What Is the Military For?

     Before we ask any other issues about the military, we ought to first consider what the military’s purpose is to begin with.  Before tackling issues of who should or should not be in the military, we ought to ask, “What is the military for?”

     One of my great-uncles was prevented from joining the military because of a visual disability.  Another great-uncle was kept out because of flat feet.  Although they were disappointed, they understood that the military needs people in good physical condition and with no disabilities that would hinder their ability to perform their duties. 

     The military is not a group that you join in order to feel good about yourself.  It is not a laboratory for sociological experiments.  It is there to provide defense for our country, and a person should join it in order to serve the country.

     I am ambivalent about the role of homosexual people in the military.  I have nothing against their serving; however, I can understand why current members of the military might object to sharing barracks with such people.

     I think back to my college days.  My dormitory had community showers.  I was not too keen on showering with other people, and so I tried to time my showers when nobody else was in there.  It often occurred that others were taking a shower at the same time that I was.  The banter was always interesting.  The general direction of it was that most of the guys hoped that nobody in there was a homosexual.  They would not appreciate being “checked out” by another guy. 

     Of course, there were some suspected homosexuals in the dorm, but nobody who was completely “out.”  It was in the South, after all.  It was also understood that it would be very awkward for a straight male to discover that his room mate, especially his shower mate might be viewing him in a way that he would not appreciate.  It was for that reason that our dorm was for males and other dorms were for females.

     I’m guessing that most men in the military feel the same way.  While they might not say it out loud in certain circles, they probably discuss it among themselves and not always in the most polite language, I’m betting. 

     I do not see any reason to put them in that uncomfortable position.  The military does not exist to force people to give up their queasiness about undressing in front of people who might be attracted to them sexually.

     If the Obama administration does change current military policy, then I think they will have to find away to allow homosexual people to serve in the military but to have separate sleeping quarters and separate bathing facilities.  I do not know how else to give homosexual people the freedom to express themselves as they see themselves but still safeguard the real concerns about modesty that the other men and women might have.

     The military does not exist to make people equal.  It does not exist to push the norms.  It does not exist to make people feel good about themselves or to help them grapple with a lifetime of rejection or mistreatment.  It exists to defend the country, and it is important to make it function the best possible way for all the great men and women who want to serve.

About these ads

29 responses to “What Is the Military For?

  1. I have never heard any one advocate separate sleeping quarters. That’s not feasible, and it treats soldiers as if they were children. They have discipline. There are rules of behavior. Enforce those. I mean there are gays in common locker rooms, saunas, and the like all over the country. (Oh, the purpose of the military should be only to defend the homeland from aggression. It should, IMO, be defensive.)

  2. Seriously? We train these men to kill, with their bare hands if necessary, but we can’t possibly ask them to be “uncomfortable”?

  3. What do our generals say. I agree with them. What ever that happens to be. We ask enough of our military. Give them what they want in this instance.

  4. The military’s purpose is to kill enemies. Anyone can kill an enemy. With or without a shower.

  5. Really Helen. Have you ever killed someone. Do you know what it is like to share the bond of brotherhood that our military men and women speak of. Do you know what it is like to be in the trenches, go days without sleep for fear that death will take you, or worse while your battle buddy who is counting on you.

    No? I haven’t either. And I wouldn’t presume to tell them who they should allow next to them in that task which we have asked of them. To simply boil this down to, “Anyone can kill an enemy. With or without a shower.” Seems very ignorant to me.

  6. Anybody can kill their enemy. Physically true, psychologically untrue. Most people will freeze up, and end up sacrificing themselves or those around them. It takes a great amount of determination to overcome the “fight or flight” mechanism in one’s brain, usually in which the flight side of the issue wins.

    I myself have never killed anyone. I would like to think that in the moment in which I would have to…defending my family or friends..I would be able to, but NOONE (and i mean noone) can know for sure until that moment comes.

    As far as homosexuals in the military go, I have no real opinion. As long as they come to do the job, and perform their duties I could care less. Thats my personal opinion. I found out a few years ago, one of the guys I went to basic training with was gay. I never knew it, and I dont think I would’ve cared even if I had. Some of the other guys, on the other hand, may have had a huge problem with it.

