I have been steadily against open declarations of homosexuality in the military. I do not care who someone has sex with, as long as it is a consenting partner, but I have never been comfortable with open expression of homosexuality. I'm not terribly comfortable with open expression of any sexuality. I have felt that when a person is identified by their sexuality in a non-sexual situation it is a problem. The gay bishop of the Episcopal church is an example. I have no interest in whether he is gay, but having to identify a bishop as 'the gay bishop' is a disqualifier, just as much s if we had 'the philandering bishop'. It's not the orientation, it's the identification by sexuality.
And so homosexuality and the military. The moment a soldier is identified as 'the gay soldier' I have always felt this would compromise unit cohesion. What if there was a gay relationship in the unit? This argument loses steam with women serving in the Navy and other parts of the military. Guess what is the most common reason for women leaving their unit? Pregnancy! Sex is clearly occurring, and yet unit discipline and cohesion are not suffering.
Homosexuality has quite a military history. During Greek hegemony, institutionalized homosexual pederasty was the norm in the Spartan military, and no one can criticize the military accomplishments of Sparta. There is every indication Alexander the Great was bisexual, with gay lovers among his troops, but again no one could quarrel with Alexander's achievements. These examples come from a society in which open homosexuality was not frowned upon. How about later times. when being gay brought condemnation or death?
There is every reason to believe Frederick the Great of Prussia, one of history's greatest soldiers, was exclusively gay. Frederick married, but never lived with his queen and never consummated the marriage. He had no court mistress at a time when to have a mistress was almost as much a part of royalty as crowns and scepters. He kept exclusively male company at court. He had a large collection of homosexual pornography. I have never in my life known a straight man who had gay porn. While there is no 'proof' of Frederick's homosexuality, it seems about as clear a conclusion as could be made without a signed confession. Yet he is justly revered as one of history's greatest soldiers. His system was copied for over 100 years, his tactics the basis of military success until the invention of rifling for small arms.
Churchill was once asked why the Royal navy was so dominant. His reply was 'rum and buggery'. When McPherson was killed before Atlanta in 1864, Sherman wept until the tears 'rolled through his beard and onto the floor'. While McPherson was engaged to be married, and Sherman also had a family, they had an emotional attachment that was very strong. I do not say that is gay, but simply that a strong emotional attachment did not prevent Sherman from commanding McPherson, or McPherson from obeying.
There is absolutely nothing about homosexuality that implies compromised bravery or other traditional aspects of masculinity, other than sexual orientation. Nothing about homosexuality limits military ability, either as an officer or enlisted personnel. I am not comfortable at all with 'gay marriage' as a term or a rite, nor am I comfortable with open sexuality, but there is nothing about being gay that is any more of a hindrance than being straight for military purposes.
Our society, in its very open homophobia, has heretofore assumed that being gay will damage military discipline or that homosexuals do not 'have what it takes' to be soldiers. History says otherwise on both counts. Time to abandon that policy.
Ted
And so homosexuality and the military. The moment a soldier is identified as 'the gay soldier' I have always felt this would compromise unit cohesion. What if there was a gay relationship in the unit? This argument loses steam with women serving in the Navy and other parts of the military. Guess what is the most common reason for women leaving their unit? Pregnancy! Sex is clearly occurring, and yet unit discipline and cohesion are not suffering.
Homosexuality has quite a military history. During Greek hegemony, institutionalized homosexual pederasty was the norm in the Spartan military, and no one can criticize the military accomplishments of Sparta. There is every indication Alexander the Great was bisexual, with gay lovers among his troops, but again no one could quarrel with Alexander's achievements. These examples come from a society in which open homosexuality was not frowned upon. How about later times. when being gay brought condemnation or death?
There is every reason to believe Frederick the Great of Prussia, one of history's greatest soldiers, was exclusively gay. Frederick married, but never lived with his queen and never consummated the marriage. He had no court mistress at a time when to have a mistress was almost as much a part of royalty as crowns and scepters. He kept exclusively male company at court. He had a large collection of homosexual pornography. I have never in my life known a straight man who had gay porn. While there is no 'proof' of Frederick's homosexuality, it seems about as clear a conclusion as could be made without a signed confession. Yet he is justly revered as one of history's greatest soldiers. His system was copied for over 100 years, his tactics the basis of military success until the invention of rifling for small arms.
Churchill was once asked why the Royal navy was so dominant. His reply was 'rum and buggery'. When McPherson was killed before Atlanta in 1864, Sherman wept until the tears 'rolled through his beard and onto the floor'. While McPherson was engaged to be married, and Sherman also had a family, they had an emotional attachment that was very strong. I do not say that is gay, but simply that a strong emotional attachment did not prevent Sherman from commanding McPherson, or McPherson from obeying.
There is absolutely nothing about homosexuality that implies compromised bravery or other traditional aspects of masculinity, other than sexual orientation. Nothing about homosexuality limits military ability, either as an officer or enlisted personnel. I am not comfortable at all with 'gay marriage' as a term or a rite, nor am I comfortable with open sexuality, but there is nothing about being gay that is any more of a hindrance than being straight for military purposes.
Our society, in its very open homophobia, has heretofore assumed that being gay will damage military discipline or that homosexuals do not 'have what it takes' to be soldiers. History says otherwise on both counts. Time to abandon that policy.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment