Hawk, I think I can help you out: <Can't you write some I can disagree with so I have a better reason to respond??? (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).. >
Re-reading your post, I'm not sure I'll get disagreement, but I can give it a good attempt. I had meant to respond at the time, but one thing and another ... you know how it is.
<does that mean that some liberal wacko with a social agenda and a hankering to use the US military to undertake social experimentation has the right to subvert the very displinarian structure of the military?? NO... It's not a RIGHT to serve in the US military, just as it's not a right to be a Catholic priest.
If you serve, you're under a contract that stipulates certain behavior is not tolerated as it undermine the discipline and order necessary to create a military that undertakes combat.
So if you're gay.. join the military and keep your mouth shut.. And for that matter, even in your straight.. keep your mouth shut.. You don't need to be discussing your sex lives in public. >
I very much agree that there is no right to serve in the US military. I don't want my taxes going on some dopey employment scheme for incompetent hobbyists.
I also agree that a high level of discipline is needed; in the co-operative mutual goals and standards sense, rather than 'being ordered around' sense. That applies in most endeavours. If you mean random ordering-around is a good thing, we can disagree on that, but I fear you don't think that, so I won't try to argue with you on something with which you probably agree.
I don't think being gay should involve keeping one's mouth shut. Nor should being heterosexual require keeping one's mouth shut. I'd want to show my buddies my family photos etc, if they were interested. Sexual identity is a big part of what people are, so it seems odd to pretend that that aspect of one's self is to be treated, compulsorily, as a matter for silence.
In normal human relations, one shares things with others which one has in common. I dare say Catholic soldiers like to discuss Catholicism with like-minded buddies and might discuss other things with their Jewish, Islamic or atheist buddies.
I'm sure that soldiers don't turn into repressed mindless robots just because they are in the military services. That's not the sort of person I'd want to hire to take on such a challenge.
Here's where I hope to blow your fuse.
I think that homosexual men, not women, might even be better than regular heterosexual guys in military services in the modern world.
In the good old days, a tribe could bung the spare young males in the front line and turn them loose on neighbouring tribes in a Malthusian win or die genocidal system which breeding rates necessitated until the last century. The rule for the most part was kill the men, rape the women and take over the territory, absorbing it into the greater tribe.
There wasn't a lot of fine print as to who went in the front lines. You can be sure it was those without property, position, prospects, paternity or patronage.
Apparently, Genghis Khan's DNA is represented in around 7% of China's population, [though that might be an urban myth]. Of course the bosses of the invading forces had access to all the women and the blokes in the front lines died and got what was left, or not much. I expect life expectancy during invasion, rape, pillage and plunder was only a few short years for the average guy with a sword hiking across the tundra in search of his fortune.
These days, there's no room for "red-blooded men" partial to a spot of rape following generalized carnage.
But there is still need for testosterone [which cuts out females], musculature, [same], brain design [same], teamwork, intelligence, spatial relations, agility, confidence, fitness and so on.
Before you go too far off track, of course there are many jobs in military services which women, old people, the blind, deaf and others can do successfully. I'm talking about front-line military conflict people who have to be at the sharp end face to face defeating those who will kill to get their way.
I think homosexual males have all the attributes of heterosexual males in terms of testosterone levels, agility, musculature, spatial relations and so on.
But part of being good in the military [I know this, being an international expert in these things, having studied it extensively, if mainly in my own mind], is esprit de corps. Hmmm, I have a couple of doubts creeping in, but I'll press on anyway.
I figure that if my wife and I were in a war in the front row, there would be extremely high esprit de corps. Normal blokes don't have such strong feelings for each other. I see friends and other males as hairy large primates, with whom one can get on really well and enjoy real mateship, blood brothers, tribal affiliation and all that. There is eons of pack-animal social affiliation ingrained into our DNA to drive such team-work. But nevertheless, when push comes to shove, choosing between my sexual identity mate and my golfing buddy mate, I would automatically save and protect the first.
With homosexuals, they'd all be in love with each other and it wouldn't be wise to take them on. They wouldn't be fighting for King George II [giggle] and an indifferent country cashing in on their services, or even for a perhaps unfaithful wife. Children? Oooops, do NOT get killed - cower and make it back for the kids. More loyalty to get back to mind the children and family than protect the obnoxious hairy barbarians in one's corps.
Homosexuals would be fighting for them and their mates, right there and then. Imagine the teamwork. While you don't understand it, and I only theorize about it, I'm sure they have the same strength of feelings for their sexual mates as heterosexuals do for theirs.
I imagine a homosexual battalion might be a very effective group, assuming the usual selection processes are used to ensure they have the 'right stuff'. There are very many homosexual men in top sports teams, and sport is very much a sublimation of the old DNA tribal aggression and dominance drives for males. So it's obvious that they can perform extremely well in such fields.
Plus, no widow's benefit to pay. No children to be left fatherless.
The 'poofter' stereotype is applicable to some, and of course, as with all human types, there's a vast range of individuals. But the idea that being homosexual is an automatic exclusionary factor seems absurd to me.
I suspect there are a LOT of homosexual males who self-select out because of ignorant prejudice by mindless 'macho' heterosexual military males who are still living in the stone age rape, pillage, and plunder psychological era. They should be fired.
Failing to hire the best people is not intelligent. Many companies now hire women because they have figured out that averages don't matter, individuals do. Heck, some companies even hire the melanin-rich. How "liberal wacko" is that?
I think discipline is over-rated. I'd swap a kilogram of intelligence and character for a litre of "discipline" any time. Depending on what you mean by "discipline", but my experience of people who are strong on "discipline" mean obedience to autocratic authoritarians, not discipline in the sense which I know is vital.
In case you are nodding in agreement, I still think Jesus was homosexual. His ideas seem to me to derive from somebody who would have been homosexual in his identity. Which is not at all to say I think he should have been drafted into the army. God forbid! [little joke there]. Where are his children and descendants?
In Islam, everyone is called Mohammed and he had many wives, including paedophilically young ones and obviously hordes of descendants. Genghis had swarms of descendants. I have a few. How come such a good-looking [oops there's a hint] bloke with long hair didn't have women bearing children by the dozen? Women commonly say of homosexual men, "What a waste!". Note that his theories were quite different from Mohammed [peace be upon him] and Genghis [and him too] and Mao [I saw in Beijing that peace is upon him] and David Koresh [women and children galore] - ironic that David Koresh thought he was a Christian [I think he did].
Jesus had quite feminine theories. But he obviously had the mental steel to persevere against the Roman Empire and Judaism. Now that's a tough guy! Who won? Him or the Roman Empire? Note that Catholicism bestrides the world and is headquartered in Rome. Note that the Roman Empire ceased to exist a couple of millennia ago.
Convinced? The first thing to do is advertize for a homosexual battalion and see if they can't be tuned up to be proud of their country which recognizes their value as individuals instead of treating them as pariahs to be tolerated as perverts.
You could double your military services in no time. Most family men aren't keen on getting on a submarine for half a year at a time while their wives and children are at home. If they don't have wives and chidren, why not? Women like talented good men and so does the military.
Hire homosexuals and have everyone a winner.
Still nodding in agreement? It might mean a pay cut for you as the competition for military jobs will suddenly take off.
Mqurice |
