Gays in the Military: A Lesson in Understanding

“Gays in the Military” has been the hot topic just about everywhere i’ve looked the last couple of weeks.  Like so many other things, I think that people miss the point on this one.

Christians get side-tracked into a debate about homosexuality and most everyone else gets overly anxious about protecting rights.

unfortunately, this topic does not come down to either of these.

The US military exists to protect borders, keep peace generally help nations in crisis. (I’ll leave the ‘make politicians money’ for another day.)

so, under the “good”, “better”, “best” objective model, what policy best accomplishes that mission?  I believe this debate has gotten distracted by theory vs. practicality, i.e. utopia vs. reality.

THE UTOPIC VIEW:
every person regardless of temptation should be able to serve together, setting aside their temptations for the purpose of a greater cause. the utopic view would call us to embrace …one another and accept each other where we are with our own struggles as they exist rising in unity to build one another up and trusting the brotherhood bond that recognizes we’re all in this together.

that’s utopia!

REALITY VIEW:
now, for reality…the interesting thing is that you’re thinking that the person facing temptation referred to here is the homosexual. while that could be true, i think we’re overlooking the temptation of the straight soldier who is tempted to judgment and fear. by “fear”, I don’t mean a “fear” of becoming homosexual, nor a general fear of homosexuals. ironically, i mean a fear of the same general discomfort that most women experience every day while walking down the street or through the office, whether the fear is justified or not. the fear of unwanted advance, the discomfort of being goggled by someone by whom they wish not to be goggled….whether or not they are actually being goggled, we’re talking “fears”.

the problem is that men are afraid of themselves. we know how we act toward women and we fear that homosexuals (men) will act the same toward us.

so, we don’t want them in the shower with us; we don’t want them in our bedrooms with us and generally we don’t want to walk down the halls past their gazing eyes (which we just “know” are lusting after us) for “FEAR” that they are doing to us what we have done to women for centuries.

Additionally, we simply do not understand their situation. Most men at times in their life have been tempted toward lusting after women, most men have been tempted to steal, hate, fight, be famous, etc. We all understand that. But, fewer men have been tempted toward physical homosexuality. Therefore, it’s not something most men can, nor want to, identify with.

guys will sit and talk about having sex with (insert actress or model name here) or they’ll fantasize about pulling off the next great train robbery or assassinating a world leader; but, most guys will not sit and talk about having sex with each other.

it’s not something we identify with and therefore we do not understand.

the net result is a general lack of trust in relationship. that’s reality. there is not a person alive that would want to put their life in the hands of someone that on the prima facie:
- they don’t understand
- they don’t trust
- they can’t identify with

simply put, they don’t know how they’ll act because they cannot understand them.

does any of this “justify” not having openly homosexual men in the military? NO! it’s not “justified”; however, does it make it “impractical” to have openly gay soldiers in the military sharing housing in a military that is overwhelmingly straight in today’s world with today’s circumstances? ABSOLUTELY!

For the men that have come to understand that homosexual men are no different than themselves, i.e. broken people struggling with the same issues they do, there is no problem having homosexuals in the same quarters as them. However, for most men, it’s too much of an unknown to trust their life with - which i respect.

THE IRONY
the basic numbnut question is this; however, would we be “OK” housing men with women? or having them shower together? If the US government came out today and said that “In an effort to save money, we’re consolidating military quarters. women will have to live with men?” There would be public outrage. most Americans would see the flaw in forcing women to be quartered with men.

psychologically, putting homosexual men (the men in the scenario) in the same quarters with straight men (the women in the scenario) creates the same dilemma for the straight man….right or wrong.

so, the irony is that men find themselves battling with a fear of objectification and respond to it similarly to women and therefore are not “comfortable” with homosexuals in the same quarters….because they, the straight guys, feel like “girls”.

(that’s kind of funny…)

so, in the end, “should open homosexuals” be able to serve in the US military? YES! Is it practical for today’s military? NO!  The irony is I am arguing that openly gay individuals should not be in US military because generally “straight men” cannot handle it and it presents a “weak link” problem for our military.

how do we get there?

Until society at large, not a guy here or there, is ready to accept that we are all sinners struggling with similar issues, it simply will not work. Men in the military need to be challenged judge themselves first, to be real about their own weaknesses and be able to identify with their fears of homosexuals through their own struggles with lust and how they look at women.

The Insurgent Minority

Political Science 101 suggests that democracy means that “the majority voice rules and the minority voice has a right to be protected”; I don’t think, however, that it is intended to posture “intellectual belligerence”.

For the last few years around the holidays, anti-God advocates begin to shout from the rooftops, “Hey God sucks; look at us.”  That’s fine, that’s their right and at least we know clearly who they are.

That said, however, there is a general trend in America to let the minority have “open mic night” via the media without anyone really challenging what they’re saying…..so, I will.

A CNN article noted that in Olympia, Washington last week, the Freedom From Religion Foundation placed a plaque next to a nativity set.  The plaque called religion a “myth” claiming that it “enslaves minds.”  The foundation’s founder, former evangelical pastor Dan Barker, argued that the nativity set is “intruding” on the space of others that don’t believe.

