An Overdue Response to Travis Dahle of Bandlands Blue

Travis Dahle of Badlands Blue and I are in a bit of a row over the issues of tolerance, gay marriage, Don't Ask Don't Tell. Travis took the time to reply to my original arguments with a post of his own that can be found here. I am responding with a blog post, as it allows for better formatting and because the original debate began here.

Below is my reply to Travis's last argument:

This is a difficult issue for me, because I agree with your idea that people ought to be treated with respect. I also agree that it is possible to treat people with whom one disagrees respectfully. Nevertheless, I am opposed to forcing Christians, families, schools and soldiers to accept a practice that is morally reprehensible to them. I believe that these groups are entitled to respect and dignity as well. I am also opposed to the idea of giving approval to a practice that I believe will increase the exploitation of young men and boys.

Your original statement was the following:

To me it is about treating all people with respect and dignity - of course, I'm a liberal, and I think they should be allowed to marry as well, so I'm sort of in the minority here...

I read this as a claim that conservatives did not believe in treating people with dignity and respect. You claim that you only meant that liberals were more tolerant than conservatives on gay rights issues and that I certainly agree with. However, I still disagree with your statement. Here, you say that to you, the issue is about treating all people with dignity and respect. But in your most recent response, you say the following about the views of fundamentalist Christians:

Playing the 'I show a lack of tolerance towards their belief' card doesn't affect me at all – I have no problem being intolerant to views that are archaic and out of date.

Supporting intolerance toward people who have these views is not "treating all people with respect and dignity." It is insulting to call their views archaic and out of date. Therefore, I believe that to be accurate, your statement ought to read, "I believe in treating people I agree with with dignity and respect." So does almost everyone.

Furthermore, tolerance of homosexuality is not a new idea. It has been around at least since the heyday of Ancient Greece. Therefore, I could just as easily dismiss your support of gay rights as archaic and out of date. But it is the merit of our ideas that is important here, not their modernity.

I disagree with your notion that you are not forcing your views on anyone else. You are, indeed, by trying to change legislation. Whether you are right in doing this is something we can debate about. But the fact that you are doing it is obvious. By supporting the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, you are supporting efforts that will require soldiers to accept homosexuality. So I don't buy the idea that Christians are the only ones who are trying to force their will on others. Liberals do it often. This is, I think, the way American politics is supposed to work. We, the people are supposed to be a part of our government. But let's not pretend one side is pushing views on the other, while the other is simply "wishing" people would agree with theirs.

Meanwhile, by trying to push legislation that legalizes gay marriage, you do not simply affect the government. Already, individuals have been sued for refusing to hire homosexuals or, in a recent case, refusing to photograph gay weddings. These lawsuits will almost certainly be more common and more successful if gay marriage is legalized. So to pretend that you are somehow not forcing your views on others may make you feel better about doing it, but it is not honest.

Furthermore, legalizing gay marriage puts what some call "a societal stamp of approval" on male-to-male courtship, which, when it exists between two middle-aged males may not be such an issue. But when it happens between a middle-aged male and a young boy it can be highly exploitative.

You offer instances of Lesbian-Baiting and rape up as evidence that the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy is a bad one. These are things which, you say, we should be appalled by. I agree. Rape is appalling – which is one reason many are uncomfortable about allowing homosexuality in the military. There has been, historically, a problem with allowing homosexual men to serve as authority figures for young men and younger boys.

Consider the problem of homosexual bullying in British boarding schools, where boys as young as twelve were preyed upon sexually for years by male supervisors and older boys. It has had devastating consequences. You can read about some of these in the following articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/11/international/europe/11britain.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article2446412.ece

Consider also the vulnerability of young men to the advances of pedophile priests that have repeatedly made the news.

There is a similar problem in the American military, where homosexual sergeants have used date rape drugs to rape and molest younger recruits.

In the Air Force, Capt. Devery L. Taylor was court martialed after he was found guilty of the rape of four soldiers and the attempted rape of two others. The story of his case can be found here:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,126982,00.html?ESRC=dod.nl

Retired Colonel Richard H. Black submits that homosexuality in the military undermines discipline, saying the following:

Worldwide crime reports documented serious disciplinary issues involving homosexuals who slipped unlawfully into U.S. military forces. Troops physically restrained one homosexual drill instructor as he attempted to rape a recruit struggling to flee out a second-story window. Two homosexual soldiers forcibly sodomized a lone soldier showering at night, forcing him to submit by strangling him with a bath towel. A master sergeant preyed on newcomers by getting them drunk before sexually assaulting them.

