On the homosexualization of the U.S. armed forces—a miscellany

In this entry I’ve posted comments that were sent since December 18, the day of the Senate vote, but not posted yet. Many were in response to the entry, “A ruinous event in the history of the United States.”

In a still unwritten entry, I was thinking of discussing the uncertain consquences of the homosexualization of military, ranging from the most mild, with almost no consequences, because very few service members will come out as homosexuals; to a middle range, in which the services will require enlisted men and officers to approve and condone open homosexual expressions and behavior, which in turn will result in many capable men choosing not to enlist in the military; to the most extreme range, in which the U.S. military will be taken over by a Nazi-like homosexual cult. The latter possibility is discussed below by the blogger Stagheath and Dean Ericson.

Howard Sutherland writes:

Bad news indeed, but unfortunately right along the continuum of converting the armed forces from fighting services to welfare agencies for politically preferred groups that has been underway since the Johnson administration. The real death-knell for the armed forces was sounded when the service academies were made coed in 1976—a progressive gesture for the bicentennial from that great Republican Gerald Rudolph Ford. As your correspondent reminds us re Orrin Hatch and the DREAM Act: Even though most Democrats are actively enlisted in Satan’s army, put not thy trust in Republicans! HRS

James R. writes:

Obviously the only real solution then, consistent with liberal principles, is co-ed showers and co-ed barracks, so that female troops don’t feel stereotyped and stigmatized by male troops, and vice-versa.

This may seem outlandish now, and be dismissed as a fallacious “slippery-slope” argument, but it’s fully consistent with present practice on many universities, thanks to egalitarians and feminists: co-ed dorms with co-ed showering facilities. The only people who suffer are the women who are uncomfortable with this being done on their behalf. But, like heterosexuals in the military, they’re instructed to get over their hang-ups.

Ahh, the slippery-slope fallacy. It must be wonderful, being a liberal, to have such a convenient shield. A few weeks ago I was watching a program that featured clips of Phyllis Schlafly mobilizing opposition to the ERA Amendment, and one of the arguments she made was that, if it passed, eventually we’d be forced to accept homosexual marriages. Look how fallacious that argument proved to be! The ERA wasn’t passed, after all!

LA replies:

But women don’t want to be “included” with naked men showering. Therefore they don’t feel “excluded” by not being able to shower with naked men. Co-ed bathrooms in universities are not the same, as they don’t involve collective showering. So the argument may be rhetorically effective for a moment, but I don’t think it will get anywhere.

Stagheath wrote at his blog and sent to VFR:

Beyond the immediate impact on troop morale and unit cohesion, it is the longer-term prospect of the emergence of such a brutal and degraded anti-culture [such as that which exists in American prisons] in our military ranks that we have most to fear from the acceptance of open homosexuality there. There is at least one prominent historical instance of such a thing happening.

In Germany in the early years of the Twentieth Century homosexuality was practiced and philosophically justified by an influential minority. This group extended into military circles. One important center to which such men were drawn after World War I was the Nazi Party. The ranks of the SA, the Nazi’s street-tough uniformed bully boys, were loaded with homosexuals and their leader, Beyond the immediate impact on troop morale and unit cohesion, it is the longer-term prospect of the emergence of such a brutal and degraded anti-culture [such as that which exists in American prisons] in our military ranks that we have most to fear from the acceptance of open homosexuality there. There is at least one prominent historical instance of such a thing happening.

In Germany in the early years of the twentieth century homosexuality was practiced and philosophically justified by an influential minority. This group extended into military circles. One important center to which such men were drawn after World War I was the Nazi Party. The ranks of the SA, the Nazi’s street-tough uniformed bully boys, were loaded with homosexuals and their leader, Ernst Rohm, was notorious for his sexual conduct. We can probably assume these guys were nothing like the endearingly “bitchy” or brave and noble “gay” characters portrayed on American TV shows. They were a corps of callous punks whose twisted elan was amplified by the sexual bond many of them shared.

