September 22nd, 2010

Do Ask, Do Tell, and Do Exclude Homosexuals from the Military

photo credit: soleil1016

Just one week after assuming the presidency in January of 1993, Bill Clinton instructed his Secretary of Defense to submit, within six months, a draft for an Executive Order which would “end[] discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in determining who may serve in the Armed Forces of the United States.” One month before this plan was publicly announced in July, 97.5% of all active-duty Admirals and Generals surveyed indicated that they did not want homosexuals to serve in the military. Over 90% suggested that “national security” would be negatively affected were open homosexuals able to serve. The compromise law that eventually passed (with a veto-proof majority in a Democratic-controlled Congress), now known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, has recently been under intense scrutiny from all quarters.

The law in question states the following as one of its congressional findings:

The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

Additionally, it states that “The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.” That longstanding element dates back to the Revolutionary War, when homosexuals were prohibited from military service. George Washington, the nation’s first Commander-in-Chief, stated his view on the matter in his general orders for March 14, 1778:

At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be dismiss’d [from] the service with infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return; The drummers and fifers [are] to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.

Another of Washington’s orders makes clear the importance of a military infused with order and morality:

His Excellency [George Washington] wishes [it] to be considered that an Army without order, regularity, and discipline is no better than a commissioned mob; Let us therefore . . . endeavor by all the skill and discipline in our power, to acquire that knowledge and conduct which is necessary in war–our men are brave and good; men who with pleasure it is observed are addicted to fewer vices than are commonly found in Armies; but it is subordination and discipline (the life and soul of an Army) which next under Providence, is to make us formidable to our enemies, honorable in ourselves, and respected in the world.

The policy to bar from military service any individual known to be openly and actively homosexual should be seen as separate from the civil punishment enforced by each state. Two centuries ago, many states had laws on the books outlawing sodomy, with punishments ranging from execution, to hard labor, to solitary confinement. In the military, however, the emphasis was on cohesion within the ranks, and the formation and preservation of a military force that would be as efficient as possible. As the previously cited Unites States Code says, “The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.”

It follows, then, that the military does not exist to provide jobs, make people feel welcome, or cater in any way to the whims or personal desires of any given individual. The military’s goal is to win battles. As such, all policies should be framed through that specific and limited context in order to determine whether they are proper or not. As the Code further says, “There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.” Nobody is entitled to military employment, nor should they be. The military frequently rejects individuals deemed unfit for service, whether that individual is overweight, has a criminal history, has fraudulently enlisted, or for a host of other reasons.

As the military exists to win wars, and win wars only, its success requires the participation of willing individuals who meet certain criteria that will help ensure victory. On the organization’s part, the military implements training programs to foster unity, precision, courage, discipline, and morale. Any circumstance that would negate the military’s ability to maximize these traits must be eschewed, whether through military policy or law.

The vocal advocacy of “gay rights” groups has notably produced a shift in public opinion on the topic of homosexuality in recent years, resulting in a heated and much-changed discourse on topics ranging from same-sex marriage to adoption. Not content to feel excluded in any way whatsoever, focus has also often been placed on the supposed “discrimination” against homosexuals with regards to military service. As one example, and contrasting the survey previously mentioned, 28 Generals and Admirals called for an end to the military’s ban on homosexuality three years ago. The current military Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama, pledged in this year’s State of the Union address that “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.” Clearly, there exists significant political support for allowing open and active homosexuals to serve within the ranks of this nation’s armed forces.

Just because a policy is desired, though, does not mean it is a good policy. And the inclusion of open and active homosexuals within the military would be a very bad policy.

The brotherhood so often praised in military units, as popularly portrayed, for example, in Band of Brothers and Saving Private Ryan, is the manifestation of what the Greeks called philos—brotherly, non-sexual love between different individuals. That fraternal brotherhood is disrupted and jeopardized when a situation is created where eros—romantic, sexual love—may exist. Unity between all individuals in the group is threatened when one individual may have feelings of affection for another in the group, as that feeling manifests itself through jealousy, secrecy, and intimacy. These traits imperil an effort to create brotherly love, and thus prevent soldiers from being effective and unified.

The potential for romantic relationships, or the pursuit thereof, within the ranks of the military introduces a variety of dynamics that clearly affect important and possibly life-threatening decisions. The members of such a group must, to be most effective, have in their best interest the welfare of the whole. If one individual has any feelings of romantic jealousy, bitterness for being romantically rejected, or any other behaviorally-compromising emotion, then the cohesion of the group is weakened. For this reason, homosexuality (whether acted upon or not) has long been viewed as unsuitable for service in the military.

The issue is not about equality or equal protection under the laws. It cannot in any way be compared to skin color, for example—a benign characteristic that, unlike sexuality, has no inherently external manifestations affecting human behavior. The military is not an “equal opportunity employer”; the argument that homosexuals should have “the right to serve the country they love” is a red herring and fallacious attempt to circumvent the core issue, which is that the military can and should discriminate as necessary to recruit individuals who will most help it succeed in its primary goal.

