do have a choice when it comes to the exercise of our sexuality. Yes, all sex outside of marriage is condemned as sinful, for such is not part of God’s desire for human relationships. Paul remained unmarried, though he said that it was better to marry than to “burn with lust,” so sexual fulfillment is a necessary and healthy part of marriage.
As to how this gets played out, can the services still differentiate b/w married couples? I mean, can they (like the states) choose to only recognize heterosexual couples as being legally married and entitled to those benefits (housing, FSA, etc.) that pertain to them? There’s no prohibition against fornication per se, so the sexual relationship that goes on between ANY two consenting adults wouldn’t be an issue, but that doesn’t mean that they have to recognize gay marriages as legitimate, right?
Chaps, I had a guy email me a while back who needed some help. It wasn’t the TBI and severe injury that was driving his depression–although I’d argue it didn’t help–it was that he was in the closet and thought that such a reason was letting his unit down. Heartbreaking to see the guy’s inability to see that his service was as honorable as anyone else’s.
That’s another side to it that at least needs to be considered–apparently serving like that has a price too. Might not be a sufficient point to change anyone’s mind, but worth at least consideration.
I don’t have a dog in the fight, nor do I particularly care. But….
Unlike women, there have been homosexuals in the services and aboard ships since Lord Nelson was a pup, and long before. Everybody probably knew it. I suspect officially acknowledging that will be a lot less problematic than was racial integration in the services and especially the Navy, or allowing women in combat billets and aboard ships.
Me: Don’t know and don’t care as long as the job gets done right.
Flit;
I’ll have to agree at the core of my feeling about this, you and I agree.
The problem isn’t their presence as much as it’s how the PC Police will run with this if the exclusion law is repealed. It was mentioned above how this will become an EO issue and that’s exactly right….big time. Plus, all who serve will have even more ‘diversity’ training shoved down there throats. This is just women in the military x 2. “Don’t know and don’t care” don’t work because they will make everyone care….or else.
Flit: amen!
Sounds as though most here seem to agree with DKDC…but Lex brings some great points: implementation is everything, and what shall we be used as a battering ram for after this?
I think this could be a watershed: If we will let sexual attraction is accepting in berthing/shower facilities, then they should just go straight unisex with everything, because that’s the precedent that has just been set. On top of admitting we’re ok with such urges can be acceptable, then we can also save a lot of money and add space for combat load. Let them all shower together, and if any females object to stares and unwanted attention from males while the conduct personal hygiene operations, well….they should have considered the unintentional consequences that results. I do doubt leadership lacks the guts to do this, for fear of well, you know, predatory leers from hetro men, would bring “sexual harassment to the forefront.
That’s part 1. Part 2 is my concern, that exactly as the current specific, well documented diversity bullies are running amok, this “category” will become a quota in the rank structure to be filled for the sake of quotas. Perfomance will take a back seat.
Point 3: By and large, the homosexual community, for what I have seen, has been largely liberal and anti-military (The City of San Fran being one point of reference), and has not been long clamoring to serve honorably and fully, while doing what they could, under that “banner” to support the troops and the military. Had that been the case, I’d consider this push to be a heart felt method to serve the nation. I, however, have come to the conclusion this is to be able to say “See, we got our way!” How many will come to the recruiting office if/when this goes through? How many will just declare “victory” over the oppressive, homophobic “system?”
I’d hope I’ll be proven wrong, but I fell I shall not be in this case.
Anyhow, leading your life, by leading by with your sexuality to define your identity as a human, I believe is a deficiency, not an attribute.
I totally associate myself with every word, preposition,adjective adverb, consonant, and syllable you have written, xformed. I would only add that those who trumpet the latest opinion polls, etc., which purport to show that the attitude of the public has greatly changed over this matter should reflect on the fact that such attitudes reflect the views of a public that is, in the main, in the ea of the all-volunteer force, totally ignorant of military life and all things military, and have never experienced legally enforced open homosexuality within a “closed-loop” system.
“era”viz”ea”–sorry
I don’t buy those polls. Society may have a more ‘live and let live’ attitude toward homosexuality, but that’s not acceptance. Many of the same people who say they support homosexuals are the same ones who talk trash about them behind their backs, using the same old insults. Seen that one first hand. Also, polls mean whatever the pollster wants it to mean. Polling companies have skewed their results toward a certain result for years in the political arena, the same can be true on this topic.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000654—-000-.html
Thank you for sharing that portion of the penile code.
This has a parallel to the USAFA which recently acquiesced to demands by Wiccans to create a pagan worship center on campus. Only ten out of 4,000 cadets regularly attend these services. Gays in the military also comprise a small percentage (supposedly 2.8% ) but now, sweeping changes will be required to accomodate them. I’m not suggesting that gays and pagans are to be excluded from the military. It’s just that the tail is wagging the dog, all in the name of tolerance.
Be prepared for lots of unintended consequences.
For some pushing the agenda, the consequences will definitely be what they intended.
Lex,
I posted about this yesterday. http://randomactsofpatriotism.blogspot.com/2010/02/psst-heres-secret.html
I roomed with a Marine for six months overseas that was gay, back in 1981. I think performance and behavior should be the actionable issues, not orientation. It won’t be easy, and any attempt to make them a special protected class will have detrimental effects, but just serving? They’re serving now.
Semper Fi,
ASM826
Mark me in the “Don’t care” category, as far as the individuals go.
However, given the militant, and anti-military attitudes of many in the gay community, I don’t think we are getting the real truth about what the ultimate agenda is, or the intended and unintended consequences might be.
The Diversity bullies have been mentioned already, and we can be sure they see wonderful new opportunities to justify their continued employment in perpetuity.
And, do we have a month left for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered appreciation month? After all, we MUST honor our new he-she brethern and sistern.
Don’t even get started on how this can screw up the traditional families already coping with marginal support, medical and housing resources.
I read your blog constantly, and have posted before. This one gets me going. I wrote a thesis in college about about letting women into combat roles in the military (1997) , which was the hot topic back then. I know the feelings on this blog about that issue. Now I can’t believe we are facing a new issue about letting gays serve openingly with us. I felt back then that we should not let women serve in combat roles, however I’ve servered with many women that have proven me wrong. I have family who are gay and friends who are gay that have purple hearts and total dedication to the cause. I know gays fighting harder than anyone. I have nothing against the way they were born as God made them. But I do have something against the way it will change my Navy. How long will it be that we will accept everything? The military has always been the social experiment for the nation and I wonder when the line will be drawn. This post may have contradiction but I ask anyone who is a DIV O or CPO now, is your shop better with sexual issues?
As long as they leave the “Right of Association” alone, I will live with it. Massachusetts is trying hard to tell the Catholics what they are allowed to believe and who they have to associate with, so I’m leery of how this plays out. I personally disagree with the gay lifestyle, but to each his own, as long as you don’t try to tell me that my “Right of Association” is trumped by your lifestyle choice.
Let’s suppose you are a 23 year old LTJG on first deployment. 2 months into cruise you get a new roomie, who just happens to be a “flamer”. Is that JG within his right to protest the assignment? In a homosexual relationship there is a ‘giver” and a “receiver”. Which one do you want to be roomed with?
As a divo had a young slightly effem type sailor that had a propensity for “falling down ladders”. I was too obtuse to recognize what was happening until I was a LCDR and one of the sailors from that squadron was a new chief. Over a cup of coffee on the shop floor the chief asks me if I remember AZ3 ____ and did I know he finally got kicked out when caught “in the act” in a mop closet. I guess my look of befuddlement was too much as the chief blew tubes laughing. I finally connected mop closets and falling down laddrers. Cause and effect I guess.
We’ve seen Lex’s post about the comely young intel officer making google eyes at our host. Replace young lass with effem young lad and … Get me outta here Percy.
‘Twil give new meaning to the Navy’s dress code. This non-military medical ossifer has been mindin’ his betters and slow to speak, but if the uniform of the day includes codpieces, even this Iowa Hawkeye will see there’s something fishy going on.
