Gays In Military

[Era Might]

I haven't followed this thread, or this issue, frankly, because it has no bearing on my life, not being in the military. But, what does interest me about this issue is the broader issue of modern professionalization of social roles, which, I think, is the root issue at stake here.

We do not live in a society where what you do is more or less a social role (peasant, soldier, priest, prince, etc). What you do is seen as a professional role and an economic role. So, for example, our society does not see teachers as men and women, but as "teaching professionals." Equal pay for equal work, etc. The idea is that we have our professional roles, which are separate from our real lives. It's not the business of a school whether a teacher is a man or a woman, a Catholic or a Protestant, high born or peasant born, etc. Our laws have tried to remove these kinds of distinctions and make professional considerations the only legitimate considerations. The military is an anachronistic institution, in this sense. I'm reading a history of the Russian revolution at the moment, and the democratization of the military was a major issue. The Russian soldiers resented being subject to their superiors in subservient social roles, the kind of subservience which the peasantry was growing out of. Americans have always had the same democratic distaste for social roleplaying, but of course, this was always incompletely realized in society...Americans still had slaves, still did not allow women to vote, etc. Gradually, America has democratized itself more and more...abolishing slavery, granting civil rights to blacks, allowing women to vote, leveling the playing field for women in the economy, etc.

Allowing people who identify as "gay" to serve in the modern military is part of this American progression that has been going on since the founding of the nation. I think it misses the point to say that America won two world wars without sanctioning homosexuality in the military, as Socrates argued. America also declared its independence without granting freedom to its slaves. One thing doesn't necessarily depend on the other.

Modern military service has become, like the other social roles in American society, a professional role. Joining the modern American military is conceived of as a professional career...hence the emphasis on benefits, opportunities to travel and attend school, etc. And whether a soldier is an open homosexual is, in this context, as irrelevant as whether a worker at city hall is an open homosexual. It has nothing to do with their professional capacity.

So, one could see the issue of "gays in the military" as a liberal assault on American values, but I don't see it that way. I don't see how gays can NOT be allowed to serve in the military, not because I agree with homosexuality, but because that is how American history has been developing for the last 200+ years. The military, as an anachronistic institution in a democratic society, has had to catch up with the other democratic institutions in America. Conservatives can try to stem the tide, but they are not merely fighting against open homosexuality in the military, they are fighting against the professionalization of social roles, and they are bound to lose, because American society committed a long time ago to professionalization. And that commitment is tied in to industrialization, capitalism, etc. Conservatives, as they often do, rail against a social symptom, but they miss the real issue because confronting it would threaten many of their own ideological successes.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Era Might

[Socrates]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1338392859' post='2437807']
And since when is a 'lifestyle' a sin?
[/quote]
I'll have to look up the relevant documents, as I don't currently have them in front of me, but I recall reading that the Church considers the "gay lifestyle" incompatible with living a moral Catholic life. For instance, being involved with the "gay lifestyle," as well as engaging in homosexual acts and having "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" was one of the things that was to preclude one from the priesthood or seminary.

Certainly, a style of life centered around a grave disorder and gravely morally disordered acts is contrary with living a good Catholic moral life.

If I were to frequent swingers clubs, attend swinger's parties, and identify myself to others as a "swinger," this would be at very least a sin of grave scandal, even if I managed to avoid actually engaging in "swinging."

[Socrates]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1338352280' post='2437655']
Here you go! [url="http://bit.ly/KV9G3p"]http://bit.ly/KV9G3p[/url]
[/quote]
Thanks, Comrade.

[Anomaly]

You can't de-evolutionize society. Hello reality, we've grown beyond a simplistic social order. Such a shame we aren't a subsistence agrarian culture like tribes on the Amazon.

[kujo]

On a more serious note, Socrates is correct in saying that my participation is gay-themes threads is suspicious. However, the reasoning is not--my baby sister recently came out of the closet to our parents and friends. While the family was generally supportive, members of our parish--including the youth minister, an overzealous deacon and a few lay folks--all made Grade-A a-holes out of themselves, condemning her and her "abominable behavior." She has since left the Church, despite the protestations of myself and my family. I tried to frame Catholic moral teaching to her in a way that properly showed its patience, grace and love for her, but the damage had been done.

