Skip to comments.Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal a Mistake
Posted on 12/27/2010 6:06:12 AM PST by Red Badger
Our 111th congress, in its lame duck session, has given America a Christmas present in the way of repeal of the Dont Ask Dont Tell law.
Signing the repeal into law, President Obama said hes never been prouder.
From my point of view, Im feeling increasingly like a minority in our country. Not because Im black, but because I am a Christian.
As a Christian, I believe in the truth of traditional morality as transmitted to us through our biblical sources. And I believe, along with George Washington, who stated clearly in his farewell address to the nation, that religion and traditional morality are critical to the maintenance of our free society.
Homosexual behavior is unacceptable by these moral standards.
I also see no clash between this conviction and individuals being free and taking personal responsibility for living as they choose in our free country.
But private behavior and public sanction are different matters.
Our military is a quintessentially public institution. Its acceptance of behavior unacceptable by traditional moral standards means official public sanction of this behavior and, in my view, this is a big mistake.
Support from public opinion drove repeal of this law.
Gallup showed 67% supporting repeal and a Washington Post/ABC poll showed support as strong as 77%.
Behind this is ongoing change in public sentiment regarding the moral acceptability of homosexual behavior. Just ten years ago, 53% said it was not morally acceptable and 40% said it was. Today this has flipped to 52% today saying it is morally acceptable and 43% saying its not.
Yet, at the same time that Americans are increasingly at ease with homosexual behavior, the public says that the nation is not in good moral shape. Advertisement
According to a Gallup poll from last May, three times as many, 45%, say the country is in poor moral condition than 15% who say its in excellent/good moral condition
And, 76% say the moral state of the nation is getting worse compared to 14% that say its getting better.
Whats going on?
First, Americans are becoming more prone to believe that individuals cannot take personal responsibility for their sexual behavior. Thirty six percent believe today that homosexual behavior is genetically determined compared to 14% who believed this forty years ago.
Second, our sense of the meaning of morality has become relative and ambiguous.
When asked, in the same Gallup poll, for the principal reason that the moral condition of the nation is worsening, the greatest response 15% - was disrespect for others. Only 2% said teen pregnancy, 3% homosexuality, 3% abortion, and 7% breakdown of family/unwed mothers.
When asked for the principal reason that our moral condition is improving, the largest response 25% - was better understanding about other people and cultures/more diversity/less racism.
It should be clear that what is happening is that any prevailing sense that there are objective standards for right and wrong is disappearing and that this is being displaced with a relativism and nihilism that values nothing other than tolerance of everything.
As Americans increasingly believe that behavior that traditional morality prohibits is genetically determined, the perceived seriousness of traditional religion and values becomes marginalized.
President Obama said that repeal of Dont Ask Dont Tell will strengthen our national security.
I cannot think of anything more dangerous to our national security and the ongoing strength of our nation than the collapse of our sense that there are objective rights and wrongs. When we sanction ourselves to make everything up, who can the God that our Declaration of Independence refers to possibly be?
Why should Americans take the words of our constitution, that are a few hundred years old, seriously when we dismiss the truths of words that are thousands of years old?
Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do
I always start with the baseline: biology. At its core, sex is for reproduction, to ensure the survival of the species, and NO two men, nor ANY two women, can naturally conceive a child. That makes homosexual sex abnormal by its very nature. The moral and religious arguments start with that baseline: if it’s abnormal, but you do it anyway, you’ve got to have chosen to do it, and for some reason other than biology. The choice carries consequences - unfortunately, those who continue to insist it’s not a choice have won this round.
“If this were a true repeal, wouldn’t we be reverting to the policy as it was before slick Willie declared Homosexuality in the Military to be optional?”
Yes - that’s been the misrepresentation from the beginning: 10 USC 654 simply codified the policy that practicing homosexuals will be discharged. With its repeal, we should go back to how things were before its implementation, which is stated in the repealed statuts as follows:
(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.
By repealing DADT, they didn’t repeal the “longstanding element of military law”.
Stop by and rate the CNO’s statement on repealing DADT, which makes him very happy: http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=57818
Also check out the comments, someone noticed it was “freeped.”
“By repealing DADT, they didnt repeal the longstanding element of military law.”
I don’t readily have the link, but it is easy to find. Check out the DoD website that reports the “findings” of the panel/board. Anyway, they have it in the plan to have congress amend the UCMJ, etc.
Hopefully, the new GOP majority in the House won’t go along. I’m not sure what effect it would have though. Some court would probably just rule the UCMJ sodomy restrictions void.
And it's irrelevant in any case. Even if there were a "gay gene," it would operate at the level of a suggestion, not a command; in other words, it would influence inclination; it would not control behavior.