    Gays served in combat while staying in the closet long ago, and I’m sure some still serve to this day with great distinction. If they want to serve, then fine, but when it comes to their sexuality, I don’t think it has to be thrown out into the open.

  7. My brother is a marine. He serves with some homosexuals that he knows about some that he does not and would go on serving even if openly gay people were allowed to serve.

    He thinks that DADT is silly policy.

    Personally, I’m more worried about all the criminals that the military is being forced to accept to make up recruiting shortfalls. Perhaps if we allowed homosexuals to serve we could stop recruiting felons.

  8. I think that the recruiting shortfalls are disappearing, “thanks” to the economic shortfalls these days.

  9. This is Renaissance Guy, on July 25, 1948:

    Before we ask any other issues about the military, we ought to first consider what the military’s purpose is to begin with. Before tackling issues of who should or should not be in the military, we ought to ask, “What is the military for?”

    One of my great-uncles was prevented from joining the military because of a visual disability. Another great-uncle was kept out because of flat feet. Although they were disappointed, they understood that the military needs people in good physical condition and with no disabilities that would hinder their ability to perform their duties.

    The military is not a group that you join in order to feel good about yourself. It is not a laboratory for sociological experiments. It is there to provide defense for our country, and a person should join it in order to serve the country.

    I am ambivalent about the role of black people in the military. I have nothing against their serving; however, I can understand why white members of the military might object to sharing barracks with such people.

    I think back to my college days. My dormitory had community showers. I was not too keen on showering with other people, and so I tried to time my showers when nobody else was in there. It often occurred that others were taking a shower at the same time that I was. The banter was always interesting. The general direction of it was that most of the guys hoped that nobody in there was black. They would not appreciate being around black men.

    Of course, there were some people in the dorm who might have had “touch of the tar brush”, but nobody who was completely “out.” It was in the South, after all. It was also understood that it would be very awkward for a white man to discover that his room mate, especially his shower mate might be black. There’s a reason why the South segregated facilities s uch as dorms, showers, and bathrooms: white people feel uncomfortable at having to share them with black people.

    I’m guessing that most white people in the military feel the same way. While they might not say it out loud in certain circles, they probably discuss it among themselves and not always in the most polite language, I’m betting.

    I do not see any reason to put them in that uncomfortable position. The military does not exist to force people to give up their queasiness about undressing in front of people who are not the same race as them.

    If the Truman administration does change current military policy, then I think they will have to find away to allow black people to serve in the military but to have separate sleeping quarters and separate bathing facilities. I do not know how else to give black people the freedom to express themselves as they see themselves but still safeguard the real concerns about segregation that the white men and women might have.

    The military does not exist to make people equal. It does not exist to push the norms. It does not exist to make people feel good about themselves or to help them grapple with a lifetime of rejection or mistreatment. It exists to defend the country, and it is important to make it function the best possible way for all the great men and women who want to serve.

  10. Pingback: Renaissance Guy, 1948 « Jesurgislac’s Journal

  11. Major General Barry Goldwater, who retired with the rating of Command Pilot, wrote nearly 20 years ago:

    After more than 50 years in the military and politics, I am still amazed to see how upset people can get over nothing. Lifting the ban on gays in the military isn’t exactly nothing, but it’s pretty damned close.

    Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They’ll still be serving long after we’re all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone.

    But most Americans should be shocked to know that while the country’s economy is going down the tubes, the military has wasted half a billion dollars over the past decade chasing down gays and running them out of the armed services.

    It’s no great secret that military studies have proved again and again that there’s no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays. Some thought gays were crasy, but then found that wasn’t true. then they decided that gays were a security risk, but again the Department of Defense decided that wasn’t so-in fact, one study by the Navy in 1956 that was never made public found gays to be good security risks. Even Larry Korb, President Reagan’s man in charge of implementing the Pentagon ban on gays, now admits that it was a dumb idea. No wonder my friend Dick Cheney, secretary of defense under President Bush, called it “a bit of an old chestnut”

    When the facts lead to one conlusion, I say it’s time to act, not to hide. The country and the military know that eventually the ban will be lifted. The only remaining questions are how much muck we will all be dragged through, and how many brave Americans like Tom Paniccia and Margarethe Cammermeyer will have their lives and careers destroyed in a senseless attempt to stall the inevitable.