This issue is just the latest example of a line of thought we have all seen displayed here recently. It is a gulf that a Navy psychologist, Dr. Frank Dully, pointed to emerging in the officer corps in the mid to late eighties. Dully posited that those of us in earlier year groups (and he was referring to aviators, but I think there is a wider applicability) joined to serve — we willingly subordinated our desires to the broader goals of the institution. We bought into the construct from the start. I’ll never forget wailing about some perceived injustice as a mid-grade LT, when a junior LCDR froze me with “well, Scott, why do you think they call it the service? Dully’s observations were that later YGs joined to find self-actualization, with the Navy existing to facilitate that journey.
So, today, we have full retreat at the highest levels. We have an acknowledgement that individual desires, individual behaviors trump what is good for the organization. Unfortunately, CJCS is comparing the as-is state (gays serving while keeping their behaviors out of view) with the to-be state (gays with no restrictions on behaviors) and finding them identical. I want to see someone argue that the organization will be better, or even unchanged, once the to-be state becomes the norm. I don’t think that argument can be made by anyone with enough experience to be listened to.
Once you accept that the to-be state will add stressors to the pretty high stress environment that is inherent in an expeditionary military, one has to ask “Why?”. You come full circle back to Dully’s hypothesis — the highest good has become self-actualization by every service member. We service first troglodytes are outnumbered, so deal with it.
Frank Turek has some cogent thoughts on this subject — I commend them to you. He knows of what he speaks. He does a good job of framing the argument as behaviors versus being. Our previous “integrations” were nothing like this, because they involved being, not behaviors. We will undoubtably cross this rubicon — but once we do, will we ever be able to bar any behavior?
Oops — Lex — can you insert a after “the service” in the first para?
Hey, bi-sexuals, cross-dressers, and trans-genderites? ADM Mikey didna address those poor slighted individuals as they “reflect the face of America” too.
“Any port in a storm” taking on new meaning.
Concur with you Lex. Shortly after a P3 sailor “outed” himself at Moffet Field in the 80′s, I visited my God Mother in San Francisco for lunch. She brought along her nephew you was the Editor for a San Francisco Gay newspaper. He came because she always talked about me and wanted to meet a LCDR “Academy Type” (his words). He was interested in my opinion on the recent “outing”. For once, kept my FM shut. I did ask him why Gays in the military was important. He went on the tell me that it was an important battle because military installations were in many states. If they could get federal protection and class rights in the military, states would have to follow. I suspect this is the issue, not our warfighting capabilities.
The last part: Yes…it would be powerful precedent to be able to say to a civil court “But the Military allows it, and look at the wonderful model of inclusion, tolerance and treating everyone equally the Military has done for some many years!”
It’s a fight most likely easier to win by getting it into the Federal system via the military acceptance, than to challenge each and every of the 50 states and added territories.
Like I have long commented on Gay Marriage. Civil Union isn’t good enough, because law and other legal documents done’ translate “marriage” into civil union, if someone wants to stone wall the case. That battle is actually about making sure they don’t have to attack every legal document piecemeal to force companies, corporations, employers, etc to cough up married bennies.
Sorry, I see both of these about the money, not about an issue of truly human affection.
I’ve seen both sides of this. We had a guy in my squadron who everybody knew was gay. He was a hard working, decent guy. He kept that part of his life to himself and we respected that. Anybody in the squadron would have given him their right arm if he needed it.
We had another guy who used to flaunt it every chance he got. Since this was before DADT I could never figure out how he was allowed to stay in the Navy. When this guy moved out of the barracks, one of the younger guys moved in with him as a roommate. He insisted that there was nothing going on between them, they just split expenses on the apartment. About a year later the younger guy got engaged and started looking for his own place. I went out on a detachment for a few weeks and when I got back I found out that this guy supposedly went AWOL. I didn’t think anything of it, until several months later after I got out of the Navy and ended up with two Jacksonville detectives on my doorstep waiting for me when I got home from work. As it turns out the guy didn’t go AWOL, his roommate hired another guy in my squadron to murder him.
The French Foreign legion had a number homosexuals in its ranks at one time. While there was never a real study on the matter (to my knowledge anyway) it was known that a number of deaths in combat weren’t from the enemy, but from homsexuals settling scores among each other.
I’m already telling young men to stay away from the military because of the coed PC trash. I’ll get quite forceful about it if DADT is repealed. It simply won’t be worth the candle to serve anymore. We are dangerously close now.
QM: Just one little question: can you explain why openly gay men & women have been so effective in Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the UK? Please note that all of these countries are known for the professionalism of their soldiers.
Interesting bit of trivia: more than 20 out of 26 members of NATO permit openly gay/lesbians to serve.
There may be cogent arguments against open gays in the US military, but you have, alas, failed to produce them.
Based on my personal experience with the “fighting forces” of NATO, outside the UK and Canada, I’d take a boy scout troop.
There may be cogent arguments for open gays in the US military, but by citing the experiences of other NATO members, alas, you have failed to produce them.
If the only agenda here was simple acknowledgment that there are gays/lesbians serving in the military, so what? Of course they are, of course they have, and of course they will. With honor, distinction and whatever glory ya’ll cover yourself with.
Alas, I fear whoever wrote about approval (and I’m sorry I can’t recall which of these brilliant posters mentioned this) is right on the money. And the whole issue will blow up into a monster that destroys the entire the system. After all, the ONLY reason an openly gay marine might be passed over is the kind of ‘sheet music’ he prefers, right? I mean, what else could it possibly be? Certainly not his performance… or merit… or any other measure used to promote the straight marine.
See me geck.
The Kinsey report that makes the claim that 10% of the population is very misleading. It was taken among prision inmates in Indiana, and it actually reported not that 10% were homosexual, but that 10% had had homosexual contact, whether consentual or not. This is a devient group within a devient group from the mainstream of the population. It seems to me, in a reference to Animal Farm, just a way for the gays to promaote themselves as pigs in our society, and the media is right on board,also being self proclaimed pigs, and therefore more equal than the rest of us.
CDC survey data, as of 2008, says 4.1% of the population. No where near the 10% number that is always thrown out.
The Urban Institute places the number even lower at 2.8% (2000 Census Data) which begs the question as to why this is so important.
Some furor over that Census number. It talked about “couples”, and the counter battery fire was that not every gay person was “coupled”, just as every hetero isn’t either. So I think we can settle somewhere north of 2.8 and no higher than 4.1 — neither even in the same universe as 10.
Well, as I said at The Donovan’s years ago, I’m not gay; I’m much weirder than _that_. Teh Ghey may be 2.8%, but the “A” is more like .67%.
I am so very glad now in my old age that I resisted the entreaties of those who wanted me to become a Naval or AF officer, just based on my test scores. I coulda prolly done OK as a technician or Staff guy, but I really don’t think I have enough of the social savvy to have done very well as a leader of the general sort of folks.
Sorta like Jake Holman in “The Sand Pebbles”: Excellent evals in every category except leadership.
Indeed. And the Kinsey report makes all sorts of people ‘more equal’ than others… with skewed demographics, twisted data, and a not-so-hidden bias from the start. It remains a major source of ridicule and in jokes in my crowd.
One should not make any decisions about anything important based on the Kinsey report. One might end up with the pigs running America (oops! I meant the farm).
From what I recall, that was a secondary observation, and not even a focus of the actual study, and I believe is was prefaced with “There may be up to 10% of homosexuals in the general population” words.
But…the 10% is so often repeated, it’s taken as real science.
Is reality perception, or perception reality?
If you can’t value and cherish the opinion of Scotts, whose can you?
Lex I really hate disagreeing with you as I greatly admire you, your service, your writing, but there is no basis for your statement that God made them that way, other than a desire to not run afoul of current cultural fashion. There is no empirical basis for that sentiment.
A decision to avoid confrontation in hopes that the pains of presenting our backsides to those who desire cultural hegemony will be less than those of confrontation is a decision to accept leftish cultural dhiminnitude. You may wish to be just left alone but such reactionary attitudes are not acceptable to the jihadis of Islam or the left, they will accept nothing less than your total, uncondtional submissiveness. If that’s what we’re doing lets at least do it with our eyes open instead of with limp wristed rationalizations about the way God made people and confutations of love and lust. If we’re going to accept that there is no right or wrong lets at least be men enough to give God the finger and tell Him to shove off.
