AOL File Library: 4,701 to 4,800/aol-file-protocol-4400-4701-to-4800.zip/AOLDLs/Social Issues & Comments/Ending the Military's _Gay Ba/GAY_BAN.txt

Text File | 2014-12-11 | 28KB | 446 lines

 REBUTTALS TO ARGUMENTS FOR   LIFTING THE "GAY BAN" IN THE MILITARY


"This paper w
as written by an active-duty Army officer.  The views expressed in this paper ar
e those of the author and should not be construed as  necessarily reflecting  th
e official position of the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense."



    Following is a compendium of arguments offered in the public media to support t
he repeal of the Department of Defense's policy that homosexuality is incompatib
le with military service, and other matters pertaining to the debate.  Numbers i
n parentheses refer to endnotes.

1. The "gay ban" should be lifted because gays h
ave always served successfully in the military, performing their military duties
 well.
    This is a red herring.  Gays who served successfully did so because they
concealed their homosexuality and did not seek the right to proclaim or practice
 it overtly.  Today's gay advocates want the opposite-- the right to be an openl
y practicing homosexual in the military.
    This argument is one the gay advocacy p
resents as it strongest point.  In fact it is the weakest argument in favor of i
ntegrating gays.  First, the gays who served successfully did so by pretending t
hey were not gay.  In other words, they adopted as far as possible the identity
of straights.  Successful soldiers they may have been in the strictly military a
rts, but not because they were gay.  They were gays pretending to be straight.
    S
econd, there is nothing in the DOD policy excluding homosexuals which relates to
 their abilities to kill other people. (1)  We freely admit that gays can be as
sanguine as anyone.  There is nothing in the policy relating to their tactical a
bilities, strategic planning skills, or anything else implied by this argument.
 The DOD policy states, in full (directly quoted):
 "Homosexuality is incompatibl
e with military service.  The presence in the military environment of persons wh
o engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a tenden
cy to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the
military mission.  The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of
 the armed forces to maintain discipline, good order and morale; to foster mutua
l trust and confidence among servicemembers; to ensure the integrity of the syst
em of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of mem
bers who frequently must live and work under close conditions affording minimal
privacy; to recruit and retain members of the armed forces; to maintain public a
cceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security."
    There i
s not one word in this policy addressing "successful service" in the way that th
e gay lobby would have us believe.  The policy really says that the presence of
overt, known homosexuals in the military is in itself a fatal deficiency of mili
tary character and is unacceptably detrimental to discipline, trust and confiden
ce, the integrity of the system of rank and command, privacy of heterosexuals wh
o have little or no freedom of association, recruitment and retention, and publi
c acceptability.  Although Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney has said that the se
curity risk part of the policy is a "bit of an old chestnut," it remains part of
 the policy.  (Foreign intelligence services consider homosexuality, drug use, a
lcohol abuse,  and other non-mainstream behavior to be  exploitable, even if the
 behavior is well-known.)
    There are entirely different classes of persons who ar
e prima facie excluded from military service without consideration of their abil
ity to acceptably perform military duties, and no one claims that this discrimin
ation is unjustified, for example, convicted felons.  It is conceivable that a "
felons rights" advocate could point out that felons have surreptitiously enliste
d in the military and have performed with distinction; therefore, denial of enli
stment on the basis of prior felony conviction is a violation of patriotic felon
s' rights to serve their country.
    The argument for service by gays on the basis
of their strictly military abilities is not particularly compelling.

