A Home Away From Home – A G.I.’s Perspective
“It’s time America realized that there is no gay exemption in the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence…. Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. You don’t need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.”
–Barry Goldwater
by BONZO, HSM guest contributor
A recent video of an Airman’s vlog, as he comes out to his father on the day Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is repealed, literally moved me to tears. We may think we live in a new world, away from all archaic beliefs, and a virtual world like Home can be seen as proof of the evolution our technology has progressed to. Our culture, however, has in many ways not yet caught up.
It doesn’t take much reading after the subject pops up on the forums that we realize how much hostility still remains on the issue, or how much backlash official decisions on issues like Don’t Ask Don’t Tell or gay marriage continue to garner, and how much time, money, and effort is exhausted to fight, or counter the issues that remain so much a part of the current civil rights movement in the real world.
The views of Home’s population are as diverse as what you would find in the real world; opinions can range dramatically, and people generally either love it or hate it.
Allow me for a minute to give you a perspective of what Home can be.
I am currently in the U.S. military; my service often requires me to be away from the place I call home for indefinite periods of time. What this means to me is that I am away from everything I call home, which can range from the street I live on, the local coffee shop I frequent, my favorite book store and theater, not to mention my friends, my family, and my loved ones, including my dogs. In essence, all the things we take for granted that as a whole make up what we know as home.
Military life is a very, very boxed-in experience, whereas your reality in civilian life varies in more ways than one. Your surroundings are different, your attitude is different, your perspective on everyday life is different by the things you do, the people that surround you, and even the way in which you communicate with others.
Things differ further when you are gay, and before the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, it was a very stressful experience for anyone who took their military career even remotely seriously; I can tell you that anyone who bothers to enlist and go through the entire arduous training process takes their military career very seriously.
Having all that ripped away from you for being something you have no control over is a very degrading and demoralizing experience. Even now as the repeal of such an unnecessary law has been officially signed, it is not a very comfortable idea to share what I am publicly and be open.
Home offered something unique in that respect. A haven of sorts where that didn’t matter, where even hundreds of miles away from family, and friends and everything you call home, you could find a safe place to meet with friends and meet with family. Yes, it’s in a virtual setting, but what differs from something like Facebook, Skype or some other social network or chatting site, Home has dimension; it has a perspective of a simulated reality. It seems so minimal, an avatar moving about in a 3-D computer generated world, but that perspective adds a lot of realism to the experience.
I have learned from my closeted life – if not from my military life – that our reality is contingent on the time and space we occupy, and the moment either one of those factors change, our reality changes, at least our perception of it. Consider the perception of yourself or of your surroundings when you are at home in your comfortable settings, compared to being in a relative’s house, or a friend’s house, or work, or school. How does your attitude change, how does your language change, your behavior and your perception of others? Our behavior changes, there is a protocol we follow based on our upbringing, and our perception of what is acceptable or proper. Our attitudes and sensitivity to others also change between interacting via technological means, or in person.
So for those few moments that I can go off duty – essentially clock off and hang up my uniform, leave the base, and return to my space, I can return to myself in a way. I can turn on the PlayStation, log onto Home, and meet with friends on the other side of the continent, and we can all see the same thing, the same Central Plaza, the same personal space where we can hang out and do nothing but chat, maybe play a game of pool, or poker, or just have a long discussion between friends, via microphone or text, and share space, share a moment. It is in those moments that my perception of my reality changes, with those friends that know me and whom I hide nothing from, who I am, and what I am.
Sharing text messages back and forth by phone, or on a messenger application, doesn’t give the illusion of sharing the same space. It is that impression between avatars that gives that false but welcomed perception of being with friends. Our idea of proximity changes, and we are there, together in that space. Even being in two separate areas in Home feels like being apart, despite the fact that we are all logged on to the same software, through the same network. It’s all perceptual, but the recognition of our reality is perceptual. I don’t for a moment mean to suggest that Home is real by any existential measure, but what we feel from our interactions within it is real.
PlayStation Home is a home away from home, when I am so far away from those I love, and when I seek freedom from the pressures of reality. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell may be repealed, and maybe someday I will feel comfortable in what I am with my colleagues, and perhaps it won’t be an issue to be concerned over, but until then Home has been and will be my sanctuary when I can not be as free in real life.
