Monday, July 23, 2012

Homosexual (Gay) Soldiers Marching in Uniform: Right or Wrong?

Before letting it totally be lost in the overreaction (hoorific as the shooting was) to the Colorado shooting, I want to mention this headline that was "featured"  within the past several days on Yahoo "News":

"Soldiers march in funiform in San Diego gay parade"

Is this againt military regulations?  Maybe.  I don't know. It is certainly WRONG for soldiers to put being 'gay" ahead of their uspposed commitment to the dfense of ALL of this country.  What would happen if soldiers "marched" IN UNIFORM in a TEA PARTY parade?  Yes, for all I know soldiers have appeared in funiform at tea Party events.  But you and I both know that if this had been brought forward by the media, it would be ONLY ni a NEGATIVE wayu.  "How dare soliders USE their unifrom to promote such a narrow, POLITICAL point of view."  I am sorry.  It is NOT approriate for soliders to try to USE their status as soldiers to try to promote the "cuase" of "gay rights'--at least in uniform.  This appears to be a deliberate attempt to put the UNFIFORMS of tghe United Sates military behind a POLITICAL positioin.  And yes, it cannot help but be DISRUPTIVE to military discipline.

This is actually the EVIL of "anti-discrimination" laws.  Say it is against army regulations for these soldies to be marching in this kind of event. Does it matter? If a superior tries to DISCIPLINE these soldiers, or even to "caution" them against this kid of activity, that superior is probably putting his CAREER at risk.  Suddenly, homosexuals have a SPECIAL STATUS in the military (not to mentin in the country).  They alomst hav ve a "get out of jail free card". In other words, they can be DISRUPTIVE and VIOLVATE POLICY (both in the military and increasingly in private companies), and it is very HARD sto do anything aobut it.  "Anti-discrimination" laws become a LICENE to actg outrageously. 

"But, Skip, is that not true of laws against racial discriminatin--not to mentin sex discrimination?"  Yes, it is.  It becomes much harder to FIRE or discipline a balck person, or a woman.  My borther jsut faced the issue of whether the trucking companny for which he works can refuse to hir e a driver, when the driver refuses to work on Saturday for religion=us reasons (whin ALL drivers are REQUIRED to be available to work on Saturdays, or Sundays, when necessary).  My LEGAL opinin is that the law does NOT require a company to hire a driver in that situation, religion or no religion, but my rother's superior (understandably) took the positin that it is TOO DANGEROUS to stand on this kind of principle.  Thuys, OTHER PEOLE may suffer because of a person's insisence of "strict" observance of his religion.  In "Chariots of Fire", you may rememberr that the Jewish runner would not run a race on Saturday, and the Christian runner on Sunday.  Should the Olympics be RESCHEDULED to accommodate everyone's religion?  Give me a break.  "So, Skip, you are such a bigot that you don't even approve of anti-discriminatin laws based on race?"  Not so  I simpl say that in a PERFECT world such laws should not existg (and not need to exist).  But we don't live in a perfect world, and cannot ignore the reality of SLAVERY, and the exensive period of systematic racial discriminatin in this country.  I recognize the DOWNSIDE of these laws, but that is outwiehed by the necessity of those laws because we were maintaining a kind of "slavery" without it being legal.  However, it makes no sense to eXPAND this kiknd of "special status", when the extreme exigent circumstances do not exist.  Thus, I certainly DO oppose anti-discriminatin lwas outside of race and religion, and I oppose turning the law into some sort of "license" for peole to at outrageously witht he idea that they can "get away with it".  Yes, I se NOT REASON for "sex discrimination" laws.  It is not like women are a "minority".  You may think I go too far there, because of my general view of women, but the princiiples I am talking aoubt ar still sound.

This idea that we should make every hiring and firing decisin a "Federal case" is absurd, and dangerous.  As for homosexuals, this idea that they can PUSH their lifestyle in an obnoxius way leaves me totally cold.  No. I do not favor anti-discriminatin" laws for "sexual orientation", or any other kind of "special status" for them. Yes, I would go beyond that and say that OPEN homoseuxals should NOT be in the military.  That does go beyond merely not giving them "special status", but the military is not your average "club" (where I have no prolbem with gays either being admitted or excluded).  What gays are now PUSHING for is NOT mere "tolerancde", but socital APPROVAL (to the point of special status giving them MORE "rights" than most people).  Sorry  Not from me.  And the military is to important to be playing games.  There is no rason a homosexal NEEDS to "advertise" his conduct in the military.  I am NOT a homosexual (although you might justly regard me neurotic with regard to women), but I served an entire term in the United States Army without a SINLGE DATE with a woman.  I also had a letter published in the El Paso Times, at the time (without identifying me as a "soldier") saying I was an agnostic (not a Christian).  You know what?  I had NO HASSLES--no "questins" raised--during my entire time in the United States Army (1958-1971).  So I know whereof I speak when I say there is NO reason for homosexuals to FLAUNT the tlype of sexual conduct in which they engage.  And no, for the most part I was NOT aware of the sexual practices of other soldiers, although there were obviusly some exceptions.  I will never see--given my own experience and the nature of the military--why a person has to be OPENLY GAY in the military. No, I see no reason to "iinestigate" the matter, which is sordid and unnecessary.  But there was nothing wrong with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.  Homoseuxal conduct is CONDUCT--even mor than being FAT is CONDUCT.  The army, of course does DISCRIMINATE against FAT people (despite strong genetic coponent), althugh youy would be surprised (ro maybe not) at how many peole in the army ARE fat (at least substantially overweight).