You see, you can be as authentically Catholic as you want I be. But if you're a jerk, you do a disservice to yourself, to the person you're ministering to, and most importantly to the Truth of our Lord. You imbue His message of love with your imbecilic, juvenile zero-sum mentality.

So my participation on these threads owes itself to a desire to prevent other travesties from occurring. Aside from my snark and my ball busting, I ardently desire to encourage good people to behave in a manner that Jesus would be proud of. Be love.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1338418845' post='2438174']
I haven't followed this thread, or this issue, frankly, because it has no bearing on my life, not being in the military. But, what does interest me about this issue is the broader issue of modern professionalization of social roles, which, I think, is the root issue at stake here.

We do not live in a society where what you do is more or less a social role (peasant, soldier, priest, prince, etc). What you do is seen as a professional role and an economic role. So, for example, our society does not see teachers as men and women, but as "teaching professionals." Equal pay for equal work, etc. The idea is that we have our professional roles, which are separate from our real lives. It's not the business of a school whether a teacher is a man or a woman, a Catholic or a Protestant, high born or peasant born, etc. Our laws have tried to remove these kinds of distinctions and make professional considerations the only legitimate considerations. The military is an anachronistic institution, in this sense. I'm reading a history of the Russian revolution at the moment, and the democratization of the military was a major issue. The Russian soldiers resented being subject to their superiors in subservient social roles, the kind of subservience which the peasantry was growing out of. Americans have always had the same democratic distaste for social roleplaying, but of course, this was always incompletely realized in society...Americans still had slaves, still did not allow women to vote, etc. Gradually, America has democratized itself more and more...abolishing slavery, granting civil rights to blacks, allowing women to vote, leveling the playing field for women in the economy, etc.

Allowing people who identify as "gay" to serve in the modern military is part of this American progression that has been going on since the founding of the nation. I think it misses the point to say that America won two world wars without sanctioning homosexuality in the military, as Socrates argued. America also declared its independence without granting freedom to its slaves. One thing doesn't necessarily depend on the other.

Modern military service has become, like the other social roles in American society, a professional role. Joining the modern American military is conceived of as a professional career...hence the emphasis on benefits, opportunities to travel and attend school, etc. And whether a soldier is an open homosexual is, in this context, as irrelevant as whether a worker at city hall is an open homosexual. It has nothing to do with their professional capacity.

So, one could see the issue of "gays in the military" as a liberal assault on American values, but I don't see it that way. I don't see how gays can NOT be allowed to serve in the military, not because I agree with homosexuality, but because that is how American history has been developing for the last 200+ years. The military, as an anachronistic institution in a democratic society, has had to catch up with the other democratic institutions in America. Conservatives can try to stem the tide, but they are not merely fighting against open homosexuality in the military, they are fighting against the professionalization of social roles, and they are bound to lose, because American society committed a long time ago to professionalization. And that commitment is tied in to industrialization, capitalism, etc. Conservatives, as they often do, rail against a social symptom, but they miss the real issue because confronting it would threaten many of their own ideological successes.
[/quote]
We Catholics must never stand for "traditional" moral standards against the Inevitable March of History.

Progress, Comrade!

[Socrates]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1338418063' post='2438162']
Just in case it got lost in the shuffle...
[/quote]
Interior decorators, hairdressers, and broadway theatre critics.

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1338416630' post='2438139']
seriously? i mean, just, seriously??? seriously????'

(I need a new word.)
[/quote]
Serious as a heart attack, ma'am.

[Amory]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1338418063' post='2438162']
Just in case it got lost in the shuffle...
[/quote]

[quote name='Amory' timestamp='1338372729' post='2437719']
Ideally, all employers would choose not to hire those who publicize that they habitually engage in homosexual acts, or at least employers would favor other candidates above them.
[/quote]

Just in case it got lost in the shuffle...

[kujo]

[quote name='Amory' timestamp='1338420471' post='2438192']
Just in case it got lost in the shuffle...
[/quote]

Nope. You're wildly bigoted comment didn't go unnoticed.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338420627' post='2438194']
Nope. You're wildly bigoted comment didn't go unnoticed.
[/quote]

Not bigoted, not unjust.