    Some in congress think I’m wrong. They say we absolutely must continue to discriminate, or all hell will break loose. Who knows, they say, perhaps our soldiers may even take up arms against each other.

    Well, that’s just stupid.

    Years ago, I was a lieutenant in charge of an all-black unit. Military leaders at the time believed that blacks lacked leadership potential – period. That seems ridiculous now, as it should. Now, each and every man and woman who serves this nation takes orders from a black man – our own Gen. Colin Powell.

    Nobody thought that blacks or women could ever be integrated into the military. Many thought that an all-volunteer force could never protect our national interest. Well, it has, and despite those who feared the worst – I among them – we are still the best and will continue to be.

    The point is that decisions are always a lot easier to make in hindsight. but we seldom have that luxury. That’s why the future of our country depends on leadership, and that’s what we need now.

    I don’t suppose you’ll respond to this, RG, but what makes you think you can set yourself up above a veteran of 50 years service and declare you know better than he does about any subject involving military service? Do tell. Is it arrogance, or just the same bigotry you would have expressed against desegregation back in Truman’s administration?

  12. Or, in even better response to your post:

    My name is Keith Kerr, from Santa Rosa, California. I’m retired brigadier general with 43 years of service, and I’m a graduate of the Special Forces Officer Course, the Command and General Staff Course, and the Army War College. And I’m an openly gay man.

    I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.

    You tell me, RG: why are you setting yourself up as so superior to a man with over four decades of military service, and contending that you know better than he does that heterosexual American soldiers aren’t professional enough to deal with serving with openly lesbian and gay soldiers?

    How many decades of military service do you have, RG, to set yourself up against theirs? Or do you feel your status as a bigot qualifies you to judge US military personnel better than either Barry Goldwater or Keith Kerr?

    …just wondering. Not expecting any real answer.

  13. Jesurgislac, I’ll make it as real as I can.

    First, you commit the common fallacy of eqauting the superficial trait of skin color with external behavior. Any objection that I have heard about homosexuals serving openly in the military has little to do with their identity and everything to do with their behavior. In other words, I don’t think anyone objects to gay peopel in the material because they “are” gay bu because of the ramifications of having people who might be sexually attracted to each other in such intimate living arrangements–especially when such attraction is not welcome by certain parties in the situation.

    Second, you are pretending that I object to having homsosexual people in the military. I do not. Neither do I think that they are unfit, generally, for the job. I do not. A given homosexual persson might be vastly more capable of serving in the military than a given heterosexual person.

    All that I am saying is that the very real concern of mixing heterosexual and homosexual people in barracks and showers needs to be addressed and not brushed away as “homophobia.” It’s more like “looking-at-me-naked-phobia,” which is the same reason that men and women are given separate facilities.

    Again, it’s about forcing one group of people to do something that is very awkward and uncomfrotable for them in order to make another group of people happy.

    As for your examples, I am sure you are aware that other military officers and veterans have the exact opposite view. Anybody can find a quote to support anything. All that proves is that there is disagreement on the subject, which we already know.

    The part in the second quotation that is most annoying is “not professional enough.” That makes it sound like it’s about working at a desk together or operating a tank together. That is not what it is about. The people in the military are also “not professional enough” for the men to go to the women’s barracks every night to watch them get ready for bed.

  14. Frankly, I think if we were a healthy unsuppressed people we could have men and women sharing showers and barracks and doing just fine. It’s interesting that in most colleges even same sex floors are becoming a thing of the past.

    But to this issue, I’m flabbergassed by your position, RG. I mean, I can better understand someone opposing gays in the military than worrying about them being in the same barracks. That seems insulting to the discipline and professionalism of military people — especially since in gyms, swimming pools, college dorms, health clubs, and youth hostels no effort to segregate exists. I just have never before heard that particular take.