Ok, I’m not quite sure what jihadis and submisiveness has to do with this topic, but whatever.
Lex said, “they are as their God has made them for reasons known only to Himself,” which is not entirely a cop-out IMHO. What “empirical basis” would you offer to prove otherwise?
I think that much of what we humans must endure here on earth is the result of sin in the world. Creation exists in a fallen state today, and humanity with it. Would there be homosexuals in a “perfect” world? No, I don’t believe so. But neither would there be birth defects, cancer or Ebola. It may be that one is born with a homosexual orientation just as one may be born blind or crippled or whatever, but then in that case I would have to place homosexuality in the category of a defect that one must live with and/or overcome, not as something to be celebrated.
I tend to approach these issues from both the microscalar level and the macroscalar. I understand the importance of this change at the national, political level. But in terms of its importance on the day to day level for military personnel, I can imagine different kinds of way DADT hurts service people.
So you never felt the need to assert that you were heterosexual during service? Did you have a picture of your wife or girlfriend visible in your quarters? That was a proclamation of your sexual orientation.
There are a small number of states that now allow gay marriage, and even more that allow domestic partnerships. Married gay servicemen or women could not talk about their spouses as their spouses under DADT. Presumably, there would be implications for leave in the case of family emergencies if we follow out that line of thought? What about spousal benefits?
San Francisco may be known for its politically visible and in your face gay community, but I live in Oakland. The east bay is where gay couples in long term relationships (and yes, many married/domestic partners) settle to raise their families. To talk about one’s partner during the course of casual conversation is normal. To worry about your family issues while deployed, and perhaps want to talk about them to friends, is normal. Gay servicepeople are denied that.
I have learned reading this blog, how important family support is for our service men and women–an often unsung, unheralded backbone that allows our military to complete difficult tasks in often underfunded conditions. The comments here have been focused on who sticks what part where in a person (sodomy technically includes any form of oral sex, btw..opps). But that’s not what adult loving life is about–whether one is gay or straight–sex is the fringe benefit of being with someone you are in a caring, loving committed relationship with. Marriage, right? Did you get married for great sex or something more? Building a life together, raising a family. That is what the overwhelming majority of gay persons I know are working towards, just as the straight people I know are. DADT discourages gay men or women in committed or hoping to be in committed relationships from joining up.
You know, history demonstrates that often those who fight most passionately for our freedom are those who know first hand what it is to be denied it.
I am not wild about a “social experiment” for the military. Number one factor needs to be warfighting. Do we really want to mess with it? I am not saying “no way”, but we need to go slow on this policy change and vet it properly…not just to deliver on a campaign promise.
Thought commentary, but I would remake the comment I have made in response to your final sentence:
Why has the gay community been, for the most part, very much against the military?
If they are so passionate about “freedom,” then I would have thought they made the support of the institution that actually has lead the way on rights across our history, rather than disparaging it, at the least by a lack of support?
I had a choice 4 years into my service: Leave and complain about it and it’s not so to my liking processes, or stay in and be part of the way forward, which, I was able to do in my own small ways.
I like people who roll up their sleeves and are part of the fix. I dislike people who are merely “idea people” and the expect someone else to hand it to them, done to their liking, regardless of (in this case, National Security while in a war with terrorists) other more pressing priorities. In other words, if anyone wants respect, they come by it easier by getting int to the game, not just Monday Morning QBing everything.
make that “thoughtful commentary” my bad…..
To talk about one’s partner during the course of casual conversation is normal. To worry about your family issues while deployed, and perhaps want to talk about them to friends, is normal. Gay servicepeople are denied that.
True. But then people are denied a lot of things in the service in order that the service be able to complete it’s mission. What’s more important? The mission? Or the ability of gay people to discuss their family issues?
Not everyone is suited for the service. If the conditions necessary for the Armed Services to complete their mission means that they cannot accept openly homosexual members then too bad for homosexuals. They should weigh that before they join and accept the consequences once they do.
“So you never felt the need to assert that you were heterosexual during service?”
No.
“Did you have a picture of your wife or girlfriend visible in your quarters?”
Yep, but those pics were up in my rack where it was difficult for anyone else to see them. They were for my enjoyment only.
“That was a proclamation of your sexual orientation.”
No, it was not. They were there because I couldn’t be with her at the time but I wanted to look at her.
Gay people can still talk with their chaplain about their issues. Chaplains are bound by confidentiality (similar to a doctor or a lawyer) against divulging that information with anyone else.
Laurie, Marriage predates the US by several millenia, it isn’t a creastion of the state. The institution came about to provide for the results of sex, i.e. children. If a man can get his boyfriend pregnant, then we’ll have something to talk about. Otherwise the “gay” rights gang is just making something up to destroy the culture, which from the “in your face” trash we see around the country, is exactly what they are seeking to do. Thuis has nothing to do with freedom, or anything approximating it. I have no right to marriage any more than anyone else who posts here. My sexual preference doesn’t even enter that equation.
As I have said in these pages before – and as I continue to believe – no one chooses to be gay or straight;
It would have to be based on belief, as science does not support the hypothesis that homosexuality is genetically determined.
As for homosexuals being unable to openly serve – so what? As is pointed out above, the purpose of the military is to serve the needs of the country, not the desires of it’s members.
Ron, this is not an empirically developed belief on my part, but a logical one. I’m happy to admit that my logic may be flawed, and acknowledge that the notion is deeply contrary to the way most of us were raised. But the “default” position on human sexuality is clearly hetero, so if someone goes against the default position there must be a reason for it. They either choose to be gay or it is somehow chosen for them.
Although there are sybarites of every flavor, hetero and otherwise, I honestly don’t think that many people”choose” to go against the grain in such a fundamental way, especially given societal expectations: People are raised in a society with the expectation that they will grow up and marry a member of the opposite sex, there are penalties psychic and otherwise for not doing so.
Everyone must find beauty where they can. If some consenting adults find it in an alternative vision to mine, who am I to disagree with them? After all, I would resent someone else imposing their vision on me.
All that said, I think there is significant military risk to the path the president has directed the military to go down. I hope that whatever marginal gain we achieve in self-actualization is worth the cost, but I doubt it will be.
I’m with you, Lex, and yet I’m not. This indeed is logical, “if someone goes against the default position there must be a reason for it. They either choose to be gay or it is somehow chosen for them.” But the gays I know (one a deeply appreciated teacher of mine, the other a roommate) in their private moments confessed circumstances in their growing years that soured them on hetero. And given scripture on the subject, it is exceedingly hard for at least some of us to agree with you that people don’t “choose”.
So since we don’t all agree on our philosophical foundations, may we all agree with your final comment, “ I would resent someone else imposing their vision on me? Even the Christian fundamentalists amongst us (pick me!) should not expect people who disagree with our faith to live as we strive to. May we all do what’s best for the good of the order – in this case, our defense as a nation?
Lex, the vast majority of the solid academic literature indicates that for males, genetics plays a part in the majority of instances, but that there is a significantly sizable portion for which cultural norms and pressures provide the explanatory power (e.g., Ancient Greece) Hence the reluctance of many to subject the nation’s youth to instruction–whether in the schools or BoyScouts,etc.–by homosexuals where they are in a position of power and influence to mold minds.(disclaimer: Not only the finest math instructor but perhaps the finest instructor of ANY kind that I was ever exposed to–and one of the most dedicated as well–was my HS Algebra teacher who years later came “out-of-the-closet” when he retired with his lover to Ariz. Little ‘ole naive me just thought him “effeminate” in 1958 Illinois farm country. PS–my Mother dated him a couple of times when they were HS class-mates. “Ugh, to think I actually KISSED him!” LOL)
With women the academic literature takes a different turn. The mere recognized existence of numerous females who are bi-sexual blows a large hole in the genetic theory. Female academics in trans-gender studies who are bi-sexual pose perhaps the greatest threat to the lesbian community conceptually insofar as a genetic basis is used to justify lesbianism. We have seen in recent years (say,the last 30 now,really,) the appearance of a heretofore unk creature on college campii–the LUG, or “Lesbian Until Graduation.” Dalliance with lesbianism has become the latest chi-chi thing to do on college campuses (think the kissing scenes and simulated sex shown on “Girls Gone Wild” vids) Some surveys indicate that up to 1/3 of all female undergraduates have participated in one form or another in recent years. And ALL of this is SOLELY culturally driven. So much for genetics–at least in the female form.