The problem of allowing “gays” to serve openly in our armed forces goes far beyond that of simply “getting over” our “bigoted notions.” Men who do what sodomites do to one another are spiritually sick and are not to be trusted. Permitting open, avowed homosexuals in positions of authority and among the ranks of our armed forces is a gravely sinister development.

Dean Ericson replies:

That’s a pretty hard-hitting post by Stagheath. I read him regularly, he’s quite the Old Testament scourge of sinners. Here’s something else I just googled up, “Homosexuality and the Nazi Party”:

“The followers of Brand, however, were deeply insulted by Ulrichs’ theory. They perceived themselves not merely as masculine, but as a breed of men superior in masculine qualities even to heterosexuals. The Community of the Special (CS) asserted that male homosexuality was the foundation of all nation-states and that male homosexuals represented an elite strata of human society. The CS fashioned itself as a modern incarnation of the warrior cults of ancient Greece. Modeling themselves after the military heroes of Sparta, Thebes and Crete, the members of the CS were ultra-masculine, male-supremacist and pederastic (devoted to man/boy sex). Brand said in Der Eigene that he wanted men who “thirst for a revival of Greek times and Hellenic standards of beauty after centuries of Christian barbarism.

“One of the keys to understanding both the rise of Nazism and the later persecution of some homosexuals by the Nazis is found in this early history of the German “gay rights” movement. For it was the CS which created and shaped what would become the Nazi persona, and it was the loathing which these “Butches” held for effeminate homosexuals (“Femmes”) which led to the internment of some of the latter in slave labor camps in the Third Reich.”

Interesting. I think we’ll see develop—in the now-homosexualized U.S. armed forces—factions and units dominated by these ultra-butch buggers. It’s madness.

Dean Ericson continues:

As for the poor liberal hetero suckers who go along with the homosexualist agenda, they don’t know what’s in store for them. They cannot conceive that now they’ll have to approve of homosexuality and will not be permitted to disapprove. Not only is there now nothing wrong with it, but it is immoral to oppose it, since it was just another irrational prejudice, like racism, and now America have to embark on a campaign of guilty atonement and promoting homosexuals. Now all Americans will have to approve the indoctrination of their children by homosexual propaganda. Homosexuality will be promoted not only as an innate, unchangeable condition, but also as a legitimate lifestyle choice having equal status with heterosexuality. Lawsuits will be brought against any and all who are seen to be discriminating against homosexuals and the promotion of homosexuality. Your children will be encouraged to take up the homosexual “lifestyle” and if you attempt to obstruct or publicly object you may be threatened with lawsuits, the loss of your job, and removal of parental rights. Most liberals think it’s just about being nice to homos and will be surprised and aghast when their children come home from school one day and announce, “Hi Mom, I’m homo!” It’ll hit them right in the gut. I don’t think they realize how malleable children are, and that many who would have grown up happily hetero will now be seduced and brainwashed into homosexuality.

James N. writes in response to LA’s exchange with Ken Hechtman:

Why does it matter if homosexual acts, or the novelty of “sexual identity,” is freely chosen or not?

Many acts that have a compulsive aspect are legally sanctioned. It’s unclear whether alcoholics, drug addicts, or sociopaths are “born that way.” It appears that, in some sense, they are.

But the fact of their nature is meaningless to social regulation of their behavior.

With regard to “openly gay” men in the military, the only relevant issue is, is their presence good or bad for the military? How they happened to become mentally aligned with the delusions which command their behaviors is unimportant.

The question of how SOCIETY has come to believe that “sexual orientation” is similar to eye color is interesting, and of some importance.

But at the level of individuals, its unimportant why they believe what they believe, or why they do what they do.

Jim C. writes:

Strongly disagree with you on this nonissue. I’m glad they repealed that dumb law.

LA replies:

You hang out with too many entertainment types.

