From the Desk of

Kevin Tracy

2009-10-11

As a veteran of the United States Armed Forces, there's only one reason why I support the military's bans on homosexuality and the Clinton Era policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Training.

It has absolutely nothing to do with a hatred for homosexuals that many evangelicals practice with their rhetoric and policies. In fact, I've served with at least two individuals who were gay and really liked working with one of them (the other was a jerk). There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that homosexuals can protect this country just as well as heterosexuals.

My only objection to the President's proposal is that it might set a dangerous precedent for training environments.

Let's use Basic Military Training as an example, since literally every member of our Armed Forces has gone through it. Basic Training life is segregated between males and females; and while the Air Force and (correct me if I'm wrong) all the other branches have desegregated the day-to-day training exercises, the living environments and dormitories remain split.

Why?

It's not because the 18-27 year-old Trainees don't know the difference between boys and girls. It's because there's a risk for drama if you let them sleep and shower together.

Now, the first thing any gay-rights supporter will tell you at this point is that a homosexual is capable of controlling himself and it's wrong to think of him or her as a sexual deviant. And of course, this is where some crazy evangelical hell bent on ruining my reputation as a man of reason jumps over my back and starts yelling in the person's face about something that's not going to change his mind.

But this is my blog post, so there will be none of that. The REAL problem with the gay-rights supporter's argument here is not that he's wrong about the deviant nature of homosexuality, which there's no point to even debating. The problem is that if gays want to be treated equally, then they need to be separated from their same gender while in Basic Training because heterosexual males and females in Basic Training are segregated.

The problem, though, is that you can't put gay males in a female dormitory or lesbians in a male dormitory.

The only other solution, which I know some sociologists who have already said is inevitable, is that you desegregate the living quarters of the entire military. In other words: males and females, cats and dogs all living together in a safe and happy environment... and not procreating.

Now, to be honest, this itself could work. When I got to Basic Training, I was so scared that I didn't even have a bowel movement for 2 weeks. At absolutely no point during my 5 months at Lackland AFB (319 TRS - Hoorah!) did the idea of sneaking up to the girls dorms even vaguely cross my young mind. When there were opportunities to do get away with something - fear kept us in line. Although there will always be incidents of sexual harassment in any organization as large as the military, the incidents of it likely wouldn't be nearly as high as you might expect.

However, my problem with gender desegregation at this level is that it hardly fosters an environment in which someone can feel secure. And while Basic Training is supposed to destroy that, asking females to shower with males so gay males can also shower with males and not be treated differently is just asking for lawsuits, moral objections, and psychological problems. All of which can be easily, tactfully avoided with President Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

If there is going to be reform, my opinion is that it should keep the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy active, but instead eliminate the parts of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that prohibit homosexuals from serving and the bans on anal and oral procreation efforts. As it is, the military has the most strict policy on sexual harassment in the country. If those policies were enforced, the topic of sexuality, straight or gay, would be forbidden and thus there would be no conflict.

Here's an example. If my friend came into the office one day and declared he had a pro-creative encounter with a woman who he just met the previous night; under the current rules, my friend would get in trouble if the wrong person overheard him. Under my proposal, if my friend's young woman happened to be a young man and the wrong person overheard him, he'd face the same punishment. That's about as fair as you can get while maintaining a comfortable environment for all service members; gay, straight, male, and female.

The only other anti-gay military argument I hear is the "foxhole dilemma." Essentially, they argue that if they were in a foxhole with a person, they don't want to have to worry about that person being gay. Not surprisingly, the only people I've heard this argument from were people who had never served in the military. When bullets are flying and artillery shells are dropping, the last thing on any body's mind is the fear of anal rape. Your focus is on survival and homosexuals are just as good at taking orders, aiming, and pulling a trigger as heterosexuals. The only difference is gender of the person they want to get back home to.

Archived Comments

LD Jackson
For the record, I do not hate homosexuals. I believe the lifestyle choice they make is wrong, but that is their decision. That does not mean that I want them to have access to marriage and I do not believe it is discrimination to deny them that access. There should be a way to give them the same rights as married couples, possibly through civil unions.
As for the issue with the military, I don't see how homosexuals can harm the moral of those in the military any more than some of the sex scandals that we have seen thus far. How many adulterous affairs have we heard about? I have lost count. Somehow, I don't think a person's sexual lifestyle choice is going to me on someone's mind if they are getting shot at. Someone shooting bullets at you would tend to take everything else off your mind.

Kevin Tracy
Well, of course I agree that it's wrong, but I believe it's wrong based on religious beliefs and the fact that I'm personally disgusted by it. Much like I'm disgusted by modern music. With that said, I don't believe we should kick the Dixie Chicks out of the country (I should have compared Huckabee to them) and I certainly don't think we should govern this country according to my tastes and religious preferences.
I agree with you, Larry. Sexual orientation really doesn't matter when bullets are flying.
We need an answer to the logistical problem poised by homosexuality in living quarters, however and Clinton actually paved the way for that to be cleared with the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.