This is not to say that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is good policy. Indeed, good policy is not founded upon a “wink and a nod,” with the omission or suppression of truth, as the case may be, considered acceptable actions to qualify for military service. Instead, the policy should be augmented to explicitly and completely prohibit homosexuals from military service.

Parenthetically, the arguments listed above apply just as much to females, who are "more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire…". With nearly 80% of female soldiers being sexually harassed, over half being groped, and one-third experiencing one or more completed or attempted rapes, it is not difficult to see the destructiveness of eros—whether homosexually or heterosexually—within the military, where individuals are subjected to long periods of absence from their spouses and families, highly stressful situations where one’s life is constantly in danger, and an environment of degraded morals and virtue. Women, too, should be excluded from military service.

There is no constitutional right to serve in the military. The organization is concerned with one goal and one goal alone: win in combat. Its main concern must always be effectiveness—how to recruit and train troops who will be better, faster, and more efficient. The pursuit of this goal must be free from the taint of political correctness, equality, appeasement to popular opinion, and any feel-goodery that embraces inclusion at the expense of effectiveness.

49 Responses to “Do Ask, Do Tell, and Do Exclude Homosexuals from the Military”

  1. Bret
    September 22, 2010 at 9:12 pm #

    This is sound logic. Well said.

  2. David
    September 22, 2010 at 9:36 pm #

    When I read your argument about the deleterious effects of introducing the possibility of eros among the troops my thought was that I could see the logic but that this same logic would demand an end to any mixed gender units as well. I’m glad to see that you recognized that. It’s too bad that such a position may never be possible to legislate or enforce.

    We should not be surprised to experience adverse consequences as a society when we insist on taking actions that defy all logic.

  3. Ryan
    September 23, 2010 at 3:03 am #

    Sound logic? Dude, this is logic is so un-sound, it’s deaf!

    You cited absolutely zero demonstrable instances where a soldiers sexual preference had an impact on the outcome of a battle or even an impact on the protection of a fellow soldier.

    You didn’t cite any instances where morale or troop cohesion is diminished by the presence of a gay soldier, you just made a bunch of subjective statements about how you think soldiers feel about gays.

    The truth is, any person who is willing to sacrifice the life of a fellow soldier just because that soldier is gay is a person who is wholly unfit for service in our military due to criminal insanity. What happens when that same person decides that one of his fellow soldiers isn’t worthy of protection because he doesn’t swear, or because he doesn’t join the rest of the squadron at a strip club while they are on shore leave, or because he likes to play Dungeons and Dragons? Any true soldier knows that he protects the man next to him at all costs, no matter what. That’s the type of soldier that wins battles. Your argument calls for an army made up of a bunch of Pharisees who yank the role of Judge from God and thrust the mantle upon themselves. The soldiers you seem to think are acceptable are the ones who would choose to let other soldiers die over emotions and feelings. How pathetic and weak would a military like that be?

    You mention that the military is a place of discipline and it must be so to be effective. You said it should be free from “appeasement to popular opinion”. I think you are dead-on here. Therefore it would follow that if the Commander-in-Chief orders soldiers to fight alongside openly gay members, then the disciplined army will follow the orders of that Commander-In-Chief, whom they have sworn to follow (in the Oath of Enlistment) without question (and without getting all whiny and emo about it).

    What if the President just made all his orders based upon how the soldiers *feel* about the mission? Sounds like appeasement to popular opinion. The military doesn’t work that way. Everything is from the top down and it must be so to ensure discipline and effective following of orders. Citing how soldiers *might* respond to openly gay soldiers as an argument goes counter to your overarching point.

    Your overarching point: You said that above all else the purpose of the military is to win in combat. I agree that this number one goal trumps all else. So explain to me why the military kicked out several of it’s most skilled Arabic translators during a drastic shortage of this particular skill set? Because they were openly gay? This decision was 100% contrary to what you stated was the most important objective of the US military. These men were capable of translating valuable intelligence that might have saved lives and won battles. But now they can’t. Why, because they sin? When did that suddenly trump winning in combat as the number one purpose of the military?

    You’re blinded here by some sort of disdain for gays and this post is just grasping at straws without evidence to support your claims. If you want to keep people out of the military because they sin, fine. But that’s gonna be a pretty small military.

    If you have issues with gays, fine. But don’t start diminishing the effectiveness of our military just because of those issues.

  4. Clumpy
    September 23, 2010 at 3:43 am #

    The unspoken assumption here is that the admission of gays would somehow be a major detriment to combat operation. Connor’s point that sexual preference cannot be compared to skin color because it “has no inherently external manifestations affecting human behavior” implies that he’s not referring to gays affecting cohesion of the group by inciting bigotry, but referring directly to circumstances similar to the harassment, molestation and rape undergone by a shocking number of female soldiers in the army.

    Kudos for addressing that potential inconsistency (your argument applies to women in the military as well), though the implication that people cannot be trusted to keep their urges in check and remain soldiers even in the presence of members of the opposite sex (or even homosexuals) seems almost a slur against soldiers who are no more or less willing to fight or die for their country (without getting into whether that’s legitimate rhetoric) than any other.