Buck O. writes:

This issue makes me crazy. I’ll never understand how men don’t all agree on this. I’m going to keep repeating this point until someone dissuades me. I know that Ken Hechtman has heard this before, but like most, he ignores this most salient point—that, homosexuality is not a choice (he agrees), but declaring oneself gay is a choice (which he ignores). Being gay is not a sexual orientation—homosexuality is. Choosing to be gay is a life style choice, a political position, a separate-rights advocacy, a legal position, a group rights effort—it is everything that they demand for themselves BUT SEX. Homosexuals still have their sex—don’t they? The UCMJ outlines the military rules about sexual activity and PDAs. Is the military now to be seen as discriminating against heterosexual men and women—by prohibiting them from showering together? No? Why isn’t that hypocritical? Because men can’t get pregnant? So, is this only about pregnancy? Of course not. It’s about sex and a the full range of intimacies between members of the military. [LA replies: I’m not entirely following this.]

There have always been homosexuals in the military and in all walks of like. Everyone knows it. Please explain the benefit of a new freedom for any gay soldier to proudly and defiantly display himself at attention in the shower—with no repercussions—other than the now constrained natural revulsion of a healthy heterosexual man, as opposed to that same heterosexual man being aroused himself by the beauty of a naked woman in that barracks shower. What’s sane about this stupid conflicted policy?

I’m sick and tired of hearing the stupid and asinine phrases—just as courageous, just as good soldiers, also willing to die, … none of which have anything to do with this. No one claims that homosexuals are not as courageous, as willing to die, as good as soldiers, they are claiming that the military itself—it’s effectiveness will not be as good. If we no longer have good use for our military, and perhaps we don’t, then proceed with this insane social experiment. Go ahead and further degrade our steadily degrading military ethos. We, apparently, don’t intend to actually win a war ever again anyway. What the hell.

One more point. In spite of the dishonest TV portrayals of gay friends sitting in on regular poker nights with all of his old buddies, and openly discussing his gay sex life, and everyone being fine with it—I don’t believe it. How many men, suspect or wonder if one of their old friends might be a homosexual? And, we let it alone—as long as he does and nothing happens. The second that he even hints at the beginning of him outing himself—he’s declaring forever that he’s joined the other team. There is no way that a gay man is hanging comfortably with straight men. You may find it in the arts, but they don’t really hang together. Declaring yourself gay is declaring yourself separate from heterosexuals in an obviously important and irrevocable way. You’re no less a person, a citizen, and no less entitled to respect and rights, but to argue that you are the same as a normal man, is like arguing that a man is like a woman. How does that work? How does it work within a captive audience—the military? Now who has to adjust and sacrifice and repress his feelings?

Ferg writes:

The answer to this problem of straights showering with gays seems simple to me. Have the homosexual men shower with the straight women, and the lesbian women shower with the straight men. No attraction, no problems, everybody is happy. No need for commanders to waste time on this issue.

Timothy A. writes:

While I am as disheartened as anyone by the outcome of the DADT vote, there was a feeling of inevitability about this decision that would have remained, even if the outcome had been different. It bears repeating that as long as our “conservative” representatives in Congress and the media tacitly accept the liberal framework in which non-discrimination and equality are the highest values, we can at best fight a rearguard action.

As bad as repeal of DADT is, sheer numbers suggest that the already accomplished integration of women into the fabric of the U.S. Armed Forces will be even more damaging. Where is the conservative opposition to this travesty? There is none, since to oppose women in combat would be to discriminate.

It will be a long slog to educate the American public about the damage that the elevation of non-discrimination and equality have done. We have already lost two generations.

Robert S. writes:

The discussion of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” brings out the similarity to immigration law enforcement by many state and local police forces. Despite illegal immigration being, duh, illegal, police often are not allowed to ask about or investigate the immigration status of people arrested. So illegals and their supporters get a feeling that they’re entitled to be here despite the law, just as homosexuals feel they’re entitled to be soldiers despite the law.

LA replies:

Excellent point.

Paul, the blogger of Stuff Black People Don’t Like, writes:

So with gays now allowed to serve in the military, how long before homosexuals start demanding homosexual performers at USO events or gay pinup posters?

There are so many forces aligned against the traditional, the normal, that one is hard-pressed to formulate a strategy as where to begin to combat the nonsense.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 22, 2010 01:08 AM | Send