October 7th, 2011 by BONZO | 28 comments
BONZO is an editor and artist for HomeStation Magazine.
Twitter
This is an incredible story. It is an honor to have such a personal story shared with us here at HSM. Thank you.
Great story Bonzo. I agree wholeheartedly with your premise that adding this 3D environment to what is essentially a social network changes a great deal in our perceptions of each other when we are here. My family doesn’t get it at all. They know I come here, but none of them think that the people I meet are what I could call true friends since I have never met them in real life. It is hard to get them to accept this concept as it completely foreign to them.
Yet what about the whole pen pal idea that has gone by the wayside in this faster than light society we live in? For many years people would exchange letters with someone that they had never met in real life, yet many of them would tell you that they considered them a true friend, sometimes a life long friend. What makes Home any different? Only that we see each other in a virtual world, and I think the experience is a deeper one because we can actually play a game together and many other things as well.
Good points you made here, keep writing, you have a real knack for it.
Thank you, I really appreciate that. I am more into the arts and have worked mainly in Graphic Design as a civilian, and studying Media arts, but have really enjoyed this chance to exercise some literary muscle. It has been a while since I have had a chance to write, and I have really been loving it. I really appreciate HSM giving me the chance.
And that literary muscle is pretty strong, Bonzo. An article which is well worth the read…thank you.
It sounds like you have been kicked around a bit in the Military for being gay. I am not gay however I was in the Military and after serving in Vietnam I heard stories about GIs being called nasty names and even spit upon by anti-war protesters. We were kicked around a bit too so I can identify in that aspect.
It even happened to me personally once by a WWII Veteran of all people. Some WWII vets didn’t care for Vietnam Vets. I have no clue why. But that’s a different article.
I was fortunate in that I didn’t hear these things from people when I got home including those who were against the war. Perhaps coming from a small town helped.
Ironically, years later in the 1980s I discovered that some young people looked upon as Vietnam vets as heroes. We never did (that I know of).
I haven’t walked in your boots nor you in my boots but I can identify somewhat with what you went through, and still do perhaps.
Carry on, soldier.
And get your teeth checked at a VA hospital whenever you are discharged. I think you still have that as a benefit for your service.
I’m not out personally on base, only friends and family know, but not even 2 years ago 2 friends were discharged for protesting Prop 8 in California. There was a whole investigation done and they protested the case of course, but I don’t think people realize how much time and money was wasted on such an unnecessary inquisition. That any GOP would even think of reinstating that law is shocking to me, because it is a major waste or resources and violation of civil rights. I am out in Home, everyone on my friends list knows and it’s provided a great deal of comfort and what keeps drawing me back.
It was great to meet Bonzo in Home and do the photo shoot, we had a lot of fun traveling to various spaces and trying to get pictures that would help illustrate the story.
Now that I’ve had a chance to read it I’m reminded of a documentary I saw a couple of years ago about gay people in the military in other countries where there were no restrictions, or ‘Don’t ask, Don’t tell’ policies in place. In those countries the soldiers are judged on their ability to do the job and not on their sexual orientation. That is how it should be.
Great quote from Barry Goldwater, wasn’t he a very conservative person?
He wasn’t just a conservative person -- he was called “Mr. Conservative.”
Generally speaking, I try to avoid political discourse with HSM — we live in such a balkanized society that it’s almost impossible to have cohesive dialogue on the subject any more — but you’ll occasionally notice little tidbits here and there when it helps to serve a story.
In this case, Goldwater noted — correctly — that the mix of religion with politics (a strategy to gain votes and compel the impoverished to inadvertently support the wealthy via ideology rather than logic) is a dangerous move, as the two philosophies are fundamentally opposed to each other. The tenets of classic Republican conservatism are ones which I tend to agree with — heck, even Gore Vidal considers himself a classic conservative — but that is *vastly* different than the religion-infused, “free market” nonsense Republicanism of today, which Goldwater pointed out thirty years ago as a major hazard to the entire country.
Personally, I would tend to best fit into the category of a Libertarian Democrat. Hence why you’ll see the occasional Ayn Rand reference in the pages of HSM, even though I personally lean towards social capitalism versus laissez-faire capitalism (we’ve seen what forty years of increased market deregulation have spawned).