  15. Scott Erb: That seems insulting to the discipline and professionalism of military people — especially since in gyms, swimming pools, college dorms, health clubs, and youth hostels no effort to segregate exists. I just have never before heard that particular take.

    I have. Always from bigots like RG who usually have no military experience themselves – no concept of what constitutes professional military behavior, no experience of serving, and lacking either the humility or the empathy necessary to pay attention to the direct experience of those who have military experience and could tell him differently.

    That’s RG: he knows more about military life than anyone who’s actually served, and he’s perfectly willing to share his lack of experience with others.

    I was thinking of RG just this morning because I read a news story Fred Clark at Slacktivist linked to, about someone in Delaware who believes in segregation and discrimination, who sounds exactly as deluded as RG:

    “I don’t even go over there [to the coastal towns],” he said. “I have a safe deposit box in a bank over there, and I take my wife to the outlets now and then. Otherwise I just stay out of there.”

    Still, Bodenweiser said he regrets the growing chasm between people on either side of the debate over homosexuality.

    At one point Wednesday, Bodenweiser struck up a conversation with two women in the Legislative Hall cafeteria. He expressed his views on homosexuality without realizing they were a lesbian couple.

    “One of them said, ‘I can’t believe that you think God hates me,’” Bodenweiser said. “Those girls were telling me I was a hater and a bigot, but I’m not. I’m a nice guy.”

    You know, you’d think that the haters and the bigots would have at least enough self-recognition to realize that’s what they are – but I guess if they did, they’d be on the road to quitting their bigotry.

  16. Jesurgislac, you are being completely dishonest when you deny that many members of the military oppose the open service of homosexual people. You choose to listen to the ones who support your view, I choose to listen to some who disagree with your view.

    I cannot prove which side is in the majority in the military, but I’m guessing that if the majority were in favor of homosexuals serving openly, then we wouldn’t even be having this dialogue as a nation.

    One does not have to have been in the military to listen to people who are and were. In the past, anyway, many leading officers opposed letting homosexuals serve openly, which is why we have DADT in the first place. Or did you think that the armed forces en masse have demanded the open service of homosexuals but have gone unheeded by the Congress and the President.

    I have friends in the military both currently and in the past. Many of them are MUCH more unwelcoming and unaccepting of homosexual people than I am. (I have no problem being friendly and polite to homosexual people, and would never harm or hurt them in any way.) I will spare you the jokes and rude comments that some of my friends make, which I find very offensive. So don’t think that you have some strong persuasive argument when you say that people in the military want to serve side by side with homosexuals out in the open. My experience tells me that there are many who do not.

    Unlike Mr. Bodenweiser I am certain that God does NOT hate homoexual people. Then again, did he actually say such a thing? What the woman said to him sounds more like an empty rhetorical tactic to me. No Christians that I know would ever say that God hates anyone, including homosexual people.

    It’s easy to call people haters and bigots. If I wanted to, I could call you a hater and a bigot. I think that we need operational defiitions of those words in order to carry on a rational discussion of the matter.

    To you “hate” seems to mean disliking something that another person does or disagreeing with somebody’s viewpoint. That’s not my understanding of the word at all. By that definition I could call you a hater because you dislike things that I do and you disagree with me.

    To me it sounds like some petulant child saying to his mother, “You won’t let me have another piece of cake. You hate me!”

  17. Jesurgislac, you are being completely dishonest when you deny that many members of the military oppose the open service of homosexual people.

    Hm. Interesting that you should claim I said something I didn’t, then assert that what I didn’t say was “completely dishonest”.

    Or did you think that the armed forces en masse have demanded the open service of homosexuals but have gone unheeded by the Congress and the President.

    I think you are a bit confused about what the military are and are not allowed to do. The notion that the “armed forces en masse” are allowed to make a collective demand of US Congress or of the President is something that could only have come from someone as determinedly ignorant as yourself.

