The American Hypocrisy In The Gay Marriage Debate

The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy of the U.S. military was implemented to allow homosexual individuals the opportunity to gain the same benefits, the same resources and the same label/recognition as their heterosexual counterparts.

The policy was implemented about fifteen years ago as there was concern about how hetero and homosexual individuals would interact with each other, especially since it is known that some people just cannot rationalize the idea of homosexuality and cannot justify accepting this as a reality for some members of our society.

But that entire controversy seems to have subsided a bit...

A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 75 percent of respondents supported allowing gays to serve openly in the military, up from 62 percent in 2001 and 44 percent in 1993.

104 retired military brass against 'don't ask-don't tell'

...and will likely result in homosexuals openly serving in the United States military within the near future.

My Question to ATS and primarily for those against Gay Marriage is why can we accept military service from homosexual individuals and place them in a situation (at times) where their life is at a considerable risk in the name of American Rights and Freedoms?

Put a different way, Why do we selfishly accept a willful negotiation of a gay man or woman's life in return for the defense of our way of life when they are not allotted the same respect they have for 'us' and this country?

It is my contention that those who are defending so diligently the retention of the "sanctity" of marriage have completely disregarded the gay communities contribution to the diligent defense of the "sanctity" of American lives.

Here's a hot-button hypothesis:

Among their hypotheses: Outwardly heterosexual men who harbor intense homosexual yearnings may hold the most vehemently anti-gay attitudes of all. Psychologists dub this a "defensive reaction." And, some speculate, men who hold such defensive attitudes are likely to join the military in disproportionately large numbers, drawn to the bastion of traditional masculine virtues--strength, aggression, and heterosexuality--and to authoritarian outlawing of homosexuality as a means of quelling their homoerotic impulses.

eserver.org...

I believe I read once of a study, conducted by the US Military. They subjected a number of their most 'cold-blooded killers' to a psychological exam, exposing them to homoerotic imagery and measuring their reactions. Surprisingly, they found that a large number of them reacted, um, 'positively' to the imagery - more so than the average soldier.

I've often though that there may be a cognitive disconnect, in some cases, amongst more rabid anti-homosexuals, entrenched in their own sexuality. That such a disconnect might be channeled into violent and amoral behaviour, of the kind 'useful' to the military when sufficiently controlled, isn't an unreasonable hypothesis. By that model, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy actually re-enforces such a disconnect!

Does anyone have any military experiences that might support or contradict this? I'll search a little and see if I can find a reference for the study I mentioned.

reply to post by MemoryShock


My take....

There are no moral or religious connotations within the military, with fighting a war, or with dying in said war....at least where gays are concerned and the way Americans view the military and what they do.

In my mind, it as simple as that. These men and women can go and fight to protect and ensure the rights that we all enjoy in this country, but a moral/religious bru-ha-ha ensues when talking about bestowing upon them some of those same rights.



[edit on 12/8/2008 by skeptic1]

Originally posted by skeptic1
In my mind, it as simple as that. These men and women can go and fight to protect and ensure the rights that we all enjoy in this country, but a moral/religious bru-ha-ha ensues when talking about bestowing upon them some of those same rights.

And that is ludicrous in my opinion. Despite the negative public opinion and connotation of certain behaviours and actions, the loss of life is still the worst thing that can befall a human.

You can't do anything with death, you can't fix past relationships once you have passed on. Period.

It is not only selfish but an extreme display of ignorance to accept a potential life sacrifice from a human you don't want to have the rights as you do...and then spout off in a different breathe or thread how much you appreciate the American Military for all they do to insure that you can continue labeling social circles good, bad or ugly.

I don't care if people want to label in any direction ('tis their right)...but I can't help but feel embarrassed by my country men and women who are so unable to negotiate a simple term such as 'marriage' yet still barbecue and raise their glasses on Veterans Day.

I have to agree, if you start to place a boundary or a "do not cross" line on rights, then your asking for trouble.



Cheers!!!!

It's BS. It reminds me of the Draft and drinking law. You're old enough to kill or be killed, but not old enough to drink. You're old enough to go out and invade another nation, or defend yours, but if you try to drink alcohol you're under arrest for a felony and a billion years in jail, half a billion on good behavoir. Gays can go out and die for my rights, but can't get the same. My b/f can go out and die but can't drink, my g/f can go out and die but can't marry me. And why? Because a book written thousands of years ago with a flat Earth and demons and magic and zombie and giants and other things that are total bull say so. Because a group that will defend pedophiles even when their victims commit suicide to get away from the rape and molestation say gays are evil. Because a political group that has been against civil rights for blacks, women, Jews, and gays say it's evil even though they cover up pedophiles in their own ranks.(Mark Foley being one of the most famous cases where the House Leader covered up his pedophilia for years!) And of course how many people who are against gays getting married are divorced?

