As I noted in a previous post, the religious right’s opening shot in their battle against the recent repeal of DADT was framed as a moral argument. Since that particular shot missed its mark, their most recent shot is a pragmatic argument:
A retired Army chaplain says that with the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” many patriotic Christians may discourage their children from joining the armed forces.
I’m not inclined to give any more credence to this statement than I did to the moral argument that shot over our bows yesterday. The chaplain’s statement is completely speculative: Christian parents may do anything; I don’t see any data indicating that they may take this particular course of action as opposed to any other. If the chaplain is right, though, and some Christian parents did take such action, then it would be evidence that their primary loyalties are tied to their imaginary sky-daddy, and loyalty to their country is not only secondary, but contingent upon that country conforming to their standards. Do Americans really want to stack their military with fair-weather troops like these?
This next bit amuses me to no end:
“I think this is a time when Christians are going to have to sit up and think, ‘Alright, is this where we want our children to be? Is this the environment that we want our children to be in?’ — even though they might be tremendously patriotic”…..
Apparently, fundogelicals don’t have any problem immersing their children in an environment that almost always entails violence and death, but they balk at letting their precious little snowflakes risk rubbing shoulders with the gay. I guess sex is more dangerous than warfare. Who knew?
Just for good measure, this retired chaplain launches a moral argument at us:
“From a Christian perspective, from a Roman Catholic perspective, from a Muslim perspective, from an orthodox church in America perspective, from an orthodox Jewish perspective — from the perspectives of all the major religions — a behavior that has always been considered a sin and immoral is now going to be considered legitimate,” he laments.
As I mentioned in my previous post, the new law is not about the morality of homosexual sex; it is about the morality of denying people opportunities just because they don’t conform to one group’s prejudices. The new law reinforces two messages that fundies hate hearing:
- they are not the only people who live in this country, and
- their values cannot and will not be allowed to reign unchecked against the values of their fellow citizens.
Guess what, fundies! The times they are a-changing. You can either change with them, or wake up one morning and find that you’ve been left behind.
– the chaplain
Daniel
December 22, 2010 at 5:05 pm
It’s sad when moral grounds are ignored. Yet, we move ahead in our society and ignore the moral warnings. Yes, morality can be reasoned against, but how far is this going to go? If there is anything to be called a society and not a agglomeration of hedonists, new “rights” must be argued and can’t always win, otherwise my neighbor becomes my tyrant.
Ebonmuse
December 23, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Daniel, I’m sure you’ll be glad to know you’re upholding a long tradition of religious prejudice. From arguing that the curse of Ham justified the tradition of African slavery, to arguing that women’s frail brains couldn’t handle the responsibility involved in voting, to arguing that interracial marriage and an integrated military should be banned because God didn’t mean for the races to mix – for every moral advance the human race has made in its history, there have been bigots like you arguing that it was immoral to recognize the rights of some group of human beings. Don’t you ever get tired of your side constantly being on the wrong side of history?
Daniel
December 23, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Don’t you ever get tired of creating new “rights” and new “offenses” where none existed before? How long will radical individualism go before your neighbor is your tyrant? At some point, we have to draw a line for the sake of preserving freedom.
PhillyChief
December 23, 2010 at 5:41 pm
First, no new rights or offenses have been created. The right of equality was one from our founding, however it’s taking far too long to make it a reality thanks to people like you. Second, the offense at both being subjugated and witnessing others being subjugated is not new (well perhaps that last one is for you).
As for this “tyrant” and “radical individualism” bullshit, they’re contradictory. If individuals can do whatever they want, then how are you, an individual, being subjugated? Furthermore, our constitution was crafted with the minority voice in mind. From Tocqueville’s “Tyranny of the Majority” from his Democracy in America:
Tommykey
December 23, 2010 at 7:39 pm
How long will radical individualism go before your neighbor is your tyrant? At some point, we have to draw a line for the sake of preserving freedom.
Help! Help! Daniel’s being repressed!