(Of course, people conveniently forget that Rand was a pro-choice atheist, but that’s a discussion for another time…)
Unfortunately, the population of this country is so uneducated on most of these issues that they’re open to panic-mongering and hot-button phrases. I mean, seriously, HUAC and Tailgunner Joe ain’t got nothing on today’s environment. The problem is, in such a climate as what we live in today, personal liberties are often trampled upon.
Case in point, getting back to this article specifically: can anyone give me *one* reason that isn’t based on personal religious belief why two legal adults of same gender should not be entitled to the benefits (and miseries) of marriage?
I’ve known too many friends who have dealt with ridicule and persecution, simply due to their sexual orientation (something which none of us have any control over, and Kinsey points out that it’s not a black-and-white issue anyway), to ignore this issue. Hence why we put this issue on the cover of one of our magazines, and why articles like this one are so important: because it’s human nature to fear what we do not understand, and once we as a culture realize that it’s no big freaking deal for two men or two women to happen to love each other and be productive citizens, the sooner we can get on to more serious issues that we *should* be focused on, like currency devaluation or the emergent water crisis or the fact that we haven’t cured anything since polio because our pharmaceutical industry has a financial incentive to *not* cure disease. Oy.
Indeed, there is no reason (save religion, it seems)that this archaic behavior towards gays exists. It one of those things, whether you agree with it or not, that really has no bearing on the greater scheme of things -- or even any portion of one’s daily life. I can’t think of any conceveable way that a same-sex couple can negatively impact the economy, world peace, going to war, or whether you burnt your morning toast or not. In the end, it really just doesnt matter who is in love (or lust) with whom. In the end, it’s really none of anyone’s -- including and especially the government and the military -- business.
It seems that politically, we may be of the same chior, Norse. I may have to corner you someday in Home and have a discussion on stuffs
I think there are some social issues that arise when broadening the definition of marriage. As it stands now, marriage is defined by the union of a man and a woman with the implied purpose of the establishment of a family unit to foster procreation and propagation of our society. If SSM is widely accepted, this definition changes to one that caters more to people’s desires for economic and social recognition. This creates a very slippery slope with which other couplings could request the same economic benefits of marriage.
Would we allow marriages between multiple individuals? Would we impose a limit on how many husbands or wives a man or woman could have? What about a marriage between non-romantically involved roommates? What about marriage between siblings? If this union is going to be sought after for its economic benefit why shouldn’t any two individuals be allowed to get married to they can check that little box on their taxes, be covered by the insurance and get a little more back each year?
You asked “Why two legal adults of the same gender should not be entitled to the benefits (and miseries) of marriage?”… I ask, why is the label stopping any couple from enjoying the emotional and personal benefits (and miseries) of marriage? Just because a couple can’t get a marriage certificate doesn’t mean they can’t make a commitment to one another just as deep and meaningful.
And these are great questions, because they get to the root of the matter: what are the tangible benefits, as defined by the state in socioeconomic terms, of marriage?
I may have a somewhat different perspective on this matter because I’m divorced, and in addition to this I also have a fairly decent background in social anthropology; it was amazing to study different marriage systems outside of the Indo-European model our culture presently subscribes to.
Marriage, in our culture, is taught to us as the ultimate expression of love and affection. This cultural teaching exists merely to reinforce the creation of a stable environment in which to create offspring and perpetuate the society. It’s also why it’s relatively easy to get into a marriage in our country, and ridiculously hard to get out of one.
The first rule of human behavior is that people respond to economic incentive. So as long as there are demonstrable economic incentives for marriage (such as the amount of non-taxable income from a Capital Gains event), there will be people fighting for it. A friend of mine married someone for a set length of time in order to get him access to this country; they worked out a private arrangement in terms of economic compensation, they’re good friends, and it’s a very tidy transaction. It also has absolutely nothing to do with starting a family. Whether that’s right or wrong is irrelevant; it’s *allowed.*
Marriage can easily be redefined as an act between two legal adults, regardless of gender or romantic interest. Marriages have, throughout history, been used for reasons other than romance; monarchs historically would arrange marriage for political gain, for instance.
Polygyny and polyandry are an interesting question, as humans aren’t naturally wired to be monogamous. Monogamous marriage is a uniquely Indo-European conceit (as outlined in Helen Fisher’s “The Sex Contract”). I don’t mean to shock anyone out there, but according to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, only about fifteen percent of all human societies in the world are monogamous. It is only our natural tendency towards anthropocentrism which tells us that the rest of the world is like us, or should be.
