Should Homosexuals Serve Openly in the Military?
Tags: US Military.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
It will be a subject of debate, thanks to the very likely planted question in the CNN debate – from Politico:
A retired Army general, Keith Kerr, just listed all his military credentials and then left the crowd silent by saying at the end of his video that he is “an openly gay man” and wants to know why gays can’t serve in the military.
Romney was hit by Anderson Cooper with a past statement (imagine that) saying that he “look[ed] forward” to the day gays could serve. Pressed hard by Cooper about whether he had changed his mind, Romney plainly looked displeased. “This isn’t that time,” Romney first said, noting the national security threats. He said the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy “seems to have worked” and, toward the end, even drew some boos (it was tough to discern exactly why).
Kerr, present in the audience, was then introduced by Cooper and said he didn’t feel as though he got an answer. Explaining why, he got his own boos (partially snuffed by some shushing).
It all made for some feet-shuffling and floor-staring among the gathered Republicans.
Oh, my tireless colleague Avi Zenilman back at Politico World HQ does an insta-search on Kerr and discovers he was on the Steering Committee of “Veterans for Kerry.”
Short answer (at least as far as I’m concerned): yes.
Long answer: Being gay is not wrong – it is not a sin to be gay; given this, there should be no objection to having gay Americans serve in the United States military. And yet, there is objection.
Gay rights activists would have the objections as the mere result of anti-gay bigotry – and I’m sure that there is an element of this in the debate. However, there are practical considerations involved here.
First and foremost, a generally held opinion – whether well or ill-founded – cannot be lightly set aside, especially in a democratic republic. Say what you will about it, there is a distaste for homosexual acts among the general population, even among some of those who are determined to be very tolerant in the matter. I believe this distaste is irreducible: most people who are not gay will never come around to an idea that homosexual acts are morally the same as heterosexual acts. There will always be an element of the “other” in homosexuality as far as the heterosexual population is concerned. This gap can be bridged in many ways, but it will always be there, and has to be taken into consideration.
Secondly, and in conjunction with the distaste noted above, there is the practical matter of how to regulate the relations between servicemembers. Part of the objection to having women serve in the military (an objection I share – and do keep in mind that my sister served for 8 years in the Navy, and I still feel this way) is that in the various bonds which can develope between men and women may work at cross purposes to tbe bonds necessary for unit cohesiveness. This is why even to this day women are not placed in front line combat units. Adding open homosexuality to the mix will add yet another potentional morale destroyer to the mix. This doesn’t mean that there can never be homosexuals serving openly in the military, but it does mean it is not something we can just willy-nilly whistle up without careful thought.
What General Kerr did – almost certainly at the behest of Democrats trying to score cheap points – was absurd; and as a former serving officer he knows it is. Its not just a matter of “I want it, so we will do it”. Upon the effectiveness of the United States military rides the safety of the United States of America and, indeed, the safety of the whole world. This magnificent instrument must not become a laboratory where social engineering experiments are conducted. As I said, I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military – but before we allow that, we’ll have to make some things very clear; among these things would be just under what circumstances servicemembers would be able to have non-professional relations with each other. This is not the sort of thing which lends itself to cut and dried prescriptions, and the matter would take a great deal of study and preparation.
Kerr did a bit of Democratic grandstanding, and that was a disservice to his own cause – now it is time for thoughtful people to engage in real debate over this issue.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
292 Responses to “Should Homosexuals Serve Openly in the Military?”
Caucus of Corruption
Diana,
I am being civil, I haven’t said what I really think about people with loony ideas like yours!
If it were my blog, I’d have put an end to your Liberal agenda propagandizing long before now.
Since that won’t happen, the next best thing is to see just how far people like you will go in tossing out America’s traditional beliefs, values, morals, and lifestyles… while cramming your own agenda down their throats.
I’m certainly glad we don’t have any police like you in this area. You’d probably TASER anyone who didn’t bow down to your god of Liberalism and embrace gay marriage or whatever other abnormal, deviant, or perverted sexual activity you choose at the moment.