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/military-232507-homosexuals-officers.html

Are not these also things that we should be appalled by?

It is hard for women to admit they have been raped. It is, perhaps, harder for men who have been forcibly sodomized. Cody Openshaw was a disabled vet who was raped by a male platoon sergeant while waiting to be medical discharged. It ruined his life. Here is his story:

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/10/military-men-are-silent-victims-sexual-assault

The sergeant warned Openshaw against talking about the rape, threatening his family.

I think that this is at least as appalling as the lesbian-baiting you mention.

Now, to you, the fact that lesbian-bating is appalling is reason enough to oppose Don't Ask Don't Tell. Is the fact that forced sodomy exists reason enough to oppose it?

I have one more major issue with what you say. You quote Richard Mohr as saying the following:

The order says that as long as you gays act as though we people don't know who you are, we will act as though you don't exist, and thus in our willing ignorance, recommit ourselves to viewing your status as loathsome and repulsive.

You bold another section, indicating that you agree especially with it:

No one can accept the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and suppose that at the same time he or she is treating lesbians and gay men as persons.

I disagree emphatically with this idea. The policy does not mean that homosexual soldiers are treated as if they don't exist. It simply asks them to keep their sexual lives private. Therefore, a soldier can, instead of looking at his fellow soldier as "that guy who has sex with men," see his brother in arms for his merit. If he is a good soldier, his fellows will see that, rather than his sexual preferences.

One's sexual appetites are only one part of life. They are not the whole thing. Pretending that there is nothing more to a homosexual man than sex is extremely unfair. Elton John is not simply a gay man. He is also a phenomenal singer. If I don't focus on the fact that he is gay, but rather on the fact that he has a beautiful voice, is that really denying his existence? I don't think so. I really don't know why anyone needs to make the world aware of their private inclinations. I certainly would not choose to and I would be rather happy to know that someone was judging me on my merit, rather than some sort of idea about sexuality.

Comments

[Travis]

Thanks for the response Miranda - I know this, we are never going to agree on this issue! But debate is great and I do agree with you that that is how policy decisions should be made, is on a healthy debate of ideas. When I'm less tired and have more time on my hands (i.e. once quals week is over) I'll probably continue the debate.

Again, I'm glad we've gotten into this debate and I'll plan on engaging everyone here at SD Politics more.

[adam]

I really, really fail how allowing gay and lesbian citizens obtain marriage licenses is forcing anything upon you or any other faithful person. Do you approve of all of the unstable marriages that are performed civilly every single day in this country? Do you think that Jewish sects that oppose marriages between those of different religions are forced to accept the legal marriages of people who do have interfaith marriages? By your logic, you're also saying that these gay and lesbian people would also be being "forced" to "accept" all of the marriages that all fundamentalist Christians are in, as is the same for standing law in regards to discrimination laws, which gay people are not included in.

And you even mentioned the Catholic priest situation. You don't think allowing homosexuals to live their own lives free from discrimination and persecution would actually prompt these priests to actually live their lives more honestly, and thus, probably not even become priests, as their sexuality would not be so frowned upon?

From the basics of what you said, I take it that you just can't separate the religious and civil in your mind. Your arguments are extremely flawed, and it's just a shame you'll probably never realize that.

[adam]

(meant to start out with "fail to see")

[adam]

I also think your Don't Ask, Don't Tell argument is fatally flawed. You mention Elton John, who is an accomplish artist, but he is also open about his sexuality. Why exactly would fellow soldiers see another soldier as merely a homosexual, rather than a good soldier, if they are indeed one? That seems to be what Dan Choi's (I believe that the most recently prominently expelled solider's name) superiors and equals all seem to view him as. Again, what you posit is quite clearly fatally flawed in these issues, though I understand that you did definitely try. I'm just not sure that you've thoroughly thought these things through particularly in depth.