2. Sexual
orientation is not the real issue; conduct is.
    The problem here is twofold.
    Fi
rst, gay advocates must agree to one of two, mutually exclusive sets of conditio
ns: that gays should be allowed to serve as long as they never commit any homose
xual acts, or that some homosexual activity is impermissible while another shoul
d be permitted.
    As for the first, that gays should serve as long as they remain
sexually inactive, no gay-rights advocates have proposed this.  This proposition
 would effectively require gays in the military to remain sexually inactive for
as long as they serve-- perhaps as long as 30 years.  Is this a realistic propos
ition?  There is no evidence that gays' sexual desires and urges are weaker than
 those of straights. (2)  Would gays and gay-right advocates agree to it?  Not l
ikely.  Besides, the military does not require (as opposed to encourage) straigh
ts remain sexually inactive.  If we permit straights alone to be active, would t
hat meet the test of "no discrimination?"
    As for the second proposition, that
some homosexual acts could be permitted and others not, gay advocates have caref
ully refrained from defining what is permissible. (3)  Instead, they have deline
ated what is not allowable.  But they have framed the entire argument along the
lines of sexual harassment rules, saying, for example, that on-duty homosexual p
ower plays (such as demands of sexual favors in exchange for good efficiency rep
orts) are no more acceptable than heterosexual ones.  While we certainly agree,
the question is begged that if this kind of conduct is unacceptable, what conduc
t or actions are acceptable?
    The answer can only be that acceptable homosexual a
cts are simply those that define what homosexuality is, namely, consensual sexua
l relations between members of the same sex.  By definition, these relations are
 acts of sodomy, since gays cannot have sexual intercourse with one another.
    (
A claim that some gays easily remain celibate-- as do some straights --is easily
 discarded, as there is no way to expect that only these gays would enlist.)
    But
 under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), sodomy is punishable by cour
t martial, whether committed by gays or straights.  Merely lifting the ban by ex
ecutive order will not change this fundamental fact.  Oral and anal sodomy are u
nlawful for all military members, even if consensual and performed off-duty.  On
ly the Congress can change this.
    Gay advocates could point out that the military
 does not often prosecute straights for this offense.  The reason, of course, is
 quite simple.  Consensual sodomy isn't reported by the men and women involved a
nd so the acts remain invisible to the military justice system.
    But it is not
true that the military rarely prosecutes consensual heterosexual sodomy.   Furti
ve, consensual, heterosexual oral sex between members of a unit does sometimes o
ccur.  These acts are prosecuted the same as homosexual sex, and for the same re
ason: they are highly inimical to good order and discipline of the unit.
    In fact
, the policy statement on homosexuality actually applies with little change to h
eterosexual sodomy between soldiers not married to each other.  With the changes
 indicated in capitals, it would read,
             The presence in the military env
ironment of persons who... engage in HETEROSEXUAL conduct OUTSIDE MARRIAGE serio
usly impairs the accomplishment of the military mission.  The presence of such m
embers adversely affects the ability of the armed forces to maintain discipline,
 good order and morale, to foster mutual trust and confidence among servicemembe
rs, to ensure the integrity of the system or rank and command, to facilitate ass
ignment and worldwide deployment of members who frequently must live and work un
der close conditions affording minimal privacy, AND to maintain public acceptabi
lity of military service...."
    There is a reasonably significant incidence when
service members are court-martialed for adultery, for example, and are simultane
ously charged with oral and/or anal sodomy as well.  Sometimes the adultery char
ge cannot be proven in court, for example, when there is insufficient evidence t
hat intercourse actually occurred.  In some of these cases, though, a conviction
 is obtained on the sodomy charges.  Any change of the UCMJ which allowed for un
punishable consensual sodomy would make it impossible to obtain these or other s
odomy-related convictions-- there would be nothing for which the service member
could be convicted.  Thus, married, heterosexual men and women would be able to
engage in legally unrestrained sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage, s
hort of actually having intercourse.  This is not to claim that the only thing k
eeping married couples loyal is threat of judicial punishment (obviously false),
 or that the incidence of such conduct would dramatically increase; it is to say
 that any increase at all would be unacceptable.
    With well over half the Army ma
rried, strong marriages are an important component of combat readiness. (4) In c
ombat, the mental health and psychological toughness of a soldier is highly rela
ted to the state of his or her marriage and family.  (Several medical studies ha
ve shown this is so.  This phenomenon was first brought to light by Israeli doct
ors who noted that combat stress casualties among married soldiers were closely
correlated to poor marriages.)
    Since homosexual sodomy is definitionally done ou
tside the bonds of marriage, could consensual sodomy be made illegal only betwee
n a married soldier and someone not his or her spouse?  If so, there are some di
fficult questions we could face:
        -- could a soldier charged with such an offens
e claim that the law violates "equal protection" clauses of the Constitution and
 federal law, since it discriminates based solely on marital status?
        -- if such
 a defense were successful, would a similar defense against a charge of adultery
 be far behind?
    Obviously, much of this is speculation.  But the complete lack o
f debate and analysis on these kinds of questions is disturbing.  One suspects t
hat gay advocates would prefer not to have such questions debated, since they ex
pose the fact that homosexual policies cannot be considered in isolation, but in
 fact have important and potentially far-reaching social and legal implications.
  The gay advocacy wants to insist that homosexuality is purely a private matter
, and that conduct outside the workplace is irrelevant.  But the sexual conduct
of a society's members has never been a "purely" private matter.  It is the most
 profound behavioral human characteristic.  In the military-- especially in the
military --conduct outside the work environment does matter.
    News media have car
ried reports about sex-related problems encountered during Persian Gulf deployme
nts in units with both men and women assigned.  According to the news reports, s
exual relations between male and female soldiers was not uncommon.  According to
 almost all the troops interviewed, this activity was very inimical to morale of
 the unit and its effectiveness.  Unlawful these actions were, but that didn't s
top them from happening.  Yet we are told by the gay lobby that similar situatio
ns involving homosexuals simply won't be a problem.
    Is there any reason to belie
ve that overt homosexual actions under similar conditions would be less detrimen
tal than heterosexual ones?  Of course not.