As I asked before, is there any abnormal, deviant, or perverted sexual activity you Liberals won’t support or claim as a right? How long will it be before you claim it is a child’s right to engage in deviant sex with an adult. If Europe approves, I’m sure Liberals will be pushing that in America too. And we wouldn’t want to impose on the rights of those Liberals to engage in bestiality, would we? How long before you Liberals start demanding schools force Christian children to learn about that perverted and deviant sex?
YOU actually believe it is YOUR RIGHT to use public schools to teach young kids about YOUR sexual practices and lifestyle — but object to any mention of God, Intelligent Design, and even Christmas trees!
There was another person who believed in using the public schools like you do… HITLER!
AAR
So, Diana,
What part of this interpretation do you assert is untrue?
A federal judge in Massachusetts has ORDERED the “gay” agenda taught to Christians who attend a public school in Massachusetts, finding that they need the teachings to be “engaged and productive citizens.”
U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf yesterday dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by David Parker, ORDERING that it is reasonable, indeed there is an obligation, for PUBLIC SCHOOLS to TEACH YOUNG CHILDREN to accept and ENDORSE HOMOSEXUALITY.
What’s the problem? You don’t want the American people to hear the real truth in black and white — in easy to understand plain English?
You would prefer the truth covered and hidden in your Liberal wrapper of “political correctness”… like you Democrats (Liberals) use “partial birth abortion” instead of calling what it really is… murder: poking a hole in the baby’s skull, sucking out it’s brains, and collapsing it’s skull so it can be pulled out ["intact"] except for it’s brain!
You Liberals whine and scream because the Supreme Court agreed with the people that you cannot kill the kid that way — even though your assembly line abortion “practitioners” are still permitted to cut the baby into chunks and remove them in pieces!
But even that is not enough for you DEMOCRATS — LIBERALS — just as your weren’t satisfied with keeping your own sexual techniques and practices in your own bedroom. YOU must force your own sexual practices into the public schools and indoctrinate they youngest children with YOUR sex ideas!
Why don’t you Democrats tell the American people what YOU really stand for… especially those Christians you work so hard to trick and fool with your lying propaganda — but then lying isn’t a sin in the religion of Liberalism???
AAR
AAR,
I appreciate your not calling me names directly but I still haven’t seen even an acknowledgment of your libel of me and my brothers in regard to our service to preserve and defend this great nation.
Your notion that quoting the actual words of the judge’s ruling constitutes not wanting “the American people to hear the real truth in black and white — in easy to understand plain English” is very odd. I placed a link to the court’s website so you or anyone else could go there and read the entire opinion if you wanted. It’s not hidden. It’s not mumbo-jumbo. It’s part of open government.
You’re obviously literate. Do you have such a low opinion of the reading skills of the people who read this blog that you believe they can’t read the words of the ruling and understand it themselves without having it filtered through your interpretation or the interpretation of whatever the hidden source you keep quoting is?
Let’s go to what I assume you think is the money quote here
Firstly, this was an effort of the Lexington School system. That was the school system that is local to where the plaintiffs lived. The plaintiffs chose not to try to change the school system by trying to change the composition of the governing body through the vote. Instead, they chose to try to club the school district over their collective heads with the perceived power of the federal court. Well, the choice they made didn’t work out for them so now they may, if they choose, do other things using the individual responsibility they have as parents and citizens. Why do you keep downplaying their responsibilities?
Now, according to you, the words “understand and respect” don’t mean what they plainly mean. What you say they mean is this
Tell me exactly how “understand and respect” got translated into “accept and endorse” except in your overheated imagination? I don’t consider myself to be any kind of genius but I can “understand and respect” the modern version of Republicanism without “accepting” it as true or “endorsing” it to anyone else. It’s not an attack on Republicans to say that I don’t normally accept their positions or endorse their beliefs. I can do that and live my life without being in panic that there are also Republicans in the world. It’s really not that hard if you get your mind off sex and body parts.