    But it is both lawful and proper for members of the armed forces to respond to opinion polls, and when they do, overwhelmingly, their response is that DADT should be repealed:

    The American people and service members of the Armed Forces overwhelmingly support the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. According to a national Gallup poll conducted in May 2009, 69 percent of Americans, including 58 percent of Republicans, favor allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military. Furthermore, a 2006 poll of 545 troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan by Zogby International and the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara revealed that 73 percent are personally comfortable with gay men and lesbian women. John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Clinton administration, and more than 100 retired admirals and generals support this repeal, in addition to the Human Rights Campaign, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, and Knights Out, an organization of LGBT West Point alumni co-founded by First Lieutenant Choi.

    I have no problem being friendly and polite to homosexual people, and would never harm or hurt them in any way.

    Yes, well, we all know what your notion of “friendly and polite” is: you’ve argued, consistently, that hate crimes against gay people should go unpunished; that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to be married, that gay people who are parents are so because they’re “selfish”, and that the children of same-sex couples are “problems” who don’t deserve the same legal rights as the children of mixed-sex couples. None of this is friendly or polite, and much of it is actively harmful. So you’re basically pretty deluded about that.

    So don’t think that you have some strong persuasive argument when you say that people in the military want to serve side by side with homosexuals out in the open.

    You really think that nobody in the military wants to serve with Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach? He was Assistant Director of Operations for the 366th Operations Support Squadron at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho: he served his country for 18 years as an F-15E pilot. He has received nine air medals, including a Medal for Heroism during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Yet your bigotry tells you that no one in the military wants to serve with him unless he’s willing to lie about his sexual orientation?

    Of course, plenty of bigots would have said – did say – that they didn’t want to serve with Dempsey W. Morgan, Carroll S. Woods, Robert H. Nelron, Jr., Andrew D. Turner or Clarence P. Lester, either, to name just a few of the airmen segregated. And I’m sure you know plenty of homophobic bigots in the armed forces who would argue, just as they would have argued sixty years ago that Andrew D. Turner couldn’t be allowed to serve with white aircrew, that Victor J. Fehrenbach can’t be allowed to serve with straight aircrew. They’d have been wrong then, and they’re wrong now.

    To you “hate” seems to mean

    …actively trying to harm or denigrate others. You know: the kind of crap you come out with about LGBT people getting married, having children, or serving openly in the armed forces. You may delude yourself that your arguments that it’s only right to discriminate do not originate from hate, but you can’t hide your hateful opinions – or at least, you apparently have never tried to do so.

  18. Your assertion that you’ve never met a Christian who says God hates gays – fine, you attend a liberal church where same-sex weddings are celebrated and where the church campaigns against legal discrimination in the name of religion, and you never go anywhere else, so you are the only Christian you know who says God hates gays. But this is Slacktivist’s response to Christians like you and Bodenweiser:

    So OK, let’s set aside the theological arguments and the debates over scriptural interpretation and just focus on this matter of niceness.

    How, exactly, is the defense of legal discrimination compatible with being “a nice guy”? How is it nice to insist that landlords be legally entitled to refuse to rent to one particular minority? How is it nice to fight for employers right to fire members of that minority for no reason other than that they are members of that minority?

    This word nice seems to have come to mean something strange and hard to pin down. If we simply consider the definitions of the words, then it would seem possible to treat someone fairly without being as nice to them as one might be. But the opposite would seem impossible — we cannot treat someone unfairly and still be nice to them. Yet as the example of our “nice guy” above shows, the word is constantly being used in this second, impossible sense by people staunchly defending injustice while just as staunchly insisting that this doesn’t mean they’re not “nice” people.

    So let me say something here that ought to be blindingly obvious, but which apparently still needs to be pointed out: Injustice isn’t nice.

    That’s not the biggest problem with injustice, of course, which is why, for example, Moses didn’t go to Pharaoh and tell him to be nicer. (“You have enslaved my people. That’s rude. It’s impolite, unkind and tacky. …”) No, he went to Pharaoh and demanded justice. Pharaoh’s response, of course, was to crack down even harder, demanding that the slaves make bricks without straw. But at least Pharaoh had the decency not to pretend that he could redouble his injustice while still being “a nice guy.”