Ebonmuse
December 24, 2010 at 2:16 pm
I agree. That point should be the one where everyone has the same freedom to act, speak and believe as they see fit, regardless of characteristics like age, race, gender, or sexual orientation that are irrelevant to one’s moral worth as an individual. The repeal of DADT brings us that much closer to reaching that point, although we still have a long distance to go, again largely due to the efforts of bigots such as yourself.
PhillyChief
December 22, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Funny, I’d like to see the American reaction to people refusing to join the military in a time of war because they don’t like the gays. How about if we had a real war, one where our nation was actually at risk and we had a draft. Would they flee to Canada? Canada’s more liberal and secular than they could handle. Did whities say shit like this when they stopped segregating the black soldiers?
Anyway, yes Daniel, it’s sad when moral grounds are ignored but thankfully the repeal of DADT gets things back closer to where we need to be, one step further away from religiously motivated immorality.
the chaplain
December 22, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Daniel:
You lamented:
Perhaps you missed the bit, right near the end of the OP, where I said,
Moral grounds were not ignored. What happened is that appropriate moral grounds pertaining to this issue were identified, and those grounds provided the basis for a decision not to deny people’s rights on the spurious grounds asserted by fundogelicals.
Ebonmuse
December 22, 2010 at 8:23 pm
This comment wins the Internet!
I forgot where I read it, maybe on Andrew Sullivan – but there was an excellent point that the real reason why the DADT repeal so enrages the fundies is because it’s another opportunity for gays and lesbians to show that they’re honorable, patriotic Americans. The religious right’s strategy is contingent on keeping GLBT people excluded so that they have no chance to prove themselves to be normal, moral people, and can more easily be demonized as a strange and scary Other.
Daniel
December 22, 2010 at 8:25 pm
OH… you got me. Good one. Of course, it can’t be because homosexuality is wrong and the more we call wrong right the worse our culture gets.
Tommykey
December 22, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Daniel, it is not about the right or wrong of homosexual behavior.
Let’s put things in perspective here. Gays comprise probably 5% of the population. It’s not likely that they would ever make up more than that percentage in the armed forces.
Listen to the DADT repeal fear mongers and you might think that the military will end up being 90% homosexual and 10% hetero, with the poor embattled Christian hetero service men surrounded by gay men in the barracks showers giving each other blow jobs. Military parades will end up morphing into drag queen shows.
The reality of the matter is that gays will comprise a small minority in the armed forces post DADT. If a gay male soldier is in a relationship with a man who is not in the armed services, it should not be a reason to kick him out of the military. Otherwise, these righteous Christians should favor barring hetero males from serving if they commit adultery or patronize prostitutes.
I don’t care about a soldier’s sexual orientation as long as he can do his job on the battlefield and kill the enemy.
Daniel
December 22, 2010 at 10:37 pm
It’s not about right and wrong.
Wow. Thank you. I was unaware how easy it was to dismiss that whole right and wrong concept. I was just waiting for someone to show me how to bypass that whole issue. It just doesn’t matter after all. Whew! Who cares about morality anyway? I can at least comfort myself about the percentages you mentioned. Thanks for the new perspective.
the chaplain
December 22, 2010 at 11:38 pm
Here’s something interesting.
This is what Tommykey said:
This is how Daniel re-worded Tommykey’s statement:
Instead of addressing what Tommykey actually said, Daniel misrepresented Tommy’s statement, then attacked the straw man position that he himself constructed.
There you have it, another sterling example of a typical fundogelical debating tactic.
PhillyChief
December 22, 2010 at 11:51 pm
No, it’s about right and wrong. Being gay isn’t wrong. Justifying discrimination with some hateful words from an old book is wrong. Claiming moral authority based on a purely faith based belief that a being in the sky not only exists, but that he told some goat herders some 2000 years ago what’s right and wrong is fundamentally wrong. Citing this being’s denouncement of butt sex while ignoring other choice ones like eating shellfish is hypocritical, and thus wrong. Putting fellow soldiers, and possibly civilians at risk by denying key individuals, like those fluent in Arabic, from being where they need to be in order to satisfy your hatred of gays is wrong. Your characterization that stopping religious oppression of others is tyranny is not just wrong but laughably absurd when the word tyranny means oppressive power.