Wow. Tell me exactly how that’s being done with the materials that were complained about by the plaintiffs in this lawsuit? I saw nothing about sexual practices at all. The books depicted examples of the kinds of families, mostly conventional, that exist in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and a story of a “prince marrying a prince”. I freely admit I’m willing to be proven wrong here, but my money says that neither of these elementary school books had any mention of any kind of any kind of sexual activity in them. What do you think or were you depending on the elementary school kids being as obsessed with sexuality and body parts as you are?
Diana,
I can keep posting for days examples of your Liberal indoctrination and brainwashing…
EXACTLY the way HITLER used the children!
AAR
By the way, are you familiar with the somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but, rather truthful Godwin’s Law“? I’ll refer you back to your posts # 278 and # 282 in quoting the law
I just thought that was interesting.
Oh, you wondered what’s going on in Texas these days. Well, it’s pretty much a normal life where the average person doesn’t think or talk about theirs or others sex lives and body parts. You know, just trying to get by like every other American.
commitment, honesty, integrity, respect, dignity
Those are the standards of our military, along with courage, Ricorun!!
Let’s not trash our military by allowing Sodomites to join.
~ Jeremiah
World Net Daily, April 29, 2007…
Indoctrinate the children! ~~~Right out of Hitler’s playbook!
AAR
Diana,
The fact is, there has to be laws of Morality, if not, then God will judge the Nation accordingly. And like I’ve said, regardless of what others think, Sodomites don’t belong in the Military. At all. Period.
Homosexuality is a mental sickness. Sodomites should not be honored by granting them a position in our honorable armed forces. Their only entitlement should be as citizen, nothing more, nothing less.
There are good people out there that are hindered from joining the armed forces because of the demented people there.
–Let’s restore honor and dignity to –our Honorable Military and make it -a law that homosexuals do not –belong in the Military.
~~Jeremiah
AAR,
Well, thanks for at least identifying what you’re quoting. The story shows features indicating that it’s not a neutral news story, but, at best, what might be called “advocacy news”. For example, a neutral journalist wouldn’t use phrases like these:
“…advises teachers to promote homosexuality…”
“…distributed by homosexual activists…”
“The homosexual activist strategy…”
I have no idea who the “Camenker” is who is talking to World Net Daily and the entire paragraph quoting “one unidentified teacher” is automatically suspect given its length and inflammatory language. Frankly, on this particular topic, no one would expect World Net Daily to be able to muster an objective viewpoint.
So, what do you know of the actual material in question other than you’ve been told to believe by World Net Daily?
P.S. I guess you kind of missed my comment about Godwin’s Law. Are you actually aware of how the Nazis treated gays and lesbians before they were defeated by the Allies? They were shipped to the extermination camps right alongside the Jews, the Roma and the Slavs.
P.P.S. I’m all for being being energized. You might want to check out the current issue of the National Review, though. Even they think the GOP is in for some hard times.
Diana,
“…cannot under any circumstance…”
Come on, get real! Don’t feed us that line of bull! You if anyone should know laws can be changed… by a single judge’s vote, even over the will of the majority of the people!!!!!
Up until the vote of a single Massachusetts judge, homosexuals couldn’t “marry”! Up until recently, children couldn’t not be indoctrinated and brainwashed in our schools embrace homosexuality!
All it takes is changing “public” opinion, “changing social values” as you Liberals like to say, and even a judge can change our laws and in effect amend the Constitution. It doesn’t even have to be in America, as your Liberal Supreme Court judges have ruled in a death penalty decision. It may just be changing views of other nations around the world. Those judges should have been impeached and thrown out on the street, but the American people have been lead to believe that’s what the Constitution means… by a bunch of Liberals mis-educators!
Some Conservatives were trying to get the age raised. Maybe they have. I haven’t checked that yet, but if it can be raised, it can be lowered.
What’s a child? Whatever suits a Liberal at the moment!
AAR
AAR: World Net Daily, April 29, 2007…
Don’t you have any other source than World Net Daily?
