Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Straights in the Military


Turkey Vulture
Originally uploaded by paynehollow
I recently posted some thoughts on removing the don't ask, don't tell policy in the military. I posited that we have no real world reasons to exclude gay folk from the military, only fears and worries about the supposed discomfort of some.

I thought it might be worthwhile to look at the real world evidence on the flip side of the coin: How are STRAIGHTS in the military behaving themselves?

As it turns out, too often they're not behaving too well.

Consider...

One in three female soldiers will experience sexual assault while serving in the military, compared to one in six women in the civilian world. The Pentagon released a disturbing report Tuesday on sexual abuse in the military, saying that more than 2,900 sexual assaults were reported last year, up nearly 9 percent from the year before. Nearly two-thirds of the cases involved rape or aggravated assault.

source (CBS News)

The analysis found 2,923 sexual assault "reports" in fiscal 2008, which is roughly an 8 percent increase compared to fiscal 2007.

source (Dept of Defense)

Clearly, SOME straights in the military have a hard time behaving decently. There is a documented real world problem there (one that the military at least says it's trying to eradicate).

How about the incidents of gay folk misbehaving in the military? Assaults or unwanted sexual confrontations? Any statistics? Any numbers?

I WAS able to find one report from back in 1993 of an assault by a gay sailor on a straight sailor. Other than that, not much.

When we're talking about gay folk in the military, I think reasonable people would want to know: IS there a real world problem or is it all a matter of feelings and worries and fears?

Lacking any evidence of any actual problems in the real world, I hope most folk would excuse us if we tend to ignore worries and fears that aren't based on anything other than worries or fears.

So, if we were looking strictly at the evidence, perhaps we could make a case that we ought to be more picky about the straight males we recruit into our military? I wouldn't go so far as to say that straights ought not be allowed to serve in the military, though. I'm liberal, that way.

After all, we ought to be concerned about actual misbehavior, not basing policy on feelings of discomfort. And MOST straight soldiers don't have a problem behaving, so why would we punish them for the misbehavior of a few?

36 comments:

Alan said...

I think it would be unreasonable to ban all straight males from the military simply because some significant percentage of them cannot behave appropriately. As always, I don't think it's right to hold an entire group responsible for the bad behavior of some.

(And before one of the usual suspects jumps on the "significant percentage" phrase I used, I would say that 2,900 sexual assaults in one year is definitely "significant.")

So, regardless of the fact that some straight men are clearly a hazard to unit cohesion and a threat to their mission, I think in general we should encourage those straight guys who want to serve their country because the majority do so with honor and distinction.

In the same way, we didn't kick all women out the military because of the bad behavior of Linndie England, for example.

But then, I have strange notions about military service because I think it should be encouraged in those who choose to serve, rather than used as a political football to score cheap political points.

The fact that there are very few gay-on-straight acts of violence in the military (or elsewhere in our society for that matter) simply shows that their gender does not mean that straight guys are genetically conditioned to behave like brutes; it therefore must be a choice. As I've always said, straight people have a lot to learn from us about how to behave in a civilized society. ;)

It's not that we're better than straight people, it's just that ... Oh who am I trying to kid? Of course we're better. But that just means you all have an excellent example to emulate. ;)

Alan said...

Hey Dan, here's something I saw today...

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/AP/story/1483422.html

As I've said before, since I do not have military experience I'm willing to trust the knowledge and experience of both our military leaders and also the service members themselves that they might know more about their own opinions on the issue of DADT than the barca-lounger set that trolls your blog and who clearly thinks any straight guy in the military is either a total Neanderthal or a complete wuss who can't handle working with a gay guy. Unlike the trolls, I actually have great respect for our soldiers.

So when soldiers and their leaders like Mullen or former Joint Chief Powell or even draft dodgers like former VP & Defense Secretary Cheney all agree that we should end DADT, you have to wonder why your other commenters spend so much time talking about guys showering together, eh?

Maybe Mullen, Powell, and Cheney are talking from their expertise, while your other commenters are more focused on their own type of expertise. ;)

Marshall Art said...

First of all, of those 2,900 assaults, how many were perpetrated by the same guy? That is, is an officer abusing his rank on more than one woman? This is significant in determining the real issue, which is, how many guys are scumbags, not how many instances of scumbag activity. As an extreme example, what if those 2,900 assaults were the result of one guy, say, Capt. Walt Chamberlain? (I know it's "Wilt" but I don't want to get sued over a hypothetical.) Or to look at it in another, but similar way, there were, what, about a dozen incidents of murder at Fort Hood in the last year. 2,900 assaults is more significant if it meant 2,900 separate dudes doing the assaulting, and less significant if fewer dudes were assaulting more women. For the record, one assault by one guy is one too many.

If you want significance, look at the CDC's stats that show 60% of new syphillis cases are homosexuals, a significantly tiny percentage of the overall male population.

There is likely to be a small amount of homosex-on-normal assaults because of the implication of being caught/exposed is immediate dishonorable discharge. For the scumbag who assaults a woman, there is the he said/she said regarding consent that might go the scumbag's way. At least at first.

There is also the strong possibility that a normal guy would not want to be known as the dude who was raped by a homosexual, so reporting such would be less likely.

One must also keep in mind that we are talking about young men in general. Young men wish to sew their wild oats. Young homosexuals would be no different (one way in which we're all the same). Reports of sexual assaults WILL go up if they are free to be.

Thanks, Alan, for the laugh regarding who is "better" and how we can learn from your types. Years ago, shortly after someone close to us died of AIDS, my brother-in-law rode in a Minneapolis to Chicago bicycle marathon to raise money for AIDS research. He had quite a few stories about how the homosexuals amongst the hundreds (thousands?) of riders acted during the down times. And while waiting for him to finish the ride at Montrose Harbor (I believe it was), my wife(his sister), his wife and his mother and I had to move several times due to the less than discreet sex talk from those homosexuals of military age. That's my anecdote which proves nothing but to make a bigger mockery of your silly statement, which I assume was a jest anyway.

Marshall Art said...

Regarding your link, Alan, I can only say that I don't know much of Mullen. Powell has proven to be less than what I first believed. And like others I know, Cheney simply is too close to a lesbian, his daughter, to want to admit that she is in the wrong. This is typical of too many. Though he denies it, I believe it is true of Dan.

More to the point would be to look to the policy as it stands and understand why it is in place. I doubt any of us more than guess. Then, argue that the opposite would be better or would disprove the reasoning behind the policy that now stands. So far, all I'm hearing is that the policy should be rejected because some people want it to be. I insist that change would only exacerbate problems already being experienced since allowing women more access to more military roles. Your side simply says, "because I want it." Want and desire does not constitute a right.

Alan said...

And MA continues his fantasies about male-on-male action....

Dan Trabue said...

Yes, he does.

MA said...

First of all, of those 2,900 assaults, how many were perpetrated by the same guy?

I don't know, Marshall. How many?

Marshall said...

One must also keep in mind that we are talking about young men in general. Young men wish to sew their wild oats. Young homosexuals would be no different (one way in which we're all the same). Reports of sexual assaults WILL go up if they are free to be.

That is a fine if totally unvalidated and unsubstantiated wild hunch you have there, Marshall, but I hope you will understand that we think policy ought to be based on real world reasoning and evidence, not some dude on the internet's wild hunches.

The thing is, you have yet again offer even the FIRST reason based on real world evidence of why we ought to continue discimination in the military. Your hunch is that misbehavior will go up. Well, that's a fine hunch, but do you really want to say that we ought to discriminate on volunteerism of good men and women into the military based on the guess that some people will behave badly around them?

Do you understand that you're advocated a discriminatory policy based on protecting bad behavior of bad guys and punishing the good guys? I hope you'll understand that many folk will find that a ludicrous and morally reprehensible position to hold.

You punish and remove the bad actors who can't abide by rules, you don't punish the good folk who only want to serve.

And you still haven't answered the question: What real world problems are you afraid of?

Here, all you have to do is complete the sentence, IF gay folk are in the military _______________ will happen.

All I've heard from you so far is your hunch that people will misbehave.

Consider it this way: IF you have Baptists join the army, some portion of those will misbehave. Therefore, there ought to be a ban on Baptists in the military.

