Reading Time: 6 minutes
The issue of homosexuals serving openly in the military is so complex that writing about it seems overwhelming.
First, there is the problem of reconciling both Article 125 of the Military Code of Justice and U.S. Code – Section 654 that strictly prohibit those who engage in homosexual acts or those who state that they are homosexual from serving in the military with the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy that serves as a defacto law superseding actual law.
“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” implicitly says homosexuals can serve as long as they don’t openly acknowledge that they are homosexual. That’s like saying that company policy strictly bans the use of company computers to view porn, but employees can view porn as long as they don’t tell anyone. Either it’s permitted or it’s not.
Despite what some advocates of homosexuals serving openly in the military claim, military prohibitions against homosexuals serving in the military no more encourage deceit, than do laws prohibiting stealing encourage deceit. To claim that laws that prohibit certain behaviors encourage deceit is another way of saying people are always going to break laws. In this twisted logic, all laws encourage deceit because those who don’t want to abide by them willfully engage in deceit in order to do what they want without incurring the consequences.
We can’t always prevent lawbreakers from breaking the law, but that unfortunate reality should not compel society to repeal laws. In other words, society ought not repeal laws in order that those who refuse to obey them are freed from the consequences of lawbreaking. The fact that throughout history there have been homosexuals who enlisted in the military in violation of military law that prohibits them from serving should not compel the military to rescind the law.
Removing the prohibition against allowing openly homosexuals from serving in the military will result in a whole host of other problems, among which are the following:
- It will result in discomfort among some soldiers with engaging in private activities like showering with men who admit to being sexually attracted to other men. Yes, throughout history homosexual men have served in the military, but heterosexual men are unlikely to be uncomfortable showering with homosexual men when they don’t know they’re homosexual.
- If military law is changed to allow openly homosexual men and women to serve, there will undoubtedly be an increase in homosexual activity in the military. To argue otherwise is either disingenuous or naïve.
- Coercion between openly homosexual military officers and their subordinates will likely increase.
- Some men may choose not to enlist or re-enlist if they will be compelled to serve with openly homosexual men.
- Romantic affiliations will develop which will likely affect combat decisions.
- The military will eventually have to provide military housing for same sex couples.
(For more on the potential impact of allowing openly homosexual men and women to serve in the military, click HERE to read an editorial by Richard H. Black, retired chief of the Army’s Criminal Law Division, who as a marine pilot flew 269 combat missions in Vietnam.)
Political commentator Chris Matthews made yet another silly statement on his Sunday morning program on Feb. 7 when he said that anyone who wants to serve in the military should be allowed to do so. Apparently, neither the mission of the military nor its needs must be allowed to supersede the almighty desires of any particular individual. His statement reflects the troubling thinking of so many Americans who now believe that any good or desirable thing constitutes the object of a right. If they see something they want or something they want to do, many people believe they have a Constitutional right to have it or do it.
Homosexual couples want to participate in the heterosexual institution of marriage, so same sex marriage is now their “right.” Homosexual couples who are designed to be sterile want babies, so having babies is now their “right.” Men who are sexually attracted to other men want to serve in the military, so now serving in the military is their “right.”
Homosexuals, and increasingly “transgenders,” are compelling society through erroneous and unproven ontological assumptions to radically redefine foundational societal institutions. All of their efforts are based on acceptance of the deceit that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to skin color or other immutable conditions that have no behavioral moral implications open to moral assessment.
Homosexuality is not by nature equivalent to skin color, nor is it morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Conservatives especially need to recognize how much they have appropriated the absurd proposition that homosexuality is akin to race, and they need to stop treating it as if it were.
After reading about a recent poll that reveals that the opinions of both civilians and younger military personnel are shifting in favor of allowing openly homosexual men and women to serve in the military, I found myself wondering why the views are changing so dramatically. Chris Matthews posed that question to his guests MSNBC correspondent Norah O’Donnell, New York Times writer Andrew Sorkin, Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, and Time Magazine assistant editor Michael Duffy, and received surprisingly insubstantial, question-begging answers.
In response to Matthews’ question, “Why have attitudes (on homosexuals serving in the military) changed since Bill Clinton confronted that issue back in ’93?” O’Donnell said “I think there’s greater acceptance.”
Sorkin said, “The world’s changed, but I’m going to say it’s about social networking, it’s about the Internet. I think so many people are so much more open in a whole new way than they’ve ever been, and therefore people who were unaccepting before now see it in a whole different way.”
Kathleen Parker said, “we parents have raised our kids to not be judgmental and to be accepting of gays. We all know more gay people than we used to, or think we didn’t know before.”
Duffy said, “the reason is that our teenagers are just 100 times more tolerant than their parents about everything.”
What these responses brought to mind was one of Jack Handey’s Deep Thoughts: “One day one of my little nephews came up to me and asked if the equator was a real line that went around the Earth, or just an imaginary one. I had to laugh. Laugh and laugh. Because I didn’t know, and I thought that maybe by laughing he would forget what he asked me.”
Parker responded by saying that children have been raised to be less judgmental, which really means that many have switched their judgment from homosexual acts are immoral to the judgment that homosexual acts are moral. Does Parker really want people to stop judging between right and wrong, or does she want people to make moral judgments with which she agrees. Does she want people to be non-judgmental when it comes to racist behavior, or adult consensual incest, or corporate malfeasance?
What none of Matthews guests did was to offer an account of the reasons why society’s judgments are changing, which is the crux of the matter. Has it happened through careful study of the best thinkers writing on the subject of morality, sexuality, the needs of the military, or the place of institutional disapproval in maintaining a healthy society?
Or have other factors and forces altered the judgments of society:
- Have judgments shifted through the relentless spate of images and ideas promulgated through music, films, novels, plays, essays, the news media, advertising, and public education that implicitly and explicitly affirm unproven assumptions about homosexuality?
- Have judgments shifted as a result of the absolute censorship in public schools of the writing of scholars who offer thoughtful, erudite expositions of conservative perspectives on the nature and morality of homosexuality?
- Have public judgments shifted as a result of relentless ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares to say publicly that volitional homosexual acts are immoral?
- Have public judgments shifted as theologically orthodox churches cowardly retreated from engaging in this public debate and from equipping their members to engage in it?
The tragic reality is that the affirmation of openly homosexual men and women serving in the military reflects not only society’s acceptance of the fallacious claim that homosexuality is analogous to skin color/race, but also of society’s rejection of any standards regarding sexual morality:
- Marriage has been severed from sex, and from procreation, and from childrearing, and increasingly from “gender.”
- Sex has been severed from marriage, procreation, childrearing, and “gender.” Polyamory-or as polyamorists like to call it, “ethical non-monogamy”-is increasingly visible and likely increasingly practiced.
- Fornication and co-habitation are not merely accepted; they’re expected.
- Homosexuality is everywhere promoted as normal and good.
- Exhibitionism is common on reality shows, primetime comedies and dramas, films, music videos, and college campuses.
- And paraphilias, also known as fetishes, are played for laughs on sitcoms.
- Even lighthearted references to and depictions of incest have appeared in television programs and films.
Why wouldn’t a generation weaned on positive images of sexual perversion and immorality support openly homosexual men and women serving in the military?
What society needs to think seriously about is whether some forms of institutionalized disapproval of sexual immorality through laws or policy serve a good and necessary social function.
Take ACTION: Contact President Obama, our Illinois U.S. Reps. & Sens., and ask them to NOT allow open homosexuality in our military.