An Associated Press story was adorned with the remarkable headline: "Military Gay Policy Causes Troop Loss." And? The "don't ask, don't tell" policy kicks out homosexuals publicizing their bedroom behavior. This is news?

The piece focused on a Government Accounting Office report detailing alleged costs of the military's exclusion of open homosexuals. "What the research has found and what the GAO confirmed is that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' harms military readiness," opined Aaron Belkin, of something called the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military. That's one way to spin it: Blame the rule, not the rulebreaker. The military discriminates against adulterers, the hirsute community, and various other groups. They do this for a number of reasons, not the least of which is unit cohesion. When your business involves killing and dying, reluctance to partake in social experiments is natural, particularly when those experiments will come at the expense of unit cohesion.

Rarely has so much ink been spilled over something so minor as the military's policy on homosexuals, revised in 1993. Of the roughly 2.5 million active and reserve members of the armed forces, exactly 653 got kicked out last year for violating "don't ask, don't tell." Maybe this is the result of living in an age of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, Steven Cojocaru, and other homosexual versions of Amos & Andy, but something tells me that gays wouldn't be lining up at the local military recruiter's office if the ban is ever lifted.

Maybe all the Iraqis need is a round of finger snapping and exhortations to "Oh, be nice!" to straighten that country out.

If they can ban beardos ... why not weirdos?

The military doesn’t and can’t operate effectively by sponsoring social experiments. Any activities outside of dealing with the business of war or national defense is not condoned and dealt with swiftly.

This is why the military has its own standards and rules and tries to keep itself very much removed from society’s sometimes questionable standards.

No matter what the reasons: you break military code, you become subject to military punishment.

“Don’t ask, don’t tell” should work as long as nobody flaunts that rule.

"Don't ask, don't tell......What's that smell!!!"

A part of me still wonders why a group of mature adults can't look past sexuality. I tend to think it's the homophobia of some men?

I just find it odd that a lot of men are still threatened by openly gay individuals around them. Do they think the gays will try to convert or make them perform homosexual acts against their will?

As far as group cohesion, why do we need a "don't ask don't tell" policy? Are we purporting that there is a heterosexual characteristic in defending our country? If we need this policy, then obviously it's because heterosexuals are uncomfortable with the sexuality of homosexuals. Why is this? Gays bleed the same as straights do.

Any gay man or woman who wants to fight for his country shouldn't have to supress his sexuality so the other soldiers can be comfortable. It's like, how many years have we been trying to conform and change gays? It's never going to work, so we may as well accept them, whether we agree with their lifestyle or not.

The Only real problem in Iraq, is our unwarrented presence

Talk about something important for once. How about the 160,000 civilians that "we" have slaughtered so far in the war? What ever happened to "do unto others"?

Lefty Luke Skywalker, persuse the site before you make ridiculous comments. If you go back in the archives, there are dozens of posts detailing my opposition to the war. Many commenters agree, some don't. Unlike on the left, there is diversity of opinion here. I should add that I oppose the war as an American--not an Iraqi. We're losing money and lives. The Iraqis are gaining many tangible benefits. The numbers you cite are not backed up in fact. Where did you get them? What about the millions of Iraqis freed from Saddam Hussein?

A question for Mr. Doyle: What if a soldier wants to come out as a cross-dresser. Should the milatary acquiesce to his god given right to dress up like Judy Garland? Would that behavior have a positive impact on unit cohesion? Wouldn't we be suppressing them if we did not allow him to live his lifestyle? Feck great post as usual.

We put SADDAM HUSSEIN in power. Do you all remember that? In light of this, one can safely say that we are at least somewhat responsible for those "millions" of lives lost under the hands of Saddam. Yes he was a cancer to the country. But do you get rid of cancer by removing it, not adding more! We set up the pins, then knoock em down. We create instability. It is the old problem, reaction, and solution trio. We have been doing this for a long time now. Give them the bait, then we make a move. Take it punk, Take it... Rumsfeld authorized the selling of nuclear reactors to both Pakistan and N. Korea less than three years ago. Take it punk, you know you want it..

