Wednesday, February 3, 2010


Ragin’ Dave
had some thoughts on the recent statements about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. It seems that most people, being of good nature and a live-and-let-live disposition, are willing to have openly homosexual service members. Below is my response, and thoughts, on the topic. But first, some clarifications. First, I have no religious dogs in this fight. I’m an atheist. Not the militant, anti-religion kind, but the “I really don’t give a damn what you believe unless it involves killing/pedophilia/non-consensual sex, in which case a rope and telephone poll are called for” atheist. In short, don’t try to put me in a re-education camp or kill me for the greater glory of Allah, and I won’t use you for marksmanship practice. Live and let live.

(And a short side-note: leftist, political atheists are some of the most humorless, grim, pain in the ass individuals I have ever met. Not everything is about religion, or imposing your particular belief structures on the lumpen-proles. You people (and I mean that in the full sense of the derogatory "you people") need to go drink some beer, eat some grilled red meat, try to get laid, and enjoy life. Because overall, you're a real bummer to be around)

Secondly, I have worked with, served with, and have as family, people who are gay. Call for killing them, or “fixing” them, and I’ll be on the other side from you. With a lead pipe or rifle, if it comes to that. Simply being different, without harming others, is no reason to be persecuted.
That said, here’s my thoughts (with some modifications) as posted at his site.

I'm aware of a number of service members who are gay, past and present service, in my battalion. The reaction to them has been mixed. Some have been exemplary soldiers. Some have been massive headaches due to their uber-dedication to PC principles (EO positions seem to attract pull more than proportional numbers of candidates). The main problem is this: sex (the schtupping kind) is a major force disruption on deployments and in duty environments. That's why I'm a Neanderthal; I'm still opposed to females in any field environment outside nursing, and that MOS only grudgingly. I've witnessed far too many affairs, fights, and unit cohesion issues to ever accept the equal rights/equal opportunity argument. The military is supposed to break things. Period. Sexual tension interferes with that. Sexual tension combined with revulsion, loathing, and misunderstandings won't improve things. What the military should be doing, can only be done properly by a small part of the population. Generally, the part that is willing to hurt, kill, demolish, and inflict pain, while receiving the same in return. It's not representative of society as a whole. And if truly becomes such, it will no longer be effective for its purpose. The military is part of the citizenry; the part that agrees to do what much of the rest of it isn't willing or able to do.

Homosexuality has probably always been present in humanity; certainly it is well documented since classical times. As with other behaviors, it is not always acceptable. The military environment is not the appropriate place for it in our culture.

Before the pillorying commences, let me note this. I believe there is room in our society as a whole for homosexuality. We have plenty of room for all of us to attend to our own preferences that don’t actually harm others. To paraphrase Mr. Garrison from the South Park episode “The Death Camp of Tolerance”: tolerance doesn’t mean you have to like it, just that you’re willing to put up with it. I’m willing to extend the courtesy to others, in return for tolerance for some of my beliefs that aren’t those of the majority. Just recognize, there are some areas where some beliefs or behaviors simply cause more problems than are unacceptable. I don’t attend bible camps or church groups to advance atheism, because those groups have a purpose beyond my personal convictions; my beliefs simply have no place there, and disrupt their intended purpose. “Out” service members would have the same effect in the military. Will we separate gay service members from hetero soldiers of the same gender? Isn't that why we separate the sexes currently? I can speak from experience that it can be a very serious matter to have a member of the opposite sex in one's quarter's as is; what happens when same-sex but different orientation accusations of sexual harassment begin to occur because of living arrangements or authority positions occur? How will we resolve one lawsuit because someone gay is harassed or discriminated against because they aren't put in the barracks with the other males, while another hetero male alleges harassment because he must be in barracks with someone sexually interested in him?

There has to be a line somewhere, and in this case it should be determined by what is most effective for the organizational mission.

That said, let the hatefest commence.


Papa Whiskey said...

No hate from this quarter. Your arguments about unit cohesion and force disruption are spot-on. Moreover, there is the issue of abuse of rank. It will be recalled that when the Army began having co-ed basic training, a rash of problems arose with drill sergeants yielding to the temptation to treat their female charges as a kind of harem. I myself was subjected to some minor harassment by a closeted field-grade officer when I was on active duty many years ago. I ignored it and the individual ceased (or else redirected) his behavior, but had that happened in a field situation and the fellow pressed his advances I might have had to arrange an accident. People in the service must subordinate their impulses to the imperative of unit cohesion, and anyone who cannot accept that must be excluded from the service.

MauserMedic said...

Papa Whiskey,

Well said. I think there's a significant lack of comprehension regarding this on the civilian side of things.

Papa Whiskey said...


For a succinct study of the destructive effects of the managerial mindset on unit cohesion during the Vietnam era, see Gabriel and Savage's "Crisis in Command" -- which, rather to my amazement, is still in print and may be had from

Mark Horning said...

My thoughts:

Homosexual behavior that is detrimental to moral and good discipline needs to be dealt with.

Heterosexual behavior that is detrimental to moral and good discipline needs to be dealt with.