Or even better: If you have Baptists join the army, some people aren't comfortable around Baptists. Therefore, there ought to be a ban on Baptists in the military.

Does that even begin to make sense or is it just bat-shit nutty reasoning?

No, it doesn't make sense. Yes, it is bat-shit nutty.

Dan Trabue said...

Alan, to get back to why I address folk like Marshall.

I answered Marshall's nutty commentary. Doing so does at least two things:

1. It addresses any questions he has. If he is a reasonable person, he can process those answers and respond appropriately. You have made the case that these folk are not behaving like rational people and therefore, will only use my interaction to further their nutty commentary. You may be right, but I have given it a shot.

Beyond that...

2. If someone comes along who leans towards thinking like Marshall but who IS rational and able to reason an adult, he or she could read reasonable answers and see the paucity of ration in Marshall's answers and it may help them. So, even if Marshall is beyond hope (a point I doubt), other people may not be.

If, on the other hand, I only respond with mocking (and mocking has its place, I think), then they see nothing from "our side" defending our position, only us responding with mocking to poor reasoning on Marshall's part.

I think there's something to be gained to at least general attempts to address poor reasoning and questions.

Alan said...

Your blog and your time, of course.

Perhaps in the several years and thousands of blog comments, you see evidence that addressing their lunacy has done any good nor that it builds up the body of Christ. I don't. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nor can I think of any reason why anyone would care if we defend our positions to a bunch of homophobes.

But then, I wouldn't feel the need to defend my views on the equality of all people to the KKK either.

Dan Trabue said...

To the KKK, no. But to an individual who may be KKK sympathetic, sure.

Besides, I mainly write because I like to write. It gives me a chance to review my thoughts and strive to express myself clearly and concisely.

Thinking practice, one might say.

Capt. Walt Chamberlain said...

I'm calling my lawyer!

Marshall Art said...

I know you wish it were true, Alan, but I have no fantasies about male on male sex. That's YOUR perversion. I pray God will grant you the epiphany you need before it's too late.

Dan,

To say I'm basing my opinion on "wild hunches" would only be true if reality didn't so much agree. Have you checked the news lately? Do you realize the number of freakin' abortions every year? The number of people with STDs and how many of them are young people? Are you seriously going to try to pretend that young people aren't more willing on average to treat sex like it's just a fun pass-time? What freakin' world to you live in? Your own post supports my contention. Why then is it unreasonable to expect that adding open homosexuals won't exacerbate the problem? Answer that. Furthermore, there ARE stats and testimonies that indicate a far different sense of sexual morality among the homosex community. By their own admission (unless debates like this one arise. Then, such things NEVER have been said).

"First of all, of those 2,900 assaults, how many were perpetrated by the same guy?

I don't know, Marshall. How many?"


I'm sorry. I forgot to whom I was speaking. But since you don't know the answer to the question, you then give credence to my point, which is that the number of assaults isn't as important as the number of people doing the assaulting. Once again, 2900 rapists is different than one guy raping 2900 times. That you don't understand the significance of that distinction is telling.

As for discrimination, I'm all for it if we're talking behaviors. If someone enlists saying that he's a serial rapist, then I would expect the military to reject his application. If someone enlists saying that they love to shoot people, then I would expect his application to be rejected. If someone enlists saying that he enjoys abnormal sexual practices, then if the military believes such behavior can have a negative affect on unit cohesion, then reject him they should. That's what an openly homosexual is saying to the military. No different than if one says one is an avid adulterer or pedophile. It's crap the military doesn't want or need to be dealing with when it's job is so important. If serving in the military is so important, one is expected to conform to the military code of behavior.

That heteros have behaved badly is no argument in allowing others who label themselves by their bad behavior or desires for bad behavior. What that means is that of all those depicted in your post examples and links, I doubt if any declared themselves upon enlistment as sexual predators or rapists. Now that's just a wild hunch on my part, and it's not backed by any solid evidence, but I'm willing to wager any amount on it. How about you?

Marshall Art said...

"And you still haven't answered the question: What real world problems are you afraid of?"