[size=5]"[color=#000000][font=Times]10. "Sexual orientation" does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. "Letter," No. 3) and evokes moral concern.[/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=Times]11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.[/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=Times]12. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. No. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. [u]Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. [b]This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory.[/b] This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good."[/u][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=Times]--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfhomol.htm"]The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith[/url].[/font][/color][/size]

Edited May 30, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[kujo]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1338418845' post='2438174']
I haven't followed this thread, or this issue, frankly, because it has no bearing on my life, not being in the military. But, what does interest me about this issue is the broader issue of modern professionalization of social roles, which, I think, is the root issue at stake here.

We do not live in a society where what you do is more or less a social role (peasant, soldier, priest, prince, etc). What you do is seen as a professional role and an economic role. So, for example, our society does not see teachers as men and women, but as "teaching professionals." Equal pay for equal work, etc. The idea is that we have our professional roles, which are separate from our real lives. It's not the business of a school whether a teacher is a man or a woman, a Catholic or a Protestant, high born or peasant born, etc. Our laws have tried to remove these kinds of distinctions and make professional considerations the only legitimate considerations. The military is an anachronistic institution, in this sense. I'm reading a history of the Russian revolution at the moment, and the democratization of the military was a major issue. The Russian soldiers resented being subject to their superiors in subservient social roles, the kind of subservience which the peasantry was growing out of. Americans have always had the same democratic distaste for social roleplaying, but of course, this was always incompletely realized in society...Americans still had slaves, still did not allow women to vote, etc. Gradually, America has democratized itself more and more...abolishing slavery, granting civil rights to blacks, allowing women to vote, leveling the playing field for women in the economy, etc.

Allowing people who identify as "gay" to serve in the modern military is part of this American progression that has been going on since the founding of the nation. I think it misses the point to say that America won two world wars without sanctioning homosexuality in the military, as Socrates argued. America also declared its independence without granting freedom to its slaves. One thing doesn't necessarily depend on the other.

Modern military service has become, like the other social roles in American society, a professional role. Joining the modern American military is conceived of as a professional career...hence the emphasis on benefits, opportunities to travel and attend school, etc. And whether a soldier is an open homosexual is, in this context, as irrelevant as whether a worker at city hall is an open homosexual. It has nothing to do with their professional capacity.

So, one could see the issue of "gays in the military" as a liberal assault on American values, but I don't see it that way. I don't see how gays can NOT be allowed to serve in the military, not because I agree with homosexuality, but because that is how American history has been developing for the last 200+ years. The military, as an anachronistic institution in a democratic society, has had to catch up with the other democratic institutions in America. Conservatives can try to stem the tide, but they are not merely fighting against open homosexuality in the military, they are fighting against the professionalization of social roles, and they are bound to lose, because American society committed a long time ago to professionalization. And that commitment is tied in to industrialization, capitalism, etc. Conservatives, as they often do, rail against a social symptom, but they miss the real issue because confronting it would threaten many of their own ideological successes.
[/quote]

I'm making it rain props over here.

[kujo]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1338421041' post='2438200']


Not bigoted, not unjust.

[size=4]"[color=#000000][font=Times]10. "Sexual orientation" does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. "Letter," No. 3) and evokes moral concern.[/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=Times]11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.[/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=Times]12. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. No. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. [u]Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. [b]This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory.[/b] This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good."[/u][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=Times]--[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfhomol.htm"]The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith[/url].[/font][/color][/size]
[/quote]

Why can't gay people be athletic coaches, teachers or scout leaders? Being gay doesn't make you a child abuser, nor does is it an evangelical activity.

Edited May 30, 2012 by kujo

[Winchester]

The magical entity with the guns may do this, of course.

[Amory]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338420627' post='2438194']
Nope. You're wildly bigoted comment didn't go unnoticed.
[/quote]

Whether or not my comment was bigoted has little if anything to do with its correctness. It seems that you--like others of your persuasion--are just using the "bigot" epithet to dismiss without sufficient argument a point of view you find distasteful.

Edited May 30, 2012 by Amory

[Anomaly]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338421159' post='2438204']


Why can't gay people be athletic coaches, teachers or scout leaders? Being gay doesn't not make you a child abuser, nor does is it an evangelical activity.
[/quote]Why can't men go camping with girl scouts, be in the girls shower room when they're the coach, or drive a youth group member home in your car? Being a man doesn't make you a sex fiend and child abuser.