Given that all us guys have one X and one Y chromosome, and are therefore genetically half female, I can see where a few genes being out of the standard sequence could result in a male winding up with homosexual sex prefences, but I cannot explain female homosexuality that way, unless you give credence to the feminist thinkers who maintain bisexuality is the norm for females.
With the end of don’t ask, does that mean recruiters can start to ask ” Here, Bruce, are you a pooftah “? Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Lex you say that everyone must find beauty where they can, but isn’t that really just denying the existence of beauty? If all is beauty, nothing is beauty. Is that how you taught you pilots? Everyone must find the beauty in flying where they can?
Second You say that you should resent someone imposing their vision on you but that is exactly what the left is trying to do with the gay agenda. In the early 90s my wife was kindergarten teacher for L.A. Unified, one day all of the teachers, including the K teachers, received a memo telling them to engage in appropriate activities to celebrate Gay Pride month. Talk about imposing someone else’s vision on you. I have been waiting for the social libertarian protests of this type of stuff for over 20 years.
Third you have not well thought out what you mean by choice. Certainly the alcoholic would not choose to destroy his family by being a drunk. No one ever chooses to be fired for arriving at work late. No one ever chooses to gain weight by eating too much ice cream. No one would choose to be dismissed from the service for accessing pornography on a ship. But for some reason these things happen. Are we to suppose that no one is responsible for their actions because they choose actions whose consequences they’d rather not suffer?
As I said earlier, I think the best approximation I can make is that one’s sexuality is an unconscious route that is determined largely by environmental/family influences. To say that it is a “choice” brings with it the implication that one has knowingly weighed and considered all the options, and elected to pursue THIS one. To say that it is entirely genetic is to attempt to lay the burden at God’s doorstep, and to aver any personal responsibility in the matter.
Goyo, in all of your examples you take an adult who DOES make a choice as to their behavior, and who SHOULD be cognizant of the consequences of their actions. Few drunks are completely unaware of the damages their alcoholism causes, nor are all the members of Weight Watchers ignorant of result of consuming a pint of Ben & Jerry’s finest. One’s sexuality is an entirely different matter altogether. Can you think of when you “chose” to be heterosexual? I can’t. Probably no one can point to a conscious decision that they made in that regard – it was most likely more of a growing awareness that the opposite sex (for most) was far more fascinating – and for different reasons – than had previously been realized.
I don’t think I disagree with what you are saying. The point I’m trying, apparently poorly, to make is that the suggestion that something is acceptable because it is beyond someone’s ability to easily resist doing would excuse a great deal of unhealthy behavior. Let’s take as an example something parallel. A man who likes to have sex with animals. Certainly he did not choose to be the way he is but that is not the same thing as saying that his behavior is beyond his control nor is it the same thing as saying that we should accept and de-stigmatize his behavior.
I don’t believe the gay agenda is about leaving gays alone to do as they wish so long as they do not hurt anyone, but about legitimizing homosexual behavior. The point of having gays serving openly in the military is not about military service or even about there being gays in the military it is about de-stigmatizing homosexuality. The gay agenda is not about eliminating the category of perversion but just changing its definition. Now the perverts are no longer the homosexuals but those who assert that homosexuality is wrong.
I have no desire to make homosexuality illegal or to in anyway impede their activities. As far as I am concerned they are free to do whatever they want. My objection is to changing the definitions of right and wrong. If a homosexual were to stand up and say I’m a pervert because I like being a pervert and if you don’t like it the hell with you, I would find that at least honest and somewhat admirable. But instead we have a situation where the homosexual stands up and says I am not a pervert and it is wrong for you to say that I’m a pervert, and then seeks to use government power to make this point of view the law of the land and uses governmental institutions to advance his redefinition of right and wrong.
Let me put it one more way. Here’s the question I would like answered. Should the government be mandating that our children be taught that homosexuality is peachy keen? How is that not a government imposition of religion? Taking sides against a religious position, delegitimizing a religious position is to establish a religion. That’s my issue with the repeal of DADT.
Ron, this is not an empirically developed belief on my part, but a logical one.
Fair enough. As long as you are up front about that – few advocates are, they try to claim it’s genetic. Of course, they never trot out an acutal geneticist to support their claim.
But the “default” position on human sexuality is clearly hetero, so if someone goes against the default position there must be a reason for it. They either choose to be gay or it is somehow chosen for them. Although there are sybarites of every flavor, hetero and otherwise, I honestly don’t think that many people ”choose” to go against the grain in such a fundamental way, especially given societal expectations: People are raised in a society with the expectation that they will grow up and marry a member of the opposite sex, there are penalties psychic and otherwise for not doing so.
That makes sense on the face of it. I hear the argument advanced by more forceful advocates of this line of thinking who basically say “With everything you have to go through to be gay, who would choose it? That’s proof we didn’t choose.” But I think that this fails in the face of the fact that the jails and graveyards are filled with people who chose against logic and societal expectations to commit crimes, consume drugs and otherwise act in anti-social fashion against both their immediate and long-term interests.
People in an unstable situation tend to adopt behaviors that bind themselves to a group. Joining a street gang looks to you and me like a ridiculous thing to do. Many of them are based on criminal activities, etc. But it gives them a group to identify with where their thinking and actions get a lot of approval from a group of peers, even though it is strongly condemned and sanctioned against by society at large. So it is with homosexuality, I suspect. While there are penalties overall, they are offset by the strong approval of the group you become part of. And in the case of homosexuality, the penalties are becoming less and less.
What do you think the penalties of homosexuality ought to be?
Lex, I don’t think he’s saying there ought to be penalties, even though society has exacted them through shame and ostracism.
God, on the other hand, does a penalty, and it’s the same for any brand of adultery, hetero or homo. Eternal separation from him. And since there are only two destinations in eternity….
He is God, and he does make the rules, and he said all adultery is an abomination. That pretty much puts a period after the sentence.
Quartermaster is correct. I’m referring to the negative consequences that homosexuality has had in both our society and in others now and in the past. I’m not talking about imposing laws such as the one currently being considered in Uganda, for example.
And what about a homosexual who confesses and believes in God?
My understanding of the Bible is that ALL sin separates us from God – not just adultery – and results in God’s righteous judgment upon us. However, belief in Him and in His son Jesus removes that penalty and allows us to be declared righteous before God. Not on the basis of what WE have done, but on that of which Christ has done for us.
Yet believing in Christ does not mean that we will not continue to struggle with sin. Surely you aren’t saying that a Christian who sins in some specific way (like adultery) has lost their salvation and is in danger of eternal damnation, right? To focus on adultery (hetero or homo) is to lose sight of the bigger picture. God hates sin – ALL sin. To him, lust is equally as sinful as adultery, although the consequences for each may differ here on earth. Eternal separation is reserved for those who continue in their UNBELIEF, not for those who continue to sin throughout their lives. Homosexuality is no better or worse than any other sinful behavior, but you should not make the mistake of claiming that all who practice it are going to hell, ‘cuz that ain’t in the Bible, my friend.
A repentant person will abandon their sin. That’s what metanoia means, a change in direction. Faith will be evidenced by a change in actions because faith means that you take God seriously.
The one example of Adultery is not meant to be exhaustive. Repentance and a change in the manner in which you act is required if you wish to spend eternity with God.
So have you abandoned all YOUR sins? Let me know when you reach perfection…
Seriously though; I have a lot of respect for you QM, but I believe that you’re a bit mistaken here. According to my Greek lexicon, μετάνοια means “a change of mind, as it appears to one who repents, of a purpose he has formed or of something he has done.” So yes, it does involve an element of change – but it is first and foremost a change of mind; we agree with God that certain acts are wrong and sinful.
