What happens when an all-male organization like the Catholic clergy allows homosexuality to become institutionally entrenched? The answer is organizational and moral chaos. The priests start hitting on the altar boys. So-called "lavender mafias" emerge in certain parishes and dioceses. There are occasional, and outrageous, instances of pedophilia. Young homosexuals find the institution of the clergy a marvelous "cover," not to mention an excellent place to meet other homosexuals. And the higher-ups, at a loss for what to do, act to hush up what the Bible would have called these dens of iniquity.
If you doubt that the Catholic Church has a problem with all this, ask Cardinal Roger Mahony, who just announced that the Los Angeles diocese will pay $660 million to more than 500 victims of sex abuse. In the vast majority of cases we aren't dealing with pedophilia--an extremely rare disorder that is no more prevalent in the Catholic church than it is elsewhere in society--but rather with homosexual priests taking advantage of their authority to seduce teenage parishoners and altar boys.
Now consider what would happen to that other predominantly-male organization, the U.S. military, if it got rid of "don't ask, don't tell" and allowed open homosexual relations between soldiers. We can easily imagine all the problems, but is there an upside? The Spartans are one of the few groups in history to allow homosexuals in the military. They tried to use it to fighting advantage. The idea was that men would be more willing to die for the sake of partners to whom they had become sexually attached. So the Spartans fought as couples, with each young soldier romantically linked to an older veteran. Typically the older veteran played the "male" or dominant role and the youthful recruit the "female" or passive role in the relationship.
Putting on my Clausewitz hat, I've been thinking about how this strategy could be employed by the American military. Should the United States army set up gay platoons, where camaraderie is based not on team loyalty and male friendship but rather on sexual partnering among veteran soldiers and new recruits? I mentioned this to a friend in the armed forces and he could only forsee one benefit. He noted that if the American military gets soundly whipped in a future engagement, we could always laugh off the defeat and say, 'Well, yeah, but you only beat a bunch of gays."
Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 6)
31. And Dinesh's military experience has been his service with . . . ?
Amelie at 1:57PM on Jul 16th 2007
32. I find your biased and inaccurate article to be richly amusing in it's irony. Ironic in that, while you share the same beliefs of many others that generalize, stereotype, and dislike homosexuals, many of those same people would be perfectly fine with stringing your &** up. When they come for us, we won't be the only ones. :)
Matthew at 8:24PM on Jul 16th 2007
33. Dinesh D'Souza is racist, sexist, and homophobic. He has been around spewing his hate couched in American Democracy and free speech for years. You can only hope that one day he will wake up and see the truth.
kelli at 2:10PM on Jul 16th 2007
34. The U.S. army should create a a platoon of repressed-homosexual, neo-con apologist, pseudo-intellectual goofballs, with D.D. as their commanding officer, and send them to Iraq to find those weapons of mass destruction.
Joe Bob at 2:17PM on Jul 16th 2007
35. ok, JB, but I'll take credit for that, ok? --I was there first.
I personally look forward to the photo ops with Coulter in full body armor . . .
michael white at 2:40PM on Jul 16th 2007
36. Funny, Dinesh's homophobic commenst are close to what people said when they didn't want Blacks in the army.
The whole army would break down if there were black in there--well, it hasn't!
So many of the nations that fight along with us allows gays without any problem (England, Israel). By saying that the military will go nuts, you insult the professionalism of our soldiers.
