Jesusnomics

From time to time, I hear people informing me that homosexuality as a lifestyle is morally acceptable “because people are born that way.” In other words, being born with a genetic predisposition to a behavior makes that behavior “natural” and is therefore seen as a moral defense. In spiritualized terms we hear this expressed as “God made me this way so it must be ok.”

For starters, a biological cause of homosexuality is merely a theory; science has not at any point isolated a “gay gene.” Now to be sure the human genome is an incredibly large and complex thing and just because we haven’t found it yet doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist. But nonetheless, when people speak about people being “born gay” they are speaking with a certainty that hard science does not currently support.

But let us assume for argument’s sake that we do at some point isolate a gene which predisposes people to experience same-sex attraction. What does that mean? A person may be genetically predisposed to all kinds of things which are completely unacceptable by most moral codes and society in general. For example, a person may have a genetic flaw which makes them more susceptible to alcoholism, sociopathic tendencies, or other forms of mental illness. Are we then to embrace the alcoholic and the sociopath and tell them that their behavior is perfectly healthy because their genes make them do it? Drink up! Stab your mom! God made you that way so it’s ok!

The same problem exists when we hear arguments justifying homosexuality because it exists in nature between various animal species. It undeniably does. But then again so does incest, fratricide, and cannibalism — all practiced with impunity and complete lack of moral judgment. If we are mere animals then morality is of no consequence to us.

The argument surrounding homosexual behavior and human sexuality in general is a complex one. However, the argument that something is permissible because it is biologically determined is a non-starter.

The news has been buzzing for the past few weeks with talk of the upcoming repeal of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy that our military has held for since 1993. Gays, we’re told, will now be able to serve “with integrity.” We’re told that this will have absolutely no impact on our military’s ability to complete its mission. Time will tell.

To  be honest, I really haven’t been able to get that worked up about the repeal of DADT because the construction of the law makes its repeal more or less moot. Gays are already in the military and whatever impact they were going to have has already long-since been felt. For me, the issue has never been whether gays should be able to serve openly but whether our military is better able to complete its mission with gays serving than with them not serving.

The goal of the military is to kill the enemy and break their stuff. Men and women put in the position of doing this are under a great deal of mental and emotional stress which can tax even the most stable and well-adjusted of people. The loss of comrades, the constant fear of death, and the unthinkable task of taking the lives of others can cause PTSD and other depressive syndromes which are rife in our armed forces right now.

Yet, multiple studies have suggested that homosexuals on average are anything but stable and well-adjusted individuals. I know that’s not a popular position right now but it’s one that is supported by a fair number of studies. In one Massachusetts study, for example, 40 percent of gay and bisexual high-school students attempted suicide, compared to about 10 percent of their heterosexual peers. Now, of course, this is spun as being the result of ‘victimization’ by their families and fellow students but one would imagine that these folks will find no more welcome in the military than anywhere else in the average population.

Given that the military already experiences an average of one service member committing suicide every 36 hours, why would you want to introduce a group of people who already represent a huge risk of self-injury? That would seem counter-intuitive to supporting combat readiness —  especially when you consider that other studies indicate  in addition to a higher risk of suicide, homosexual people are at substantially higher risk for other forms of emotional problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, and conduct disorders.

Considering the results of these studies, my preference would be to disallow gays from military service altogether. It’s hard enough keeping soldiers physically and mentally resilient without starting out from a place that already has an individual in an at-risk category. For the individual’s own safety and the safety of other military members I’d like to see homosexuality treated just like schizophrenia or severe bipolar depression for purposes of military eligibility.

To quote none other than anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, “The US military is not a human rights organisation.” Right she is. We disqualify people from service for all kinds of reasons like being too short or having bad eyesight. There is no civil right to join the military.

However, that’s not the reality we live in. The reality is that homosexuality is a politically protected class and since DADT has opened the door to gays serving in the military, there’s no real point in maintaining secrecy about it. At least if gay soldiers are out of the closet, the appropriate leadership and mental health folks can be aware of who in their command is at higher risk and hopefully take steps to help them avoid tragedy.