Allow me to briefly explain the difference between justification and sanctification. Justification is the legal term for the process by which my guilt is removed and I am deemed righteous (or “not guilty”) before God. I am not justified on the basis of anything that I have done, nor can I ever merit it on my own – it is only by God’s grace that I am set free from the bondage of sin. (see Romans 5:15-21)
Sanctification, on the other hand, is a continual process by which I am made holy. For the Christian, this is an “already/not yet” proposition: I “have been made holy through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ once for all” according to Hebrews 10:10, yet I am still called to be holy and to live a holy life in Hebrews 12:14.
According to Dr. Doug Moo, “genuine faith…always and inevitably produces evidence of its existence in a life of righteous living.” This is what James is talking about when he writes of the necessity of works as a natural result of one’s faith. Yet even though this is (or should be) the natural process of regeneration that follows true conversion, it is not in itself a necessity for salvation. Recall the criminal who was crucified on the cross next to Jesus – where were his “good works?” He had faith, and that was enough. To add works as a *requirement* for salvation is to return to the Law that governed the Israelites under Moses – and we have been set free from that law through the shed blood of Christ.
QM wrote:
A repentant person will ATTEMPT to abandon sin. Man, being inherently weak, may not be able to overcome it. As long as you keep trying, God will keep helping.
@Maj. Harvey – The Wise Thief, his “works” was his confession of faith for all to hear. Proclaiming the Gospel from his cross. And Abraham exhibited faith and works. Faith in God, and that God would not have asked him to sacrifice his only son without reason, even if he could not understand it. And, having his had stopped by a messenger from God.
As you say, we daily work on our salvation. The hard part is to keep standing back up and dusting ourselves off when we stumble and fall.
Major,
I’m not placing myself on a pedestal as some example of holiness. I am familiar with the idea of forensic justification, but you should know there is some argument as to whether Augustine’s idea of law court justification is actually biblical. The argument extended into translational battles on several committees of NIV translation effort and ended with a least common denominator reading. There were even Calvinists who came down against the law court reading.
I agree with Moo, and have said the same thing myself a time or two. However, the idea that one can be a practitioner of sin and be a Christian is nonsense on stilts, and you will find that no where in scripture. The lists given in scripture of the types of people that will not enter the Kingdom is a good example of the sins that one can practice and be kept out of the kingdom. IIRC, Adultery is on all the lists.
The Christian will strive to please God, and that starts with the abandonment of sin. It doesn’t mean we won’t fail from time to time. 1 John chapter 1 deals with that matter and gives the remedy. The remedy, and the realization of the cost of that remedy, is what separates the saint from the sinner. The sinner couldn’t care less, he just wants to practice his sin and then get a pat on the back because “we are all God’s children.” God will not be amused by such people.
I have several Greek references, and could place a bunch of stuff here, but won’t clutter Lex’s server. I will say, that no one that is indwelled by the Holy Spirit, and who seeks to please God will practice sin. The reason scripture says we will be judged according to our works is because our works testify of what we are inside. While we might be able to fool another man, God on the other hand, sees the heart and knows our motives. If the motives of our actions does not come from a converted heart that seeks to please God, then people who think they can get away with it will be in for a very rude surprise when they stand before Christ, our final judge.
That surprise will be present when a practicing homosexual stands before him and tries “but you made me this way.”
The issue at stake here – and it is a major one – is whether or not we are saved by grace, by keeping the law, or by some curious mix of the two.
Under the old covenant (Abraham, Noah, Moses, up until Jesus’ death) righteousness was obtained through keeping the Law. If one sinned, the shedding of blood in the form of animal sacrifice was required to bring about atonement, for “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22). This had to be done continually. They believed that being Jewish (God’s chosen people) was what made them part of God’s family, and that keeping the Law was what *kept* them in His family. If you didn’t keep the law, you were outside the faith.
With Jesus’ death, his shed blood provided the perfect sacrifice for all of humanity – there was now a means by which I could be made right with God, if only I avail myself of the grace (gratia) that He has freely (gratis) provided. This offering on our behalf was a “once for all” proposition – Hebrews 9:25-26 tells us, “Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.” A few verses later we are told that “Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those that eagerly await him.”
The message of the cross is that my past, present and future sins have already been forgiven when I put my faith in Christ. That’s it. There’s no more forgiveness that’s going to be poured out – the full measure was already given 2000+ years ago. Do you still ask God to forgive you when you “fail from time to time?” If so, why? What good does your asking do when the act has already been done? It’s like me asking my wife to marry me each evening before we go to bed – my continual asking doesn’t change our marital status one whit. You’re either forgiven – and live in a state of forgiveness as a believer – or you’re not. No middle ground that I can see. Attempting to add some works-based efforts on our part only serves to return us to bondage under the law.
So let me ask you this: If I’m a Christian, and I commit a sin, what is my standing before God? If I die before I confess that sin, where do I go? I agree with you that the life of a repentant person should not look the same as that of an unrepentant one, but the struggle between my godly nature and my flesh is still alive and well. Salvation does not result in the complete eradication of all of our fleshly desires – I still struggle with lust, pride, envy, etc. But those struggles have no bearing on my salvation.
In regards to 1 John, you should be aware that John’s target audience was not believers, but Gnostics. Why else would he make reference to claiming to be without sin, something a Christian would never do?
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast.” -Ephesians 2:8-9
Well, um, Maj. Harvey, I think my pastor might not wholly concur with you, and he’s pretty sharp, and went to school, and all. Of course he’s Anglican, and we do confess every week, and do the traditional ritual of the Eucharist. (with real wine) There’s faith, and then there’s works. And then, yep, there’s Grace. Which is Amazing. I’ll continue to attend the rituals, which might do me some good even if I’m not wholly and forever saved in the Baptist way. Maybe it’s a gradual process for some folks?
Or at least the awareness of it is?
@ JTG-
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying that I don’t understand why people ask for forgiveness. I do understand; I did it for years. However, my thinking on the matter was profoundly challenged by reading The Naked Gospel by Andrew Farley. Confession is one thing; in confessing, we essentially agree with God that we are sinners and that we still do wrong things. But usually this is followed by asking for forgiveness, which makes sense in human relationships where a rift has been torn, fellowship has been broken, and forgiveness is necessary to repair/restore the relationship.
With regards to us and God, I don’t believe that last step is necessary, at least from His point of view. Oh we may still do it, and I don’t think it bothers him that we do – but I think it would be a mistake to think that our asking for forgiveness suddenly brings down this rain of grace, as though God were holding it back until we asked for it.
The danger is that over time, we get into this pattern of confession/asking for forgiveness, and think that that’s the only way that we can get our slate “wiped clean” with God. We take what may be an understandable (yet wholly unnecessary) practice and elevate it to a necessity – to the point where we feel as though we’re not forgiven unless we’ve asked God for forgiveness. Now that quaint little habit begins growing into a millstone around our necks, and we preach to others that they should keep “short accounts” with God – as though He’s up there tracking our every sin and tallying it up on a celestial scorecard. What I’m proposing isn’t really all that radical – it’s what Paul & the writer of Hebrews preached nearly two millenia ago: Salvation by faith. Forgiveness from God. Freedom in Christ.
and for the record, you Anglicans are just as “wholly and forever saved” as us Baptist-types (although I tend to define myself more as a non-denominational Christian-type myself)
Maj. you are the first one that I have seen make the claim that 1 John was addressed to Gnostics. Given that the general epistles were sent to the churches, that is a bridge way too far. The manner in which it is written also goes against the claim.
I am aware that Baptists think they can get fire insurance, then basically live any way they like. Such is foreign to scripture. Conversion and salvation are neither the same thing, nor do they happen at the same time.
There are many passages that the Calvinist/Baptist idea of “once saved, always saved” founders on. I won’t go into them here. An entire book has been written on the subject, and is available on the internet.
There is a biblical doctrine of “once saved, always saved,” but Calvinists and Baptists don’t teach it.
Note of the day: Lead editorial in St Pete Times, held up by the man at the next table, here where America now does business (Golf courses are so passe!) – Panera Bread: “Chiefs get it right, Senate stuck in the past.”