From what I've read perhaps, there is some cognizance of the psychological factors concerning a human choice. The rights issue is still not being addressed properly. These particular human beings express a need which should have been treated psychologically. Instead, in fear of being called homophobic we surpass the care need and institute normal expectation. These particular human beings will have the normal problems but with the addition of some problem arising from an abnormal human act.
There is no exception for a choice, homosexual, should not stop you from being able to be involved in normal human activity. I am appalled because there is still no aide toward these human beings. We believe allowance is an answer, at least some voted that way. What does that do?
How afraid are some to see the abnormal use of the human body and to understand that these particular human beings need counseling? How would you feel if some allowed you to continually destroy yourself?
Would you consider them a friend?
How afraid are some to see an act that can only bring mental gratification, as good as laughing at a horror movie? None can take away the fact that only copulation between a man and a woman would be sexually productive.
So, the wrongful use of the body needs to be treated psychologically.
We are afraid of hard medical facts. The greater percentage of pediphiles were homosexuals. That's the only psychological progression. Sexual gratification from objects will lead to gratification from anyone, or vise versa.
The term rape needs to be applied to that conduct. Old terms like cunning still need to be applied. I can state vehimateley, to beleive in the allowance of that conduct you must believe in the sexual assault of minors.
We need to stop enjoining b.s. and lies and face the facts and help other human beings.

 

You should probably start by converting animals then.
Wikipedia:List of animals displaying homosexual behavior

I'm sure if you show penguins the light of christ they'll stop.



..............................................................................
[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 17-12-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

reply to post by rightwingnut


Wow, that is a complete load. I am not too sure how you could call being homosexual a choice. If you were to take a good long look at nature you would see that actually homosexuality, or bi-sexuality is actually more of an instinct than a behavior. Just because it is not your cup of tea, does not make it "an abnormal human act".

I find it disgraceful that the US keeps doing this kind of thing to people. Blacks could serve in the military, but were not afforded the same rights as Whites, through segregation. Women had to fight to vote. Now we have decided that since we can't pick on anyone that is visibly different we will pick on those that act different. People need to grow up and see that everyone is different and needs to accept that they have rights too.

reply to post by MemoryShock


I must ask...

Why are men and women in the military not allowed to shower together?

Why are men and women given seperate sleeping quarters?

Urges. Normal Urges that lead to more. That slows that whole "Killing" thing the military is supposed to do down to a stand still.

Are straigh males and straight females the only ones that feel urges? Is so then we need a military and Police force and government of ONLY gays who are capable of such self control.

MOst men showering next to naked women have their compass point north.

That will destroy cohesion in any way shape or form you mention.

Try having all men showering and that happens.

Men and women, gays and straights are different. No matter how you try to stop that being said. Gays are not bad. They are different.

In a battlefield situation a white man will not be angry at a black man or a black woman won't care if a Asian saves her from danger.

But if a person is romantically inclined to you then you want them away from you. If two peopel of any type are involved romantically then they DO NOT belong on a battlefiel together. Ever.

Originally posted by crmanager
reply to post by MemoryShock

 

But if a person is romantically inclined to you then you want them away from you. If two peopel of any type are involved romantically then they DO NOT belong on a battlefiel together. Ever.

which is a similar justification in civilian employment and having rules against dating fellow employees. Relationships should be, as I believe they already are with hetero military folk, discouraged. But as it goes with all things it will still happen regardless.

I love however, that the examples pushed by most anti folks are that of male-male pairings, i guess female-female pairings are hardly as offensive.

Originally posted by Rook1545
reply to post by rightwingnut

 

Wow, that is a complete load. I am not too sure how you could call being homosexual a choice. If you were to take a good long look at nature you would see that actually homosexuality, or bi-sexuality is actually more of an instinct than a behavior. Just because it is not your cup of tea, does not make it "an abnormal human act".

I find it disgraceful that the US keeps doing this kind of thing to people. Blacks could serve in the military, but were not afforded the same rights as Whites, through segregation. Women had to fight to vote. Now we have decided that since we can't pick on anyone that is visibly different we will pick on those that act different. People need to grow up and see that everyone is different and needs to accept that they have rights too.

O.K. no adversity, some might be afraid of certain terms but if some really needed help another human would hope they understood them. It's abnormal because it is a sex act which will not lead to the birth of another human being. That is why there is separate genatale. Ignorance is the disavowing of facts, the dive into fantasy world because the mind is not strong enough to handle reality. This is why the right to a psych exam should have been given before the right to marry. We can give some the rights of human beings but will they accept them? Now we, then, have chosen gay to die because that's just one more person with a problem we can't or don't want to fix. Some can join the military and have the right to hold the most secret clearance they have. What are gay complaining about. The hetero soldier won't have his or her secret service avowed either. We're giving some these rights and they won't accept them. Are they sure they wouldn't like a psych exam so that they would understand that they are receiving the rights they want?
It doesn't seem like they know they're getting it if they refuse to be in a real world.

reply to post by MemoryShock


When you sign up with any of the armed forces, you are no longer an individual when on Uncle Sam's time - you become a soldier. The fact that you are black, white, gay, straight, male, female, short, tall, fat doesn't matter. You are a soldier taught to survive, carry a weapon, be aware of your surroundings, etc. In the base, you are a soldier. In the shower, you are a soldier. Sleeping in your bunk, you are a soldier. Doing any military service or mission - you are a soldier. On the battlefield - you are a soldier. You are afforded the rights of a soldier, not a civilian. Everything you label yourself when you come in, you leave at the door. When you go on leave or exit military service you can reclaim those labels if you want them back.