    And I’m sorry, you can’t approach this essentially from a viewpoint of protecting other soldiers from predatory homosexuals and remain consistent. If soldiers should be protected from potential “assault” from conniving gays in their troop, then you have to make the argument that gays should be excluded from any mixed professional grouping. Rather, to remain consistent in this argument you HAVE to make the argument that soldiers would be distracted by the alarming task of attempting to reconcile serving with gays, thus affecting the performance of their duties, and I can’t think of any other way that this tact doesn’t branch into the expected questions of similar distractions which we would expect people to face serving with people of different races, religions or viewpoints.

  5. Scabbers
    September 23, 2010 at 7:10 am #

    Clumpy’s got your number, slick. Equating homosexuality with race is always fraught with peril, but your argument presupposes that if soldiers, on the whole, don’t like black people, they shouldn’t have to serve with them.

    Predatory homosexuals are another issue altogether. Assault, sexual or otherwise, should not be tolerated in the armed forces, regardless of sexual orientation.

    Try again, genius.

  6. jenica
    September 23, 2010 at 7:19 am #

    Predatory individuals, heterosexual or homosexual, should be discharged from the military. If you want to prevent ‘eros’ from interfering with military brotherly love, you would need to dampen all sexual desire. Perhaps we should drug the service people instead.

    Or… move past excluding entire genders and orientations and focus on discharging people who are actually a problem.

  7. Pam
    September 23, 2010 at 7:41 am #

    Well said, Connor.

    One of my concerns about gays openly serving in the military is the unintended preferential status it would give them. As is the case now in the general population with protected groups, any gay who was brought up on any kind of disciplinary action would immediately claim discrimination. What a mess that would make of military discipline!

  8. JJL9
    September 23, 2010 at 9:47 am #

    Clumpy, I got your number. Your statement “your argument presupposes that if soldiers, on the whole, don’t like black people, they shouldn’t have to serve with them” is not based on anything in Connor’s post. He doesn’t argue that soldiers shouldn’t have to serve with gays because they, on the whole, don’t like them. In fact, he was very specific to point out that that was not the reason and had nothing to do with it.

  9. Jeffrey T
    September 23, 2010 at 9:57 am #


    Just curious, does this argument presuppose a standing, professional military in the first place?

    If, instead of a standing, professional military, we had a military contingent only on the actual threat of invasion, I think things might be different. If 1 million Chinese soldiers landed on the west coast, I don’t think anybody would care about your sexual orientation. They would just give you a gun and tell you to go fight.

    It seems to only be an issue in a professional military setting.

  10. Tanner@Art of Citizenship
    September 23, 2010 at 10:01 am #

    I’m glad you were consistent in bringing up the Eros that exists when women serve in the military as well.

    I agree with your points but am curious as to where you would draw the line. These same arguments existed for intergrating black soldiers and then women into the military. Is there any evidence that indicates this was or wasn’t a problem. Has the effectiveness of our military decreased because we allow women or minorities to serve?

  11. JHP
    September 23, 2010 at 10:04 am #

    I agree that the purpose of the military is to win, not to please political agendas or provide jobs.

    At the same time, if the purpose is effectiveness, and if soldiers with same-gender attraction are willing to suppress their “eros” just like males with opposite-gender attraction should, in theory, do, then why not allow them to serve? Your argument, to me, actually lends to supporting DADT. As long as the military is effective in accomplishing its mission, then let anyone who can contribute to that mission serve. Anyone who distracts from it, whether a homosexual or a heterosexual man who makes advances on women while on duty or a woman who flaunts herself to the men, should be discharged.

    In other words, the military requires great self-discipline from its members in order to be successful, and anyone who can be self-disciplined as required will help contribute to that success, no matter what their sexual preference.

  12. Parker Boyack
    September 23, 2010 at 10:04 am #

    I am curious to see what happens. I understand both sides but I guess I will just have to wait. If Obama is going to let gays into the military, which I do not think is a wise decision, we will just have to see how things pan out. I myself am not in the military and do not have much experience in this field, but putting myself in their boots I would definitely support Connor on this one. Allowing openly gay people to participate in the military would severely impede its true purpose to win our battles and protect our country.

  13. Clumpy
    September 23, 2010 at 10:39 am #

    Clumpy, I got your number. Your statement “your argument presupposes that if soldiers, on the whole, don’t like black people, they shouldn’t have to serve with them” is not based on anything in Connor’s post. He doesn’t argue that soldiers shouldn’t have to serve with gays because they, on the whole, don’t like them. In fact, he was very specific to point out that that was not the reason and had nothing to do with it.

    JJL9, I wasn’t the one who said that, and I addressed everything in your “rebuttal” in my original post.

    If Obama is going to let gays into the military, which I do not think is a wise decision…

    Allowing openly gay people to participate in the military would…

    The point is that there ARE gays in the military who perform their duties without any issue. Ask any soldier who’s served in a few different capacities and you’ll find that many keep it enough on the down-low and in many cases the whole squad knows and it isn’t an issue. It’s called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” for a reason – if they try to put on biker shorts and grow out a mustache (you know, the way gays do) I’m sure they wouldn’t last long.