Oh yeah, all men are created equal. An Iraqi life lost is no better or no worse than that of an American. We all share the same common properties and consciousness that life provides. Imaginary boundaries that depict countries are just that; Imaginary. To think that an American life is more important than any other, is a disease of the mind, and a by-product of patriotic conditioning. Similar indeed to what Hitler was up to.

Ya sure dude, the Iraqi's are gaining many tangible benefits. Like what? House remodeling in a split second by a "smart" bomb? Corpses, polluting the groundwater? Getting shot if they step outside under a nazi-esque curfew? Getting blasted in the head by microwave radiation weaponry, to mees with their psyches'? HAving U.S. APPOINT delegates to vote for under a ficticious and rigged election? (kind of like ours) Oh yes, some Iraqis voted alright, but do you know what they voted for? Overwelmingly for us to get the hell out. FACTS, do the research

To say that there is no diversity within the "left" is blasphemous, is ludicrous. Nothing is black or white

Truth,

It's actually more arguable that we set up Castro. But if you are of Chomsky's ilk you might argue that Castro got away from us and didn't at once institute the liquidation of his people like we asked him to do (or some other villainous scheme).

Hey, look at that: you help some leaders into power and they don't always do what you want. If we aren't responsible for Cuba's "paradise", we aren't responsible for Saddam's atrocities.

Also truth, is "ludicrous" really a "gray" word? Is "blasphemous", or how about "nothing"? Do you think "nazi-esque" is gray? Or perhaps you think that a "ficticious or rigged election" (which is "the truth", truth?) have their tradeoffs? And of course people usually use "cancer" with an ambivalent tone, too.

I didn't hear anybody say "black" or "white", thus you must have interpretted "Unlike the left..." as a black and white concept. Kind of like "nothing". And if nothing is black or white, then Dan's misjudgment of diversity of opinion on the left is really neither here nor there, isn't it? How can it be "ludicrous" if it is neither black nor white that diversity of opinion exists on the left?

But if you actually wrote the words "We may disagree about diversity of opinion on the left," you'd actually be sounding sensible and civil---how would you live with that?

Thanks for the relief, truth. Unless I knew that "nothing is black or white", I might fret about being a dupe of the system. Now, I know, thanks to nihilists like yourself, that there are good things and bad things about being a dupe of the system. And while in this information-value system (which ranks highly-informed as white and gullible dupe as black) I might fear that I am not as clean as I might be, nothing is black and white, there is no reason to prefer the informed-duped hierarchy to any other hierrachy, including the comfortable-disturbed spectrum.

Thanks, truth. (Incidently, the reasonable skeptical tradition that informs hijacked creed of nihilists, was formulated by Sextus Empiricus to relieve torment from the mind---to make us more comfortable with our life. It's odd that "revolutionaries" actually want to "wake people up" with a credo whose main purpose was to relieve us from striving. That the left has never understood this thematic disconnect, has always amused me--and sometimes scared me.)

Chris,

Why do homosexuals choose a mate that they cannot procreate with and then want to increasingly imitate the natural association of procreative couples and their offspring as if it was their right. Of course, you could argue, in non-teleological fashion that such gays are just obeying their sexual preference and their nesting instinct.

Fine. But also in a non-teleological fashion the human mind was not made to have prejudices or to eschew them. There may be a wide-spread preferrence of other memebers of the human species to avoid members of the herd who engage in "distasteful" sexual behaviors. So in order for the gays to "be who they are" you are asking many other men to not be as they are.

"Can't they look past it?" you ask. As if it is the assumption that a lump of protoplasm can? You are implying that "sexualities" are something to look past. You cannot do that without a form of teleology. But anti-teleology is the mode of the pro-gay argument: Things are just so, you can't change them, so don't fight it.