Bearing false witness here, Dan. My whole point is the problems that would be faced by the military in overturning this tradition. Try reading my comments first and THEN make your reply. Do that and the blank of the next question if more than filled.

Your Baptist analogy is stupid and intellectuallly insulting and dishonest. Apples? Meet oranges. Talk about batshit nutty!

You haven't answered the question of why the sexes shouldn't all be housed together, showering together, using the same restrooms, etc. THAT'S an analogy that is apples to apples.

As for addressing "folk like Marshall", I AM a reasonable person and you have yet to make a reasonable argument in favor, OR responded to my question with a reasonable answer. Either of you have yet to show why you think anyone has a "right" to be accepted into the military simply because they want to be or thinks they should be. Nor have either of you come close to showing the lack of reason in my comments. Alan just cracking wise doesn't do it.

But then, there's never been an honest, substantiated argument in favor of ANYTHING from the pro-homosex side of the debate and lies do not build up the body of Christ, they only make it as dead as the rest of the world. And once again, if standing up for Biblical truth and God's will makes me a "homophobe" (another lie used to demonize opponents), then make sure you capitalize it when used against me.

Hey Dan, "homophobe" is an ugly slur to many upstanding Christians and others who don't buy the lies. Doesn't bother me personally, but I just thought you'd like to know. I know how your are about such things.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I asked a friend of mine who is in the military about this. His response, verbatim, was: "If it is an order from the President, I will follow. It's that simple."

Apparently Marshall and the rest of these folks don't understand that, before the military is anything else, it is quite willing to follow an order from the Commander-in-Chief.

Alan said...

MA's yapping again. Someone should let him outside so he can do his business instead of leaving his crap around here.

Alan said...

Add Gen. David Patraeus to the mix. He appeared on Meet The Press and he acknowledged that he had served with gay soldiers in the past. Patraeus added "I'm not sure that they do" when asked whether non-gay soldiers even care if DADT is repealed.

But then, actual evidence from military commanders on the field (you know, the sorts of folks who have actual experience) isn't persuasive to bigots and like MA, who think that Cheney is for repeal because he has a gay daughter (What? she's going to be serving? Ummm... What??), Powell is too black, Mullens is too unknown, and Paatreus has a funny name. Therefore none of them know what they're talking about. But MA does because of his vast experience with men's showers.

See how useful this conversation is Dan? LOL

Dan Trabue said...

Sorry. Been busy. I'll comment when I have a chance.

Alan said...

And now...

From WaPo:

"War general: gay, straight should be OK to serve"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/22/AR2010022202452.html

So add Odierno to the list of other experts who, according to bigots like MA, don't know what they're talking about.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall said...

Your Baptist analogy is stupid and intellectuallly insulting and dishonest. Apples? Meet oranges.

It is comments such as this, Marshall, that causes folk not to take you seriously. I offered a valid analogy - SOME Baptists misbehave, ought we ban Baptists from the military because some misbehave is analogous to SOME gay folk misbehave, ought we ban gay folk because some misbehave. That IS a valid analogy.

Your response? To say it isn't valid. Well, you can say that all day, but it does nothing to dispute it. If it's not a valid analogy, then you can feel free to say WHY it isn't valid, but you chose not to do that.

I would guess you think it "obvious" why it isn't analogous - because in your fevered imagination, ALL gay folk (or nearly so) misbehave ALL (or nearly so) the time, therefore, there is no comparison to Baptists, SOME of which (you might hazard to wildly guess) only misbehave some of the time. It's a fine, if biased and unsupported bit of hunchery. But it causes people to write you off as a mindless and hateful bigot.

And now you know.

You're welcome.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall did not answer the question posed to him, instead saying...

My whole point is the problems that would be faced by the military in overturning this tradition. Try reading my comments first and THEN make your reply. Do that and the blank of the next question if more than filled.

I know you've offered some wild hunches about how madness and hedonism will happen if gay folk are free to be free in the military. But that's it.

So, perhaps you're right. Perhaps you DID answer the question.

The question: Marshall, what do you fear will happen if gay folk are freely in the military?

The answer:

SYPHILLIS CASES WILL RISE!

GAYS WILL ATTACK OTHER GAYS AND STRAIGHT GUYS, TOO!!

