the id, the ego, & the single misfiring brain cell

he insists gays serving openly in the military would destroy our edge. i beg to differ.

I admit I don't normally cruise these sites, but my Marine does, and he shares his offensive findings with me (I'm so blessed!). That's how I learned about this:

May 19, 2010 - Wednesday

I fervently believe the glorious Star-Spangled Banner should wave over our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guard heros.

President Obama wants to raise the rainbow flag of the homosexual rights movement over them.

Which will it be? That's what is at stake in Family Research Council's (FRC) campaign to stop the homosexual Left from lifting the ban on open homosexuality in the military.

That prohibition is federal law and was applied in the 1993 Clinton compromise policy called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT).

And if the Left overturns it and forces open homosexuality on the military, here are just a few of the results:

• Soldiers will be forced to live in close quarters with people who view them as sexual objects.
• Morale will plunge, discipline will suffer, and unit cohesion -- the glue that holds the military together -- will fall apart and dramatically weaken our national defense capability.
• Many highly motivated, well-trained servicemen and women will leave the military rather than serve in compromising situations . . . and many men and women simply will not join the military.
• Scarce funds will be wasted to retrofit sleeping quarters and handle discipline problems.

....

Our military exists to fight and win wars, not engage in radical social engineering. Forcing soldiers to cohabit with people who view them as sexual objects would inevitably lead to increased sexual tension, sexual harassment, and even sexual assault.

How do I know these things? I speak almost daily with current and former military leaders.

And, I served in the U.S. Marine Corps. I know what it's like to live in an open barracks, dress, and shower in front of 70 other men. I know how critical it is for those 70 to become a single fighting unit. And I know that's impossible if just one of those 70 insists on standing apart or giving another preferential treatment.

(Please note that I have not copied the entire thing. I've only copied the claims I wish to respond to. Follow the link I provided if you want to read the whole appeal for money.)

Because resumes seem common to discussions of this sort, here's mine, briefly:

I've been military off and on since 1986, when I entered the service as an Airman Basic. I served 4 years of active duty (on the money) living in the dorms at Peterson AFB in Colorado Springs, where we still had communal showers. When I out-processed the Air Force--that is, completed the errands and paperwork necessary for separation--I sold back something like 47 days of leave because I'm a workaholic. I entered the Colorado Air National Guard the following month. In that capacity, I deployed to Honduras for a couple of weeks for what the Guard likes to call their "summer vacation," and I was on the verge of being placed on alert* for Operation Desert Storm when that war ended.

* "Alert" is the stage prior to "Pack your bags and kiss your loved ones goodbye."

I moved after 4.5 years, and could not find military employment--as a Reservist or Guard member, Army or Air Force--for any of the three career fields I was qualified in. Where had I moved to? The Military District of Washington. That means I looked in Virginia, Maryland, and possibly even Delaware. I allowed my enlistment to lapse. I was a Staff Sergeant, which in the Air Force is an E-5.

I returned to college and graduated with a BA in English. After that, I decided--at the age of 33--to return to the military as an officer. I applied to Officer Training School (OTS) and two months later, I was toeing the blue line at Maxwell AFB as an OT (Officer Trainee). I graduated with a first-ever consistent maximum score on the Physical Fitness Test (we had 4 of them in OTS) and as a distinguished graduate, having been Lower Flight Commander along with various other "Congratulations! You're great! Here's more shit to do because you don't seem challenged enough!" duties I don't care to go into now.

I served as a Data Communications Officer on the Western Range, in charge of all communications problems for ballistic missile and spacelift missions at Vandenberg AFB in California for two years. Then I went to Gunter AFB in Alabama where I began as a Crew Commander for the AF Intranet Informations Center and ended as a Director of Operations of the Network Operations Division, quite a coup for a junior captain. In the process, I completed a Master's Degree in Liberal Arts in History from Auburn University - Montgomery (in my "leisure time," as it were). In the middle of that, I took the all-expense-paid vacation to Iraq in late 2004, so I know what it is to be deployed. There is no privacy to speak of.

I was lucky enough to be hired as an English instructor at the Air Force Academy for my next tour, where I served for three years.* This was followed by my current assignment as an Air Force Institute of Technology student at the University of Colorado - Boulder, where I am pursuing a second master's degree, this one being a Master of Arts in English Literature. I was selected for promotion to major with my first promotion board, and will become a field grade officer in the next two or three months.

* An assignment to the Academy as an instructor is commonly viewed by the Air Force at large as a "cushy" assignment. It is not. Quite the opposite. I didn't work that hard even when I was deployed.