While, it may be true that you cannot change the sexual orientation of another, but if you are personally uncomfortable around gays, you can change whether you are around openly gay people. The gays may lack an impetus to "be normal", but the type of men who are drawn to the military may lack impetus to include them. What are the preferences of these men?

Why do we argue preference and reflexive behavior on one side, and to the other side invoke duty and ideals of overcoming one's reflexive response and preferrences? Can we suppress our responses or can't we?

I just find it odd that a lot of men are still threatened by openly gay individuals around them. Do they think the gays will try to convert or make them perform homosexual acts against their will?

As far as group cohesion, why do we need a "don't ask don't tell" policy? Are we purporting that there is a heterosexual characteristic in defending our country? If we need this policy, then obviously it's because heterosexuals are uncomfortable with the sexuality of homosexuals. Why is this? Gays bleed the same as straights do.

Any gay man or woman who wants to fight for his country shouldn't have to supress his sexuality so the other soldiers can be comfortable. It's like, how many years have we been trying to conform and change gays? It's never going to work, so we may as well accept them, whether we agree with their lifestyle or not.
Posted by Christopher J. Doyle at February 25, 2005 09:40 PM">

Many adults can and do look past sexuality, but there is one fatal logical flaw in your post. The military does not, for several reasons. One of them is the psychological fact that we as human beings are sexually-oriented in our thought processes. If a unit, a company, a group, whatever, has to deal with issues that do not directly relate with their tasks, such as romantic relationships, group cohesion is destroyed. The military has valiantly tried to maintain group cohesion by disallowing women from serving in combat roles and by disallowing service members from fraternizing with their subordinates. Also, the military punishes adulterers. Sexuality has absolutely no place in the military, period. That's why the sexes are segregated. Men and women do not shower together, obviously, because that would be an immense distraction and would absolutely shatter morale.

Do you see, Christopher J. Doyle, where this is leading? If gay men were permitted to profess their sexuality, group cohesion and morale would be irrevocably changed within the military. Putting aside so called homophobia as a reason, why should men within a group have to ponder the hidden intentions of their comrades? Why should a soldier have to wonder about someone having romantic designs on them while quartered, even assuming that particular soldier is gay? The don't ask don't tell policy isn't perfect, but nothing in life is. The logical, objective reality is that it's the best conceivable system.

Lastly, civilians like Christopher J. Doyle should have no right to dictate the internal policy of the military. Civilians elect leaders to manage the budget and to make ultimate decisions regarding war, but civilians should have no right to change internal policy. These issues should always be addressed by those who currently serve in the military.

"civilians like Christopher J. Doyle should have no right to dictate the internal policy of the military"

Frankly, that's wrong. Our constitution puts the army under our president, with oversight by congress and even subject to rulings of the court. Citizens have the right to elect a president and congressmen that campaign on a platform of putting flowers in the hair of servicemen.

I think that would hurt our readiness, but the people have then prioritized flowers over readiness. You would really have nothing to say to a populace which said "We don't care about readiness, flowers are more important to us." But luckily the American people still know what an army is for.

Now the more middle case is that people may opt to elect leaders who change more than other people are comfortable with. But Chris and others are free to elect leaders who will hurt our version of readiness.

What I do find funny is that you can say DADT is not perfect, but defensible, when many of us conservatives showed little interest in defending it when Clinton proposed it. Instead, our side argued that he would ruin the military, or something to that effect.

If conservatism is only the perspective to wait a a decade or so to engage the discussion in the terms of the liberals set before us, then we are indeed on the wrong side of the intellectual argument.

But of course theirs really isn't an intellectual argument at all: there can be no progress in a series of events that has no goal. Progress is progress toward a goal. If we start out with a purposeless man and purposeless nature we may conceive a goal, but our nature may have no impetus to be reformed by the imagination.