Marriage between siblings or any close family relations is forbidden in nearly every culture, however, due to the higher propensity for genetic disease. The offspring thus place a heavier burden on the society, in terms of resource consumption relative to productivity. Of course, economic incentive can overcome even this taboo: the many instances of inbreeding amongst monarchical families, for instance.
It can be argued, of course, that if the justification for marriage is first and foremost procreation — as opposed to economic incentive (which is designed to foster procreation as well) — then a gay couple would not qualify. However, in this day and age, adoption and in-vitro fertilization are alternatives, and I would posit that two homosexual adults in a loving relationship may, on average, provide better odds for raising a productive child than one heterosexual adult. This is not a slight against the many, many single parents out there; it simply suggests that there is no reason to deny a two-parent household based solely on the grounds of gender.
So: if a homosexual couple can provide the same benefits as a heterosexual couple in terms of raising offspring, I fail to see why — outside of any religious arguments — they should be denied the same economic benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy when marrying.
There seems to be a mix of emotional, cultural, and economic definitions in here, which is fitting because Marriage involves all three. I would also include religion in there because in American society the institution of marriage is steeped in religious tradition but that particular facet of this topic is being excluded in this discussion so I won’t include it in what I have to say.
I do think that we shouldn’t be considering what other cultures are doing when it comes to defining our cultures institutions. There are many cultures that are vastly different than America’s. Some of which demand that women be completely subservient to men, others in which young girls are married off to middle aged men… so just because a foreign culture does it isn’t really a qualifier for “correctness”. In my opinion.
In my referencing to the sibling and polygamous marriages I was simply stating that if we view marriage as an economic establishment we remove much of what a marriage is. Once we simply refer to marriage as a means to an economic end, we could very well end up with a greater number of non-sexual couplings requesting those same rights. What would stop any two individuals from arguing that they also deserve the right to be married because they live together, nevermind their lack of sexual involvement.
That being said, adding more stipulations to the question of why shouldn’t a SSM be allowed really only muddies the issue. Are we now defining marriage as an emotionally and economically viable union in which people provide offspring for the society? If that’s the case then are we going to exclude male/female couple who can’t or choose not to have children because they aren’t providing offspring? If not, then how is it fair that we are only considering SSM couples on the basis that they are able to provide a stable home? Wouldn’t that be discriminatory?
Many of these issues seem to be circumvented with the concept of redefining marriage as a legally binding act between individuals. I would, however, use the same thought process that lead us to this conclusion to ask why only two individuals? While we’re redefining what things legally mean, let’s challenge what a “legal adult” is too.
I still stand by the slippery slope argument. That once a concession is made for SSM, a whole world of relationships will have to be considered for marriage under the same pretext.
It’s interesting to note that, even within our own culture, many of the issues raised here are a moving target. The age of consent, for instance, has changed considerably in our country over the last 150 years.
If we reduce this topic to its core, the question is whether or not same-sex marriages should be allowed — and, if so, what the potential social repercussions are. I would contend that *any* social practice which is open to one group of people but excludes another group is inherently discriminatory. This does not suggest that discrimination, unto itself, is necessarily a bad idea; I doubt anyone would argue with the idea of barring a convicted paedophile from ever teaching preschool, for instance.
At present, we have a set of rules for who qualifies for legal marriage in this country. Anyone who does not meet those guidelines is, technically, discriminated against. This is not necessarily a bad thing. However, it does not mean that those rules are sacrosanct — witness the number of amendments to our own Constitution, for instance.
Thus, while it indeed is a slippery slope to redefine who qualifies for marriage in our culture — as it is a slippery slope to redefine any such rule, on any topic, which permits one group of people entry and yet bars another — that in and of itself does not necessarily invalidate the idea of allowing two legal adults (as presently defined) to marry, regardless of gender, and thus setting that as the new boundary.
Would such a boundary be challenged again in time? Almost certainly. Because societies change and evolve, and the digital revolution we now live in has only sped up that process.
Valid points, Gideon and Norse. I’m enjoying the debate.
If I may also add: There are two distinct types of ‘marriage’ in the US. One sanctioned by the government (where the economic incentives arise from) and one defined by individual churches (which have its own set of incentives).