Executive summary: I've been there, done that.

Now, back to the Family Research Council's claims. They say that if homosexuals are allowed to serve openly in the military:

1. Soldiers will be forced to live in close quarters with people who view them as sexual objects.

News flash! We already do "live in close quarters" with homosexuals, you morons. Remember "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?* That rule just changed the long-standing requirement for homosexuals to lie about their sexual orientation when they signed up.

* Little known fact: the rest of the rule is "Don't Harass, Don't Pursue." Perhaps because of its limited press coverage, this part is routinely ignored by military officials. They do, in fact, pursue.

Another part of the FRC's claim that strikes me as ludicrous is the assertion that homosexuals view heterosexuals as "sexual objects." I have a couple of responses to this, and I probably borrowed one or both of them from my friend Edie Disler (Lt Col, USAF (Ret)).

First, why is it that every heterosexual man suddenly becomes irresistible in the presence of homosexual men? This, I think, speaks more to their egotism than to anything else, up to and including their actual sexiness, if any.

Second, if a homosexual man does find a heterosexual man attractive, why is that heterosexual "lean, mean fighting machine" unable to handle such objectification when women have been doing it for centuries? What kind of a pussy is he, anyway? (So to speak.)

Ok. Moving along.

2. Morale will plunge, discipline will suffer, and unit cohesion -- the glue that holds the military together -- will fall apart and dramatically weaken our national defense capability.

O rly?

Just because the guy everybody knows is gay can admit it (instead of pretending to be something he is not), unit cohesion will suffer? Isn't unit cohesion based upon honesty? (Yes. It is.)

Here's where my experience comes into play. When a unit member is known to be homosexual (grapevine talk, but usually...you just know, right?), that person is prevented from forming solid friendships with his peers because he is forced to pretend he has no private life and his peers are forced to pretend he's straight when everyone knows the truth. Requiring any unit member to even pretend he has no private life interferes with natural development of friendships and trust. That is, it obstructs unit cohesion like honesty could not possibly do, even if said unit had one or more bigots in it.

A comment on the asserted "weakening of our national defense capability," then I'll move on: When a soldier* is required to lie about his homosexuality in order to keep his job, a possible security issue is thus created. The US government has created and perpetuated a weird Catch-22 here which would be funny if it weren't so frightening in its implications: A soldier who is gay must either pretend he has no personal life or lie about it. He is expected to refrain from all homosexual activity for the years of his service (HAHAhahahahahaha *snort* riiiiiight), which means he essentially is forced, if he wishes to serve in uniform, to lie about himself. Why? So he can keep his job.

* Or airman, or marine, or sailor. Please forgive me for using "soldier" as shorthand here.

I suspect--and I admit statistics for this would be difficult to come by--that most of these soldiers are already "out" to their loved ones, which means that the only target for blackmail would be the US government itself. Thus, the US government creates its own security risk. Said security risk, incidentally, is far far lower than that imposed by soldiers of all stripes having financial difficulties (the number one reason security clearances are yanked) or heterosexual soldiers cheating on their spouses.

3. Many highly motivated, well-trained servicemen and women will leave the military rather than serve in compromising situations . . . and many men and women simply will not join the military.

This is the argument offered in the wake of one of the greatest military drawdowns since the end of the Vietnam War, in which Voluntary Separation Pay is offered--which is routinely taken by the best and brightest, those most certain of quickly finding employment on the outside--and (in my experience) some of the most competent officers are thereafter handed their papers for an involuntary separation (the dreaded Reduction In Force). Then someone has the gall to argue that "many highly motivated, well-trained servicemen and women will leave the military rather than serve in compromising situations...."?

Wait! What? Compromising situations? Are they afraid they'll be raped?

News flash! We already have a law against that. Rape is not a crime of homosexuality, or even sexuality. It is a crime of violence.

Or...are they afraid they'll be seduced?

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

And if being sexually desirable places one in a "compromising situation," then why are more and more women joining the service all the time? And fighting for the right to serve in traditionally male roles, no less? Are you suggesting that our macho Rambos out there on the front line will abandon their posts for jobs punching parking tickets because the guy in the foxhole with them eyes them appreciatively--while women put up with this crap all the time and still fight to say in the military?

If our fighting men are really that fragile, I submit to you that homosexuals in the military have nothing to do with our real problems, people.