REPORTS OF ATTACKS WILL GO UP!

CATS AND DOGS WILL START LIVING TOGETHER!!

MASS HYSTERIA!!

I know that's your wild and unsupported hunch. I was just wondering if you might have any real world answers that might allow people to take you seriously, rather than as a caricature that rightly deserves mocking.

You chose the mindless bigot caricature. Tis a shame. I doubt you are as bigoted or mindless as you make yourself out to be.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall said...

if standing up for Biblical truth and God's will makes me a "homophobe" (another lie used to demonize opponents), then make sure you capitalize it when used against me.

Hey Dan, "homophobe" is an ugly slur to many upstanding Christians and others who don't buy the lies.


If the shoe fits, Marshall.

You make wild accusations based on nothing but fears and innuendo. You advocate discrimination against a group based upon the fear and innuendo (not facts) about a group of people. And when offered a chance to give any real world reasons, you turn it down and blindly chase the fears and slurs.

And then, you're surprised when people guess that you're a homophobe?? If you don't want to be considered a homophobe, don't give crazy homophobic answers to legitimate questions or call for mass discrimination based upon your fears.

Good advice, brother. Prayerfully consider it.

Craig said...

Dan,

Personally, I'm leaning toward the it doesn't matter if they repeal it or not side of the fence.

But, I am curious if you would agree that there need to be restrictions on sexual activity between members of the military.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig said...

Personally, I'm leaning toward the it doesn't matter if they repeal it or not side of the fence.

But, I am curious if you would agree that there need to be restrictions on sexual activity between members of the military.


I'm fine with having reasonable restrictions on BEHAVIOR. What I object to are blanket discriminations on all gay folk (straight folk, women, Baptists) just because they happen to be gay, straight, female or Baptist. That's the discriminatory sort of behavior that I think increasingly more folk are seeing as, well, discriminatory and, as such, immoral.

As to behavior, if one soldier wants to date and eventually marry (or not) another soldier, I don't see that as being the business of the military. If one soldier wants to engage in sexual activity with another soldier (either within or without marriage) I don't see that really as the business of the military. As long as they're doing the job, I don't know that anyone's sexual behavior (gay, straight, whatever) is really the business of the military.

And it isn't really. For straight folk. If straight folk in the military have a sexual affair, then no one cares, right? As long as they're doing so responsibly (ie, not in the barracks during duty!), then I don't know that the gov't ought to be playing nanny to a bunch of adults to say who can and can't have a crush on who.

Do you disagree?

Dan Trabue said...

Craig said...

Personally, I'm leaning toward the it doesn't matter if they repeal it or not side of the fence.

That strikes me as curious. Do you mean that you don't care one way or the other, or that you are leaning towards the military repealing it, although with some ambivalence?

Do you think there's some legitimate reason why the military ought to say who can and can't date who? On what basis? Do you think that the military should have a position on whether straight folk have an affair (on their own time)? On whether straight gals affectionately pat their straight guys' bottoms?

Or do you think the military ought to have an opinion about gay folks' dating behaviors but not straight folks'? Do you see the problems of discrimination and how it really isn't the business of the gov't or the military who their soldiers do and don't kiss?

I'd think moral folk concerned with our civil rights and God-given liberties would have an opinion about it. I, for one, am opposed to loose sexual behavior - flitting from lover to lover. Having said that, I don't really want the military to be a nanny to our soldiers. Gay or straight.

Do you?

Craig said...

Dan,

I'll try to hit the high points of your questions.

"As long as they're doing the job, I don't know that anyone's sexual behavior (gay, straight, whatever) is really the business of the military."

Historically it has been, there are restrictions on sexual relations between officers and enlisted, as well as between a member of the military and another members spouse. (gay or straight) This seems to make sense for two reasons 1) Discipline and unit cohesion. 2) When you take oath you bind yourself to a different set of rules than in the civilian world. Having said that the military should enforce these standards consistently.

"If straight folk in the military have a sexual affair, then no one cares, right? As long as they're doing so responsibly (ie, not in the barracks during duty!), then I don't know that the gov't ought to be playing nanny to a bunch of adults to say who can and can't have a crush on who."