3. Integration of homosexuals into
the military is no different from integration of blacks.
    The differences are in
fact striking.
    As General Colin Powell (surely authoritative on racial integrati
on) has pointed out, one's race is a "benign characteristic" whereas one's sexua
lity is the most profound human behavior.  Comparison of the two, he wrote, "is
a convenient but invalid argument."
    Blacks have served successfully in the Ameri
can forces since the Revolutionary War, as have gays, we are told.  But there th
e similarity ends.
    Blacks did not serve by concealing their racial identity (imp
ossible, obviously) as gays have concealed their sexual preference.
    Until Presid
ent Truman integrated the armed forces, blacks served in all-black units, a prac
tice dating to the Civil War.  There has never been an "all-homosexual" unit.
    Bl
ack advocates insisted on integration so that they would no longer be required t
o serve "as blacks."  Their desire was to be identified and treated not as "blac
k soldiers," but just plain soldiers.  This is quite the opposite of gays, who w
ish to be identified and treated as "gay soldiers." (5)  The impetus towards rac
ial integration was that blacks wanted acceptance of the fact that "we are basic
ally just like you."  Gays want acceptance of the fact that "we are basically un
like you."
    Racial integration was directed toward inclusiveness and eliminatin
g distinctions made on the superficial characteristic of skin color.  Gay integr
ation, despite dissembling claims to the contrary, will result in factionalizati
on of units and reinforcement of profound differences far deeper than the superf
iciality of skin color.
    Another point that must be made is that "black conduct"
(whatever that might mean) has never been unlawful.  Racial persecution is one t
hing, and a mighty bad thing, but have any blacks ever been convicted in a court
 of the actual charge of "committing black acts?"  But as we have seen, committi
ng homosexual acts is unlawful.  It must gall many honorable black soldiers to h
ear gay advocates compare the accident of their skin color with the deliberately
 chosen, unlawful acts of gays. (6)

4. Straight officers and enlisted soldiers m
ust undergo sensitivity training to change their obsolete attitudes.
    This sugges
tion was stridently made in an opinion piece in the Nov. 15, 1992 Atlanta Journa
l & Constitution (and has been made by many others).  The writer made it quite c
lear that the only problem with gays serving was not with gays, but with straigh
ts.  His call was for the military to undergo massive, mandatory special trainin
g to make heterosexuals "sensitive" to the issue.
    The same writer also said that
 problems from gay integration "will not be the fault of homosexuals... Instead
problems would most likely result from [intolerant] resistance...."
    But as the C
hicago Tribune's David Evans has pointed out, shall the Army attempt to muzzle i
ts chaplains?  Every denomination represented by the chaplaincy does not condone
 unrepentant homosexuality. (7)  If a not-quite-sensitive-enough chaplain preach
ed against homosexuality, could he be charged with the court-martial offense of
disobedience of a lawful order?  And if so, could he claim First Amendment prote
ction and thereby challenge the legality of the order?
    There is no way to predic
t the answers to these questions, but they must not be ignored and can't simply
be wished away.
    What about the moral and religious beliefs of soldiers themselve
s?  Gay advocates paint their pictures if "intolerance" only in the most extreme
 terms: "gay bashing," "homophobia."  They admit only to the possibility of two
extremes, either outright acceptance, indeed actual moral and cultural validatio
n, of homosexuality, or the other extreme of violent, heterosexual hate directed
 toward homosexuals.
    Nonetheless, one cannot duck the matter that many or most s
oldiers, like many or most Americans, have sincere, deep religious convictions t
hat the practice of homosexuality is morally unacceptable. (8)  Can or should th
ese troops be drummed out of the service if they peacefully speak out against it
?  Would permitting such speech be discrimination against gays?
    There is anoth
er aspect of the strident calls for "sensitivity training" which is not consider
ed by voices calling for it.  As one soldier with more than 15 years service put
 it, "All my life I have been taught by my parents and religious leaders that ho
mosexuality is wrong.  I don't hate homosexuals, but undeniably, homosexual beha
vior has been fringe behavior in human cultures around the world throughout hist
ory.  Now I'm being told that I'm the one who has a problem, that my parents are
 wrong, that my ministers are wrong, that thousands of years of humanity have be
en wrong, and that I must be 're-educated and sensitized.'  This is personally i
nsulting and smacks of totalitarianism thought control.  I didn't join the Army
for that."
    Maybe there are some social problems that can't solved by just formin
g another encounter group, and maybe these concerns are an example.