Every person alive has innate temperment factors which are influenced by genetics. You might get your hot temper from your father, or slide towards "melancholic and depressive" like your grandma. You might have a bent toward overeating and oversleeping, like your kinfolks on one side, or be more inclined toward hyperactivity and impulsiveness, like your kinfolks on the other side.
The same--- who knows? --- might be partially applicable to innate sex drives, too. I say "might be". I say "partially". Who knows?
But behavior is not irresistably dictated by inherted traits. If gays were in fact incapable of controlling their sexual behavior,, then not only should they not be in the military; they shouldn't even be allowed out of the house.
But if there's no "behavior," then it's a non-issuie. Don't ask, don't tell.
One example in my personal experience that has always made me think about this was a set of identical twin brothers I knew in High School. They both grew up in a stable, two parent, Christian home. From somewhere along in the 4th or 5th grade, it was quite obvious one was homosexual and one was heterosexual.
In my thinking, if it were nature (purely genetic), homosexuals would have disappeared in one generation because they can't reproduce. My knowledge of the twins above argues strongly against nurture. What does that leave? Genetic mutation? Combination of nature and nurture?
Throughout history, most gay people married. Oscar Wilde was married to Constance Lloyd, and they had two sons, Cyril (1885) and Vyvyan (1886). The gay Episocopal bishop in New Hampshire, the Rev. Gene Robinson, was married and likewise had two children with his wife before he ditched wife and kids and went off to live with his boyfriend. New Jersey governor Jim McGreeey married twice and had children with both of his wives, before he famously announced he was gay.
While many lesbian mothers have them through artificial insemination or adoption, I think it's true that most lesbian "parent" couples involve a partner who is a divorcee or who became an unwed mother the usual way --- with a man --- and whose children later get adopted by the lesbian partner.
So homosexuals can and do marry someone of the opposite sex, and can and do reproduce. Always have. It's just that they still have a sexual yen for a person of the same sex.
And why? Like you said, it's maybe part nature, part nurture, and often a wholly mysterious thing, even to themselves.
True. I considered only two homosexuals.
Wonder if this suggests/confirms it is a (weakened) genetic trait that takes some type of nurturing nudge to become dominant? I've often wondered if insecurity isn't a component in the development of homosexuality. Strange it is.
Sodom and Gomorra (sp) didn't get destroyed because God is mean, it got destroyed because the government sanctioned homosexuality.
It seems most lesbians are not "exclusive" "lifelong" lesbians: women's feelings and choices seem more "fluid" and can go back and forth. It's not set-in-concrete, not an unchanging part of the female's identity. It's not too unusual for a gal to be a LTG ("Lesbian Til Graduation") in college; then get involved with a man; maybe have a baby; then go back to a lesbian relaionship; then end that and get married to a man.
On the other hand, many male homosexuals seem to have had painfully unsatisfactory relationships with their fathers. Either the father was physically absent, or emotionally absent, or hostile; or sometime the father was a decent man who tried to be a good dad to his son, but he was "perceived by the son" as being rejecting.
Even with those twins you referred to, maybe the father really treated them both very well, but one of them "perceived" his father to be someone he couldn't relate to.
And why? Maybe it's that the middle-school boy starting to act moody or surly or girly, and the father feeling strange about him and backing off, worrying about him but not knowing how to handle him. It can be hard to understand. It's a difficult thing. I know a family like that.
But that doesn't mean the boy "has" to have sex with males. It may be just that he feels burdened with a kind of emotional offcenteredness. He doesn't need to be mocked or ridiculed; he needs to find a ways to maintain a good relationship with God and with GOOD men, and without slipping into sexual vice.
“And it’s irrelevant in any case. Even if there were a “gay gene,” it would operate at the level of a suggestion, not a command; in other words, it would influence inclination; it would not control behavior.”
Excellent observation, you nailed it. It could be said that 99.9999% of all heterosexual males have a propensity to be adulterous. Does that excuse them when they do....no it doesn’t. Because we aren’t animals and don’t have to act on our impulses. You may not be able to stop an “impluse”, but you can determine whether you give in to it.
Goodness, we may as well excuse serial killers....it is probably genetic as well. The genetic excuse is a slippery slope that can get out of control.
I have dear friends and relatives that have a genetic propensity towards types of mental illness...like bipolar or others. Do they say, “I born that way and OK”? No, they recognize it is abnormal and seek treatment.
Homosexuality is abnormal. To call it “OK”, even if genetic, is just foolish.
Of course I would like to see all education returned to the control of the State or even the Church. The problem is that one would be hard pressed to find an organized Church in this country that does not at least allow sodomy as a part of life if not embrace it. The problem starts with family, then the Church. Nothing will change as long as the Church remains silent on the subject.
I agree with you, but the journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. Let’s start by abolishing the Dept of Education and returning control to the states. We can move on from there.