  19. Hate is an emotion, I’m not sure how useful a concept it is for overcoming prejudices and segregation. I prefer to see it as a kind of social construction of other-ness, whereby a group (Jews, gays, blacks, Christians, Muslims) get defined as being somehow strange and undeserving of equal treatment. This allows good people to hold prejudices because that other-ness makes it easy to rationalize inequal treatment, and not truly empathize with the other as being like the self.

    I don’t know if “hate” can describe it, but I suspect people feel an emotion that the other is somehow strange, different, and not like the self. From there it’s a short step to abstracting the other as an object rather than a subject. I think we all do that sometimes, though with groups like gays, blacks, etc., it gets institutionalized and thus hard to overcome (the biases and ‘other-ness’ of the group gets reinforced by social institutions).

  20. Scott: Hate is an emotion, I’m not sure how useful a concept it is for overcoming prejudices and segregation.

    I think it’s fairly important to point out to the bigots who think their prejudices should rule that, whatever they tell themselves about their ever-so-pure motivations for wanting to discriminate and segregate, how they come across to the subjects of their bigotry is as haters.

    And I think this because I’m frankly convinced that for most bigots, the step up out of their bigotry is acknowledging their own hatred and fear – seeing their bigotry as something damaging to themselves that they have to overcome, rather than (as I fear RG still does) just an expression of “how things are”.

    Perhaps for Bodenweiser, his casual encounter with those two nice ladies in the courthouse cafe was the very first time he’d ever had to hear how his determination to enforce injustice came across to those he wants to discriminate against: he thought he was a nice person who just wanted to make sure that lesbians can be evicted or gay men fired for their sexual orientation, and someday, perhaps, it will occur to him that you cannot try to make other people homeless or jobless and still appear “nice” to those people: inevitably, you come across as a hater.

    Similiarly with RG – he still seems to be self-convinced that despite all the ugly things he’s said of GLBT people, despite the nasty things he’s said about them as parents and the truly dehumanizing comments about their children, he’s not doing any harm – he’s “nice” because he can’t really see it’s a problem being so hateful.

  21. Jesurgislac: Similiarly with RG – he still seems to be self-convinced that despite all the ugly things he’s said of GLBT people, despite the nasty things he’s said about them as parents and the truly dehumanizing comments about their children, he’s not doing any harm – he’s “nice” because he can’t really see it’s a problem being so hateful.

    He thinks he’s being “nice” because he’s telling the truth as he sees it. Of course, this just reminds me of this post by slacktivist.

    And, while I was digging in the archives, I found this piece too. Ahhh, the wonders of having a brilliant Christian writing excellent articles that are collected together.

  22. Oops. Must have forgotten to close a tag above, and I also forgot to link to part 2 of the False Witness post. It can be found here.

  23. J: Interesting that you should claim I said something I didn’t, . . .

    You did say that I am not willing to listen to members of the military, implying that they all agree that homosexuals should serve openly. Was my inference mistaken?

    If you agree that many members of the military want to discriminate against homosexual people, then I could argue the converse of what you are arguing. I could say that you are not willing to listen to members of the military.

    From what you and I have both written, it seems that the argument cannot be resolved by just pointing to one officer’s opinion or another, since there is disagreement on the matter.

    . . .that hate crimes against gay people should go unpunished. . .

    NEVER!!!!! And you know it. I argued that they should not be punished more severely than crimes against heterosexual people. I am for strict consequences for crime, much stricter than you are I imagine. It is absolutely unjust to say that criminals shoudl be punished more harshly because their victims are “gay” than if their victims are “straight.”

    I believe in equality; you apparently believe in superiority for gay people.

    . . .that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to be married. . .

    But not because I hate homosexual people. I oppose it because of my understanding of what marraige is. The definition of marriage, as I understand it, precludes anyone but a qualified man and a qualified woman from participating in it.

    I also don’t care if homosexual people call their union a marriage. I just don’t want to change good laws at the whim of a minority.