  14. Ron
    September 23, 2010 at 11:18 am #

    Your entire argument is null and void because it is based on the premise that the purpose of the military is to win battles. The same arguments don’t apply to a glorified police force.

  15. rmwarnick
    September 23, 2010 at 2:47 pm #

    Anyone who has served on active duty knows there are gays and lesbians in the military. There is no difference between them and other service members wearing the same uniform. I would argue that prejudice undermines morale and unit cohesion, however there is a lot less of that in the military than in civilian life!

    U.S. district judge Virginia A. Phillips has ruled that DADT is unconstitutional. She is expected to follow up with an injunction that will end discrimination against homosexuals.

  16. Anon
    September 23, 2010 at 5:47 pm #

    I’m curious as to which branch of the military you served in, Mr. Boyack. Because if the answer is “none,” pretty sure our gay, lesbian and female VETERANS know more about what contributes to troop morale and what does not.

    Also wondering – does your stance on DADT include mid-level and non-combat officer positions (military doctors and nurses, JAG officers, intelligence officers, interpreters, etc) — you know, the kinds of positions the military is having a hard time recruiting and holding on to? But shucks, sure wouldn’t want a gay or female military doctor or Arabic linguist to interfere with your theories of Greek military valor.

  17. jasonthe
    September 23, 2010 at 7:50 pm #

    Always funny that those opposing a repeal of DADT have never been near military service, and are pulling their arguments right out of Eagle Forum circa 1992 (i.e. further from reality than the person writing is from military service).

    It’s been my experience that — as Warnick writes — servicemembers know gay and lesbian service members, approve of their service and involvement, and generally think the civilian commentators on the issue should shut their simple minded mouths about the issue. To paraphrase my cousin, currently on his 15th year with the Marines: It’s insulting to hear people claiming that military service men and women are as small minded as they are. In the military, we have better things to worry about.

    If you’d like to provide some sort of evidence contrary to this, I’ll consider your point. Otherwise, I’ll trust the marine and advise you to expand your understanding of things outside of Utah County.

  18. Clumpy
    September 23, 2010 at 8:48 pm #

    @Anon @jasonthe

    That’s what really surprises me. The original argument and post seems so backward, so fraught with uneducated assumptions, armchair analysis and brittle talking points that I can’t see how it’s held up for so long in so many different circles.,_don%27t_tell#Military_personnel_opinion

    The repeated language insinuating that the military doesn’t exist just to make people feel good, or serve some purpose of promoting diversity, seems to assume that this is the ONLY construct in which gays could serve. They simply aren’t qualified, they’d ruin everything with their gay incompetence and distract the squad with their sheer radiating gaydiance. (Perhaps by, I dunno, singing show tunes and trying on neon pink halter tops in the barracks.)

    Presumably Muslim soldiers (of which there are many) would also disrupt unit cohesion, praying at all times and shrieking in inhuman dialects, setting off air raid sirens. This type of analysis reduces people down to caricatures and neglects the strengths, skills and abilities that led them toward the military in the first place. If the purpose of the military is to win wars, then we ought not to be getting rid of qualified personnel just because of their orientation. Remember this story?:

    It’s all so very silly and immature.

  19. Anon
    September 24, 2010 at 12:05 am #


    Silly and immature is right. I usually try to avoid “commenting” on things, but arguments like this infuriate me. I have a gay friend who has served three tours in Afghanistan. Yes, his unit knows he’s gay. No, they don’t care, because he’s a damn good soldier. But because of DADT he could be discharged at any time, despite his service.

    I have a female friend who has served two tours in Iraq. Pretty sure her unit also knows she’s a woman.

    These two, who chose to volunteer and put their lives on the line, leave their friends and families for months at a time — THEY are the ones who undermine national security? THEY reduce the fighting power of our nation’s military? For shame.

    I guess it’s not “support the troops,” it’s just “support the straight, male troops.”

    I’m not in the military because I didn’t want to be in the military. I didn’t want to sacrifice and I didn’t want to be told what to do. I didn’t want to change my life plans. I didn’t want to deal with the danger and uncertainty. And guess what?

    I shut my damn mouth when it comes to deciding who and who is not contributing to “winning wars, and winning wars only.”

  20. Clif
    September 24, 2010 at 8:03 am #

    And guess what?

    I shut my damn mouth when it comes to deciding who and who is not contributing to “winning wars, and winning wars only.”

    Good one. Would that more people were like you. Why is it that people who have never spent a day of their lives in uniform always so quick to opinionate about how it should be run? Why is it that people like Dick Cheney or Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan are so widely viewed as strong on defense while people who have actually faced bullets (like John Kerry or George McGovern, or, to a lesser extent, Colin Powell) maliciously slandered and their honorable service denigrated by cowards – and people aren’t outraged by it?