What’s right is basing decisions on facts, not faith and hatred, and this repeal of DADT is right.
Tommykey
December 23, 2010 at 12:01 am
Instead of addressing what Tommykey actually said, Daniel misrepresented Tommy’s statement, then attacked the straw man position that he himself constructed.
Not only that Chaplain, he ignored other examples of what Christians to be considered immoral behavior I brought up and why not have the military exclude people from serving who commit adultery and patronize prostitutes. If we kept out everyone in the military who engaged in “sinful” behavior, our armed forces would probably be smaller than Luxembourg’s.
Daniel
December 23, 2010 at 12:13 am
Those evils you mentioned are already a part of the military and society. That doesn’t make them right or less important, but if I addressed every past issue, I would not be present to address this issue. There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging present flaws and trying to stop future ones. Or maybe you prefer to be consistently wrong throughout your life. Even science tries to avoid future errors.
Your tactic is dishonest, and is meant to trap others into a side issue, leaving you free to do whatever you want with this issue. Just because these current issues make you uncomfortable is no reason to avoid them.
PhillyChief
December 23, 2010 at 12:38 am
Nice try. His point was your ilk has never raised objections to “sinners” serving except when it comes to gays, so you forfeit the “sin” argument.
Daniel
December 23, 2010 at 12:04 am
The Chaplan,
Ah ha! You got me. Except… the straw man was the point. By showing how silly that line of logical inconsistency was, the conversation was turned to where it should be: whether homosexuality is right or wrong. It ins’t right to move past the issue and make new rules in spite of opposition while comforting yourself that the opposition is out-dated.
PhillyChief,
It’s easy to attack; a little harder to analyze. These things must be argued out, not ridiculed. Or maybe you just want to be a tyrant.
PhillyChief
December 23, 2010 at 12:29 am
Analyze what? You offer no argument and simply assert. Try giving some reasons why DADT should stay or else quit playing games.
the chaplain
December 23, 2010 at 6:20 am
Daniel:
The question of whether gays should serve in the military has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is right or wrong. It’s unfortunate that the issue got stuck on that red herring for as long as it did. As I mentioned in the OP, and in my first comment addressed to you, the repeal of DADT corrects the moral wrong of denying opportunities on the basis of unfounded prejudices, a wrong that was committed for far too long. That was the only moral issue that needed to be addressed.
Rules are always made in spite of opposition. If you’re aware of any significant social or political changes that were ever enacted with unanimous consent, please share what you know.
Daniel
December 23, 2010 at 7:14 pm
PhillyChief, Ebonmuse, and others,
This modern call for equality has no real definition (it’s more like a loose mood) and ends up being used as justification for anything percieved to be holding anyone back. However, there is no end to justifying whatever you want to justify. When does it end?
I can use equality as the foundation for saying that a seven year old boy should be able to have homosexual relations with his 34 year old lover. If the boy wants it, who are we to say what he can and cannot do? Does he have less right to do what he wants with his body than an 18 year old? Let’s have equality for the children too. Stop oppressing them. And all you people who oppose it, I’m sure you’ll be glad to know you’re upholding a long tradition of religious prejudice. The right of equality was one from our founding, however it’s taking far too long to make it a reality thanks to people like you. After all, it’s not about the right or wrong of pedophilia behavior, it’s about love and equality. Society must press forward, and rules are always made in spite of opposition. If you have a problem with this, why don’t you stop committing adultery and patronizing prostitutes. For every moral advance the human race has made in its history, there have been bigots like you arguing that it was immoral to recognize the rights of some group of human beings. Don’t you ever get tired of your side constantly being on the wrong side of history?
This is a straw man, but it serves it’s purpose well. This goes to show you that the modern form of equality should not be the only foundation for an argument. It has no tangible definition except to conform to the person creating a new “right”. This scenario can easily become reality. Ignore right and wrong, and it will become reality.