It makes me consider, how the Military has come to be the social experimentation ground of the liberals in the last few decades.
Consider this: Some in this nation talk/look down on those who serve, maybe even say they aren’t smart enough to get a “real job.” Yet….wait for it….they subconsciously know the ones in uniform will roll up their sleeves, grumble a not so cheery “Aye, Aye!” and get to work, doing what business and politicians won’t do: Make things like this work/happen.
Then, having a bunch of smart people improvising, adapting and overcoming, point a finger and demand the rest of society do what the Military has done.
Rarely will they speak in terms of respect for those who continue to do the “Can Do” thing, when they themselves fear failure in their own venues. For those who look upon “our” structure as hide bound, granite hard and moving to the future at the speed of a melting glacier fail to comprehend our Military is more adaptable then just about anything other than a one person business in all the world.
In a backhanded way, it is a tribute to the core value of the Military.
“Rules will be written to ensure that gays and lesbians in committed partnerships have precisely the same access to housing, medical care, insurance coverage, tax preferences and all of those cohabitational benefits traditionally assigned to those whose procreative potential serves to raise the next nation of tax payers.”
This is all about money. It has nothing to do with rights or the ability of gays to live their lives. If you want to be gay in the military, keep your mouth shut. Otherwise, find some other means of employment. You will be guaranteed equal protection in the civilian sector. There are several things about my life that I would not be willing to tell a co-worker at a “holiday” party…The advantages awarded to hetero couples was done so that they could procreate and build this nation. When ever I espouse this point of view I am looked at like I have two heads… What? Rights reserved to those that bear and raise children? Don’t be ridiculous… Well, I don’t think I am being ridiculous.
“. . . I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me personally, it comes down to integrity — theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.”
There are several aspects of this push to end DADT that I dislike, but I thought I’d emphasize the above.
“DADT” is the popular but misleading name for Pres. Clinton’s EO removing any questions pertaining to sexual orientation from accession paperwork. He did not have the authority to decree that it is acceptable for homosexuals to serve as long as they keep their sexual orientation to themselves. Federal law didn’t change; it continues to state that homosexuality is contrary to good order and discipline. In other words, DADT removed the requirement that they lie first, as had been the case earlier, before going on to serve while hiding their orientation as they were still violating the law.
It would be similar to having the law require a minimum age to serve, but issuing an EO that recruiters will not ask anyone their age nor require evidence. They will merely assume the recuit is at least the minimum age. The recruit would have to continue the charade, but he’d no longer have to lie about his age to get in as so many in earlier generations did.
ADM Mullen, then, is misrepresenting the policy. The services do not have a policy that “forces” anyone to lie about who they are. Of course, Federal law does have the effect of forcing homosexuals to maintain a certain amount of discretion.
Does he lack the intelligence to grasp the difference, or is this misrepresentation deliberate. If it’s the latter, it calls into question his sense of outraged integrity.
Either way, it promises a dysfunctional decision making process when arriving at the new policy.
Of course, that was guaranteed considering the political branches will be involved. Whatever policy they come up with will definitely be designed to please domestic pressure groups and not with an eye toward national security. You know, like Gen’s Odierno/Cucolo’s pregnancy policy was redesigned by Nancy Pelosi and NOW.
Obviously, I need a little practice using the HTML tags.
Moh bettah?
WESTPAC, do as I do – cheat! I keep this HTML Tags Chart on my favorites bar for quick reference. Scroll down a bit for the chart. Boss
Look at the emotion in this thread. If/when the policy is changed…I pity the folks in uniform that must execute it. Now for a little humor. I bet the Navy designs another uniform for the policy. nuff said………….
I’m sure the Village People will be a part of the Uniform Board….
Couldn’t be worse than the Eastern European Police ensemble…
Meant to add:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_AxAS8qkXvUU/S2rTCcCJOMI/AAAAAAAAAx8/AuOjerdNLYg/s1600-h/Pasadena+duty+van.jpg
Expect a rash of grievances and lawsuits based on allegegations of homophobic discrimination in denial of promotions or plum assignments post DADT.
Since gay servicepeople are currently prohibited from identifying their sexual orientations, such grievances have heretofore been impossible.
What? You thought that the U.S. government, military branches and DoD cannot be sued?
Standby and watch, after all, we will be paying for it.
Since when does anyone have to identify their orientation toward anything in the military?
Defend the flag, obey orders, carry out the plan of the day, stay out of the Gunny/Chief’s way, and work towards my next advancement(and all that goes with it). Pretty much the sum of my existence.
There have been many very good reasons expressed above why the Administrations policy change is wrong for the country and for those who serve. But in addition to the concerns for unit morale, esprit, etc; there’s an issue I haven’t seen addressed in this, other blogs, or testimony before Congress.
Afloat units (and I suspect all services) rely upon their own members for emergency casualty blood replacement. We called it “the walking blood bank”; drilled the WBB at least once a quarter, and activated it for real during the Forrestal disaster. Every man aboard had been blood typed and could be a donor when needed.
For the same reasons that the FDA will not allow homosexuals or those exposed to homosexual activity to donate blood or blood products, the armed forces will not be able to draw upon those members for emergency, in the field blood supplies. That’s no whole blood, blood plasma, white or red cells, or platelets from those individuals. Should they be casualties their injuries will create additional risk for the medical staff, requiring extra precautions from the first responder through all the steps in treatment facilities. Testing for HIV/AIDS, though improved, is not consistently accurate, requires sophisticated equipment that is not found in the field, and takes time to test and analyze. In short the homosexual can’t be donors and will pose a risk of life threatening infection to their shipmates. One more reason why this change is a really bad idea.
Yeah, but since gays are currently serving in a closeted status, that’s presumably already happening, nu?
Interesting you should bring that up! It is part of Iowa State Code that any person who knowingly exposes another to HIV shall be prosecuted for a criminal offense. I would hope that under DADT, HIV+ souls would respond in the field to a donation request with “you might think twice, and you don’t want to know”. If I were the recipient and he was my only hope, I’d take the blood anyway and figure he gave me 10 years I wouldn’t otherwise have had.
Of course. But it really points up the problem with DADT, and the need to return to the old way of asking “the question.” The problem will only become more acute with repeal.
Rep. Dornan forcefully pointed this problem out during the debates on DADT. That debate, and a goodly bit of vote fraud, cost him his seat the next election, iirc.
Federal law does have the effect of forcing homosexuals to maintain a certain amount of discretion.
Federal law and SOP also enjoin military personnel from fraternization, which many view as a nuisance and “none of anyone’s business”. We’ve seen a number of careers ended in the last year because, IMO, of such an attitude.
As Title 10.654 points out (Thanks for the link, Brian Lee):
(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that—
(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and
(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.
Preaching to the choir here: Captain Jim Hickerson, former Vietnam POW and CO of Naval Air Reserve at Pt. Mugu, once said to a group of us during an orientation: “We have a zero tolerance policy in the Navy for drugs. If you don’t like that policy, you’re welcome to go out and find yourself another canoe club.” IMO, the same principle applies to everything else related to behavior in the military.
The military is a society with peculiar ways, whose ways are not unlike a number of the world’s religions. You take on the role, you take on the rules. Voluntarily. Period. Paragraph. Turn the page.
So much more that might be said, but leaving well enough alone might be DoD’s best policy going forward.
Heh, Haze I hadn’t even thought of that. My husband, a civilian, contributed to his company’s blood drive for many years until we took a trip to the D.R.
He was told that he would never be able to contribute blood again… because we took a trip to a resort in the D.R.! Never mind that he goes to Mexican backwaters and China with all too much frequency on business trips. One family vacation to the D.R. (during which we had a really great time. I would suggest to anyone with very fit teen and older children to take a cheapo vacation to the “Extreme Hotel” in the D.R. and learn how to kiteboard, what a trip!)
Not to make light of your point, which I do understand.
Has the Navy rejected my son’s blood for the same trip? I don’t think so.
Babs, same thing re blood happened to me on one of the islands I visited during my Federally Sponsored Tour of some years ago. Tested positive for something, though its been so long ago that I no longer remember what it was/is, and since that time I have been told to never again donate any blood.