If we cohere to the rule that a gay man cannot become straight, then we acknowledge the frustration of a number of gay men forcing themselves to be other than what they are by planning to become other. Cognitive-based ana-lysis then becomes insulting: "What's going on in his mind that he wants to have sex with another man?!" So we turn the question around and as on the same cognitive level ask what is going on in the mind of somebody who rejects that lifestyle. There must be something seriously wrong with how they are thinking.

The suggestion that normative behavior---which even you Chris demonstrates---is illogical and therefore must be rooted out, is itself a normative behavior. We just shift the onus of "who needs to change". But of course the idea that we need to change for a common good, needs a goal, and modern rational naturalism---the only source where we may draw our "rational" argument from---cannot provide that goal.

Great point Sea King. Keep up the good work.

I was fully aware my comments would spark some reaction, so I am pleased. Let me try to address some of the arguments placed before me:

1)Gregory Oatmeal:

Behavior that results in the loss of group cohesion should render any soldier unfit for duty. Be it a gay man who departs from military dress (putting on a dress and acting like Judy Garland), or a straight man exercising his masculinity by hazing another soldier physically.

The point here is that a gay man can be openly gay without threatening anyone. It doesn't have to affect his job performance or those around him, unless those around him choose to be threatened. If a gay man makes a sexual advance towards a soldier, then he should be dealt with; but i'm sure that straight men have made sexual advances to females in the military, do we outlaw women? If any sexual activity is prohibited in the military among soldiers, than it matters not what the soldier's preference is. Why are we assuming that a gay man will break the rules?

He took an oath to obey the rules, so let him honor his oath. What he does when he's not working or around his soldiers is his own business.

2)Polemical:

Why shouldn't a civilian like me have a right to influence military policy? I am a tax payer. I vote to elect representatives in government who share my views. I can interpret the Constitution the way I want to. Maybe you have forgotten a couple things called freedom and liberty.

You're arguments are rediculous. A man wondering if another men has an attraction towards him? Come on dude, are you like, in seventh grade here? What are you so scared of? That a gay man's ganna look at your but in the shower? GROW UP!

If you're going to make the argument, why don't we just go back some years when blacks were segregated from whites in the military. How about when they were considered 3/5 of a person? They were considered inferior to whites, and therefore would bring down the unit.

The simple fact is, that if any sexuality is supposed to be left out of the group, what does it matter if Joe is gay, and Mike is straight. No one's supposed to be having sex. So who cares? If straight men are THAT insecure with their sexuality, that they are looking around while they're in the shower, hoping and praying that some gay man isn't looking at them, then I feel very, very sorry for them.

3)Sea King:

I'm honestly not sure I comprehend your whole argument, because i'm not reading into that level of sophistication. Although i'm sure you have vaild points here, i'm not sure I understand.

What I am trying to say, is homosexuality has existed for thousands of years. People have tried to change them, suppress them, kill them, and call them crazy. Maybe it's genetic, maybe it's an acquired trait. I happen to think it's not genetic, but a sickness from early exposure to sexuality at a young age.

So to question behavior: Why does a man want to have sex with another man? Who knows?

Why does this enrage other straight men? Why does it make them become violent? And how does it affect them, if a gay man makes no agression towards them?

All I'm saying, is that in our day of age, a group of men should be able to work together without EVEN making sexuality an issue...even if some are gay and some are straight. If all abide by the military code, then there's not a problem to begin with.

Sea King, thanks for your thoughtful reply. It was an astute obervation of you to point out my choice of vocabulary, in that some of the words were "one-sided" or biased. My bad! However, history shows that we did, most efficiently engineer Saddam's rise; as well as take a part in international nuclear proliferation. Viewpoints from either the right or left are imperfect, of course. This does not mean however that I will support a "patriot act" in the name of "terrorism" as well as support killing over-seas in the context of a war effort. To me, it is all a matter of morality, and a faithful vision of a peaceful world. One can not generate true peace, with out true peace. That is where I stand and that is all any one could ever ask for. -Truth (Mr. X)

Wasn't integrating the army a social experiment as well, with perhaps the same arguments about unit cohesion and such being used against it?

