Well, Aaron Goldstein is nothing if not persistent! He
sallies forth with
a new post in which he complains that I have made
“statements which are either contradictory” or which I “simply
cannot substantiate.”
If I thought that Goldstein’s latest post elucidated the
issues involved in DADT and “gay rights,” I would simply
acknowledge that we have a
disagreement and let it go at that. But
unfortunately, Goldstein’s latest brief confuses rather than
elucidates our dispute.
As Goldstein surely must know, given the full context of
what I have written, the “feelings” that are irrelevant are the
feelings of straight soldiers, airmen and Marines toward
homosexuals.
Indeed, how straight servicemen and women “feel” about
homosexuals is irrelevant. What matters is how the presence of an
overt homosexual dynamic within small-scale military units will or
might affect unit cohesion and unit performance.
In short, I distinguish between, on the one hand, sexual
dynamics between and amongst gay military personnel (or, for that
matter, between and amongst male/female personnel) and, on the
other hand, the “feelings” or attitudes that straight soldiers,
sailors, airmen and Marines have toward homosexuals.
Surely, Goldstein understands this. Yet he conflates and
confuses sexual dynamics between and amongst homosexuals with how
straight people feel about homosexuals.
Goldstein complains that I have not offered up any “hard
empirical evidence” that sexual dynamics shape and affect human
behavior. Of course, his demand for such evidence is silly. You
might as well demand “hard empirical evidence” that the sky is
blue, or that night follows day.
Nonetheless, to address his point, I asked rhetorically
whether he had ever been to a public high school or even onboard a
navy vessel. There, obviously, you’ll see sexual dynamics at work
between boys and girls, men and women.
(And this doesn’t mean that actual sex, or intercourse, is
necessarily taking place either. It simply means that there are
sexual dynamics — tension, play, flirting, et al. — at
work.)
I mentioned a coed public high school because most of the
U.S. military is barely out of high school. Indeed, these are 17-,
18- and 19-year old kids that we’re talking about.
Do we really need a scientific laboratory experiment, as
Goldstein is demanding, to ascertain how sexual dynamics shape and
affect human behavior and group dynamics? Obviously not. Yet
Goldstein is stubbornly obtuse on this point.
And I am not “caricaturizing gays and lesbians and
impugning their motives” when I point out another obvious point,
which is that some gays and lesbians within the same military unit
will carry on sexual dalliances with each other. The same can be
said of some men and women within military units.
(As a Marine, I’ve personally seen the latter, though not
the former. Of course, the Marine Corps swept these incidents under
the rug; and they were never reported or discussed. We can expect
the same of most homosexual affairs or dalliances within the
military.)
Again, Goldstein’s understanding of human nature and
sexual dynamics is unrealistic and almost otherworldly in its
innocence and denial.
The homosexual hazing and harassment incidents that I
referenced were just that: hazing and harassment incidents by
homosexuals against straight servicemen and women — or
against other homosexual soldiers, sailors, airmen and
Marines.
Yet Goldstein assumes that any hazing and harassment would
necessarily be perpetrated by straights against gays. But this is
simply untrue. And it betrays Goldstein’s own bias and prejudice.
In his world, apparently, just like Hollywood’s, lesbians and
homosexuals can do no wrong.
Though in fairness to Goldstein, his biases and prejudices
are not uncommon. They are, in fact, shared by the political and
cultural elite, both Left and Right, sad to say.
Indeed, the elite are always concerned about how the
military will deal with women or gays. But they’re not at all
concerned with how women or gays might deal with or manipulate the
military.
Goldstein is right that most U.S. military personnel will
exhibit professional behavior. But what he fails to realize is that
sexual dynamics often don’t result from bad intentions or a willful
desire to be destructive.
Sexual dynamics are typically the natural and inevitable
outgrowth of sexual allure and attraction. That’s one important
reason the U.S. military bans women from frontline combat. This
same reason, it seems to me, ought to apply to self-avowed lesbians
and homosexuals.
Goldstein also belittles my concerns about the softening
and undermining of the military’s warrior culture and the denial of
religious liberty for our military chaplains and service personnel.
These concerns reflect only my “opinion and nothing more,” he
insists.
Would that this were true!
In fact, the U.S. military’s unique warrior culture is
rooted in a strong sense of heterosexual manhood, masculinity and
male bonding. The introduction of an overt homosexual dynamic
within this unique culture obviously will undermine the shared
sense of manhood and masculinity that helps to bind combat units
and personnel together. And this is especially true if a gay
subculture emerges there.
Goldstein, I’m sure, will demand “hard empirical evidence”
of this. To which I can only respond: Do you also want “proof” of
male bonding? Or “proof” that a shared sexual dynamic is part and
parcel of that bonding process? It just is. It’s rooted in human
nature and long-standing traditions. And no amount of gay
reeducation or sensitivity training is going to change
that.
As for religious liberty, we’ve already seen the U.S. Navy
try to
stop some chaplains from mentioning the words “Jesus
Christ” in prayer. If homosexuality is now a specially
protected minority within the military, then the day is not far
off, I would submit, when chaplains will be “counseled,” if not
required, to refrain from “creating a hostile work environment” for
lesbians and homosexuals by preaching the Gospel.
Again, every major religious tradition in the world —
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, et al. — has
moral proscriptions against homosexual behavior. And no, I’m sorry:
that’s just “my opinion”; it’s a bona fide fact.
Finally, Goldstein says that “his views regarding the
repeal of DADT are very much in the minority amongst [his] fellow
conservatives.”
I wish this were true; but alas, I’m not so sure. Most
conservatives, after all, have been silent on this issue. And their
silence, it seems to me, has spoken volumes.
National Review, for instance, has said very
little against openly gay military service. Certainly, NR
hasn’t devoted anything like the editorial space or energy to this
issue that they have to, say, the START Treaty.
Ditto Fox News’ Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly: The repeal
of DADT either isn’t something that’s concerned them, or it’s
something that they quietly support. Thus, they’ve devoted
virtually no airtime to this issue.
Yet I think you could make a convincing case that repeal
of DADT will do more to undermine American national security than
the START Treaty.
Nuclear weapons and missile defense, after all, are narrow
technical endeavors that can be turned on or off with relatively
little effort. The U.S. military’s warrior culture, by contrast, is
a far more complex operation, which, once weakened or destroyed, is
far more difficult to restore.
That’s one reason why I’m glad the American
Spectator has indulged Goldstein and me by permitting this
debate. Our conversation is helpful in elucidating this debate over
“gay rights.” And this debate, as I’ve indicated, will be with us
for a very long time, with or without “Don’t Ask, Don’t
Tell.”
But let me conclude on a positive note. Goldstein
writes:
I [ever] I find myself in disagreement with the vast
majority of conservatives on a specific matter, I will not hesitate
to let my views be know, whatever the feedback. Debate, discussion
and disagreement aren’t bad things. Merry Christmas.
And, on that point, dear readers, Goldstein and I agree:
never hesitate to fight, and Merry Christmas, indeed!
