This post probably responds to a lot of different points made, but I'm too lazy to quote them. Instead, I'll just partition the post into specific topics.
GENETIC DEFECTA team at the University of Copenhagen has tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye color of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today. Originally, all humans had brown eyes. A genetic mutation which strays from the genetic norm is referred to as a defect. All defects don't need to be cured. Afterall, people aren't marching around demanding that we find a way to "cure" blue-eyed people (in fact, Hitler did just the opposite).
If one believes that homosexuality is immoral or otherwise subjectively unacceptable to them, then I can't sway them of their opinion. Nor would I want to, because as with most subjective points of view, there is no way that I can prove to them that they are right or wrong.
However, to state that homosexuality is a genetic defect and thus should be cured is attempting to apply objectivity to a subjective argument. It's attempting to state that defects are scientifically proven to be "wrong" and need to be cured. As seen with blue-eyed people, we know that this isn't true. Thus, one can appeal to their subjective moral code for their reasoning, but you can not appeal to the objective rules of science in an attempt to prove the point that homosexuality "needs" to be cured.
So if all defects don't have to be cured, then which ones do and which don't? Well, that's a subjective personal decision we must reach. If someone wants to work on curing homosexuality, good for them, but that "cure" shouldn't be forced upon those who want to remain gay no more than forcing brown eyes upon those who want them blue.
PERSONAL PREFERENCEThis ties into the genetic defect point made above in two ways:
1.) If homosexuality is a genetic defect, it doesn't automatically have to be cured. Forcing genetic corrections on everyone is essentially what Hitler attempted, except his correction was to kill the "imperfect." If homosexuality is indeed a genetic defect, then one should be able to choose whether they want it "corrected" to the "norm."
2.) If homosexuality has nothing to do with genetics and is a personal choice, then again, I don't see why someone shouldn't be able to choose that lifestyle. I understand that most of you have no problem with homosexuals choosing to be gay. The point of contention seems to be more along the lines of what they should be allowed to do in regard to marriage, military service, etc.
Which brings me to...
GAYS AND THE MILITARYWhen the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy was being formed, researchers visited Canada, France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom. The UK was the only one who outright banned homosexuals. Germany had a policy similar to our "don't ask, don't tell," and the others had no limitations whatsoever.
Several observations emerged from these visits. In countries that allow homosexuals to serve, the number of openly homosexual service members is small. Open homosexuals did not call attention to themselves in ways that could make their service less efficient or impede their careers. When problems were reported, they were usually resolved satisfactorily on a case-by-case basis. None of these countries reported any impairment in military performance resulting from the presence of homosexuals.
It makes sense really. Whether you are gay or straight, you join the military for a reason: to serve. Even if it's for education or financial stability, you're still there to fulfill a reason. Your first inclination is not going to be to flamboyantly parade about or ass ram other dudes spontaneously. This is not a gay bar; it's a military government organization that will break you down and rebuild you if you attempt to circumvent the rules (and hell, it's going to break you down and rebuild you even if you are obedient).
Our studies confirmed this: Acknowledged homosexuals very seldom challenge the norms and customs of these organizations. Effectiveness of the organization had not been diminished by the presence of homosexuals on the force. Recruitment and retention of personnel had not been affected by a policy of nondiscrimination.
The report can be found at the following link:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR323/And last but not least...
GAY DEMONSTRATIONSI, too, tire of the rainbow-colored assless chaps and Rupaul makeup that can sometimes be seen during protest parades and gay rights celebrations. But you know what? It's free speech. And while those forms of protests exist and piss me off, there are those more traditional, tasteful parades and protests that I have no problem with.
When it comes to morality and what we should do, there is always going to be disagreement without a resolution. As mentioned above, morality relies on subjective beliefs and opinions. I can't objectively prove to someone that homosexuality is wrong no more than I can objectively prove to someone that blue eyes are wrong.
I can utilize statistics to objectively argue why it will or will not affect efficiency, but I can't dictate whether it's morally right or wrong. And let's face it: the morality of it has nothing to do with whether it should be allowed in the military. If it did, then we might ought to start banning Satanists and maybe even non-Christians from the military. If you're going to force subjective moral beliefs on an institution regardless of its relevancy, you might as well go balls deep with it.
338 Replies
66968 Views