Posted on 02/07/2010 8:33:28 AM PST by Kaslin
There are lots of reasons for excluding gays and lesbians from the military. But current supporters of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy insist that really, it all comes down to cohesion. Keep gays out, and soldiers will stick together through thick and thin. Let gays in, and every platoon will disintegrate like a sand castle in the surf.
John McCain sounded this theme at a Senate hearing the other day, arguing that the existing law rests on the belief "that the essence of military capability is good order and unit cohesion, and that any practice which puts those goals at unacceptable risk can be restricted." A group of retired military officers said the ban on gays serves "to protect unit cohesion and morale."
Maybe this concern is what really underlies the exclusion of gays and lesbians. But I'm not so sure. In 2007, Gen. Peter Pace, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked about it, and he offered a different rationale. "I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," he said. Could the opposition stem mostly from a simple aversion to gays and their ways?
It's not completely implausible that in a military environment, open homosexuality might wreak havoc on order and morale. But the striking thing about these claims is that they exist in a fact-free zone. From all the dire predictions, you would think a lifting of the ban would be an unprecedented leap into the dark, orchestrated by people who know nothing of the demands of military life.
As it happens, we now have a wealth of experience on which to evaluate the policy. When you examine it, you discover the reason McCain and Co. make a point of never mentioning it.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Apology?...for what?
You either approve of sodomy or you dont...
Yes or no?
There is NO constitutional right to serve in the military.
Greetings kAcknor:
This is not a flame, my brother-in-arms. Please understand this “gays in the military,” like its ugly sister “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT), is a trojan horse to undermine UCMJ good order and discipline.
Pre-DADT: sailor falls in love ashore. Tells the Chief about relationship as a means to miss movement! Chief tells sailor: I don’t care about your personal life. Get on the boat. That’s an order. End of story.
Post-DADT: sailor allegedly meets a same sex lover ashore. Tells the Chief about relationship as a means to miss movement! Chief tells sailor: I don’t care about your personal life. Get on the boat. That’s an order.
“Gay” sailor now plays the get-out-of-any-icky-deployment card. Calls ACLU lawyer on personal cell phone. ACLU lawyer, standing by 24/7, ready to assist; calls ship’s Captain. Sailor waves to the Chief from dock as the ship gets underway.
Alleged “gay” sailor manipulates UCMJ system to avoid deployment. And the homosexual rights movement gained another number for their “poor gays” statistics spin.
Cheers,
OLA
I’m going to recommend to Townhall.com that Steve “the faggot” Chapman be removed from this “conservative” website or they’ll lose my subscription along with, I’m sure, many other conservatives. Chapman’s worldview represents the left’s radical enmity against all that is American.
You’re right - that issue like this are even given a place at the debate table bodes ill for America.
I have a problem with this reasoning in one respect. The two corollaries I point to are found in literature and life. The first is the character of Jean Valjean in Victor Hugo's Les Miserables. This individual, when faced with starvation, false accusation and total annihilation, opts to steal a pair of candlesticks from the Catholic Church. The argument from the constable is that he is irredeemable and needs to be incarcerated forever. However, it is clear that this man is noble even heroic but that circumstances beyond his control, imposed by a draconian society have led him to this. The second is the young black man in America. Faced with little prospects, double the unemployment, no food, no hope and a wrenching despair that spans decades, he turns to violence or theft. Does this mean that all young black men are violent or thieves? I am not sure. I'd like to hope that even the most loyal of dogs, when cornered will show teeth and resort to less than polite behavior when given no alternatives.
We as a society, for centuries, have told a significant portion of our population that their behavior is unacceptable. Whether it is socialized or natural, it hasn't mattered. We have made that decision. In a sense, we have forced what seems natural to them, into the sewer, the underground, the darkness. Are we to feign surprise when they act on their behaviors in the sewer, the underground and the darkness? Aren't we in a sense, calling the effect the cause in this instance? Aren't we reaping what we ourselves have sown and aren't we adding insult to injury when we tell them that their behavior in the darkness which we cast upon them IS the very reason we have cast them into the darkness. Would that any of us might rise above this circular logic after decades and centuries of externally imposed self-loathing.
An example of this is the Catholic priest. In the repression of the 1950’s a young single man with no predilection for marrying a female or living a lie was offered no opportunity but to become a priest, it was the only occupation beyond suspicion where a single man could go. It was a “higher calling”. It was a way to mask the self loathing society had thrust upon him in a cloak of communal respect. But it wasn't a cure, solution or road to happiness. The condition remained beneath the vestments and the repression continued. What some chose to do was wrong but are we to be surprised given the dead end course, we as a society set them on, that some ended up where they did?
These are some things we need to think about.
We certainly do not treat other less fortunate parts of our society with the same pariah status from such a young age.
I would agree with you completely regarding advancement to fill quota. It is a moral hazard. But I have news for you that you are probably already aware of. The man sitting in the White House has blown that arguement all to hell.
