I want to make it clear that the opinions expressed are my own. They do not reflect the opinion, implied or otherwise, of any other entity, including that of Baylor University, its students or faculty.
Recently one of the topics of discussion in our Ancient Philosophy class included homosexuality among the ancient Greeks. The subject of homosexuality can be quite sensitive to many in our current society. In discussions I’ve had over the years with other active military members on this subject, I’ve seen some very emotional rhetoric - to the extent that it frankly surprises me. If you would like a better understanding of the anti-homosexuals-in-the-military argument (it’s actually an argument against lifting the ban, but what’s the difference?), I have provided the following link:
http://flagandgeneralofficersforthemilitary.com/FGOM%20Issue%20Overview%20033109.pdf
Point by point, I think all of the hypotheses presented seem highly arguable. When I joined the Air Force in 1973, many positions were not offered to women for much the same mindset as I see in the argument presented in the link. I can still hear the lamentations of military academy graduates upon the announcement of women going to the academies! We now see women doing just fine in many positions from which they were previously excluded, including pilots of fighter aircraft and squadron and higher level commanders. My opinion is that the only effective argument left for those against homosexuals in the military must be based on some kind of morality, but once one goes there, one opens up Pandora’s Box. Bottom line, seems to me that there are significant mislaid fears underlying the argument (against lifting the ban), but perhaps I’m in the minority. I’m wondering about opinions from those outside of the military, as our military should be a reflection of its society, not a reflection of itself. What do you think? Do you think their argument is sound? If not, what is unsound?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Doug,
ReplyDeleteI think you make a very good point. It is telling that just about all high ranking military officials, including the joint chiefs recommend integration in the military and moving beyond the "don't ask don't tell" policy that has been in place. It seems objections that are raised to this integration are based on entrenched biases and prejudices rather than rational or empirical objections. Also the military should definitely reflect society, if it didn't and became distinct, it seems that there could be significant ground for abuse, tyranny, or revolution.
It is a very interesting question about whether the military should reflect society.I don't know what kind of military life is in the US, but I think it is unimaginable in China to talk about such topic concerning homosexuality in army...Like the point of Matt that the upshot of lacking reflection could be abuse,tyranny.
ReplyDeleteDoug,
ReplyDeleteI think there is some suspicious argumentation going on, but at first glance I think they make at least one sound point: namely, that it would affect recruiting. I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be true, especially for the conservative side of the demographic for recruitment.
But they are a bit sneaky about the retention point. For instance, they raise retention concerns, and say that 10% of those polled in in the Military Times Poll said they would not re-enlist if the homosexual ban were lifted. They note that at current numbers, this would amount to the loss of "228,600 people─more than the active-duty Marine Corps today."
But then, in the next paragraph, they slide in the comment that: "Many first-term enlistees normally leave" anyway, and shift the argument to the loss of POTENTIAL future careerists in the military.
This, now, is an argument on very shaky ground. For, the same argument could be made for ANYTHING. (Example: prohibiting military personnel from eating McDonald's while on leave, or requiring the wearing of a specific boot-style, could both EASILY have the same effect)
Who knows, really, what the real impact could be on future careerists and that talent pool would be? Notably, on this argument, there will never be a future time in which such an impact could be measured.