Last week I spent a fair amount of time debating homosexuality with a knowledgable Liberal (see comments here), and I thought the debate quite interesting. However, the thread is bit involved, and I have since had a few other thoughts about the matter. So here we go.
Why Is Homosexual Sex An Issue?
Why Is Homosexual Sex An Issue? Here is my theory.
“Gay Rights” has become a great and noble Liberal cause. So whenever a Christian contests “Gay Rights”, the talking-points are predictable. In particular, we can expect Liberals to argue that the Conservative’s Bible is prudish and out of date. Unfortunately, Conservatives rebut such Liberal contentions poorly.
Americans with traditional values do not feel comfortable talking about sex. Why is that? Most of us have spent very little time on a farm. Instead, we live city lives, where farm animals are sparse. However, where cows, horses, sheep, and such are plentiful, so is animal sex. Animal sex is not exactly pretty and not worth much discussion – except to child. Nonetheless, it has one virtue, children can watch it and learn about reproduction. Therefore, until recent times there has been relatively need to discuss sex. Moreover, to the extent necessary, childish innocence curiosity prompted discussion.
Removed from country life, city children require pictures and adult instruction. Without farm life and visual cues, parents must take the initiative to tell their children about sex, but as people are wont to do, they procrastinate.
Instead talking about sex, Americans traditionally talked about and demonstrated sexually related roles. When families both lived and worked on farms, that was relatively easy. Yet mechanization and urbanization have also assaulted traditional roles. City life in fact stresses work outside the home and away from children. In addition, city parents face strong pressures to turn child rearing over to government-run institutions.
These government-run institutions, our public schools, have inevitably produced unintended results. Instead of transmitting the values of their parents, government-run schools convey the values of organized political constituencies.
Politicians at four different levels of government (federal, state, local and school boards) run our schools. Their massive bureaucracies insulate schools from parental influence. Therefore, government-run schools end up ”protecting” children from the influence of their parents.
This problem has festered. Because sexual conduct is inevitably entangled with religious values, the subject is delicate. So even well-intentioned political leaders waver over what to do about sex education, and the news media has not helped. Whereas the news media encourages homosexual activists, the news media actively portrays Christians with differing views as bigots, causing many Christians fear to expressing contrary views on homosexuality.
Therefore, we have inflicted severe damage on several generations of children, raising them without best possible Christian instruction and role models. That includes leaving our children confused both about sexual ethics and their sexual roles and responsibilities.
This is the first post in a four-part series.
- Part 2 will considers this question ”Should We Take What The “Experts” Have To Say About Homosexuality Seriously?”
- Part 3 asks “What Does The Tolerance Of Homosexual Sex Involve?”
- Part 4 reviews specific issues. It considers how we discriminate against homosexual sex. We ask: “When Is Intolerance Of Homosexual Sex Appropriate?”
The homosexuals invented the term, “homophobic” as a way to imply that whoever speaks against their agenda, is phobic; having an irrational fear of homosexuals.
They learned this crap from the woman’s rights movement and the misnamed, “civil rights” movement. Don’t use their propaganda terms. Recall how any opposition for race-based quotas for Blacks, then gender-based quotas were met with, Oppose us, then you must be a racist (if you spoke in opposition to racial quotas), or you must be sexist, (if you opposed gender based quotas).
Nobody would even be raising this repeal issue, if our Democratic Party had not been co-opted by a small number of homosexual activists, and the Democratic Party had not acted to discourage participation in the Party, by citizens of faith who generally adhere to traditional values. Democrats need to again welcome traditional values voters and men and women of faith, back into the Party. The Democratic Party will not survive by limiting itself to being, the gay, the Negro, the feminist, union and trial lawyer, party.
DADT is lousy policy, but its repeal is not supported by the facts. There simply is no evidence that shows that having openly serving homosexuals, will in any way, improve war-fighting. The reason we have a military is to win wars, not to serve as a social experiment laboratory.
The Democratic leadership is hurting both our military and the 2011 Democratic candidates by irrationally pushing for repeal, in the lame duck session. The citizens can clearly see that the Democratic leadership are ignoring the will of the people and trying to cram this mistake through, before the session adjourns and defeated members leave a slime trail all the way to their home districts.
If the Republicans elect to address this issue next year, one way that the repeal could be made acceptable to the military rank and file, would make the repeal part of a revision in the military’s recruiting and promotion rules. Our military must be directed to recruit and promote, based only on MERIT, and no other criteria.
Many citizens do not know that our military has had recruiting and promotion quotas for, selected pet minorities, and women, for decades. These social promotion policies put incompetent personnel in positions of authority and our soldiers are left doubting the abilities of the officers and senior enlisted personnel. I would not send my sons into combat under our current Army “leaders.” If my boys were to go into battle, I would only want a leader who had been advanced based on MERIT to lead them.