    I would just like to confirm what others here have said. Anybody who has served in the military in the last 20 years has worked alongside more than a few homosexuals. I worked with more than a few, and it was never a problem. It was pretty common knowledge who they were. As a practicing LDS, I do not condone homosexuality. But you know what? I also don’t condone adultery, fornication, drug and alcohol abuse, etc. and heaven knows these things were also to be found in great abundance inside the military. The arguments against homosexuals in the military just ring very hollow with me.

  21. a concerned mommy
    September 24, 2010 at 11:37 am #

    As a civilian with no combat experience whatsoever, my opinion here is, I’m sure, not as relevant as someone’s who has real life experience with this, but all the same, considering that all kinds of fraternization will earn you a court marshal in the armed forces, isn’t DADT redundant? I understand the possible negative effects on morale, cohesion, and by extension effectiveness, but sexual preference seems to be a weak cause for dismissal. (At the same time, how did those who have been dismissed under DADT get caught unless they either told someone or tried to fraternize with someone, breaking at least one of those rules at some point?)

    I do, though, also understand that creating a special class in the armed forces would be a major problem because, like happens here all the time, they would potentially bring court cases for discrimination, cry hate crime and want special treatment. I say, end DADT but make it clear that they will not get any special treatment whatsoever. Same goes for women. If any group is good at treating everyone the same, it’s the military, and so it should be. I wouldn’t mind fighting next to a lesbian.

  22. Clumpy
    September 24, 2010 at 6:15 pm #

    I should add that I don’t really have a problem with excluding women from certain combat fronts, in areas where history shows female troops are likely to be assaulted or treated particularly badly if captured. I don’t think this applies to all situations but it certainly seems fair not to expose some of our troops to special, verifiable danger.

  23. mormonlibertarian
    September 26, 2010 at 4:36 pm #

    Well, unfortunately, recent history shows that women are overwhelmingly unsafe in the military, and not because of ‘enemies’, but because of male comrades.

    As for homosexuals, that is very difficult, because immorality of any kind is immorality. Period. If a person has same sex attraction and is chaste, then why is there a greater risk?
    What about the macho men who abuse/exploit/assault civilian women?

    I would rather have a man with same sex attraction who is chaste than a heterosexual who thinks it is his duty to rape teenage Iraqi girls, and yes, it does happen; it has happened; there are documents of it.

    I agree about the women, but I believe that, at this time, our entire nation is in such a spoiled state that it probably doesn’t matter. As long as there are men who are unchaste, with whichever sex–or who prey upon women, whether they are female comrades at arms or civilians–

    the ‘success’ of such a military will be of no value.

    And since the current wars are pre-emptive and immoral by Book of Mormon standards . . . what difference does it make who is serving? I do believe that there are good, honest, chaste, true people serving in the military, probably even Americans.

    When I found out about the young woman from Arizona who took her own life (supposedly) after having to participate in torture, I realized that for someone who is spiritually sensitive, the military at this rotten time of our civilization’s existence, is probably not a very good place for spiritually sensitive people to be.

    My heart bleeds for such women. I can’t get her out of my mind. She was a returned missionary.

    And her parents were only informed that she was killed by ‘friendly fire’–

    As to how the suicide took place, IF indeed it was a suicide–considering that there are many female soldiers who are reporting (those who have the courage to do so) horrific abuse–

    I can only imagine in horror. And cry out to God for justice.

  24. Eric Checketts
    September 27, 2010 at 10:34 pm #

    I’m with Connor on this one. I have compassion for gays (because, yes, I believe it is a depraved and unholy problem that many legitimately and sincerely struggle with), but I don’t think they should be allowed to serve in the military. I’d expound on my reasoning, but I would just end up saying exactly what Connor said here.

  25. SJC
    September 28, 2010 at 12:25 pm #

    These two, who chose to volunteer and put their lives on the line, leave their friends and families for months at a time
    Choosing not to join the military is not an act of cowardice just as choosing to join is not an act of heroism. Those of us who choose not to enter into the ranks of the world’s police force and further the goals of the warmongering powerful elite, where our patriotim is exploited and used to further an evil design, do so with just as much love of country and willingness to sacrifice as those who are blinded or brainwashed into joining. It’s time to demand a higher standard in this nation. Acceptance of low morals, as homosexuality is, and an abandonment of virtue is the reason our nation is in the situation it is in.

  26. mormonlibertarian
    September 29, 2010 at 2:31 pm #

    good words, with which I heartily agree.

    Unfortunately, the post that Connor did a few weeks ago, about principle–

    “are people willing to stand up for principles?”–

    applies here. The employment situation is dreary in our present world, especially for the young. College is expensive, and middle-aged parents are losing wealth; the military has capitalized on this, which is a sad reason many young people join.

    People want and need employment, so the ranks of young people joining the military, and telling themselves that they are doing a good thing, is swelling, even as more and more military personnel suffer from PTSD, commit suicide and are denied medical treatment.

    If you ask me, it’s a tragedy.

  27. mormonlibertarian
    September 29, 2010 at 2:32 pm #

    but nobody asks me–

    By the way, the above response was to SJC, #25.

  28. J. Harrison
    October 1, 2010 at 9:40 am #

    I’m torn on this issue.