The decision to let gays serve openly in the military is consistent with this country’s use of equality in other areas. But, it is possible to be consistently wrong. There has been no public open debate on whether homosexual behavior is right or wrong. People who hold dissenting views have not been given proper audience, hence no serious debate. People, like the one’s on this blog, just call the opposite side bigots and ignore what they say. Sometimes, I feel like people in this nation never left third grade. “Well… you’re just a stupid-head.”
Tommykey
December 23, 2010 at 7:49 pm
However, there is no end to justifying whatever you want to justify. When does it end?
Things will go on as they always have before. A group of people will fight for the right to being treated with the dignity and respect that is denied to them, until bit, by bit, the institutional prejudice that stands in their way is gradually eroded.
And then, years later, after the victories have been won, people will look back at the bigots and reactionaries who stood in opposition and wonder why they made such a fuss over it.
the chaplain
December 23, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Daniel said:
Philly already asked Daniel to stop asserting that homosexuality is wrong and start offering support for his position.
Here’s an idea, Daniel: instead of setting up ludicrous straw man positions and declaring that they prove your point, offer some evidence – you know, real data – to support your position.
Daniel
December 23, 2010 at 9:36 pm
The Chaplan, here are some a moral argument based on statistics.
The statistics come from Thomas Schmidt, Straight and Narrow? (Downer’s Gove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1995) You can find the book at Amazon.
Many people would agree with the principle that it’s wrong to engage in self-destructive behavior. For such behavior destroys a human being who is inherently valuable. Thus, many people, I think, would say that it is wrong to become an alcoholic or a chain-smoker. They would say that it’s good to eat right and stay fit. Moreover, I think almost everybody would agree with the principle that it’s wrong to engage in behavior that harms another person. For example, we restrict smoking to certain areas or ban it altogether so other people won’t have to inhale second-hand smoke, and we pass laws against drunk driving so innocent people won’t be hurt. Almost everybody agrees that you have no right to engage in a behavior that is destructive to another human being.
But it’s not hard to show that homosexual behavior is one of the most self-destructive and harmful behaviors a person could engage in. This fact is not widely publicized. Hollywood and the media are relentlessly bent on putting a happy face on homosexuality, whereas in fact it is a dark, twisted, and dangerous lifestyle, just as addictive and destructive as alcoholism or smoking. The sobering statistics I’m about to share with you are all fully documented by Dr. Thomas Schmidt in his remarkable book Straight and Narrow?
To begin with, there is an almost compulsive promiscuity associated with homosexual behavior. 75% of homosexual men have more than 100 sexual partners during their lifetime. More than half of these partners are strangers. Only 8% of homosexual men and 7% of homosexual women ever have relationships lasting more than three years. Nobody knows the reason for this strange, obsessive promiscuity. It may be that homosexuals are trying to satisfy a deep psychological need by sexual encounters, and it just is not fulfilling. Male homosexuals average over 20 partners a year. According to Dr. Schmidt,
“The number of homosexual men who experience anything like lifelong fidelity becomes, statistically speaking, almost meaningless. Promiscuity among homosexual men is not a mere stereotype, and it is not merely the majority experience—it is virtually the only experience. Lifelong faithfulness is almost non-existent in the homosexual experience.”
Associated with this compulsive promiscuity is widespread drug use by homosexuals to heighten their sexual experiences. Homosexuals in general are three times as likely to be problem drinkers as the general population. Studies show that 47% of male homosexuals have a history of alcohol abuse and 51% have a history of drug abuse. There is a direct correlation between the number of partners and the amount of drugs consumed.
Moreover, according to Schmidt, “There is overwhelming evidence that certain mental disorders occur with much higher frequency among homosexuals.” For example, 40% of homosexual men have a history of major depression. That compares with only 3% for men in general. Similarly 37% of female homosexuals have a history of depression. This leads in turn to heightened suicide rates. Homosexuals are three times as likely to contemplate suicide as the general population. In fact homosexual men have an attempted suicide rate six times that of heterosexual men, and homosexual women attempt suicide twice as often as heterosexual women. Nor are depression and suicide the only problems. Studies show that homosexuals are much more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexual men. Whatever the causes of these disorders, the fact remains that anyone contemplating a homosexual lifestyle should have no illusions about what he is getting into.