If we commit our military to recruiting and promoting, only on MERIT, then our citizens could be confident that, should we have, yet another war, then our best war-fighters would go into battle, assuring the maximum probability of success.
Tyler – For the most part we don’t have any disagreement, but some of what you wrote sounds self-contradictory. Here we agree.
However, I am puzzled as to your criteria for MERIT (a subject you address later in your comment). What is the substance of the debate over homosexuals serving in the military? Doesn’t it come down to the criteria we use for selecting and retaining soldiers?
Why do I think DADT a lousy policy? It is my opinion that homosexuals should not be allowed to serve in the military. That is, potential new recruits should be told up front that engaging in homosexual conduct will be grounds for a dishonorable discharge. When we have had so much trouble effectively integrating women into combat units, why would want to added to our troubles by trying to include homosexuals? As you suggested, these social experiments do not improve our war-fighting capabilities.
I agree that the original practice of saying, “no thanks” to homosexuals seeking to join the military was the better policy than the Clinton, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
What I described, would be a negotiation position, if DADT is actually going to be repealed.
By forcing the military to get out of the race and gender quota business, altogether, our military would just use a person’s merit as a war-fighter, as the sole criteria. There would be no reason to take race, religion, gender or sexuality into account or create any records of what genetic version of citizen the recruit happens to be.
The benefits to this approach would be to force our military to finally stop playing political games with recruitment and promotion. With MERIT based promotion, when we would see a Captain, we would be able to have confidence that he is a proven soldier and leader; someone we can trust to lead others into combat.
With respect to the homosexuals, by taking the secrecy about sexuality out of the equation, qualified homosexuals could be employed without creating the risk of people being extorted with the threat of being outed, and all of that related drama. Along with this policy, I would expect that very few homosexuals would be selected, based on their ability to contribute to the military mission. I suspect that if this proposed approach was enacted, we would see a limited number (3 percent, like in the general population) of homosexuals and they would serve in specialties where they have a particular rare talent that will serve the military mission, such as medical, language, and other occupational areas to which homosexuals gravitate toward in today’s private sector.
This would be a win-win, in that it would force the military out of the highly politicized race and gender quota game that they now are playing. For those who are concerned about homosexual misconduct, with the MERIT based system, both straight and homo personnel would be subject to the same standards of conduct, so anyone bringing discredit to the service could be separated, either with a General discharge, or given a BCD (aka Big Chicken Dinner) otherwise known as a Bad Conduct Discharge.
If the lame ducks repeal DADT without any revision in recruiting and promotion that forces the military to end quotas, then the result that we will see, is our military creating, yet another, set of recruiting and promotion quotas for the homo men and the dykes. Such an approach will be the usual Pentagon clusterfuck (technical term) and will result in a demoralized military that can’t and won’t fight for Obama. We may also see the first military coup in U.S. history, although this is a remote, yet real possibility.
J. Tyler Ballance – While your approach has my sympathy, I don’t think it realistic. So long as our government is run by people, we will have “political games.” Thus, any merit system devised by people (particularly those people we call politicians) will be riddled with criteria that favors “protected” classes.
What can we do to reduce the number of nonsense decisions?
Our military exists to kill people and break their things. Our military is not a jobs program, and it is not a toy for the amusement of the self-styled intellectual elite. Do we really want numbskulls running our military who think their job is to experiment with unisex latrines? I hope not.
I totally agree with you, Tom.
All it takes for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
This is one reason that I have been encouraging Men of faith and action, to engage their local Democratic Party. I believe that the chief reason why our Democratic leadership has become more and more out of touch with Virginians, is largely due to the fact that, the faithful and traditional values citizens have retreated from their local Democratic Committees.
Remember when the Democrats were the champions of the working man? The Democratic Party needs to regain its bearing and turn away from the social experiments and re-focus on getting Americans back to work.
Of course, the Republican side continues to be the place where torture is not just condoned, but championed, and the Bernie Madoffs of the world are given free reign to plunder pension funds.
America must have reasonable, rational voices being heard from both political parties. The Democrats must not be allowed to devolve into the Party just of gays, Negroes, unions and trial lawyers.
If we do not have a more moderate Democratic Party, then every time the citizens grow sick of having the corporate-owned Republicans in office, and retaliate by electing Democrats, we will see another swing into political lunacy, such as we see now, with the DADT repeal and the DREAM act.
Pingback: REVIEWING THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST NORMALIZING HOMOSEXUALITY — PART 2 | Citizen Tom
Pingback: RERUN: REVIEWING THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST NORMALIZING HOMOSEXUALITY — PART 1 | Citizen Tom