On another note, you go to the trouble of putting you quotations in block quotes, so you’re obviously copying and pasting. How hard would it be to copy and paste the freakin’ address line along with it? The excuse that “I don’t have the time right now to start listing all of the links” is total BS.
That’s one thing to be embarrassed about. Another is that you have employed just about every ad-hominem attack available in the ad-hominem arsenal. Tasers? Jeepers, what nonsense. And how many times can you dip into Godwin’s law without being completely embarrassed? I gave you some credit for having some smarts. Others have said plenty of really dumb things, and I don’t take them to task even when they keep it up. Because, well… handsome is as handsome does, I guess you could say. But in your case I KNOW you know better. You even offered to change your tone and approach. In response I suggested that you do it for a higher purpose than to please Casper or me — do it for the fat lady. You even mentioned it. But did you ever check that out? Whether you did or not you continued being relentlessly obnoxious. And that’s really why I am so disappointed. I realize you’re driven more by ideology than just facts and reason, and you’ve also openly espoused a proclivity for propaganda. But at least you’ve shown a modicum of integrity in the past. Not on this thread though. You’ve been awful. Really awful.
And really, what makes you think you’re going to win some kind of “civil war of words” if all you come to the battlefield with is pure, unadulturated bullshit? Without a little meat behind them those cow pies just aren’t gonna stick. I almost hate to say this for fear that it will be grossly misunderstood but… you need to study Almiranta a lot more.
AAR,
What does the age of consent in Canada have to do with Gays serving in our military?
BTW, I’m still waiting for some links to studies showing that all of this indoctrination is causing children to turn gay.
AAR: Oh, I am still holding back and being “civil”, even if you might not think so!
You’re right, I don’t think so. But thanks for the warning. I can hardly wait.
AAR,
Okay, you’ve gotten a little far afield from the original topic. So, since you’re so anxious to cite the “will of the people”, what is your view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia? Should they have left Pace v. State of Alabama intact? Information about both is widely available on the web, so you should be able to do a little quick research. They both go right to the heart of your anxieties about “the will of the people” and who gets to marry.
Ricorun,
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/dec/06121905.html
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/19/sex-tourism.html
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
As I said, some Conservatives are trying to get the age raised, but I haven’t seen where that has actually occurred. I read some sites complaining about attempts to raise the age.. Canada being more liberal and “progressive” (and more enlightened) than the United States.
As for the rest of your “observations”… noted!
AAR
Casper,
Nothing, gays don’t belong in the Military, someone stupid made the law that gays are allowed in our Military. Whoever done it is just plain stupid!!! Period.
Jeremiah
Remember they were kicking the Sodomites out of the Military when they found out they were Sodomites, and then Bill Clinton introduced the law–”don’t ask, don’t tell”
Bill Clinton is a scumbag.
Jeremiah
Diana,
You decide if those rulings were Constitutional or not — not whether they were the correct, human, or moral thing to do.
The issue is, did the judges rule as the Constitution intended, or did they in effect change the meaning and, by “de facto”, amend the Constitution? If the judges correctly interpreted the Constitution and applied it accordingly, then their rulings would be proper, legal, and Constitutional. If not, then a change should have been made to the Constitution as stated in the Constitution itself — and the ruling is subject to change by future judges!
I haven’t read them, or the opinions of others, and as I said before, there is nothing to be gained by me wasting my time researching them, and discussing them!
AAR
Ricorun,
Not expecting you to wait, hold your breath, or even care.
You were the one stating that I “ought to be embarrassed”, and you “have never seen such a shameful tirade”.
Apparently you have lead a sheltered life. In that case, visit some left wing blogs and pose as a Christian, Conservative, Republican, or worst of all, a supporter of President Bush… if they even allow you to make any posts at all.
AAR
Casper,
Not on my list of things to do. You got my answer on that. I do understand you want more, so check with Dr. Google!
AAR
Diana,
What do you know of the actual material in question other than you’ve been told to believe by World Net Daily?