[adam]

And the laws you mentioned do not force views on anyone. Is photographing a couple accepting their relationship? No, it is not, especially if one has a company operating that is available to every other protected class of individuals. There is also only one known case of this, in New Mexico, which does not have same-sex marriage, so your suggestion that it would make it more likely is not backed up by what you mentioned. Also, I wonder how you do justify denying someone a job solely because they happen to be gay, and how a law protecting their right against discrimination in employment forces a view upon anyone. Where is "thou shalt not hire nor associate with homosexuals" in any holy book on this planet? It would be more true to many holy books to be barred from associating with those from other religions. These laws are irrelevant to any existing religions - can you explain to me how it forces anyone to go against their views, though? Much of what you say seems to imply a conservative Christian worldview should be favored above all others - in the civil arena.

This was probably the weakest part of your argument, sorry that it was the last I got to.

[CB]

I'm not sure that all the cases you mention are gay upon straight or straight upon gay. People can be intolerably cruel, and rape has always been a form of domination whether the perpetrator is gay or straight. And a heterosexual superior male raping a heterosexual subordinate male is not unheard of. I don't know if changing the current policy will make the situation better or worse, but there are too many talented people who are not allowed to serve, and that needs to be addressed.

[Lynn]

Adam, just what is fair about forcing a photographer to take wedding photos against his will? I thought this was a free country, but it's rapidly becoming less free. If that photographer didn't want the job, the couple was certainly free to pick from one of hundreds of other photographers in his region who would do the job. This is why people get so fed up with the "equal rights" demanded by homosexuals. They don't want freedom or equal rights, they want special rights and the notoriety that goes with it.

[Miranda]

Travis:

I also appreciate this exchange and thank you for your patience and participation. I look forward to your future posts. I am not so sure we will never agree. Liberals are supposed to have open minds, after all! And I am not QUITE arrogant enough to believe that I am right all of the time.

Adam:

Thank you for stopping by. I think to understand my argument clearly you need to look at it in context. I am responding to Travis's claims that while Fundamentalist Christians try to force their views on others, liberals do not. My argument here is not so much about whether it is right or wrong to do so (I do think it's fair), but about whether or not both sides are guilty of it. I do not think it is as one-sided as Travis claims.

You ask how granting someone a marriage license affects anyone else. I gave the lawsuits against the photographer as an example. Certainly, if a photographer is penalized for his refusal to photograph a gay marriage, he is affected by it. Now, maybe you would argue that he should be penalized. But the fact remains that whether
it is right or wrong to penalize him, he is affected.

Therefore, it is not honest to say that making gay marriage legal has no effect on those who oppose it.

You ask the following:

Why exactly would fellow soldiers see another soldier as merely a homosexual, rather than a good soldier,
if they are indeed one?

I am not sure that the question "why" is as important as the question "if." I can think of numerous reasons
other officers might be distracted from the fact that their homosexual comrade is a good soldier. Sex,in general, is distracting.

Take Travis's lesbian-bating example. If those responsible for lesbian-baiting were focusing on their female comrades'
worth as a soldier, they might have considered he well-being rather than simply obsessing over sex. Apparently, if Travis is right, sex becomes more important to some officers than performance in battle. If male officers have to worry about unwanted sexual attention from their comrades, they are very likely to be distracted. But the real question isn't why. It's "Do they?". DO straight men
in the military view homosexual soldiers more as homosexuals or good soldiers? Is homosexuality distracting? I think it is, and I think that, judging by the reaction of the veterans who have posted here, many soldiers have a very negative view of the practice.

I like your point about Jewish sects. That one I will have to give some thought to.

CB: Thank you for your input. I'm not sure I accept your claim that heterosexual males rape homosexual males. If a man has sex with another man, forcibly or otherwise, he's a homosexual. He doesn't have to belong to some sort of club or identity. Nor does he have to call himself a homosexual. That's just what homosexuality is by definition.

Lynn: Nice to see you again. I appreciate your support.

[Buy cheap Viagra]

Now, to you, the fact that lesbian-bating is appalling is reason enough to oppose Don't Ask Don't Tell. Is the fact that forced sodomy exists reason enough to oppose it?

[Generic Viagra]

Well Done
I would like to appreciate the great work done by You

[ベネトリン]

What an idea,
Great tips, I would like to join your blog anyway,