    On one hand, Connor quoted an article saying that over 90% of Military Personnel disapproved of homosexual service members. That was in 1993.

    If you follow Clumpy’s link, however, it appears that the Homophobia never surfaced, and that fears were unfounded. The Wikipedia Data shows that as soon as homosexuals ARE introduced into a military unit, the majority opinion changes from “Yes they will hurt” to “No it will be fine.”

    So it would appear that as soon as soldiers are in reality confronted with homosexual members, their theoretical fears never seem to surface. It seems that homosexuals negatively affecting unit performance would be a myth

    On the other hand, I am extraordinarily concerned at the attention being given to the “rights” of a very small minority of the U.S population.

    Edward Gibbon identifies that a major reason the Roman Empire fell was the diluting of military pride and spirit and the introduction of foreign service foedarati who had different religious and moral values. The effect eventually diluted the military to the point that Rome itself was sacked in 410 A.D.

    This argument not only applies to military spirit but public spirit and morale. Rome fell because of a disagreement between different factions of the empire on basic values and morals. (Including religious and sexual preference/profligacy.)

    My gut says “Don’t include, do exclude” homosexuals from military service.

    My brain can’t think of a principle to support this. Connor does make a good point, that military service isn’t a Right. But neither is Civil Service (for the government.)

    Imagine the outrage if we banned homosexual Postmen, Police Officers, Librarians, Teachers and Government Representatives! They all have specific purposes too, to pass mail, protect the peace, keep books, teach and represent. What if there duties are negatively impacted by Homosexual Members within their ranks? Do we ban them from positions too?

    Of course, none of those positions are as delicate as military service.

    Is there a principled way to ban Homosexuality?

  29. Liz
    October 1, 2010 at 6:21 pm #

    I thought this was excellent argument.

    Personally, I would rather be defended by an orderly “cohesive” military rather than by a unit of gays or any other sexually deviant persuasion. However, you can bet the gay unit would have some fabulous uniforms. The food might be better too.

    I think the pendulum has swung about as far as it can in terms of making sexual deviance the norm, it must inevitably swing back – let’s hope so. I would love to live in a society where people no longer introduce themselves by describing their sexual practices. It’s become so….barbaric. Not child friendly, either, I might add, although Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings thinks this type of stuff is more than suitable for young children.

  30. Liz
    October 1, 2010 at 6:26 pm #

    (I also have to giggle at the query, “Is there a principled way to ban homosexuality.” Shows just how convincingly the movement has twisted American minds…)

  31. J. Harrison
    October 1, 2010 at 8:09 pm #

    I agree. I’m a product of my environment.

    But really, every way I approach it, I get confused!

    How do you exclude homosexuality? Upon what principle?

    Equality? Honesty? Love? Justice? Upon what principle would YOU ban Homosexuality, Liz? Pure morality? Religious authority? The opposition laughs.

    The problem is sexual matters have lost their ancient holiness.

    What do you do when you can no longer agree on something as basic as moral right or wrong? If my neighbors all believe that something is all right, but I believe it is wrong we can reach no consensus.

    The fundamental rule of a value debate is this: find the underlying principle of the issue and then prove how your issue promotes a higher value, or serves the mutual value better.

    Has this become impossible to achieve in matters regarding homosexuality today? When the most impassioned arguments we hear are against “intolerant homophobic mormons” and not the principles which confound our position we are arguing without logic, only rhetoric. And we can reach no consensus.

    So, Liz. How would YOU ban Homosexuality?

  32. Velska
    October 3, 2010 at 1:11 pm #

    So now fraternizing loose women and raping the other kind is not immoral? When has military ever frowned on those two?

  33. L. Brown
    October 4, 2010 at 7:31 am #

    For all of you who are against the post by Mr. Boyack.

    Have you forgotten what the FIRST Commander and Chief stated about men who displayed such conduct?

    “His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return; The drummers and fifers [are] to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.”

    If such sexual activity is an abhorrence way back then well….IT IS STILL an abhorrence NOW. Just because there are gays in the military does not make it right. Logical? Since when does sticking your penis where it doesn’t belong logical?

    You people make me sick. Just because you served in the military you are on some holy seat? If anything the FIRST thing a Marine, solider, sailor, or airman swears to defend is the CONSTITUTION. Not to some man or woman who changes every season.

    This is about doing the right thing, at the right time, in the right manner. We call those things Principles. What you reap is what you sow. These principles are the only thing that have withstood the test of time. Not even God can change the consequences that come from choice. If you CHOOSE to be gay/lesbian/sexually active you get all the consequences that come with it. If you CHOOSE NOT to be gay/lesbian/sexually active you get all the consequences with it. This is not about being gay/lesbian/sexually active. It’s about people not taking responsibility for their bloody choices and blaming others for encrouching on their “freedom of choice” when someone tells them they’re doing wrong. So you’re affended. Good. Then it means you have a conscience and your conscience is telling you to shape up or ship out.