Mr. Doyle you make very strong arguments, never the less, I disagree with you. Homosexuality or any sexuality needs to be suppressed in order for a soldier to be effective. There are also strict policies against fraternization, sodomy and adultery too. You don't hear about these policies because the people who would overturn don't ask don't tell would solidify these behaviors. Don't ask don't tell does work and will continue to work.Undoubtably, there are numerous homosexuals in the armed forces. Having them keep there proclivities to themselves dosen't prevent them from from being who they are. Who they are, while serving in the armed forces, are soldiers.

As I do with most of my responses to critical posts, I'll break this down piecemeal, Christopher J. Doyle.

"Why shouldn't a civilian like me have a right to influence military policy? I am a tax payer. I vote to elect representatives in government who share my views. I can interpret the Constitution the way I want to. Maybe you have forgotten a couple things called freedom and liberty."

A civilian like you has not served in the military. Not only do you seemingly lack a working knowledge of the various codes and rules, you don't know how military units function and operate. You bleat, "I can interpret the Constitution the way I want to." Oh really?! What a powerful argument! Ya know what, so can I. I'm tieing these facts together to show that while you as a citizen elect leaders who determine ultimate policy such as war and peace and how the tax money is allocated, you shouldn't concern yourself with internal military policy. Leave those decisions to the military.

"You're arguments are rediculous. A man wondering i another men has an attraction towards him? Come on dude, are you like, in seventh grade here? What are you so scared of? That a gay man's ganna look at your but in the shower? GROW UP!"

I really don't have any way to prove this to you in a post on a blog, but I have no qualms or disagreements with the vast majority of what the liberal gay community desires. I support gay-marriage. I have been a friend of many gays in my community for years, starting with my first job in high school. I, just as much as anyone, believe in freedom. The military, however, must be disconnected from civilian society. It must function as efficiently, effectively, and as flawlessly as possible. In your REEE-diculous response, you make the ridiculous assertions and completely fail to address what I wrote. Sexuality, whether it is heterosexual or homosexual, has no place in a cohesive unit. That is why females don't fight alongside males in combat units. There would be absolutely no group cohesion if people had an outlet within that particular military system for their sexual desires . It's pretty much common sense, and is addressed in the military in many other ways such as forbidding adultery and fraternizing with subordinates. If you can't connect these dots, then it's either your fault or mine. I'll let the readers decide that.

"If you're going to make the argument, why don't we just go back some years when blacks were segregated from whites in the military. How about when they were considered 3/5 of a person? They were considered inferior to whites, and therefore would bring down the unit."

Um, this is kinda pathetic, and I'll explain why with a very simple statement. Race does not equal sexuality, therefore your comparison is worthless. I'm not even sure of the point you were trying to make! Can you say "non sequitur"?

"The simple fact is, that if any sexuality is supposed to be left out of the group, what does it matter if Joe is gay, and Mike is straight. No one's supposed to be having sex. So who cares? If straight men are THAT insecure with their sexuality, that they are looking around while they're in the shower, hoping and praying that some gay man isn't looking at them, then I feel very, very sorry for them."

This is your best paragraph, in my opinion. Unfortunately, for you, it doesn't reinforce your argument, it reinforces mine. You're absolutely right, no one should be having sex, which is why males and females are separated, but wait...if gay men were given an outlet within a combat unit, what would happen? The point is not that anyone is "afraid" of it, as you define the word, the point is that human beings are sexual creatures, and if given an outlet for their sexual desires, they will use it.

One thing I learned by the age of 20:

Some people argue about morality by appealing to our supposedly late period of history, saying things like "in this day and age..." "come on, this is the 21st century...," etc. (See, "in our day of age", C. Doyle, above.) Let's call it the inthisdayandage fallacy.

