Khross wrote:
Beryllin:
Homosexuality is neither a threat to unit cohesion nor the American society as a whole. You have now, for the better part of a decade, continued your religious crusade against non-traditional gender identities with a fervor that amounts to nothing less than zealotry. It is tiresome, pointless, and generally founded on ill-conceived notions about homosexuality bringing about the end of God's Grace for the United States.
That said, your preference for Turek's article is nothing more than confirmation bias. You have not considered it logically or rationally; rather, it affirms your standing opinion on matters of gender identity and sexual equality; therefore, it must be correct. However, Turek's article is based on faulty logic and flawed assumptions.
First, Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation are neither proven as choices nor completely void of physiological causes. They are complex manifestations in a complex system: we need more information before we can say that people are "born homosexual," but the evidence is certainly mounting in that direction. More importantly, both Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation are directly modified and influenced by the greater social construct. This causes all sorts of spectacular complexities and conflicts for the individual on a psychic level and society on a normative level. I can say, however, with absolute certainty that your repulsion and anti-homosexual zeal is nothing more than a social construct reinforced by your cultural sphere and choices.
Second, Turek's argument that the UCMJ punishes behaviors over desires is not exactly accurate. The UCMJ creates a system of social normatives that directly influences and shapes the culture of military behavior and values. We can argue the benefits or failures of that culture and its value sets all day long; but, it remains to be proven that open homosexuality will adversely impact our military in any way. If the behaviors are punished and desires prohibited universally, then what is the negative consequence of allowing the open sexuality of homosexuals? The sexuality of heterosexuals is ALREADY known and not subject to public scrutiny. Rules against fraternization and adultery would apply regardless of sexual orientation. In short, the article is little more than a hasty generalization.
If we're to assume that these rules exist to remove sexual distraction from the military, then we can only conclude that privileging heterosexuality over homosexuality is the result of some greater social normative inherited from society as a whole.
More importantly, if you apply Turek's standard evenly, it actually DEMONSTRATES the oppression and discrimination currently occurring in our military. Heterosexuality is assumed, and Heterosexuals are free to admit their gender/sexual identity. All non-normative groups are not. Consequently, current policy actually suppresses a freedom/license given to those who conform to a certain expectation. Being openly gay does not require breaking any fraternization or adultery rules; nor, however, does being openly heterosexual.
So, yes, I read it; I though about it; I laughed at the bad logic and agenda driven misrepresentation of facts; and I dismissed it as another thread in which Beryllin chafes at the notion another man might want to **** him in the ***.
Pointless drivel. I've already given an example of how unit cohesion can be negatively affected by having an openly homosexual infantryman in it. *shrug*
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
, I would say his argument is coming from the wrong place by trying to distinguish between desires and behaviors. These people are being persecuted because of their desires not their behaviors. Adultery is already prohibited whether heterosexual or homosexual which addresses the behaviors of both groups equally.