5. Our Europe
an allies, except for Great Britain, have integrated gays without problems.
    This
 is a disingenuous argument.  The issue we are facing is not whether integration
 of gays is acceptable and workable in say, Holland, but in America.
    This argume
nt assumes that American society, culture, values, mores, and importantly, its m
ilitary, are practically identical with those of various European nations.  But
such is not the case.
    America is radically different from Europe and has been si
nce the earliest days of the republic.  Alexis de Tocqueville, writing in the 18
30s, recognized this with his question, "What is this new man, this American?"
The people who immigrated to the United States from Europe did so not to establi
sh "Europe-somewhere-else," but to build and be part of something new and differ
ent.
    Whether gay integration in European armies has proved to be successful has
never really been tested where its test truly lies-- in wartime.  Except for Fra
nce, no European nation has fought in battle since gays were admitted, and Franc
e's official "tolerance" falls well short of what American gay advocates insist
on.  Evidence of peacetime success of gay integration in European armies is pure
ly anecdotal. (9)  No rigorous, peer-reviewed study of the issue has been presen
ted by gay advocates to support their contention.
    The experience of European a
rmies could be relevant to what is possible in the U.S. Army, but it is not axio
matic.  Serious, thorough, impartial study of the European experience must be do
ne before we know the answer.
    (As an aside, it is kind of curious that Europe is
 suddenly the darling child of the liberal left, after a year of Europe bashing
in the 500th anniversary of Columbus' voyage.)

6. The military wastes $27 million
 per year discharging homosexuals.
    This figure, contained in a GAO report, is mi
sleading if taken out of context-- which it always is by gay rights advocates.
The report assumes that if the Army spends $28,000 training an enlisted soldier,
 then subsequently discharges him for homosexuality, the Army has "wasted" $28,0
00.
    However, most training and recruiting costs are fixed costs which cannot b
e accounted for accurately on a pro-rata basis.  In 1991, 199 soldiers were disc
harged for homosexuality.  Had the Army never accessed these persons, the Army's
 training and recruiting costs would not have been different by one dollar becau
se almost all monies spent for these purposes are for "overhead" costs which wou
ld require a drastic and dramatic reduction of the Army's troop strength to affe
ct.
    Actually, the costs incurred in discharging homosexuals are nil.  From now
 to 1995, the Army's strength will drop from approximately 670,000 to a planned
figure of 535,000.  Involuntary separations have occurred and will almost certai
nly continue.  Since force managers deal in aggregate numbers, any sort of separ
ation, involuntary or not, counts toward the mandated reductions.  Thus, soldier
s who simply decline to reenlist, or who are discharged because of a court-marti
al conviction, or separate for any other reason (including for homosexuality), a
re all included in reaching the mandated year-end strengths.
    The accusation that
 discharging gays wastes money is made from a preset point of departure, namely,
 that homosexuality is compatible with military service. However, DOD's position
 is that precluding homosexuals from service increases, rather than decreases, m
ilitary readiness.  Thus, the cost of this preclusion is not "waste," but is mon
ey well spent.

ENDNOTES
1. This is germaine because combat is the raison d'etre
 of an Army.  Clausewitz wrote in On War that killing is war's defining act; it
is what makes war what it is: "Killing is the sine qua non of war."  It is curio
us that gay advocates seem (perhaps unwittingly) to be making homosexuals' abili
ty to kill a point in their favor.

2. Quite the contrary, in fact.  The body of p
eer-reviewed studies done on sexual habits of homosexuals firmly concludes that
they are, on average, vastly more promiscuous than straights.  A recent Universi
ty of Chicago study found that for the U.S. population as a whole, the average n
umber of sex partners a person has from age 18 on is 7.15 (8.67 for those never
married).  In contrast, the Kinsey Institute found in its 1978 study that 43 per
cent of homosexual men have had sex with 500 or more partners, and 28 percent wi
th 1,000 or more-- thus, almost three-fourths of homosexual men have more than 5
00 different sex partners.  In the same study, 70 percent of white homosexual me
n stated more than half their sex partners were strangers with whom they had sex
 only once.  79 percent said more than half their sex partners were strangers.

3.
 What is permissible within the military, that is.  However, for at least the la
st 20 years, one of the principal gay-rights objectives has been the removal of
all age-of-consent laws for sexual activity as well as decriminalization of all
sodomy laws.

