Opposing Conservative and Liberal Views: Gays in the Military

Conservative (CON): Given that the gay community has supported Obama, they will be in a position to seek payback. To advance their agenda, they will likely lobby Obama to overturn the current “Don’t ask. Don’t tell.” policy of the military and instead institute a policy that will allow gays to serve openly in the armed forces. This undesirable change would undermine the culture, morale and combat effectiveness of the military.

Liberal (LIB): I am unaware of evidence that gay persons undermine the culture, morale or combat effectiveness of the military. Do you have any evidence of this? Before 1948, a black person could serve only in a segregated unit or in a menial capacity in naval units. The same prejudices that prevented blacks from serving with equality should not work against gays.

CON: Comparing the status of gays in the military to that of blacks in the pre-1948 segregated military is not an accurate analogy. Just ask yourself, if you were a straight guy, would you like serving in an infantry squad with 2 or 3 gays.

LIB: First, let's deal with gays in an infantry squad. A squad at full strength has 10 to 12 men. The likelihood of serving in a squad with 2 or 3 gays is highly unlikely. The same could be said for a 4-squad platoon, but perhaps not for a company. However, the frequency of gays misses the point, which is that the youth of today are not of the same opinion about gays as you. I'm seventy years old. Don't ask me, ask a recruit. I'll bet they are more accepting of gays than either of us.

CON: The young people of today may well be more accepting of gays than old people like you and I. But, I would think the young people who join the military may be less accepting of gays than others in their age cohort. In any event, whenever it is decided that gays will be allowed to serve openly in the military, I doubt if young GI’s will have any input. Maybe the question should be put to a vote of those currently serving in the military.

LIB: Your idea that volunteers may be less accepting of gays than others of the same age is a speculative assumption on your part. Is it your idea that volunteers are more macho than persons who avoid military service, and hence would dislike gays? Who says macho persons dislike gays? You know, there are macho gay men and some lesbians are known to be macho (man-like or butch) females. What about the gays, aren’t they also volunteers? Would they be self-loathing? Really, you need a better argument. Actually you have no basis for opposing gays in the military. By the way, what do you mean about gays “serving openly in the armed forces”? Are you insinuating that, if recognized, gays would be tiptoeing around, limp wrists flopping, while they swished to and fro holding hands with a lover? Give me a break.

Opposing Conservative and Liberal Views: Gay Marriage

Conservative (CON): It is appropriate to consider if a liberal majority on the Supreme Court will have other implications that will be bad for America. To me, it seems predictable that gay rights organizations will consider a liberal Court as an opportunity to challenge state laws or constitutional provisions defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Should they prevail, then traditional family values will be severely undermined.

Liberal (LIB): Gays will challenge laws they believe unjust regardless of who sits on the bench. Further, I am unaware of evidence that gay rights undermine the traditional family. Homosexuality has been part of our nation’s traditional morality since it’s founding, except it has not been overt. Our national morality is not being subverted. An alternative lifestyle is merely being recognized as existing in our society and is seeking equal protection under the law.

CON: Gays are more likely to challenge laws they don't like when they sense that they have a good chance of winning. Thus, when they see that the judges are mostly Ginsburg clones, they will challenge. If the majority includes justices like Roberts, Alito and Thomas, they will not make the effort.

LIB: I would as easily imagine that when gays feel the law is on their side they will seek legal redress, without testing the wind for a left-wing or right-wing majority.

CON: As for homosexuality being part of our nation's traditional mortality, that's a crock. The traditional morality I remember defines homosexuality as aberrant, abnormal or deviant behavior that is sinful.

LIB: The term, morality, does not imply right or wrong; it refers to a doctrine or system of morals. In the case of homosexuality, it has been part of our traditional national morality where it is recognized, but ignored and accepted as inevitable when covert, but condemned when flaunted, except for certain societal classes such as persons in the arts. We are in a period of social change, where ideas about homosexuality are changing. You don't have to change your opinion, but you err when you say homosexuality is sinful because it is aberrant, abnormal or deviant behavior. Being characterized by any of the latter three terms is not sinful.

CON: It’s fair to say that the word morality, by itself, dos not imply right or wrong. However, I did attach a prefix to indicate a type of morality system. I thus made reference to “traditional morality” which I would define as the morality system that has been prevalent in our culture in past generations. Traditional morality, therefore, encompasses a system of morality that has come to recognize some things as right and some things as wrong. My own grasp of traditional morality is that it viewed homosexuality as wrong. For myself, I see no reason to depart from that view. If it was wrong 50 or 60 years ago, what makes it right now? As Christians, we hate the sin, but, like Christ, love the sinner. It’s hard to do when they become so damn pushy. Witness their recent invasions of Catholic and evangelical churches during worship services.

LIB: The columnist, Jonah Goldberg, in a December 4, 2008, opinion piece in the Kansas City Star weighed in on this subject:

“It’s often lost on gay-rights groups that they and their allies are the aggressors in the culture war. Indeed, they admit to being the “forces of change” and the “agents of progress.” They proudly want to rewrite tradition and overturn laws. But whenever they’re challenged democratically and peaceably, they instantly complain of being victims of entrenched bigots, even as they adopt the very tactics they abhor.

My own view is that gay marriage is likely inevitable and won’t be nearly the disaster many of my fellow conservatives fear it will be. But the scorched-earth campaign to victory pushed by gay-marriage advocates may well be disastrous, and “liberals” should be ashamed for countenancing it.”

Even the conservative Goldberg sees the inevitability of gay marriage. What was wrong 50 or 60 years ago is not necessarily wrong today. Attitudes change over time. In the more distant past, gay lifestyles were accepted as an alternate choice, not an aberration. The thought of two persons of the same sex engaging in sex is repugnant to me. But that’s an expected reaction on my part. I’m not gay. No one is asking me to engage in same sex, so why should I care what two other people do for sex? For me, the test is whether gay marriage affects me or not. I’ve been happily married for almost 50 years. I can’t imagine how gay marriage would make a difference in my marriage or life, so why should I oppose it? However, I agree with Goldberg that the aggressive tactics of gay rights groups are counter-productive to their efforts for social equality. Non-violent protests are more effective in appeals for equal rights.