Another well-kept secret is how physically dangerous homosexual behavior is. We all know what this behavior consists of. As a result of this behavior, homosexual activity, 80% of which is carried out by men, is very destructive, resulting eventually in such problems as prostate damage, ulcers and ruptures, and chronic incontinence and diarrhea.
In addition to these physical problems, sexually transmitted diseases are rampant among the homosexual population. 75% of homosexual men carry one or more sexually transmitted diseases, wholly apart from AIDS. These include all sorts of non-viral infections like gonorrhea, syphilis, bacterial infections, and parasites. Also common among homosexuals are viral infections like herpes and hepatitis B (which afflicts 65% of homosexual men), both of which are incurable, as well as hepatitis A and anal warts, which afflict 40% of homosexual men. And I haven’t even included AIDS. Perhaps the most shocking and frightening statistic is that, leaving aside those who die from AIDS, the life expectancy for a homosexual male is about 45 years of age. That compares to a life expectancy of around 70 for men in general. If you include those who die of AIDS, which now infects 30% of homosexual men, the life expectancy drops to 39 years of age.
So I think a very good case can be made out on the basis of generally accepted moral principles that homosexual behavior is wrong. It is horribly self-destructive and injurious to another person.
The whole debate about whether homosexuality is something you were born with or is a result of how you were raised really doesn’t matter in the end. The important thing is not how you got your orientation, but what you do with it. Some defenders of homosexuality are very anxious to prove that your genes, not your upbringing, determine if you’re homosexual because then homosexual behavior is normal and right. But this conclusion doesn’t follow at all. Just because you’re genetically disposed to some behavior doesn’t mean that behavior is morally right. To give an example, some researchers suspect there may be a gene which predisposes some people to alcoholism. Does that mean that it’s all right for someone with such predisposition to go ahead and drink to his heart’s content and become an alcoholic? Obviously not! If anything, it ought to alert him to abstain from alcohol so as to prevent this from happening. Now the sober truth of the matter is that we don’t fully understand the roles of heredity and environment in producing homosexuality. But that doesn’t really matter. Even if homosexuality were completely genetic, that fact alone still wouldn’t make it any different than a birth defect, like a cleft palate or epilepsy. That doesn’t mean it’s normal and that we shouldn’t try to correct it.
desertscope
December 23, 2010 at 9:59 pm
You sure do know a lot about gays.
PhillyChief
December 24, 2010 at 12:10 am
Well that’s it then, isn’t it? It’s printed in a book so it must all be true.
Isn’t it funny how the anti-gay for years talked about how gays are all promiscuous and incapable of lifelong fidelity, but then when the gays want to get married, the haters are all, “god forbid!”
Even if all of what the gay hating doctor wrote was true (which it isn’t), it wouldn’t matter. Promiscuity isn’t a factor in determining anyone’s eligibility for the armed services. Hell, I think it’s encouraged, isn’t it? Isn’t that the historical stereotype? It’s all moot. Can you pass basic training? Great, now go get ‘em. Good job, you’ve earned some r&r. Hope you get lucky!
Come on, gay hater. Why do you care so much about hating gays? You’re a bit obsessed, aren’t you?
the chaplain
December 24, 2010 at 10:02 am
One thing I’ve learned in recent years is that evangelicals do unintentional irony really well.
Jim Coufal
December 23, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Written shortly before the recent actions;
LGBT People – Humans and Citizens
If you hold your hand on the chest of a LGBTperson, you will find a human heart beating. If you listen to them talk you will hear a human talking. If you listen to what they say, they will share human emotions of love, joy, compassion, fear, depression and the whole range of human feelings. If you look at their families you will see them as fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, cousins, and godparents. If you watch what they do you will see them as students, teachers, scientists, artists, construction workers, farmers, loggers, managers, politicians and the whole range of human endeavors. LGBT people are short or tall, fat or thin, intelligent or less than, outspoken or shy, graceful or bumbling (and I empathize with the latter), young and old. They volunteer, they vote, they laugh, they cry, they experience highs and lows. They are humans and they are citizens. They have been part of humanity since the earliest of times. And no one is likely to be or should be surprised by this.