This fallacy presumes a progressive view of history, and it operates psychologically by making people unjustly disdainful of all tradition and ancestors.

Short,

You could call it the agenda fallacy. It assumes that everybody shares the same agenda or goals. Of course, it is usually cited by those people who are most likely to be skeptical of collective goals. (Because as we know, the NAZIs had collective goals.)

But if we lack an agreement of where we want to get to---what is the social "Good"---then we also have no common basis as to what is more advanced than what. Advanced towards what?

But that aside, even were everyone to agree on a goal, the question of why we are not on schedule would be a naive one, from my perspective: you play the hand that nature has dealt you; you learn the lessons that life teaches. You don't question why things aren't going according to schedule that was drafted before you ever put yourself to work on the details.

Sea King: I guess I agree with you, but I think the much deeper assumption here is a view of history that is progressive/whig/gnostic, and in fact a secularization of the Christian view.

The interesting thing about this fallacy is that it is utterly superstitious and bi-zarre to think that the human race is on any "schedule" of _moral_ (rather than, say, technological) progress. Pure faith. It supposes that the "lateness" of the age itself is somehow significant for what standards we should hold today. This is related, I guess, to the idea (philosophically incoherent but prima facie appealing) that the passage of time itself changes things. Just by the movement of one second to the next, moral standards change, and all of a sudden we are in "this day and age"?!

Hey Short,

I have to play a bit of Devil's advocate here based on your reference to the non-existence of a schedule of moral progress as opposed to technological progress. I agree with the superstitious nature of historical utopianism or progressivism and that what we experience today is for the most part a form of Christian heresy or gnosticism. I also agree that no schedule of course exists and that the movement of history can go both forward and backward morally.

But the fly in the ointment is that if such a secularized view (Buckley's "immanentizing the eschaton") is heretical that indicates that it touches on or misapplies a grain of truth. I would say that the grain of truth would in fact be the *possibility* of historical moral progress. We see the actuality of something recognizably called "progress" both in most every individual's history-biography and historically speaking for the species.

For the individual to become a mature moral adult involves a process of development from being a self-centered six year old to being an educated and selfless adult. It is possible for someone who at one time believed in the justice of, say, abortion to later come to a better and morally good understanding. That is progress right?

Now for humanity as a whole while nature does not in fact change, and natural law does not in fact change, moral progress in terms of human *knowledge* of natural law can occur. For example if we look back to the time of the Patriarchs we see that polygamy was accepted as morally good. Abraham is still an obedient servant of God and a saint despite a lack of monogamy right? So only at a later stage temporally did human understanding of the natural law progress to recognize the justice and goodness of monogamy as well as the moral injunction to practice it.

How would you incorporate the historically later understanding that natural law entails monogamy into a philosophy of history which denies a priori the possibility of moral progress?

I think that secularization of the philosophy of history (a philosophy of history not dependent on a theology of history) is part of the problem of modern progressivism. Another problem is a faulty philosophical anthropology, or understanding of human nature. The end result is that the "inthisdayandage" fallacy you astutely recognize is simply a sophism, it is an empty rhetorical assertion of power that masks the fact that the progressive's views are in fact morally regressive.

OK, Brian, the idea that there are some permanent moral standards built into human nature and the nature of the world (=moral non-relativism) does imply that "progress" and "regress" are possible. I agree. I try to never use those words, however, because it carries baggage implying that the efficient cause of such movement is built into history (i.e., the passage of time) itself. Rather, it's just a bunch of stuff we do, and communities get better or worse as a result. The understanding of the standards should improve in a person or community as time passes, yes: but persons are more able efficiently to cause this. Communities do not have unity or memory the same way a person has. The confused way that communities "remember" lessons of their past shows that they lack the means for consistent moral improvement over generations.