4. Recently, the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel s
ent a message to Army units preparing to deploy to Somalia which said (DAPE-ZX m
sg dtg 081200Z Dec 92, Subj: Family Readiness During Deployment): "Mission accom
plishment is directly related to soldiers' confidence that their families are sa
fe and capable of carrying on during their absence.  Family factors should be co
nsidered in unit readiness."
    While not addressing the subject of sexual activit
y, the message clearly states that the Army's position (based on hard lessons le
arned by commanders in the field) is that soldiers in combat areas who have unwa
rranted, avoidable concerns about their families are less capable in battle.

5.
In autumn 1992, a man identifying himself as a member of ACT-UP, a prominent gay
-rights group, wrote the superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy, stating th
at ACT-UP intended to sue in federal court to require the military academies to
have set-aside quota positions for homosexuals in the Corps of Cadets.

6. There i
s another fatal deficiency in equating racial discrimination with exclusion of h
omsexuals.  Racial discrimination ascribes to individuals certain characteristic
s based on his or her membership in a racial group.  That is to say, it moves fr
om generalized, preconceived notions about the group and ascribes those notions
to a particular person of that group.  Thus, "blacks are lazy" or "Indians are d
runks" seeks to identify any black as lazy and any Indian as an alcoholic.  An i
ndividual is thus pre-judged based on his membership in a group.
    This is not the
 case with gays.  It is not prejudicial to proclaim that homosexuality is what h
omosexuals do  (conduct defines the class),  and therefore a person who identifi
es himself as homosexual, either by admission or conduct, effectually wraps hims
elf in the mantle of the definition of the group. It is homosexual conduct which
 defines what homosexuality is.

 7. It should be pointed out as well that 139 mil
lion Americans are members of religious denominations which do not condone homos
exuality.

8. In November 1992, Colorado voters passed a measure which prohibited
the state from granting gays special status or rights.  A similar, though more s
tringent, measure was barely defeated in Oregon.  In June 1992, 1,500 persons pa
rticipated in a "gay pride" march in Asheville, N.C.  The next week 20,000 peopl
e in Asheville marched in opposition to the gay rights agenda.

9. Other anecdot
al evidence is emerging that integration of openly gay persons into some foreign
 militaries has actually been fraught with difficulties and that homosexuality i
s not accepted by the rank and file.  (Lengthily reported in "Army Times," a civ
ilian-run, independent newspaper, and other journals.  "Army Times," incidentall
y, supports ending the ban.)

 APPENDIX
Other Matters Relating to Homosexuality Whi
ch are Relevant to Military Service

1. The oft-repeated assertion that 10 percent
 of all people (and hence 10 percent of the military) are homosexual is based on
 a single Kinsey Institute study done in 1948.  The study is fatally flawed.  It
s subjects included only volunteers.  Three hundred of the subjects were prison
inmates, a population which has since been proven to be over-represented by pers
ons who either committed or were victims of sexual deviance.  Kinsey did not wri
te that 10 percent of people are gay; he stated that "10 percent of the [study's
] white males are more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years b
etween the ages of 16 and 55."  (The obvious question is what "more or less excl
usively" means.)  But Kinsey also wrote, "4 percent of the white males are exclu
sively homosexual throughout their lives after adoloscence."   That's only four
percent of a sample that was skewed to begin with!
    In the 1992 presidential elec
tion, only 2.6 percent of voters polled said they were gay-- this in an election
 in which homosexual rights was an overt issue, in anonymous polling.  (The New
Republic, Jan. 4 & 11, 1993.)

2. The rate of sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs)
 in homosexuals is between 20-50 times greater than for heterosexuals. (The Brit
ish Journal of Medicine, April 1987.)

3. Between one-fourth to one-third of homos
exual men are alcoholics.  (Journal of Homosexuality, vol. 14, no. 2)

4. 59 perce
nt of AIDS cases found among all men and adolescents are the result of homosexua
l sex.  (Centers for Disease Control, "HIV/AIDS Surveillance," Sept. 1991, p. 9)


5. Homosexual men attempt suicide at a rate six times greater than heterosexual
men. (Bell and Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Wom
en, 1978, p. 308)

6. 78 percent of gays have been affected by an STD at least onc
e. (Rueda, The Homosexual Network, 1982, p. 53)

7. Nationwide, the incidence of d
iagnosed cases of AIDS among homosexual men aged 13-29 is rising (Centers for Di
sease Control); in San Francisco, the number of HIV-positive homosexuals is also
 increasing, with the highest incidence among gay males between 17-25 (Dept. of
Health; both statistics reported in "Newsweek," Jan. 11, 1992).  It is from this
 age group that almost all military recruits are drawn.