What is surprising is that there are still those fellow humans and fellow citizens who would deny LGBT people the ability to act out the full range of human characteristics, desires, and rights they own. They are afraid because of the simple fact of different sexual preferences. I was there once myself, and I am now ashamed of those feelings of the past, not that I ever acted on them but I did have them. They are afraid when research indicates being a LGBT person is not a choice, when it shows they make just as good parents as “straight” couples, they are just as brave, just as altruistic, just as athletic, just as dependable, and just as wise, or just as all the reverse. Mostly they are afraid because some “holy book,” written thousands of years ago, for people of a different culture, tells them to be afraid. They are afraid to think for themselves.
I am still afraid for them, as our politicians blow smoke about “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” pandering to the fundamentalist right for votes and funds. These politicians are elected to represent their constituents, all of their constituents, and choose to ignore our constitution and make LGBT people second-class citizens. Yet they expect them to pay taxes and support the government. And in the face of this discrimination they still do. And they still volunteer to go into the military.
Its time to put away the myths and the cultures of thousands of years ago and remember the purported values of America, which protect all citizens. Congress, do the right thing.
452 words
the chaplain
December 24, 2010 at 9:47 am
Daniel,
Thanks for sharing Schmidt’s findings. The first thing I’ll note is that Schmidt’s book is 15 years old, which means that some of his data is quite a lot older than that. Some, or much, of it may not be pertinent to discussions of homosexuality in today’s context.
You mentioned some statistics about “compulsive promiscuity” among homosexual men. What you didn’t mention is how those statistics compare with promiscuity rates among all men. This leaves readers without a base line for evaluating how homosexual promiscuity compares with heterosexual promiscuity. Some of the other statistics you shared re: alcohol and drug abuse, mental illness and suicide rates did provide such baselines, which is helpful. Did Schmidt ever report reasons for these sobering stats, such as despair and self-loathing triggered by persecution from a society that has been viciously biased against homosexuality? It’s interesting that you segued from that section to the next paragraph with the words, “Another well-kept secret….” Statistics regarding suicide, alcoholism, etc., among gays have been well known for decades and they’ve been a source of great concern among the gay community. In fact, they are a large part of why gays fight for acceptance among mainstream Americans. Contrary to what you seem to think, these bleak statistics have not been a secret.
Here’s some information that contradicts your contention that “homosexuals are much more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexual men:”
Interestingly enough, the source for that passage was published before Schmidt published his book:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html.
I haven’t read Schmidt’s book, so I’ll have to ask you, did he address Herek’s work?
As for the “how physically dangerous homosexual sex is,” I take it you do realize that heterosexuals also engage in anal sex. Even the statistic you provided, that 80% of anal sex is performed by homosexuals, implies that heterosexuals comprise the other 20% of the anal sex practitioners. So, if there is a danger here, it is a danger related to anal sex, not homosexual sex.
With regard to AIDS, I’ll assume that you know that this disease is not limited to homosexual men. Moreover, with regard to the life expectancy stats you shared, how much of that figure is tied directly to STIs, and how much is tied to factors you mentioned earlier, high alcoholism, drug abuse and suicide rates? My reason for asking is that these latter categories are related to social factors rather than strictly personal behavioral ones, and should therefore be distinguished from the former.
Regarding whether homosexuality is “normal” or a flaw that needs correcting, I’ll ask – do evangelical Christians address the obesity of the faithful as aggressively as they attack homosexuality among the masses? After all, even though some people are genetically predisposed to obesity, “that doesn’t mean it’s normal and that we shouldn’t try to correct it.” Since the health risks associated with obesity are well-known, and gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins, maybe evangelical Christians should expend their energies addressing the sins of their congregations before they start telling others how to live.