The logic in this article is so stupid and ill-informed, I surprised ANYONE gives you a platform.
gd at 2:49PM on Jul 16th 2007
37. THIS GUY DINESH HAS GOT TO BE THE BIGGEST SELF LOATHING CLOSET QUEEN THIS SIDE OF CALCUTTA. IT SEEMS THAT HE IS SO PREOCCUPIED WITH GAY MEN THAT TO MY EYES, THE ONLY SOLUTION TO HIS PROBLEM, IS A GOOD ROLL IN THE HAY WITH A HOT STUD. I AM ASSUMING THAT THIS GUY HAS TO BE HINDU, BECAUSE ONLY SOMEBODY MORONIC ENOUGH TO GET DOWN ON HIS KNEES TO SOME HALF MAN HALF ELEPHANT COULD BE THIS STUPID. OH WAIT..MAYBE HIS HOMOPHOBIA IS BORN OF KNEELING BEFORE THOSE BIG STONE PENISES THAT HINDUS CALL SHIVA LINGAMS AND WATCHING THE FAITHFUL POUR MILK OVER THEM.
paul at 2:50PM on Jul 16th 2007
38. oops, sorry MW, i concede the photo ops :-)
Joe Bob at 2:49PM on Jul 16th 2007
39. Would that mean that our gay soldiers would move in slow motion like in the movie? Cause that would be cool...
Ann Coulter in a corset and Dragon Skin body armor. Giggity giggity.
Barry at 4:21PM on Jul 16th 2007
40. "Funny. 300 million people in the United States; God knows how many writers, and AOL gives this loon bandwidth." I agree wholeheartedly.
This is sincerely the most nonsensical argument ever made on this site (including the attempted explanation of homosexuality through ancient greek pederasty) Keep up the great work Dinesh.
Wondering How at 4:42PM on Jul 16th 2007
41. Clink! Clink! O.K., so I'll throw in my two cents. Mr. D'Souza misses the point here. Homosexual priests have really nothing to do with gays in the military. D'Souza, in fact, seems to think that all all-male groups are breeding grounds for pederasty. Celibacy gives rise to sexual frustration, but doesn't necessarily lead to pederasty either. Pederasty is about control: control over a young, vulnerable individual be they male or female. If there were alter GIRLS in the 50s, 60s and 70s, the picture might have been quite different.
Daniel Vojir at 5:37PM on Jul 16th 2007
42. Wow, an Indian nerd. Even that's one rung below being a gay boy. Maybe he was high on curry fumes when he wrote this. LOL!
Brian at 7:39PM on Jul 16th 2007
43. I would like to see AOL make DD walk the same line that Imus had to walk, the one that leads directly to the unemployment window. This type of public ridicule and slanderous statements do not deserve an international platform. They are outrageous! I'm with Steven, I will be back with MSN full time after today's blog. I hope others will follow too. Good bye AOL. Find some good writers please.
deejay at 8:28PM on Jul 16th 2007
44. Well the fact of the matter is that during the late 1960's and through 1970's, there was a certain liberal attitude by some seminarys regarding homosexuals. I am no expert on the matter, but have read where in the United States, for ten years or more this liberal attitude held some sway. Apparently the thinking went something like, since all priests take a vow of celibecy anyway, if a homosexual took the celibacy vow, why not let him be a priest?
Obviously it is better if candidates to the Roman Catholic priesthood are normal heterosexual men who, while they would have liked to have taken a wife and become family men, actively decide to make the sacrifice and give up family life in order to devote themselves fully to God's service as a Roman Catholic priest. A homoseual man cannot make such a sacrifice because, due to his orientation, he does not have the same desire to take a wife and raise a family.
None of this means homosexuals are to be outcast or pariahs; they can and should be part of the Church. As with everyone else, they should actively seek God's help and work on their faults and try to seek the truth, and try to serve God as best they can, but it is probably better if they do not enter the priesthood. If they want to be active in the Church, there are plenty of groups for the laiety they can join.
Ken Berg at 8:28PM on Jul 16th 2007
45. Fine, I see your point, although I doubt if it relates to an organization as open as the military. The young men in the military are trianed to defend themselves, and probably would, if a homosexual tried to molest them.
One other thing, It was the Thebans (Greek city north of Athens) who had the homosexual Sacred Band destroyed by Alexander, not the Spartans. They may have tolerated homosexual behavior, but I've never read of their making an institution of it, like the Thebans and us.
Wally Lind at 12:06AM on Jul 17th 2007