From here:
The repeal of DADT was wrong not, primarily, because the changes it will bring will radically transform both the U.S. military and its relationship with key allies all over the world, and inevitably undermine the security and defenses of our nation. Nor even because it was passed over the vehement objections of the great majority of America’s fighting servicemen whose daily lives and service it will soon and drastically impact.
No, ultimately there’s only one reason to oppose the repeal – and it is, of course, the reason that almost no politician or military officer is willing or able to say, right out loud.
The repeal was and should be opposed because it endorses homosexual behavior – and homosexual behavior is morally wrong.
But why, you might be thinking, pick on homosexual activity and ignore other behaviour that is wrong? Because – while they are undoubtedly occurring – the military is not being asked to explicitly condone any other wrongs.
It is a losing battle, though, since only a Christian perspective regards homosexual activity as wrong: society has largely abandoned Christianity in favour of a constantly shifting moral relativism, so the homosexualisation of Western culture will undoubtedly continue apace.
If there is widespread dislike of gays in the combat arms, there will always be a Plan B. Open gays, will be shunned, ‘re-assigned’ put on point in combat, caught in friendly fire and otherwise, in a lot of cases, had their lives made miserable. This will come from their peers and officers who will perceive them as a threat to unit efficiency. Even a mediocre officer can use QR&O to his advantage and not fear discipline.
Bets are this will make it to personnel record forms.
Warren can huff and puff all he wants. Acceptance of gays has been forced on the military and there will be repercussions.
Steve, I can only conclude that you had a very negative experience with the Canadian military somewhere in the past (likely very long ago given some of your references) that has deeply affected you and that you feel justified in slandering it as an organization without good order and discipline, and rife with leaders who lack personal integrity and who gladly condone others in their misuse and abuse of authority. Had I ever experienced even a fraction of what you suggest, I would have left long ago. Fortunately, I have not. Despite your “huffing and puffing”, I strongly doubt that you can produce one currently serving member of the CF who shares any of your views.
As you know, I have been willing to debate with you the possible effects the DADT repeal could have on the US military. You have now moved completely outside that arena and have made very serious allegations against the CF, without providing a shred of evidence, that have nothing to do with homosexualtiy or repeal of the DADT policy in the US. Since you have such a low opinion of me and the organization I have been part of for almost 34 years, I will honour your obivious desire and respond to nothing further you have to say on either this blog or any other.
I hope you have a Happy New Year regardless.
Warren: I and a numbers of others in units that I have served in the Regular Force and Reserves have had some serious reservations about have open gays in their units. So your opinion is that we except all manner of moral deviation into our units and expect that grunt to general will be perfectly happy with it. It is clear that anyone who does not agree with your position is wrong and to even suggest that the Forces will lockstep to that position is the only solution.
We lost an entire airborne regiment to just that kind of behavior that you decry and says does not exist. I don’t agree with what members of the Regiment did but it proves that as much as you would like to have choirboys as gunners, it ain’t going to happen.
My former police service has gays and I know from talking from inspectors to PC’s that it not a situation that they really enjoy and accept only because it has been forced upon them.
I get the impression that you think gays can do anything and be anywhere they please and we have to suck it up.
As a secular rule that’s fine but as a Christian I cannot tolerate what goes against Scripture.
The Courts ruled that allowing gays was a Charter issue, up to that time the CF was of the opinion that openly gay members was not a good thing. I refuse to accept that as of that instant in time a great epiphany spread across all manner of ranks and regiments and their eyes opened to how great it would be to have gay soldiers.
I don’t know what you do in the CF but I’m highly suspicious it is an isolated administrative function. I know you will take great joy in clarifying that.
If “only a Christian perspective regards homosexual activity as wrong” does that make Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a Christian? I see it makes Egypt Christian too! Who knew that this was a defining property of the Christian worldview?
When taking a stand, always look at who you are standing next to.
Well, to keep the point suitably terse, I was taking something of a liberty and speaking in the context of Christianity.
Not that I’m above doing the same thing, but your remark does have the aura of Peanuts’ Lucy pointing out that Charlie Brown has jam on his face after he has finished making what he thinks is a profound philosophical point.
Christianity would not execute a homosexual. It would be our responsibility to show the offender the error within the context of brotherly love. Iran would just bring in another truck load of rubble and let the population carry out the punishment. Why hire an executioner when you probably have no problem finding people ready to commit government sanctioned murder? We didn’t execute anyone, we allowed to people to do it, complain to them!
Correct me if I am wrong, but “fraternizing” is against the rules in combat units, is it not? So why would it make a whit of difference who one is tempted to fraternize with?
Warren has a point, Steve. How long has it been since you’ve been on active duty, exactly?
Incidentally, the first paragraph you quoted, David, is not backed up. It is merely the author’s opinion, as far as I can see.
The interesting things about DADT is that it is (or was) in part about orientation, not just activity. The law is
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654
and the relevant part is under “Policy”
(see also the definitions at the end.)