Again, yo may reject SOMe of what I say above.  However, you have to face the FACT that we are presently headed for a society where homosexuals really do have a sense of "entitlement": the idea that they deserve "special status' that allows them to do things other peole cannot do.  High xhool, college, the army: how many peole acutally THUGHT I am gay?  I have no idea, and I did not care.  I cared some that my ability toactually relate to women is so falwed, but why should I care what other peole ThOUGHT?  I did not, and do not.  As readers of this blog know, I "overcame" my problems relatin to women enogh to sire two daughters.  Was it some sort of Divine punishment that those two daughters bouth turned out to be FEMINISTS?  You Christians out there will ahve to draw yuor own concusions on that.  As with the Presidetnial race, I rgard myself as essentially NEUTRAL on all questions regarding sex ("not "neutral" in the snese of "no opinin", but "neutral" in the sense of no PESONAL STAKE in the matter.  I have been celibate for much more of my adult life than not, includnig now.  A I have often sated, I am deathly AFRAID of women--even though I cna't honestlyl say that any of them has ever one anything to me. But my OPINIONS on sex have NOT changed, from the age of about 16 until now:  HEALTHY sex is only marital sex between a man and a woman.  My personal sexual hangups have nothing to do with that opinin, other than maybe "explaining' why I a not so willing to RAITNALIZE my 'morality" to fit my personal condut (as, perhaps, peole are whose hangups with women  do not keep them from acting on their sexual desires). I ued to feel a little bad about not being 'normal" with regard to womn.  That was before indicents like those with Hugh Grant (while Elizabeth Hurley was his fiance) and a PROSTITUTE.  I long ago came to the correct conclusion that theere is NO "normal" with regrad to men and women.  However,  that ony reinforces my conclusin that we are doing HARM to our children by this idea that it does not matter if we further confuse their "sexual identity" by fialing to put forth--as a society--the standrds to which they should at least ASIRE.  In short, I reject the idea that peronal "sexual satisfactin" is the ultimate good in life.    I have seen the "seuxal morality" accepted when I went to hisgh school (1960-1964), and I have seen the "seuxal revolutin of the late Sixties and 1970s.  Now I have seen this PUSH toward the idea that homosexual sex and heterosexual sex are the SAME.--neither to be preferred over the other.  There is nO doubt in my mind, as a "netural" party:  The "sexual morality" of the early Sixties was MUCH HEALTHIER. 

I bring up my personal experience not because it is important in itself, but to meet the "artgument" that I do not know what it means to be considered "abnormal".  I definitely do, and I hink most peole actually do.  The problem is hwen you elevate your own abnormality as to some sort of "Speical" status where society has an OBLIGTIN to make usure you are happy anyway.  I feel that is what "gay activists" are tryong to do:  to use their abnormality as a WEAPON to achieve 'status", and even "happiness".  Good luck.  It is not going to work (no matter whether they are able to bring eveyrfoone else down with them or not).  Can you be "happy" being a homosexual?  I assume so, as I have been "happy" being at least as abnormal in my own way.  But you cCANNOT attain that "happiness" by basing it on obtaining th eAPPROVAL of societgy at large, or other peole in particula. r.  We should deiniely STOP trying to teach children that they have a "right' to the "approval " of other peole, and start teaching them to NOT CARE so much abut "other peole"--or, really, about whether their 'feelings" are hurt.  Are there really more 'hapy" homosexuals now than when Rokk Hudson became a big star "in the closet"? I dont think so  In fact, I think we are headkng for making a LOT MORE peole UNAHPPY, as the fabirc which holds society--and children--together frays (partly because of homoseuxal 'activism"). 

P.S No proofrading or spell checkng (bad eyesight). Maybe someone should ask Anderson Cooper:  "Are you more hapy now that ou are openly gay, than when you were putting out all of that gay activist proaganda withotu revealing your personal agenda?"  Somehow, I doubt it.  It is said that Marc Antony had a HAREM of BOTH men (boys?) and women. Julius Caesar is supposed to have had exual relatinshiiops with both men and women.  Or lyou can rea ""I, Claudius", by Graves. Were these peole NORMAL. You might also remember that Cleopatra MARRIED HER BROTHER (in accordance with Egyptian traditin, which ccepted INCEST, but not homoseuxal marraige, as has been true of ALL of human histroy as to gay marriage).  Were all of these peole NORMAL?  The mind boggles.  Are we really better off considereing "anything goes", and treting all of this kind of thing as "normal" and healthy?  The mind boggles even further. "Leave it to Beaver" is HEALTHY (ven if rare).  This other stuff is not. 


999,999th Moderate said...

You mentioned the fact that if a soldier marched in his uniform at a Tea Party rally would be painted in a negative light. What about the idea that you are painting gays in who march in their uniforms in a negative light? Just because you don't see something in the media doesn't mean it's not there, just as you have proven in your column. Making generalizations in part of writing, but don't assume everything. There has been negative coverage of gays in uniform for years now, it's not new like the Tea Party

999,999th Moderate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.