The ’blessings’, if you will, of the government should be available to all people and lifestyles – anything less and the government is in the position to use its authority to pick and choose which of its citizens gets special privilege and who doesn’t…a power which no government should have (and one which our government exerts far too often for my taste). In my view if a person consents to being in a same sex or even polyamorous relationship, bound together with paperwork by the state that is entirely up to them.
Now, one could of course argue that such unions may seem unsavory to one’s personal mores – such feelings deserve all the validity due to people who believe the opposite. But, in the end, from the stand point of civil liberties and governmental control, all that is really accomplished by barring any groups from all available liberties is that a segment of the population is shunted into a ‘second class citizen’ status. This is simply not the right or just thing to do.
Now, on the ecclesiastical side of the coin, there’s a whole different ball of wax. Although the government should not bar a portion of its population from the same rights enjoyed by others, a church (in the loosest meaning, as an organized place of worship) or religion is a private organization which does not (and should not) play by the same rules. That being said, any church or religion that wishes not to allow such unions to be recognized within their organizations should be free to do so. It is their right, and the right of their parishioners, to exclude such unions from thier organization.
What it comes down to is that while a religion is free to pick and choose among its flock, the government should never interfere with someone’s pursuit of life, liberty or happiness unless it prevents someone else’s life, liberty or happiness – which same sex relationships do not. Additionally, the ideal is that the law, or any benefits derived from law, should be shared equally among the citizenry. That being said, as people who decide to live ‘alternative lifestyles’ pose no real threat to anyone else’s liberties due to their choice of ‘lifestyle’, then the government should have to apply the same legal entitlements of marriage to all sections of the population, not just the majority or popular front.
We are keeping religion away from this discussion I think.
But as for your point of “the government shouldn’t exclude one group” I go right back to the polygamy thing. Do you believe it should be ok for groups of people to get married? You’re going to allow a concession for one group you must allow for them all.
Right now marriage is defined as a man and a woman. That’s an easy line to make. One man. One woman. If you move that line under the heading of “well they are pursuing life liberty and happiness and it doesn’t hurt anyone” then you open the door for all sorts of couplings for people to try to try to get married for all sorts of reasons.
Under what grounds would this new boundary be set? Whatever reasons can be given can also be applied to a multitude of other parings. Can the boundary be moved? Sure. Should it be? That’s the discussion here.
As stated before, I think the economic incentive for marriage is intended to foster the development of a procreative family unit. Should there be unions that are established to accomplish things such as… joint custody of an adopted child? Sure there should be, but marriage has been established as a union between a man and a woman with the implication of procreation. I think the standards of marriage and what socioeconomic reasons we have for it justify keeping it between two consenting adults of the opposite sex. I think that is a reasonable boundary to have.
Marriage is a set institution and concessions for one group will inevitably lead to concessions for others, or at least give other groups cause to protest. I don’t think it would be wise to allow just any set or group of people to gain legal binding because they “want to”. We don’t allow opposite sex couples to get married for green cards for that very reason.
I would like to ask a question myself. Why not keep marriage between opposite sex couples only?
It’s worth noting that marriage in our country actually has more rules attached to it, particularly in certain states. http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/index.shtml can provide additional information.
Opposite-sex couples are not always eligible for marriage in our country, for a variety of reasons which this culture has *presently* agreed to. Indeed, the rules can differ significantly from state to state.
The question of keeping marriage between opposite-sex couples exclusively is likewise a slippery slope, because it can then just as easily be argued that the qualifications should be *tightened.* After all, why not? Why not further restrict who should be allowed to marry and compose a nuclear family?
For me, personally, the reason why I have no issue with allowing two people of the same gender to marry is because I can’t find any discernible drawback to it. It poses no danger to my own life and liberty, nor does it seem to have any detrimental impact to the state or nation.
One area where a distinction can possibly be made between homosexuality and polyamory: there’s sufficient evidence (Kinsey being an example) that homosexuality is a sexual orientation, whereas polyamory is a lifestyle choice. Very few people are exclusively heterosexual or exclusively homosexual; were I in a judicial position and interested in continuing to bar a legalization of polyamorous marriage, I would use that distinction to justify legalizing same-sex marriage but not polyamory.
(As a tangent to this discussion: I personally find polygyny and polyandry to be distasteful, even though the former is a common practice throughout many human societies. Yet from a libertarian standpoint, a logical argument can be made for the consideration of such relationships.)
