Is there a Gay solution to Homosexuality in the Military Services?

Few know who Alfred Korzybski is or what he wrote about. Interestingly, among his students were state senator Hiakawa, science fiction writer Robert Heinlein and Scientology Founder and author L. Ron Hubbard. Korzybski founded the school of General Semantics and also founded the Institute for non-Aristotilian Thought. They have a cool logo that looks similar to Albrecht Durer's famous cartouche.

Korzybski basically stated that words make a difference and that most miscommunication was the result of people applying different meanings to the same words. He reportedly said: "The problem isn't that one plus one is two, The problem is what "is" means. Recently president Clinton took obfuscation to a whole new level when he questioned the meaning of a word in response to a question. His famous quote echoed Korzybski when he stated: "That depends on what your definition of "is" is. So words mean something. Nazi and other totalitarian propagandists understand the power and importance of words. Words and what one says is important.

This brings up the issue of "gays" serving in the military and the repeal of "Don't ask, Don't tell." The idea of the founders was that the majority rule but they have to take minority concerns into consideration. They thought that this would be optimal because it meant the majority group couldn't legislate against a minority simply because they were such. Sadly, the ideal of this concept hasn't always held. Due to demagogic or dogmatic political pressure, simple things like common respect get lost in interpersonal interactions. So when did "gay" become the identifier for homosexuality? We had the "Gay '90s" (1890s) and the word certainly did not mean people who practice same sex sex. Use of the word "gay" obfuscates what is really occurring.

Homosexuals do serve in the military. They have always served in the military in various capacities. Interestingly, covert services and so-called spy organizations seem to have a disproportionate number of homosexuals. Maybe it's the nature of secrecy. Until recently, homosexuals were socially stigmatized if they were open. So since people already lived a secret life, in a way, covert service might make a good fit. Since no studies have been done to determine the veracity of this, it will have to remain speculation. But hidden homosexuals have always served the the military as they have in the rest of society.

Serving in the military is not like working for IBM or GE or Alcoa. When a person enlists or takes a commission, he serves in an organization of which the CEO is the president of the United States. Soldiers also freely give up some protections afforded civilians. Soldiers are controlled by the UCMJ or Uniform Code of Military Justice. There are substantial differences with this system as opposed to the American system of jurisprudence. Soldiers give up a lot of rights taken for granted by civilians. A quick example is deployment. When a soldier is ordered to deploy on an action, the soldier has no say over whether he goes or not. If he doesn't show up or doesn't deploy, he can be tried via court martial for dereliction of duty. There is no analog in the private sector. Also, a soldier cannot openly criticize his direct command. To do so is considered insubordination and carries a stiff punishment. So the rights and privileges most people take for granted simply don't exist for soldiers. With the change to an all-volunteer (no draft) military, soldiers voluntarily agree to this system. Soldiers agree to abide by the limitations of the UCMJ.

Several people have asked: Since homosexuals are already serving, what's the big issue about them serving openly? If a person is a soldier, one would have to suspect that homo or hetero orientation aside, heroism and the ability to conduct combat operations would be the same. There doesn't seem to be any kind of quid quo pro that states that heteros equate with better soldiers.

However, outside of combat there could be potential problems. These have cropped up as women have entered the ranks to a greater extent. When there may be a problem is when sexual favors are demanded for promotion or job assignments. This may exist now but because of don't ask, don't tell, aspirants are protected from active recruiting by homosexuals the same as women and men of lower ranks are protected from superiors of the opposite sex. The difference is that hetero people can meet and date and unless lines of propriety are crossed, the existing Code of Military Conduct controls behavior. For example, officers and enlisted cannot fraternize. But what if we have open homosexuality? Would the same rules hold true or would the entire social structure in the military break down under the pressure of a minority?

Make no mistake about it, hetero culture far exceeds homo culture in all military branches and is not differentiated from sex. WACs, Women Marines or Soldiers are not predisposed to homosexuality. (This of course recognizes that sometimes people experiment sexually while retaining a primary orientation. It's a common male fantasy to have sex with two women at the same time. For the women to do this, they must be sexually liberated to the point were homosexuality isn't a soul-crushing stigma. For some reason both men and women find female homosexuality acceptable while they find male homosexuality unacceptable. Maybe is has to do with the whole beauty factor but there don't seem to be any clear reasons that can be stated with certainty.)

So would open homosexuality break down unit cohesion? I think this would depend on how hetero subordinates respond to homo leadership. In a country where homosexuality was open and long standing, this may be less of a problem. In America, however, hetero orientation in the military carries military culture. While there are members who engage in all kinds of alternative behavior, any sexually based system would influence military culture, unit cohesion and camaraderie. While individual homosexual behavior is tolerated by many, forced acceptance would be a disaster. If we apply the stupidity of affirmative action, it would mean that a certain number of homosexuals get promoted to fill unrealistic quotas. This would destroy aspiration in many individuals. It also might create a situation where people identify with homosexuality to access the special privileges that will come with acceptance simply to "Balance the Scales" after so many years of oppression. In a sense, we are creating a situation where not only homosexuals serve openly but they must be deferred to in all matters.

Our country was never founded on the idea that the rules a minority live under have to be accepted by the majority. In a sense, this would be like forcing the majority of Americans to defer to Sharia law instead of the constitution and the rule of law established in states and cities.

There is no reason to challenge or change "don't ask, don't tell" other than to politically satisfy a campaign promise.

FB