Again, in the military they agree to different standards of behavior than civilians. They knew the rules when they took the oath, and shouldn't complain when they're enforced.

Mo opinion, is that it probably won't make much practical difference if they repeal it. However, that should come with a corresponding increase in enforcing behavior standards.

"Do you think there's some legitimate reason why the military ought to say who can and can't date who? On what basis?"

Yes, discipline and unit cohesion. Although I'm not assuming that dating necessarily implies sex. So, within the established guidelines I'm ok with dating.

"Do you think that the military should have a position on whether straight folk have an affair (on their own time)?"

I would suggest two possible objections. 1) security; do you really want the guy with the nuclear codes sleeping with everyone in sight. 2) trust; if a member of the military won't honor their marriage vow, why should it be assumed that they would honor their oath of service.

"On whether straight gals affectionately pat their straight guys' bottoms? "

Sorry, this is (or could be) straight up sexual harassment which is illegal in all US workplaces. So, no I don't think I or the military should condone behavior that is potentially illegal.

"Or do you think the military ought to have an opinion about gay folks' dating behaviors but not straight folks'?"

If as we agree, there should be a ban on certain behaviors, then that should be enforced across the board regardless of predilection. Then I do agree that the military has an opinion. Again, you seem to conflate dating with sex. I'm not sure I would agree that that is always the case.

"Do you see the problems of discrimination and how it really isn't the business of the gov't or the military who their soldiers do and don't kiss?"

Do you not think that if Captain X has had a sexual affair with 1st lieutenant Y, (regardless of the gender of either or both X&Y) that Captain X just might send Lt. Y out to clear a minefield or some such because Lt. Y broke up with him? It would seem that anything the military could do to minimize these types of situations would be of great benefit to morale, unit cohesion, and discipline. I would also say that if folks aren't able to live up to the standards they agreed to when they joined, they should be liable for the consequences they agreed to abide by.

I think moral folk do have an opinion about it. I agree that human sexual relationships are best within certain parameters. (obviously we probably have different parameters) The problem is that in joining the military one obligates ones self to s different (higher) standard of conduct. So one must be willing to pay the price if one transgresses the agreed upon standard of conduct.

...and this is when I pretty much agree with you.

Craig said...

One more thought. When one takes to oath to enter military service one accepts certain restrictions on ones civil rights. Since the oath (and hence the restrictions) are taken freely and without ant mental reservations it seems that people who enter military service are prepared to accept those restrictions as foreign as that may appear to those of us not in the military.

Alan said...

Dan,

Just saw this today, which addresses every all the "arguments" made here so far, and then some.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201002240012

BTW, I'd pretty much agree with Craig. *gasp!*

There are already many regulations that address the interpersonal relationships of service members. Those should be followed in any case, regardless of the gender of the individuals involved.

On the other hand, I would actually *support* DADT if it were simply applied to everyone equally. As long as straight service members were equally prohibited from mentioning, discussing, or alluding to their sexual orientation or their girl or boyfriends, wives, husbands, and/or children back home on penalty of discharge, that would be fine with me.

Frankly, it has been my experience that an overwhelming number of straight people spend considerably too much time discussing their personal lives at work anyway. I'm not sure why they feel the need to continually flaunt their lifestyle choices at work.

Craig said...

Alan,

Imagine my shock at seeing your last comment. It must be snowing in hell.

Alan said...

Probably at least as pleasantly surprised as I was to see you laying out a reasonable and consistent position on this topic, Craig. I guess what they say is true, even a broken clock is right twice a day. (That was a joke.) ;)

It is snowing in Hell today, actually. Though it hasn't frozen over yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell,_MI

Not surprisingly to most of Dan's readers I'm sure, I live mere miles from Hell and have visited there often, mostly for the ice cream.

(Interestingly enough, the road to Hell is paved with common, ordinary asphalt, not good intentions. The road's name, BTW, is Darwin Road. heh.)

Craig said...

I thought you were going to say Hell, Cayman Islands. The road to which is also paved with fairly ordinary asphalt (or was many years ago).

We're going to have to stop this people will talk ;)

Dan Trabue said...