It is my understanding these are the videos, but I haven’t watched them, and I can’t say for sure. Don’t say I assured you they were. They may be something entirely different.
http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html
This is what the preface says:
AAR
>>>>>You might want to check out this site.
http://www.crayola.com/
Just so you know that the world isn’t Black and White only.<<<<<<
In a complex world, your observations are like square pegs in round holes.
Is this the entirety of your contribution here?
Its really void of any real statement on the topic. You must be an angry gay striking out.
For those of you who don’t know how Liberals are using the schools to indoctrinate and brainwash your children, to undermine your teaching and values to your own children, and to ultimately cultivate the voters who will defeat you, their parents, consider what Hitler said:
This is exactly what is happening in our schools. It is exactly how Liberals (Democrats) are indoctrinating and brainwashing your children.
The Germans didn’t recognize what was happening until it was too late. Will Traditional Americans, Christians, Conservatives, and Moderates wake up and see what is happening before it is too late for America… or will they allow their children to be indoctrinated, brainwashed, manipulated, and used to defeat them?
AAR
“Its really void of any real statement on the topic.”
It wasn’t a statement on the topic. It was a statement about your world view. Sorry you didn’t get it.
“You must be an angry gay striking out.”
That would be a major shock to my wife of 33 years, my children and the rest of my family. On the other hand would it bother you more if I was?
AAR, Quaker Friends School (you know, the one in your videos) is a PRIVATE parochial school run by Quakers.
At this point I suspect you should seriously consider Spook’s first Rule of Holes.
This is how I feel about those who advocate a Sodomized Nation!
Jeremiah
js (to Casper): In a complex world, your observations are like square pegs in round holes.
Yeah, something like that. LMAO!! Would it help if I told you your response made me spit water out of my nose? Perhaps Spook’s First Rule of Holes needs a corollary: don’t try to fit a peg in it if you can’t even see the hole.
Ricorun,
So you’re saying that film wasn’t as the preface stated: “…directed at the youngest of children … from It’s Elementary, a 78-minute feature film produced by homosexual activists. …actual scenes from elementary schools in Massachusetts and New York. …meant to be a training video for homosexual activist teachers across the country. In addition, the film itself has been shown to schoolchildren in public schools in Massachusetts and elsewhere.”
I watched a few seconds (didn’t have speakers) and saw some pretty young kids in a classroom!
I’ll keep searching…
AAR
Casper, Ricorun,
Exactly what were we supposed to see on the Crayola site… Bill Clinton doing a little Christmas shopping?
AAR
AAR,
The point was you and several others see the world as only black or white. The reference to the crayola site was to point out that in reality the world is made of many colors and shades. Sorry if you didn’t get it. My sense of humor often doesn’t transfer well into print. I guess it’s because I’ve always been a square peg trying to fit into a round hole.
Casper,
I really don’t care how you see the world, you could see the world as inside out for all I care, but that doesn’t change REALITY, my friend.
Right is RIGHT and wrong is WRONG!!
Sodomites don’t belong in the Military, in our Schools or in any infuential place in our society. PERIOD. so get it through your thick head.
Jeremiah
AAR: So you’re saying that film wasn’t as the preface stated: “…directed at the youngest of children … from It’s Elementary, a 78-minute feature film produced by homosexual activists.
Well, the kids were elementary aged. But all of Part 1 appeared to be filmed in Cambridge Friends School (I apologize for inadvertently replacing “Cambridge” for “Quaker” in the school name — it is nonetheless a private Quaker school). Part II was filmed in a public school in New York. For the most part, I found it rather touching, and not very controversial at all. You might. But it reminded me about my own case, and the situations of quite a number of my kids’ friends. I’m a step-dad, so when I say “my” kids I mean my step-kids. And they saw their other set of parents very infrequently — like a total of three weeks in twelve years. But other kids had different situations — various levels of joint custody. So which situation is better — having a mom and dad pretty much all the time and another mom and dad that you visit rarely, having two sets of moms and dads between which you shared essentially equal time, or a mom and a mom and dad, or a dad and a mom and dad, or two moms, or two dads…
I suppose any scenario could be confusing to a kid, but I don’t think any of them are necessarily so. It seem to me that kids respond far more to the types of people their parents are, rather than their sex. My brother has been in a love-less marriage for years, and their kids are incorrigible. I’m not saying that one necessarily implies the other, but I doubt it helps. So which is better? Rather than the specific genders of the relationships involved, isn’t it really more about love, commitment, honesty, integrity, respect, dignity and responsibility — those sorts of things? To me, those sorts of fundamental values are far more important than gender preference. In fact, it seems to me that too much emphasis on gender preference without consideration of the more fundamental values is tantamount to icon worship.