    You have the freedom to CHOOSE. But you do NOT have the freedom to choose your consequence. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never of heard any natural good consequences that come from being gay, lesbian, or even unwise in the use of morality . There are serious consequences with allowing homosexuals or sexual delinquents into the military. What if we didn’t have such sexual activity in our ranks? Would not the military be better for it? Would not our military get the respect it deserves? Wouldn’t our military be better if they followed a high standard of morality?

    As stated above: “our men are brave and good; men who with pleasure it is observed are addicted to fewer vices than are commonly found in Armies; but it is subordination and discipline (the life and soul of an Army) which next under Providence, is to make us formidable to our enemies, honorable in ourselves, and respected in the world.”

    Under Providence. If we are an army of Providence we should ACT like an Amry of Providence. An the Army of Providence would NEVER allow such atrocities to take place. Do What Is Right. Not what is logical.

  34. Ryan
    October 4, 2010 at 8:35 am #

    “wouldn’t our military be better if they followed a high standard of morality”

    L. Brown is right! Remove anyone from the military who breaks the law of chastity

    Also anyone who violates the word of wisdom!

    Or anyone who gambles, or has tattoos.

    Also if someone swears.

    In fact, let’s just remove anyone who has ever sinned and not yet repented. We’ll have the greatest military on the face of the earth!

    Hey L. Brown, since you’re without sin, do you want to be our designated stone-thrower? You’re really good at it.

  35. L. Brown
    October 4, 2010 at 8:52 am #

    Don’t judge me because you don’t have the moral guts to stand up for what is right.

    So you disagree with a high standard of morals? What is wrong with that? Even George Washington agreed to it. That should tell you something.

    You shouldn’t confuse freedom to choose with freedom of consequences. Because they aren’t the same. The sooner we all realise that the better off the world will be.

  36. Ryan
    October 4, 2010 at 1:01 pm #

    How did you suddenly become the arbiter of what the natural consequences of being gay ought to be?

    As for not having moral guts to stand up for what is right — well, it doesn’t take any guts to run around condemning your neighbor. People have been doing that to each other for ages. It takes a little bit more effort to be willing to associate with and love sinners and not shun them.

    Will you have the courage to be more loving towards all of your brothers and sisters as Christ commanded? Or will you follow the example of the Pharisees?

    Judge not, that ye be not judged.
    For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
    And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
    Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
    Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

  37. L. Brown
    October 4, 2010 at 3:05 pm #

    Christ chastises those whom He loves. I never said anything about hating the gay/lesbian/sinner.

    Judging? Only your actions can judge you. Condemn? Well, again only your actions can do that for you. I am nothing more than a man. But, I know what is right and wrong. And just because I might want to do something that is wrong…..well, it’s still wrong.

    As I’ve said before. You have the freedom to choose. But you do not have the freedom from the consequences that come from that choice. I stand free from all the consequences that come from alcohol, tobacco, sexual promiscuity, drugs, etc. Because of that choice I am free.

    Are you?

  38. Cynthia L.
    October 11, 2010 at 2:11 pm #

    DADT isn’t good policy. The law that was going to be added to the defense authorization bill only called for a repeal to activate when the study by the DoD was completed and ONLY IF the study found that it would not be detrimental to military readiness.

    As an aside, it doesn’t make sense to me to have the military have a stricter policy on gays be members than BYU. Any BYU student can come out as openly gay and, as long as they are following the Honor Code like anyone else, won’t be expelled. Yet saying the words “I’m gay” gets you expelled from the military. Just doesn’t make sense to me. College is also a time of very cramped quarters living (BYU’s old DT bldgs were pretty close to being barracks! :-)) and very close, intense, brotherhood relationships.

  39. mormonlibertarian
    October 12, 2010 at 2:46 pm #

    Ryan, I think you may have found a very good way to stop wars–

    only let the completely worthy fight–

    Isn’t there a passage somewhere in the O.T. that talks about how Jehovah could win a battle for the righteous Israelites with only a handful of men, and only the worthy ones could participate?

    That would be one way (I’m anti-war or at least anti-warmongering, anti-empire building war . . . anti-pre-emptive war, by the way, in case you can’t tell)–

    to end wars!!!

    GOOD idea–

    *no sarcasm here*

    So, maybe there would be 1,000 men left–

    then *we* (I’m not a collectivist, so this post is irrelevant, I suppose) would CERTAINLY have to pull out of Afghanistan AND Iraq and stop the CIA wars in Pakistan–

    bring the troops home!!!

    and put them to work planting crops, non-GMO crops . . .–

    make farmers out of them; it is what God has in mind–

    turning the weapons of war into ploughshares–

    bring them all home, and all our highways can have beautiful flower borders, and we can have solar-operated cars–

    I LIKE this idea–

    a worthiness interview to be a soldier–


  40. Ralph Howarth
    October 17, 2010 at 12:03 am #

    Actually, the 1993 Military Readiness law passed by congress repealed DADT on the spot. DADT was an executive order. The 1993 only repeated what has been policy going some 230 odd years. The only difference was that the law blocked the president from issuing an executive order to not discriminate troops in the military on what is sexual disorientation. Congress purposely avoided even using the term “sexual orientation” in the law and choose to stick with the centuries old prohibition of homosexual conduct. This is because their studies found such a term to be indefensible in court where anybody could extrapolate meaning from such a dubious term to the point of claiming to be discriminated against for preference to fraternizing with men not much more than brotherhood and camaraderie and using the same argument as a defense.