The problem with redefining a boundary is that, out of necessity, hypothetical extremes on both ends of the spectrum must be discussed. Because we, as a society, have to decide what level of middle ground we’re comfortable with.
My personal gut intuition suggests that, given the trend towards greater recognition of same-sex marriage both domestically and internationally, it is simply a matter of time until same-sex marriage is not only legalized at a national level, but in time considered to be no big deal. This will not happen overnight, but it is conceivable that it could take place in as little as two generations.
@Gideon: My use of religion was to illuminate that there are two bodies which govern the institution of marriage, and how the two groups (church and state) would fall under completely different categories, not to debate the merits of any belief system on the topic at hand. I assure you, I was not pointing fingers or trying to inject religion wantonly into the discussion. To each their own as long as no one is harmed, I say, whether I agree with someone’s point of view or not.
To the topic at hand: As far as opening the door to other definitions of marriage to be considered by the government, I see no problem with it. As long as all parties are consenting adults, what harm can it really do? Take for instance, polygamy. The legalities would have to be defined, case law would have to be set, and forms would have to be changed – in other words, some work on a government and judicial level would have to be done, and it could take many years to set the rules in stone. But, in the end, who is harmed if it happens? Sure, one can say that this might be abused and groups of people would marry so they could receive benefits…but this already happens under our current legal definition of marriage.
Also mentioned was that we should not let just any group receive legal standing just because they ‘want to’. I ask: why not? Any group which has had cause to petition a government for equal status did so because they wanted to. Our Fore Fathers had a revolution because they wanted to; blacks fought for their liberties because they wanted to; women were finally afforded the vote because they wanted to. These are not frivolous measures, nor should anyone’s desire for equal application of law and justice be treated as such. Everyone should be afforded the same opportunity. A government in a free society should never seek to oppress the liberties of any group…as long as said group poses no threat to the life and liberties of others.
And I’m not sure that the government backed idea of marriage has anything to do with procreation. If that were the case then people who marry with no intent of having children, or those who can’t, would be barred from having a legal union. I believe it has more to do with the definition of rights within a relationship, and what rights one has (or one’s offspring may have) if said relationship ends.
What it ultimately comes down to is morality, and whether one is allowed to define one’s own mores or if an outside group (government, in this case) is allowed to exert force to direct and control ones personal views. Some may view same sex marriage as immoral. So be it, as that is an individual choice and every one of us is entitled to make such decisions on what we find moral or not. But when the government defines marriage as only one thing, they are in fact defining moral values…which is simply not their job. Nor should it ever
be in a free society.
HSM…home of healthy, intelligent, respectful debate. Gotta love it
I am really amazed at the level or discussion you guys have gotten into over this, you make some very strong points on both sides. As someone being directly affected by such a restriction, I have to say Gideon you make some very strong arguments on the matter. I personally feel that the biggest problem people have over the issue is with the word “Marriage”, because of all the predetermined meanings that word carries. Many states recognized civil unions between same sex couples, and recognize their rights. As a gay man I personally don’t have a problem with the terminology being civil unions, over marriage. You are correct Gideon in that a piece or paper is not necessary to establish that connection and commitment, and the major debate is over the rights granted to same sex couples, but the issue is the unconstitutional act of excluding a group of people because of religious bias. Marriage benefits are more than just financial, but also include the rights a partner has over the affairs of the other. Only family or spouse has any claim on estate, property, remains, or medical treatment decisions when a person is unable to make those decisions independently. About a decade ago I was unable to visit my partner, while he was at the hospital because I was not related, and we were not recognized as a couple. Debates like this really can not exclude religion because they are solely based on religious ideals. You have to consider that the constitution was written in a time or deep religious beliefs that still controlled much of the population’s morals and civility. The freedom of religion spoken of was geared specifically at the persecution of Protestantism at the time. We have this idea that there is a separation of state and church, but we know that to be untrue as our government is very often influenced by the religious influence of conservatism.
Conservatives today are nothing like the Goldwater conservatives. Ready anything by John Dean.
Bonzo, thank you for sharing this personal story with us. I love to hear how Home has touched and made a difference in their life.
Now I just wish the people in the real world would treat all people equally.