But having said all that, what does any of it have to do with whether gays are going to destroy the military? Perhaps there is some tangential connection, but for the most part it seems to me that there is a completely different set of icons involved there.
Ricorun,
They are all related… all part of the same slippery slope… not only about where it will inevitably end, but the manner in which it’s being done, the way Liberals are forcing their agenda on America, and more.
Liberals mush have “instant gratification” and will do anything to achieve it, rather than allowing views, opinions, attitudes, and beliefs to adjust and change on their own, naturally, over time.
It’s also a long and complex discussion, and I for one am ready for this topic to end.
Hopefully Mark won’t “bump” this thread!
AAR
Ricorun,
You’re letting the flesh do the thinking for you. What God’s Word says is what matters. God’s Word says that Sodomy is a sin, and will cost you your soul to a torment in Hell. So, the best thing for you to do, is to NOT advocate on the side of the Sodomites, because if you advocate for them, then you become an ally to evil. So don’t do it.
Jeremiah
“Its really void of any real statement on the topic.”
<<<<It wasn’t a statement on the topic. It was a statement about your world view. Sorry you didn’t get it.<<<>>That would be a major shock to my wife of 33 years, my children and the rest of my family. On the other hand would it bother you more if I was?<<<<
Not really, but the shock of reality has been broken up many families. No wonder your not telling her. Your track record is consistent, if the truth hurts, ignore it.
Rico/AAR
I think your both beating around a bush that should not even be there.
Its of little consequence if a child is brought up in a broken family, thats not an effective arguement to justify teaching them (1- about sexual perversion or 2-that sexual perversion is normal or natural ) when they are going through a hard enough of a time just dealing with adolescence. We dont need to confuse thier sexual role models, such models perpetuate society and insure that there is a next generation, instead of extinction.
Schools have been doing just fine without it, the issue belongs in the hands of adults, not our children.
“Long answer: Being gay is not wrong – it is not a sin to be gay”
Better check your Bible, Mark, homosexual conduct is most assuredly sinful.
Don’t call non-sinful what God has called sinful.
clark smith,
How about adultery and divorce? What’s your translation of the Bible have to say about those issues?
Diana,
Fornication and adultery are basically the same things, sexual intercourse outside of marriage. It is an abomination unto the Lord to do those things. For those who commit adultery and fornication? I’ll let God deal with them, but it must be discouraged.
1 Corinthians 7:8-12
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. BUt if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. To the married aI give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
Then it goes on to say in verse 39
A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.
But she is happier if she stays who she is.
Read all of chapter 7 in first Corinthians. And it tells you about the rules of marriage.
Jeremiah
Jeremiah,
Thanks, I’m a Bible-reader myself (RSV). So, if you don’t mind my asking, what does that do for your ability to potentially vote for Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson or is divorce only an abomination for the women they left and/or cheated on?
Diana,
If they were the only two candidates in the race, then it would have greater implications as far as making a choice. You see, the Presidency is like a state of emergency, without a President, then we’re like a hive of bees without a queen.
Consequently, at the present, it has very, very little to do with my vote.
More to the point, it has far more to do with who they are as individuals. I’m not going to hold that against them, it’s between them and God. They’ve both made great accomplishments for the betterment of America. And for that, I’m grateful.
Jeremiah
“You see, the Presidency is like a state of emergency, without a President, then we’re like a hive of bees without a queen.”
So does that mean you are going to vote for Hillary?
Just Kidding.