And one more comment on the suggestion that so many "highly motivated, well-trained servicemen and women" might leave the service because they're sexually intimidated: how many highly motivated, well-trained servicemen and women have been booted out because someone suggested they were gay? I'm thinking specifically of the spate of Arabic linguist discharges a few years ago. I'm not sure of the figures, but I seem to recall that it takes a pretty penny to train these people in a skill we will need (desperately) for many years to come.*

* Not many Americans who are not Muslims speak Arabic, and we naturally have a fear of a "conflict of interest" with Muslims in general. That doesn't mean we don't hire them for this job, but it seems to me that our security risks are in fact increased when we have a Muslim Arabic linguist instead of a gay one.

4. Scarce funds will be wasted to retrofit sleeping quarters and handle discipline problems.

"Retrofit sleeping quarters" how, exactly? Are you going to add a dorm situation for gays? How about bisexuals? Another dorm? How about people who have heretofore exhibited homosexual behavior who have decided they are attracted to a member of the opposite sex? Another dorm. And vice versa? Another dorm, of course. Think of the costs!

Right. How about we just think. OK? How would that be? Homosexuals, bisexuals, and heterosexuals currently share sleeping quarters. They treat one another with respect, and if they don't, the military deals with it as sexual harassment (that is, we already "handle discipline problems"), something (sexual harassment) which has been illegal for decades, at least.

How about we figure out who the bigoted assholes are and deal with them? It'll be like it was back in the day when the president, moving ahead of society at large, integrated the military. If you had a problem serving with black people or serving under black people, that was your problem. You followed orders. If you didn't, you faced the consequences. (Ultimately, it really is that simple. Was then. Is now. If anything, it's even simpler now because society at large has moved far ahead of the military in this sense.)

More: Our military exists to fight and win wars, not engage in radical social engineering. Forcing soldiers to cohabit with people who view them as sexual objects would inevitably lead to increased sexual tension, sexual harassment, and even sexual assault.

Sounds like what was said when some crazy person suggested we let women serve openly in the military, huh? It's just as stupid now. It speaks to people who (1) fear homosexuals,* and/or (2) don't understand how the military works.

* But this is the part I don't get. Why are they afraid of homosexuals? Help me here.

More: I know what it's like to live in an open barracks, dress, and shower in front of 70 other men. I know how critical it is for those 70 to become a single fighting unit.

I find it interesting that Mr. Perkins views his time in the Marines as characterized by showering "in front of 70 other men." Did they pull up chairs? Pop popcorn? Sell tickets? What?

If that's the case, he has most certainly missed his calling.

This, as with most if not all anti-gay-servicemen arguments, says far more about the person making it than it does about the subject in question.

More: And I know that's impossible if just one of those 70 insists on standing apart or giving another preferential treatment.

HAHAHAhahahahahaha. Chuckle. "Standing apart." Good one.

Let's review. What's going on right now in reference to deciding if gays can serve openly? Obama's panel is deciding whether alternate housing is necessary. So if I understand, the government is trying to decide whether to place gays into their own dorm to protect the vulnerable he-men who now protect the country, and this yahoo is suggesting that they "insist upon standing apart." Uh...no. This is the same vapid logic which characterizes the current gays-can-be-blackmailed-as-being-potentially-outed-to-the-government-so-they-are-a-security-risk argument.

It's stupid as hell.*

* I've seen the same "logic" in the anti-marijuana government pamphlet which argues that pot causes so many deaths because drug dealers are fighting turf wars to distribute it. Um...isn't that an argument for legalization?

Then there's that silliness about "preferential treatment."

I haven't been following politics for long, in the grand scheme of things, but it seems to me that every time someone wants equal treatment, they're accused--at least initially--of wanting preferential treatment. No gays have asked for anything which could be reasonably characterized as "preferential treatment," as far as I am aware. They've asked for the right to marry--that is, have legal rights and responsibilities and benefits for their chosen partner--just like everyone else. They've asked for the right to adopt children (or keep their own) just like everyone else. And in the military, all they're asking for is the right to serve openly and receive the same fair consideration for a job well done and possible promotion, just like everyone else. This is not "preferential treatment." It is equal treatment.

Yes, gays are in the military. They've always been, which even the most vehement opposition must admit. During US drafts, even, we have drafted them, even when they told us up front they were gay.

If being gay is such a danger to esprit de corps and unit cohesion, why FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT'S HOLY would you force gay men into uniform at a time of crisis, when you fully understood that esprit de corps and unit cohesion were crucial?

Because you know it's all bullshit. That's why.

d