Craig, Alan and Dan appear to all agree. Go figure.

Craig said...

If as we agree, there should be a ban on certain behaviors, then that should be enforced across the board regardless of predilection. Then I do agree that the military has an opinion. Again, you seem to conflate dating with sex.

No, not really.

As I noted earlier, I'm fine with REASONABLE policy about BEHAVIORS. This would include inappropriate sexual conduct (gay or straight), officers dating non-coms and other reasonable restrictions. We appear to mostly agree.

The problem (as I suppose you see) with restricting a class of people (gay folk, in general, or Baptists, or straights, etc) is that it is a class-based discrimination. Bigotry. The "thinking" is, "Some X (insert your group - gay, straight, Baptist...) folk are promiscuous, therefore, ALL X folk will be promiscuous, therefore ALL X folk ought to be banned from serving in the military.

It is, by definition, a class-based discrimination and, thus, morally wrong.

Reasonable restrictions on dating, sexual BEHAVIORS are not being opposed by me or anyone I know of (in fact, I suspect we mostly all support it), just class-based discrimination and bigotry.

Craig said...

Dan,

I guess I have to wonder who you are disagreeing with. I clearly said that certain behaviors (we probably disagree on the degree, but that's not the topic under discussion) should be regulated or prohibited despite the sexual proclivities involved.

I do disagree with you equating dating with sexual activity, as I am sure you are aware there are still folks who can practice self control. Which seems a desirable trait for members of the military.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

You clearly aren't willing to listen to points I've made and instead pretend they're all just "wild hunches", which, not alarmingly, you counter with hunches of your own, but no solid facts, such as the CDC speaking of who's responsible for 60% of new syphillis cases. So, since I'm sure you didn't read this at my blog when you visited recently, I'll offer it again here.

One could say that a good soldier will do whatever the commander-in-chief commands, but that doesn't address the issue at all. The concern is over less-than-good soldiers and what THEY will do and how their behavior affects the unit.

The letter in the link I provided is to Mullen, if I'm not mistaken, and I'll leave it to the captain to deal with him. The more I learn of Powell, the more I find he's more political than military in his thought processes. His opinions are worthless to me. I haven't heard Patreaus expound at length on the issue and a brief comment does not an opinion make when he's got greater issues on his mind. I'll stick with the captain in my link as he has provided the most detailed and thoughtful argument on the subject of any military man yet.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

You clearly aren't willing to listen to points I've made and instead pretend they're all just "wild hunches"

You clearly aren't seeing that I've listened to your points and dismissed them as bigotry and ignorance and irrelevant to the matter.

If I provide some proof that a goodly number of fundamentalists are profoundly ignorant and prejudiced and divorced from reality, will you agree that we ought to ban all fundamentalists from the military?

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

The concern is over less-than-good soldiers

You mean like the ACTUAL bad soldiers I've cited in the post here? The straight male group of soldiers who misbehave and attack and are sexist and otherwise get in trouble? Are you suggesting that we ought to ban straight males from the military then, if your concern is over "less-than-good" soldiers?

If you're going to make a blanket condemnation of a whole class of people based on behavior, then the primary evidence in the real world is against straight males, as far as I can see.

But do you really think it is fair to ban all straight males simply because some misbehave? I don't.

How about this: We restrict people from the military (or not) based on their own behavior, rather than lump them into some class that may or may not reflect their actual behavior?

Dan Trabue said...

But, of course, Marshall has found ONE CAPTAIN in the military who has spoken out in agreement with him, so that ONE CAPTAIN's opinion must surely outrank all those generals and the commander-in-chief, right?

Alan said...

This is why discussing anything with people like MA is a waste of time. They will hunt and pick for any particular anecdote that supports their view, no matter how far outside the mainstream and call that the truth.

MA likes to pretend that he's reasonable and will listen to strong evidence. We've provided the views of any number of military leaders who have a combined experience of leading the entire military of literally decades. But MA finds one guy who agrees with him and that solves it for him. We've provided all sorts of evidence, but MA ignores it.

When MA looks for evidence to support his preconceived bigotry, I'm not surprised that he finds it.

MA's never met a bigoted opinion he didn't like.