The big thing to keep in mind, by the way, is that HSM tackles social issues — which, by their very nature, foster discussion. So, for the people out there who have read this article and ensuing discussion, feel free to chime in if you have a different viewpoint.
I feel compelled to mention this because one of the failings of our society today is that we don’t bother to even make a pretense of entertaining a different point of view. One of my favorite shows, when I was growing up, was “Firing Line” — a show which most of the readers of HSM will undoubtedly be familiar with. William F. Buckley was an amazing debater, but rather than the shout sessions you see on TV today, he enforced logical, rational and polite discourse — even when he clearly disagreed with the other person’s point of view.
I’ve sometimes said (and it may even be here in the pages of HomeStation), when describing this publication, that it’s designed to be Home’s Firing Line. That, to me, serves a very useful purpose for the community as well as the developers.
So, by all means, please join the discussion.
It’s good to see more from you Bonzo. Thank you for serving in our armed forces and it is truly a disgrace to the flag that all men and women aren’t given an equal chance to serve based on their qualifications and capabilities and not their personal preferences. You did a fine job of presenting your side of the situation without coming across as argumentative or defensive. I think it’s difficult to discuss this sort of issue without going into a ton of sociopolitical theories about the ramifications of the don’t-ask-don’t tell policy and its repeal and the comments section of a blog post isn’t really the right forum to do so anyway, so I’ll simply say again, Thank you.
I do, however, disagree that anyone who enlists (or gets commissioned) in the military takes it seriously. I grew up as a military brat and I have known some individuals who see their duties in the military as a joke. I have known people who see it as a meal ticket. I have known people who just can’t wait to get out.
Lastly, there are many, many things that can have someone kicked out of the military. From having unknown medical conditions to obesity to having depression, people are discharged from the military frequently for circumstances that many would find unfair.
Thanks again for continuing to write here. Hope to see more from you in the future!
Thank you for sharing this personal story. In England we do have similar things happen in our Military in which you can be discharged on health grounds and sexuality. I think having a sexual orientation shouldn’t even be seen as an issue in your military. It’s no body’s business thats a private matter, and i do say the same thing in terms of filling out forms even in civilian life. As an example I’m looking to move home, and yet when I fill in the extensive questionnaires just to tell a Housing association that i want to move out into a different area, Im forced to tick boxes that ask about my sexual orientation. Why should it matter to them? Am I going to upset a straight couple living net door to me, so as a solution just ghettoise me into an area that would be more ‘suitable’ if i tick the box that says I’m Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual? Its a very private & personal thing for authorities, or ANY authority to ask. And maybe there are gay singles or couples that feel uncomfortable answering such questions for fear they may be mistreated or marginalised.
When I first began to write for the gay community article, and it was one of the first that we have done. I did not know at the time of the the importance of that article, nor how emotional that article made me feel. ( From listening to the interviews, I felt a range of emotions that I had never felt before, from anger, to sadness, to joy.) But I am so glad that I had met and interviewed JPConway and Darksided Gay, they have both shown me that there is a gay community that exists and will continue to exist, on playstation home, as a Haven and hopefully as a place of safety and friendship.
Most awesome article my friend. I was very happy to be able to help with the photo shoot.
I wish there was something like this when I was in the service *cough* many years ago.
I was “released” from active duty prior to the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell coming into the service -- fought against them wishing to give me a Dishonorable Discharge for having “homosexual tendencies” and received a “general under honorable” discharge after 6 months of fighting.
I know what it was like then -- and I am sure it isn’t much easier today. There will still be hatred towards the Gay and Lesbian serving proudly within all branches of the military -- but I am sure each one will decide if/when they will “come out” to their friends/family/fellow soldiers.
I know I am proud of each one -- including you Bonzo!!
JPConway
Thanks JP and I commend you on your strength, to have gone to such an ordeal must have been trying to say the least. Since the military is so self regulated, and spending is expected to be so out of control, I don’t think it is ever taken into account by the supporters of anti gay laws how much tax money is spent and really wasted to litigate cases of discharge because of homosexuality. It isn’t such a quick case of accusation, and immediate discharge. Many times it goes into investigations, and prosecutions and court-martial to determine whether a case is valid or not, that takes time, man power, resources and MONEY, which comes from tax payers, to discharge someone for being something they have no control over and doesn’t interfere with their duties. In fact the intrusive process is what interferes more with general military duties. I am proud of you too.