Regarding the pre-Christ standards of morality and the post-Christ standards, I would use the concepts of nature and grace. Monogamy or polygamy is as natural and as good now as it was for Abraham. It is the possible state of grace of human beings that has changed.

(P.S. It's Voegelin's "immanentizing the eschaton.")

Polemical,

You are right. The black argument was weak.

As far as sexuality, my argument is not so different than what you think. I do think that sexuality has no place in the military. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether someone is gay or straight.

I too, have gay friends and colleagues, and it frustrates me to see others (i'm not saying you) call them less than humans, disgusting, or whatever. I also think they are capable of suppressing their sexuality for group cohesion. I just think that when push comes to shove, a gay man shouldn't be afraid to be open about his sexuality.

I think we have progressed enough in our society to be tolerant, even if we may not agree with other's lifestyles. As long as it's clear to military personnel that sexuality in any form is not to be brought in the equation, then we have no problems. I just think that gay men have a disadvantage in that they automatically aren't trusted, because they happen to be serving with members of a sex they are (or could be) attracted to.

Although I'm not really fond of "don't ask don't tell", I have to admit that it generally works. Ideally, I don't think we need it, but in an ideal world, there would be no wars, and no military.

Thanks for the response Short. Very helpful and astute; I like your distinction between seeing progress as built into history itself versus a possibility of reason or intelligence. A discursive intelligence like us humans have is by its very nature capable of progress and regress and it is meaningful to talk about progress in such limited terms but the concepts have been so misunderstood by political modernity that they may be practically worthless.

I didn't know Voegelin coined that phrase, that's cool, I had identified it with that old bumper sticker that I believe Buckley produced.

Chris: Try smoking a cigarette in an airport, and you'll find your statement is just false: "I think we have progressed enough in our society to be tolerant, even if we may not agree with other's lifestyles."

Perhaps a liberal would define 'progress' as increased intolerance of cigarettes. Sea King's point above appplies here perfectly: using the word 'progress' here is just a way of assuming that other people agree with your view of good or bad.

Brian: How could it be any other than Voegelin? It's his schtick!

The idea is definitely Voegelian (is that the term?). I just wasn't sure of the phrase.

I will read more Voegelin as penance ;)

Christopher J. Doyle,

There is one more thing I wanted to add. If gays were allowed to be open about their sexuality, then why can't women and men live together, shower together, and sleep together in the barracks and in times of war? After all, I as a heterosexual should be given the opportunity to suppress my sexuality if homosexuals are able to do so. I wouldn't mind being able to room and shower with an attractive woman. I think I would be able to suppress my sexuality quite admirably. ;)

Polemical,

Your points are quite rational and argued well. I guess we'll just have to disagree here. Perhaps the nature of man would inhibit him from refraining from his sexual instincts. But aren't we asking our military to do that anyway? So we just take it one step further, and put men and women together, gay and straight together. Would there be incidents? Of course. But we don't live in an ideal society.

You know, I just realized how SIDE-SPLITTINGLY funny a gay Amos and Andy would be. I wish I were a producer.

I make this promise, if I EVER strike it rich, I will make these shows. Political correctness be damned!

Short,

We agree about the larger picture. And that subject reminds me of Nietzsche. He said that although the German people had pretty much killed God with Feuerbachian rationalism, they were still dragging around his corpse. Nietzsche's point was to wake people up and make them realize that they had destroyed their basis for it, but were still trying to "do God's work."

In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche argued that without a particular worldview, feeding the needy did not prove to be any definite good. He did so by providing a reasonable basis for charity detracting from the common good. He saw that in part was about as "superstitious" as the behavior that the 19th-century modern Germans had otherwise rejected.

It is ~115 years past the hour of Nietzsche, and we still have people trying to graft the pro-competance, technological world to the pathos of individual value, regardless competence. To make it worse the progressive asks us to reject "wishful thinking" and stay to naturalism, a tightrope that neither side can walk.