“Barker said the display is especially important given that 25 percent of Washington state residents are unaffiliated with religion or do not believe in God….’If there can be a Nativity scene saying that we are all going to hell if we don’t bow down to Jesus, we should be at the table to share our views.  Most people think December is for Christians and view our signs as an intrusion, when actually it’s the other way around,’” he said. “People have been celebrating the winter solstice long before Christmas. We see Christianity as the intruder, trying to steal the holiday from all of us humans.”

First, I want to break down the propaganda.  Then, I’ll deal with issues.

Making the argument that 25% deserves to be heard makes sense and sounds good.  But, there are a lot of assumptions being made; first, this assumes that that 25% does not celebrate Christmas simply because they are not affiliated with a religion.  I would venture to say that most of that 25% is probably celebrating Santa Clause.

Beyond that, the argument that almost 25% (really 23%) of Washingtonians are not “affiliated” with religion, that includes about 7% who don’t believe in God at all… is hardly a “mandate”.  Does that 23% deserve a voice and to be protected, you bet.  Is the other 75% “intruding”…uh, no.  Let’s see, the nativity was there first, 93% of the people believe in God, 75% are affiliated with a religion…some might say the intrusion is the other way around….but, who cares, right?

Going on to say, however, that “people have been celebrating the winter solstice long before Christmas” is partially true.  It is squarely true that people have been celebrating the “beginning of winter” since just before the birth of Christ, i.e. roughly 45 BC; however, they were doing so as a religious practice.  Barker’s claim, via the plaque, is that there is no religion, only the natural world.  With that in mind, his argument has no weight because humankind did no know that the phenomenon that they worshiped (the start of winter) had a physical reason for happening, i.e. the Earth was furthest from the Sun.  That knowledge did not come until Galileo enlightened us.

For Barker’s point to be valid, it would require that the celebration of the winter solstice be completely without any religious tie-in.  Under that paradigm, Christmas came to be in about 1038 and the “winter solstice”, i.e. the natural phenomenon, as it is now known was not defined until the 1600s.

The basic, sort of “no brainer” point, however, is that “Christmas” has little to do with Christ in our society.  Mr. Barker argues that “most people think that December is for Christians”.  That’s funny, I see a whole lot of non-Christians sitting in “Black Friday” lines, buying junk and putting stupid blow-up Santas in their yard.

The top answers given related to “What do you think of when you think of Christmas?” are:

• Presents
• Santa
• Christmas Trees
• Rudolph and All of His Friends
• Jingle Bells
• Snowmen
• Snow
• Stockings
• Christmas Carols
• Eggnog

You know…I really don’t see a whole lot of the Christian church in any of that. It would seem that what Mr. Barker is really upset about is that Christmas has been so commercialized that he cannot escape it.

The irony is that the foundation he helped found, “The Freedom From Religion Foundation” stands for the very principles that brought us Christ.  Christ’s purpose was to fulfill the law, i.e. the religious law that was tied around the neck of humanity from which it could never escape.  Christ came to free us from an impossible journey.  A road of requirements that could not be met.

So, what is really going on?

Mr. Barker is suffering, deeply.  He does not feel safe.  Unfortunately, he is not satisfied with the validation that God provides us.  He has rejected it.  So, he is left to mire in a world in which his life has not intrinsic meaning.  If all that exists is “physical”, then death really sucks…bad.

This time of year, there are many people in the same disposition, lonely and mentally isolated.  The church’s job is to reach out to them, providing comfort and love.

The church needs to do a better job of allowing people to disagree with us without bringing them condemnation.  On the one hand, it is tragic that a grown man looks at a model of a “baby in a manger” and only sees “Hell” and “Damnation”, rather than seeing peace, victory and salvation.  On the other hand, it’s a great testament to the God’s promise that His truth shall be made known.

That said, I think the greatest tragedy is that Mr. Barker’s sign was stolen.  Is that really the best we can do?  Steal some guy’s sign?

When Christ was walking up the Via De La Rosa, my guess is that there were a lot of people along the way that did not agree with His views, say for example the people that spit on Him, beat Him, whipped Him and killed Him. Remember it was the “Lord of all Creation”, the “Maker of the Universe” that carried His own cross to His death.

I don’t think He would have stolen the sign.  I think He probably would have helped this guy put it up.  At least then He would have had a chance to talk with the guy.

When did Christians get so arrogant?  When did we start believing that because we accept that we are sinners and we fall short of God’s glory and we cannot live up to His standard and that we need a savior we somehow are “better” than others and have a right to trespass upon their hurts and disbelief?

Credibility

Wednesday I was sitting in a restaurant in Tampa.  I was SHOCKED when I looked at the television screen to see Gene Simmons talking from the NYSE.  I thought, “What in the world can Gene Simmons have to say about the market; and, honestly, WHO WANTS TO KNOW?!”

It’s not that I have anything against Gene Simmons.  My issue is that Americans have degraded themselves to consuming life changing information the same way we do cheeseburgers.  We want something that we don’t have to think about.  Celebrity informants do that for us.  They give it to us “our way”, comfortable, with a smile and not requiring any thought.

As a society, we are so easily directed by mass culture.  We lose our identity in the status of those with whom we associate, or wish to associate.  We fail to think for ourselves.

Our childhood idols become our advisers in our adult years.

It scares the crap out of me.  There will be a day when the Olson twins motivate a voting public.

Isn’t it time we demand more ?