Your contention that a gay soldier who dies in combat ought to be respected as "gay" is a load of crap. There is no such thing as a "gay soldier". Or a "fat soldier". The descriptive is just a label. The "soldier" part is their chosen profession. A soldier who dies in the line of duty dies a soldier, doing what they signed on to do; what they volunteered to do, which is to defend the nation against all enemies and uphold the Constitution. They should be respected for making the ultimate sacrifice.

Make no mistake, I respect soldiers to the fullest because they stand to lose the most. They are the bravest men and women in the world as far as I'm concerned. But the Constitution makes no blanket statement about the rights of people based on sexual orientation, so the decision is thereby left to the individual states. And it's up to the voters of those states to make decisions that are not covered by the Constitution.

reply to post by MemoryShock


Your basic premises are incorrect and do not account for all instances of the argument against gay marriage:

Originally posted by MemoryShock
The policy was implemented about fifteen years ago as there was concern about how hetero and homosexual individuals would interact with each other, especially since it is known that some people just cannot rationalize the idea of homosexuality and cannot justify accepting this as a reality for some members of our society.

Those kind of characterizations put people on the defensive, and their responses reflect it.

But back to your contention:

Most people are in favor of "rights" for gays. The debate comes when marriage is defined as a "right".

reply to post by GamerGal

Originally posted by GamerGal
Because a political group that has been against civil rights for blacks, women, Jews, and gays say it's evil even though they cover up pedophiles in their own ranks.(Mark Foley being one of the most famous cases where the House Leader covered up his pedophilia for years!) And of course how many people who are against gays getting married are divorced?

You are aware that Republicans have always supported the civil rights movement, aren't you?

You are aware that without Republican support, the Civil Rights bill would have never passed.

You are aware that Republicans voted in a higher percentage than Democrats for the civil rights bill, aren't you?

The Big Lie

Stop spreading disinformation.

Well! Is my previously-expressed post such a 'hot potato'?

I said that I believe that the military actively encourages unactable homophobia, because it creates a cognitive dissonance in their base recruits, who are not sexually self-connected enough to avoid it, which enables on-loading of other morally offsenible actions.

Is that contention too close to truth, that no one seeks to confront it?

reply to post by Ian McLean


What's to debate? It is a know fact that some of the most homophobic men are latent homosexuals. Similar studies have been done on the type of individual drawn to law enforcement. Or medicine, etc. (God complex).

Does the military capitalize on it? Probably. They will use any edge to create the most effective machine. The military isn't a social club, after all.

You bring up an interesting point, but it isn't new news.

[edit on 17-12-2008 by jsobecky]

I fully support homosexuals being in the military and being allowed to marry. It has no bearing on me whatsoever, but others are not so tolerant.

That being said, I sort of understand the 'Don't ask don't tell policy'. Just as many women would not want to shower or sleep with men, many men and women would have a huge problem showering and sleeping in the same room as a homosexual. Call them ignorant and small minded all you want, I doubt it will ever change. While the majority of US citizens indicated tolerance for gay people being in the military, the majority of military respondents to the same question did not like the idea.

But Americans in the military seem less friendly to the idea of junking the ban. A 2006 opinion poll by the independent Military Times newspapers showed that only 30% of those surveyed think openly gay people should serve, while 59% are opposed.

Link

One more question I have for you guys. If you have an entirely straight military, you can avoid some sexual/relationship problems by separating males and females. How do you separate homosexuals to make everyone comfortable? I would think many gay people would not want to be in an all gay barracks just as a woman would hate being in an all male barracks.

I realize your problem is with the American public denouncing gay marriage, while supporting gays in the military, but I think some posters need to think a little about the issues with having openly gay people serving. I want to support gay people being open about sexual preference, but I am also aware of the problems that could occur.

[edit on 17-12-2008 by Raustin]

"Dont ask/ don't tell" just codified the reality of what has been going on for years. Gay people, perhaps in disproportionate numbers, have been serving for years, but have kept their sexuality secret. Perhaps the policy works in gay people's favor because the military, as others have pointed out in this thread, attracts large numbers of homophobic people.

Originally posted by Raustin

A 2006 opinion poll by the independent Military Times newspapers showed that only 30% of those surveyed think openly gay people should serve, while 59% are opposed.

[url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1707545,00.html]Link[/url

Looks like they've got some work to do! It should be 50-50, to support jso and my hypothesis!

I suppose there's a bias, though - there is a difference between what a person is indoctrinated to express, when asked as the basis for a question, and what they truly believe, when they would admit their own opinion to themselves. For example, I bet that a considerable percentage of those who say "gay people should be allowed to serve", without discrimination, would feel considerably unconfortable, showering alongside them (a known and 'out' homosexual), regardless of how they might have answered on any 'survey'. But, from such dissonance, we learn.

Edit: only to fix italics tag


[edit on 17 Dec 2008 by Ian McLean]