No negative effects on me (apparently), though I do miss being able to make that particular contribution.
Excuse my ignorance, but is “the DR” the Dominican Republic? And if it is or isn’t, why the ban?
Joe, in my case I tested positive for something like Hepatitis B. Did not have it, was not a carrier, but the rules (at least back in the 70′s) were that if you tested positive even once, you could not donate blood. Someone else on may this site may remember or know more details as I’m sure a fair number of us had to experience the same situation. Looked at my DD214 and there is no mention of it.
I did assume that DR meant the Dominican Republic.
I really do have to add that by no scheduling of mine, we found ourselves at the Extreme Hotel with two of the skateboard greats of the United States. It turned out that there was going to be a “pipeboard skateboarding” competition at the same time that we were there…
The hotel and venue is so small that up close and personal discussions were available. I spoke to one of the “SKATEBOARD GREATS” about his daughter’s education in the Huntington Beach school system on a number of occasions. My children were freaked out that I would dare to talk to this “alternative lifestyle” icon on such a plebian level… Heh!
Not to mention the little bitty dog named Nano that kept finding his way into people’s rooms… That actually had to be one of the greatest trips my family ever took.
I can’t remember the name of these guys. They made a couple of movies with Dog something in the title.
Not necessarily in the interest of keeping this thread alive, but more so that I can express my feelings about it and be a part of a mature discussion:
When I was a Cadet at the Citadel, we constantly were given “Leadership and Ethics” debates in the name of promoting “values and respect” to promote the image of El Cid. It ended up being a joke, really, as I saw the school change in such radical ways to promote the Agenda of leftists and statists. Let me explain how a change of values parallels, not necessarily being a real military institution but still feeling the effects:
When I first went to The Citadel, the “Pillars” of our education were Academics, Physical Fitness, Honor, Leadership, and Religion. This became the “whole man” concept. Over my attendence, they completely dropped “Religion” and added “Diversity”, and a few others (Duty, Morality). The key there was “Diversity”. Because of the acceptance of women into the college, rules changed, lifestyles changed, and on and on. We have locks on the doors, separate showers, an unequal amount of funding for women’s sports (where women make up 6% of the corps of cadets, yet have 50% of the athletic funding, see Title IX), and on, and on.
Now this is where the rules changed and people began to take notice to the differences between boys and girls, really. And this is where the school began to err on the side of sans-lawsuit. Already with a full legal staff fighting battles every day, the school’s Commandant’s Department began to cater to the every day whims of female cadets to avoid the tragic lawsuits that bankrupt the school. In my time there, a male and female cadet were found “in the act” in the barracks violating a half dozen rules (the biggest being sex on campus). Everyone would agree that this would be an ideal time for tacking on all of those “cherry on top” rules to the Chit’s that were heading to the Commandant’s Office, and most definitely for both individuals. It turned out that the female was only suspended for one academic year, while the male was outright expelled. The fear was for a discrimination case. Since this is an imperfect world, and El Cid was most certainly an imperfect institution of higher learning, I would hope that one would weigh the long arms of the law equally onto the guilty parties at hand. I do not trust people or governments that much. What would come to the Navy in the event of upcoming lawsuits and court martials and the like? One would hope that precedent would be set in the many heterosexual adultery cases? But would this not open the door to a lot of unknown ground, as it has at El Cid, VMI, and the military academies when it allowed women?
All of this stems from the ever present Populist idea of “Diversity is a value which needs to be embraced”. I agree that human beings of all walks of life can come together and each have great ideas, or the ability to recognize them and build upon them. I do not agree that it should be a mission statement when we have other things to worry about. I would hate to see a ship, squadron, company, or wing’s focus being on Johnny and Jimmy or Lindsey and Michelle being caught in the closet when their job depends on trusting the man and woman next to you to do your job and respect you without taking notice to the color of your skin, eyes, how many fingers and toes you have, orientation. I like to think people are above all of the differences without having the need to bring it up in any conversation. Hence my opinion that DADT is only a feel good legislation that really ought to be addressed in some fashion, either extended or ignored.
I don’t care about what orientation you may be. I only care that when the time comes for you to do the right thing, that you are of sound mind and body to do so. I do not want the military used as a social experiment to benefit a specific interest group. I’d rather see people get over this “diversity” push and realize people are people, rather than they are straight people, gay people, asian people, white people, tall people, vertically challenged people. That’s just one young and disgruntled man’s opinion. I’ve sat through enough “diversity” training to be angry and upset, been forced to cater to the whims of specific groups of people to avoid punishments and chits because I held the same set of standards for all of my soldiers, and apparently that is wrong.
Enough. I reckon I’m gunna go get my own blog now so that I can rant and rave and not take the glory for Ol’ Lex.
-CG
Thanks for the insight. I’m of BS (before Shannon) times. I guess the old saying of 132 years of heritage unchanged by progress took it on the chin after I left my shoes on the parade ground.
It but a symptom of how the cry of inequality can quickly turn the tables and swing far to the other side, and then be explained away as not inequality, because it’s just catching up to get things even, while the system grinds to a halt.
’76
Very eloquently said. And as I see it, the gremlin throwing the wrench in the system (the lawyer) is getting ever-more-so powerful with each piece of diversity legislation that passes (like the last Defense Appropriations Bill guaranteeing that any straight-on-homosexual act of violence is immediately a hate crime).
’09 (I may be young, but diversity says you that you shouldn’t disregard my opinion because I haven’t been around as long as you… HAHAHAHA… sorry, I couldn’t help but say that)
Actually…I was getting to see the inside of the AS days through your experiences…ahh…the benefit of living vicariously via your life…a benefit of age, yes?
Lawyers? Yes.. Just note the population of them so much closer to the front. In ’86, while working up to sending Kadaffi a message, my roomie was the CCDG8 Intel Officer, the real kind (16XX). He was the ROE guy for the staff. I was but a ‘Shoe and I was the ROE guy for my staff. Today, I’m sure that would specifically be disallowed, as we were both warfighters and not lawyers.
’09? Well, you got a a lot of life ahead of you. Wanna trade places?
“Expect a rash of grievances and lawsuits based on allegegations of” race “discrimination in denial of promotions or plum assignments post” segregation.
That aruguement has been used before. Now input “sex discrimination” and “allowing women to serve,” and it has been used twice before. While there have been many grievances and lawsuits for each case, neither has destroyed the mission.
People adapt.
Newer generations think the older generations are stupid. The next generation will ponder our attitudes towards homosexuals as ponder about the prior generation attitudes towrd segregation.
If this is all about money: “precisely the same access to housing, medical care, insurance coverage, tax preferences and all of those cohabitational benefits.” Then let’s get rid of straight marriage.
The military is better off with single sailors. I don’t require base housing, I get paid less, I’m the only one on tricare, I don’t need to phone home to my wife, I don’t need to go pick my kids up, take my wife to the doctor’s office, I can fly late since there are no parent/teacher conferences. When they extend my deployment, I don’t whine as much as the married guys do. And when I’m killed in action, it is a lot cleaner than leaving behind a wife and kids.
After all, it’s about the needs of the service, not the needs of the individual. So which of you married folk are ready to serve your country and give up your family?
All these excuses are tired.
Amen. Used to be, people of less than a certain rank were forbidden, or had to get permission, to marry.
I also think I recall reading that things were different before the UCMJ, when still under the Articles of War. That was before the Pwogwessives and psychiatrists criminalized just being homosexual. I believe that under the A of W, there was no mention of having homo thoughts; you were cool as long as you didn’t actually do the forbidden acts in a way or a place which required somebody to take official notice.
Of course there was always risk of violence from individuals if one were perceived as queer by somebody who liked beating up such folks. (no offence to Electronic Warfare folks intended)
“Newer generations think the older generations are stupid.”
That’s OK, older generations think that newer generations tend to be naive, under-informed, have impulse control issues and have never personally had to deal with the consequences of well-meant, ill considered actions.
Of course, Lex, we used to be part of one of those younger generations. As the old saw goes, too soon old and too late schmart.