I find it a little hard to separate “propensity to engage in” from what we normally call “sexual orientation”.
Kate,
You know where I stand on DADT.
Combat units demand a rigid assimilation to a type. Individualism is kept to a minimum.
Gays currently are serving in most branches of the US military under the current rules.
Some of the “rights” now being discussed by the Pentagon include three sets of gender washrooms and modified baracks quarters. That’s just the ticket for unit cohesion.
If Warren’s right, the great “comming out” will go off without a hitch. If I’m right, there will be a huge loss of combat effectiveness.
Peace,
Jim
I wonder if the author is also advocating for the imposition of laws to criminalize all activity that contravenes the O.T. moral law? At least God provided the nation of Israel a priesthood and system of sacrifice so that they could atone for their sins. If he is a Christian, I can only assume the author is a legalist and believer in works righteousness.
Some of the posters here seem to be going to great lengths to accept that its OK to be gay. I cannot help but wonder, since it comes down to this, it is against Scripture but OK in the secular world. That is hypocrisy. The Canadian Forces accepted gays, only because they were forced to. If the CF thought is was a wonderful idea they would have beat the Supreme Court to the punch. If any of you believe that its OK for the military to allow gays and that it is not morally wrong should quit identifying as a Christian because you are ignoring what you profess to believe.
As for my active duty, although my CF Green with the gold on the sleeves is in the closet I still keep in touch with my friends of various ranks and various units.
I found it totally disgusting that a gay ‘marriage’ took place on a Forces base.
Kate
Definitions Fraternization means any relationship between a CF member and a person from an enemy or belligerent force, or a CF member and a local inhabitant within a theatre of operations where CF members are deployed
From here:
http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/dao-doa/5000/5019-1-eng.asp
Two predominant social theorists on homosexuality are David Halperin and Jean Foucault. Although both social theorists, both have largely contrasting ideas on the environmental contributions to the formation of an individual’s homosexuality. Halperin believed in Planophysical theory. This theory believes that homosexuality is a freak of nature, an error. His theory follows in the tradition of psychological theory on this subject. Halperin was a Freudian psychologist, and places stock in Freud’s idea that homosexuality is derived from a failure to resolve Oedipal issues [10]. Although Halperin has a large following from interest groups such as Christian coalitions, his theory is largely disrespected by the psychological community at large, as it provides only a result, not a cause. He fails to produce any scientific evidence. He does, however, provide examples. He postulates that a weak father and strong mother, with an unresolved Oedipus complex will lead to a weak, and then homosexual, son, because the mother has too strong of an image, compared to the weak state of the father. Psychologists argue that this same arrangement would also possibly lead to a stronger son, striving for compensation of his father’s weakness.
Jean Foucault argues, “…homosexuality became because we made it so”. Foucault says that the category of homosexuality itself was only created a mere one hundred years ago, after a German neologism coined some twenty years later. Foucault gives root to the social derivation of homosexuality believing that homosexuality appeared as one of the forms of sexuality, only “after it was transposed from the practice of sodomy into a kind of interior androgyny, a hermaphrodism of the soul”. The theorists believe that the homosexual had been an aberration, and had then become a species, justifying itself with a new word.
And with that I remove this place from my blog watch. Too many Christian commenters who quote everything but Scripture. Have fun you two!
Steve,
My prayer is that you will continue to be a passionate participant on this Blog. I would miss you.
With respect to homosexuality, my approach is that we are all sinners. To elevate homosexual activity from “a” sin to “the” sin puts us in God’s judgement seat -to our peril.
Peace,
Jim
It is not a sin to be gay. It is a sin to act out on it. Would you prevent a Christian gay man who is living a celibate life from serving in the military? Why do you think we as Christians have a right to impose Christian values on other people? That’s not the way to win people to Jesus.
Question Why do you think we as Christians have a right to impose Christian values on other people?
Answer Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
I agree, three sets of gender washrooms is just silly. But —
Isn’t that a security risk? Wouldn’t a gay person a couple of years short of retirement be a prime blackmail target, if his or her secret got out?
Apparently the Pentagon is already supplied with four-fold washrooms. And it would be four, not three, think about it.
Howsomeever, I suspect the call for segregated washrooms doesn’t exist outside of Internet discussion groups.
Kate,
The Wikileaks source is reputedly a homosexual. No blackmail necessary.
Peace,
Jim
Your point is?
Jim, it is cool to be queer, don’t ya know?
Kate,
Arguably the greatest US security breach in the last half century involved a homosexual and no blackmail is apparent. Your suggestion of a security risk is the first time I’ve ever heard that used as an argument against DADT.The usual culprit for treason is money and greed.
Steve, Please explain yourself.
Peace,
Jim
Kate and Henry,
Apologies on the “washrooms” assertion. (As Henry speculated, I picked it up off another Blog.) I went to the original Pentagon document and it explicitly advises against separate facilities.
Peace,
Jim