    As it has been all this time, that 1993 law gives the Defense Secretary the discretion to resume asking about sexual conduct and mandated to specifically educate the military entrants and ongoing the soldiers on a routine basis of the military code against the crime of homosexual conduct. It already is Do Ask, Do Tell.

  41. rl
    October 22, 2010 at 8:09 am #

    It seems the issue is not sexuality but sexual violence.

  42. mormonlibertarian
    October 22, 2010 at 9:45 am #

    #41, rl, this is a profound thought–

    why should anyone expect anything other than violent behavior from people who are being trained to be violent?

  43. M
    October 22, 2010 at 10:51 pm #

    I’m the wife of Drew of He’s been an Army Reservist for 7 years, with 2 and a half of those years in active duty for deployments. We’ve talked about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I’ve gotta say that I agree with commenters above like Clumpy and Clif. Many members of the military who are gay or female (or even both) serve very well.

    Drew has actually said pretty much these same things to me (I’m quoting Clif here): “I worked with more than a few [homosexuals], and it was never a problem. It was pretty common knowledge who they were. As a practicing LDS, I do not condone homosexuality. But you know what? I also don’t condone adultery, fornication, drug and alcohol abuse, etc. and heaven knows these things were also to be found in great abundance inside the military.”

  44. M
    October 23, 2010 at 7:35 pm #

    Connor, I thought your blog allowed only unique user IDs. The M above is not the same M as I am. You should fix this or people could confuse this M with the other M.

  45. M
    October 27, 2010 at 2:40 pm #

    2 Nephi 1:7 Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.

    Gays and thoses support them is just another reason why the country is cursed. I hope all of us are doing our part in missionary work. This country needs repentance more than anything if this land has any hope of having Liberty restored to it.

  46. M
    October 29, 2010 at 10:37 am #

    The story below shows how morally bankrupt the troop are…

    Internal Pentagon study: Most troops support repealing ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’

  47. Dave Welsh
    November 11, 2010 at 10:32 am #

    Let’s see…have “gay” men shower and share a room with straight men. Why not have women shower with men, then?
    It would be no different. When I was stationed aboaed a U.S. Navy ship I found a homosexual porn magazine in the head (bathroom). Made me feel really comfortable to wonder who the pervert was on the ship–especially in the same head.

    This politically correct crap wouldn’t even have surfaced in previous times. What has happened is that perversion has been elevated to “normal” because people have lost faith in God and his word. The Devil is a happy camper right now.
    Christ said “go and sin no more”–not rub others’ noses in your sin. I could care less what others think of me. I’d rather be an old fogey and honor God, than go with the clueless flow and mock Him.

  48. Teancum
    November 15, 2010 at 12:43 pm #

    Many comments on this seem to suggest that the military is far from perfect so why even worry about sexuality at all.
    M said:

    As a practicing LDS, I do not condone homosexuality. But you know what? I also don’t condone adultery, fornication, drug and alcohol abuse, etc. and heaven knows these things were also to be found in great abundance inside the military.”

    These comments also fail to acknowledge the magnitude and seriousness of the problem our society is facing due to Satan’s portrayal of sexuality today.

    So are you all saying that because there is already so much trouble with heterosexuality in the military (rapes, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, fornication, adultery, treating males/females as sexual toys, seeking military promotion or favors as a result of sexual favors, as well as other non-sexual vices) let’s just get homosexuality into the open since it is now politically correct in our debased society? I am sure that will make things sooooo much better (sarcasm). That would simply make Satan’s plans all the easier.

  49. mormonlibertarian
    November 18, 2010 at 12:27 pm #

    no, I think *I* might have been one of the ones who implied that.

    What I am saying is that, with all the immorality of EVERY kind–

    what possible success can such a military have and why support it?

    like feeding a cancer–

    that isn’t to say that individual members of the military are not gifted with righteousness, etc.–

    but how successful can such be (thinking of Mormon and Moroni here) when so many are filled with decay?

    Better to get out–

    better to find a lifeboat and get off the sinking ship–

    A young man obeying his commander’s orders shot a civilian and is now facing charges in Boise, Idaho.

    He joined at the age of 18; he has lost a tremendous amount of weight–

    and is mentally unstable; this isn’t what he ‘signed up’ for–

    but he was afraid; he ‘obeyed’.

    In our culture, even our church culture, we often obey blindly.

    How many 18-19 year olds could withstand that pressure?

    Does anyone on here think that such an ‘institution’ as the present military can be saved?

    If so, I state that you are naive.

    If this young man acted in fear and did what he is accused of doing, who is accountable?

    If he did not do what he is accused of doing, what on earth can possibly be done to save this young man in such a corrupt organization?

    Read everything that is being written about this young man and ask *yourself* what the point is of continuing to support such a military.

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.