    . . .that gay people who are parents are so because they’re “selfish”. . .

    Anyone, heterosexual or homosexual, who has children just to make themselves feel good or happy is selfish. It has nothing to do with hatred of gay people. I have seen many heterosexual people with trophy children whom I consider selfish too.

    . . .and that the children of same-sex couples are “problems”. . .

    This time I am calling your statement a flat-out lie, since I have clarified my position several times. You mentioned the problems that the children have in such a family–since their parents cannot be legally married (in most places). I said that that problem was created by the “parents,” It was clear from the very beginning that I was talking about the problems faced by the children, as you were, and not about the children themselves. You persist in your lie about me. I’m sorry that you feel a need to demonize me in that way.

    . . .the same legal rights as the children of mixed-sex couples. . .

    I do not think that marriage or having married parents is a right. You should know that, since i have written it.

  24. You say, RG: “Anyone, heterosexual or homosexual, who has children just to make themselves feel good or happy is selfish.”

    So I assume that when gays adopt or have children because they want to show love for a child and raise a child to contribute to society, that they are not being selfish?

    I don’t know, these arguments sound a lot like arguments that were made about blacks a few decades ago. Nixon even thought that abortion might be necessary for “black and white” (since obviously a child of that kind of union would be disadvantaged — that was the argument). Times change. I think there is a sea change going on concerning the thinking about homosexuality in this country (it’s already happened in Western Europe.)

  25. “Anyone, heterosexual or homosexual, who has children just to make themselves feel good or happy is selfish.”

    How sad for RG’s children, I thought when I read that, that RG didn’t have them because having children made him feel good and happy – that he thinks it’s selfish to be made happy by his children’s existence. The wonderful thing about parenthood is that when it works, it’s a miracle of positive reinforcement with no downside – a thermodynamic miracle, where love and happiness and goodness from parent to child and child to parent reinforce each other because the child’s existence makes the parent happy and the parent’s existence makes the child happy. RG seems to want to cut himself entirely out of that loop – or isn’t able to feel part of it – because he thinks that happiness because his children exist is selfish. Which is horrifyingly sad and lonely and terrible for RG as well as for his children.

  26. …and it makes me feel again I should just buzz off, because RG is so completely broken, comments like this make clear, that he probably isn’t capable of understanding what love and liking and human friendship are really like – anyone who thinks that the joy a parent takes in their child’s existence is “selfish” is … well, you would ordinarily hope that they just won’t ever have children. And knowing RG does, I do have horrible qualms about his relationship with his children, since he makes clear he doesn’t approve of the kind of spontaneous, well, just… enjoyment that good parent take in their children.

  27. I was talking about the problems faced by the children, as you were, and not about the children themselves. You persist in your lie about me. I’m sorry that you feel a need to demonize me in that way.

    I’m sorry you are such a broken person that you can’t take joy in your own children nor understand people who do.

    I’m sorry for you, basically: the more you write about how you see human relationships – your expressed belief in an earlier post that if a couple want children and aren’t interfertile they should just ditch each other – the more I feel that you are just basically broken – not a whole person at all. And this would explain a lot of your conviction that your belief that LGBT people ought to be legally discriminated against, and their children mistreated and bullied by adults, is somehow “kindness” and “friendship” and approved of by a God whom you think of as a loving God: you’re sociopathic.

    Sad.

  28. Pingback: Bigots or sociopaths? « Jesurgislac’s Journal

  29. RG: But not because I hate homosexual people. I oppose it because of my understanding of what marraige is. The definition of marriage, as I understand it, precludes anyone but a qualified man and a qualified woman from participating in it.

    I don’t think that you’re qualified. My ‘understanding’ of marriage precludes people that want a monopoly on marriages. Thus, I think that the state should forcibly divorce you and remove you as custodian of your children.

    I don’t “hate” you. But I’ll vote to divorce you and anyone that believes the twisted things that you believe. I think the government should pass a constitutional amendment nullifying your marriage. You shouldn’t be allowed to desecrate the state of legal matrimony.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s