Well, Lex… here goes a poorly controlled impulse plus an ill-considered action: but there just has to be something funny in all of this, doesn’t there?
Don’t do it! http://bitsandpieces.us/
Rats… ya’ gotta page down about 9-10 paragraphs. Wouldn’t ya’ know, when you try to be a wise guy, you get all caught up in it!
PG, thanks for the link, might have to keep that one handy. The hearty snort at the tent shot was worth the trip!
The military is better off with single sailors. … After all, it’s about the needs of the service, not the needs of the individual.
True. But the needs of the service are those determined by the service and the country, not you. Apparently the service has determined that the issues surrounding married personnel are outweighed by the benefits. So your opinion as to what is best does not invalidate the argument.
IIRC, General Mundy, then CMC, tried to pass a rule in 1993 that said you couldn’t enlist in the Marines if you were married – the pay of an E-1 being judged too small to support a family. He got shot down in flames.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19930813&id=hQIiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=hKIFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1130,7140189
Actually, I think he had a good rational point, there. In theory.
Idaho Joe
February 4th, 2010 at 3:14 pm · Reply
Excuse my ignorance, but is “the DR” the Dominican Republic? And if it is or isn’t, why the ban?
Yes it is. The ban because of malaria…
babs,
By this logic, do you suppose that all of us Vietnam vets should not be giving blood? I, for one, took more anti-malaria pills than I ever want to see again. They apparently worked in my case, but who knows what’s floating through my system?
Inquiring minds and all that.
Regards,
Mike
Thanks Babs, inquiring minds needing to know and such…
This has been discussed, with many comments, over at http://www.atomicnerds.com the last day or two. I think I see at least one commenter here who also commented there.
Navymic – To say that I find your post offensive would be an understatement. Where exactly do you expect to gain your next set of sailors et al if we decide to “do away” with allowing heterosexual couples to bear and raise our nation’s children? Yeah, all those inconvenient phone calls home, interaction with the children, doctor’s visits and parent teacher conferences…
I appoint you a committee of one to recruit a military service solely stocked by single persons with no familial connections.
Wait, didn’t I see a movie recently with exactly that kind of soldier?
As an AFBrat most of my chums had familial traditions of military service. My family goes back to 1649 when ol’ Claude came ashore in Maine. My family was involved in all this country’s conflicts. Most of my chums had family records going back to at least the War of Northern Aggression, and going through many of the MilBoards, I’ve found many of their names as having served, most in the same service as their father (mine is different since I rebelled and went to sea. I really showed the Old man, didn’t I
)
Without Military families recruiting would be a nightmare. Even those lines that had ancestors that simply did a hitch and got out contribute heavily.
The point that it would be easier if the troops weren’t married is a good one. It was rare for a common soldier in the Roman Army to be married, for example, and the French Foreign Legion does not allow a Legionaire to marry during his first hitch. In the long run, however, forbidding marriage in the ranks will not contribute to the stability of those ranks. Ergo, the allowance to marry after your first hitch in La Legion, and generally among national armies. Command sponsorship and sending the troops with their families to Germany or Japan was not done with any sort of altruism in mind.
Of course, there was a risk involved in Germany during the cold war. If Ivan decided he wanted to sample Belgian Beer, there was a very high likelihood I would have been killed with my mother and brothers trying to get to Spain before I met Ivan up close and personal. I imagine the troops would have fought harder knowing they were also buying time for wives and dependents to get away safely.
I wasn’t trying to say that I approved or disappoved of anything, just that “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.”
At issue should be the benefits of gays serving openly in the military. Changing a law that was carefully studied and debated in 1993 because “it’s time” or “it feels right” is shortsighted. A serious examination on the far-reaching impact needs to take place, then explained to the Congress and the American People.
This is an emotional issue just like health care. Gay Rights Activist should insist that this issue should be open and judged on the merits. To allow the administration to ram through changes behind closed doors will cause the majority of the American people to rise up and kill it like the 2000 page health bill.
Frankly, I don’t think DADT is in much danger at this point. The population is already radicalized and trying to do something that damaging after they have spent themselves and failed to pass the medical take over is not likely. The Dems are already facing an electoral Götterdämmerung and they know it.
Well when you’re committing political suicide what’s one more log on the fire?
I just wonder why with all the other problems we have to deal with why this has to be dragged to the head of the line just right now? The country is going broke, we are fighting a global war whether we want to admit it or not, and we want to spend time debating this issue?
I know the answer why so I don’t need to be educated about bones being thrown to bases and all and moral posturing means little to me in the face of the immoral bankrupting of our country.
Its as if the house is burning down around us and we are fretting about what place setting to put on the table for dinner.
I appreciate that this has more obvious meaning to those directly effected as a result of their orientation but their degree of dis-enfranchisement seems a lessor priority to more pressing issues. I mean its not like they can’t serve under the current policy.
But I’m getting more angry about how dis-enfranchised I feel daily with our Representatives representing interests that have no relation to what I feel mine are and ought to be. Maybe I can lobby for a handout based on that.
I think you have a good point, but I also think there are Dems who are nervous enough, and have enough of a desire for re-election that they will back off. Lincoln has already asked the extremists to back off, and asked Obama to do the same. Obama pretty much wrote her off, and to her face.
What will be interesting to watch is the time after the election when Congress returns for their final sessions. The last bad lame duck congress gave us NAFTA, which has not been the boon it was made out to be (no surprise there). Will they punish the people for turning them out? We’ll have to wait and see.
We may find there is a shortage of tar, feathers and rails before it’s all over. I just hope we get video tape of the proceedings. I’m sure that would go viral pretty quick.
Actually, talk to the Red Cross about my husband’s exclusion from donating blood because we took a vacation to the DR.
In fact, it is a kind of relief as my husband has a tendency to pass out when donating blood…
When we were young, and very poor, we would sell our blood to purchase birthday presents. After having my husband pass out and come home totally blown out I decided that this was not a good way for him to earn extra income.
The flip side is how can the Red Cross think it is OK that he travels to China and Mexico but not allow a blood donation due to a family trip to a resort in the DR? My husband actually landed in the hospital after one of his business trips to China!!!
[...] February 6, 2010 · Leave a Comment “As I have said in these pages before – and as I continue to believe – no one chooses to be gay or straight; they are as their God has made them for reasons known only to Himself, and if God is love – as he surely must be, or else he be not God – then he cannot want any of his children not to know him. Those of a more secular bent will no doubt agree with me that, God notwithstanding, the more love there is in the world, the better off we all will be.” – Neptunus Lex [...]
I agree with Lex, I really do not want to be regaled with tales of life between the sheets. For me, that extends to hetero exploits as well. And count me out for being forced to watch or listen to others having sex. Being able to boast about sexual prowess or to publically pursue sexual conquests is not what most gay members of the service want; exploiting hetero colleagues is not what they want either. What most gay service members want is to be able to post pictures of their loved ones by their bunks or on their desks, to talk about the people that they love, and to publically socialize (movies, dinners out, airshows, trips to the PX) with the ones that they love. Today, doing any of those activities that straight couples take for granted will lead to an immediate discharge proceeding.
I realize that members of the armed forces are often compelled to share tight quarters; I have stayed in my share of barracks and bunkhouses, and I am sure that sleeping quarters are even tighter ship-board. I know that some of folks with whom I have shared tents, bunk rooms or hotel rooms are gay. A few I knew at the time, some I learned about later. Since they respected my physical space, it was never a problem for me. I have also shared rooms and tents with attractive women with whom I was not having sex without being overcome with the desire to assault them (and apparently, they felt no overwhelming attraction to me, either, sad to say). I have also occasionally found myself in co-ed bunk rooms where a straight couple was “discreetly” having sex. Somehow I survived, even if a little disgusted, and I can assure you that it must be infinitely better than sleeping in a rain-filled fox hole or anywhere the Taliban can shell.
My point is that many of the comments here confuse who people love (and what they practice in private with those they love) with public acts of sex or with unwanted sexual attention. Can it really be that hetero respondents here are convinced that they are so virile that given a chance, no gay person would be able to avoid molesting them, or that given the opportunity, that they could not suppress their urges to assault any woman who wandered near at hand?