We already have moral hazard to the nth degree all around us. This man was pushed forward over and over again without the top grades, top acumen, top performance only because he was the “well spoken black man” and didn’t he make us feel good about ourselves?
After forty years of advancing women and minorities this way, nothing that is done for the homosexual, fair or unfair, will dramatically alter the moral hazard landscape with which we are already riddled.
That was Powell’s opinion. The last time I looked, General Powell was not a geneticist, actually he wasn’t much of a diplomat either but we gave him over-arching authority in that department as well.
Astute gays, and I’d venture that some of the most astute gays are in the military, know what wealthy business people in the United States know...it’s ok to be moderately successful, but being wildly successful in America draws a great deal of attention to you and can end with you being handed your head. Whether its the IRS or the UCMJ that delivers the head, the effect is still the same.
So, yes, it is plausible that gays in the military meter out their exemplary efforts to maintain moderate success for fear of drawing too much attention...I’d stand by that as a possible theory.
I agree, why entertain a theoretical argument at all? Why even give an opposing point of view a sliver of daylight. We’ve kept them in the dark and the shadows for centuries up ‘til now, why even entertain the opposite thought. I say let’s tear down the messenger before he even takes the podium. Let’s disparage his name so he is not taken seriously. That will make us appear all the more intelligent...
I guess we are both basing our conjecture on a statistically insignificant data set. But who among us has the time to do a full scientific study (certainly not our friends in the climate change community!). So, for now, let’s assume there are neat gays and messy gays and that if there are all elements of the spectrum, then we are intellectually confident enough to consider all elements of the arguement from a theoretical perspective. That, I feel, is what makes for a healthy discussion. The result may reinforce our beliefs, temper our passions, or even change our perspective but at least we will have considered...
Looks like kAcknor is playing the ‘race-card’. He states that most people didn't get past the “second or third line” of the referenced FACTS. Obviously, he read it all....twice.
His strong defense of homosexual behavior is suspicious. His disregarding and altering of actual referenced FACTS is a proven liberal tactic.
I am still concerned that abandoning DADT is abandoning an approach that works, and that for over a decade has facilitated thousands of gay military to serve their country without problems.
Why mess with success?
Especially when abandoning the successful DADT approach would be, I predict, the opening wedge: not for the present gays in the military, who are serving honorably, but for the activist groups. Part of their larger strategy to use courts and the inherently authoritarian structure of the military to achieve political goals they have not been able to achieve by the democratic process.
I thank you again for a good discussion.
Gays in the military is just a cultural "in" for the homosexual lifestyle. It will cause far bigger problems than what it will solve.
And to think when I was in the military 20 years ago, having "homosexual relations" was considered a security risk.
In a true national emergency, gays could still serve in some civic capacity, but away from the troops on the front line, away from the close quarters that the military requires.
You are right about the groups segregating themselves. I wonder if the next step gays will try is to get a gay history month?
I’m still waiting for white history month.
Good response.
I guess I am just committed to fighting it in every way that I can, whatever it takes, contacting the White House, my representatives, educating others to whom the issue isn’t really important, and so on.
I have found that most liberals (and homosexuals as well)don’t understand the conservative attitude towards homosexuality.
Most (but not all) conservatives don’t give a rat’s ass what people do in the privacy of their home. That is their business, and is consistent with the conservative principles of staying out of the private affairs of others, if it doesn’t affect the rest of us directly.
What we DO care about are the attempts by the left and the homosexual community to publicly codify that behavior and give it the imprimateur of government approval and equality in all respects, legal, financial and moral with heterosexual couples whose primary function is (and should be) the raising and rearing of children. That is a difficult job and deserves the legal, financial and moral underpinnings of actual government support to encourage it and assist it in any way. And we all have a stake in the outcome of that, citizens who can participate in a meaningful way in our society.
I am married with no children, but I recognize that married couples with children need any breaks they can get from the government, and special privileges to boot to accomplish their jobs as parents. So I have a stake in it too.
Good response as well. I agree 100% with your comments. This is where we have a huge problem. Even those of us who for liberty’s sake would protect the privacy rights of two consenting adults in a private home are being duped by what appears to me to be a homosexual agenda to not only gain and secure rights but to undermine all institutions that don’t openly promote and support those rights.
There is almost a subversive or retributive aspect to the struggle. It is not enough to secure rights, others must be dragged down as payback and with that payback comes this “in your face” flaunting which is both immature and counter-productive. The result for the gay community may be more situations like Proposition 8 in California.
In that case, I believe there was a backlash. I believe the larger body politic looked at it and voted for Proposition 8 so much to say, “Hey, we didn’t mind you getting your rights but when you put your ‘gay parade’ morality up our noses 24/7, in our schools and on our streets...I individually will not be the one to deliver to you 100% of what you want.” The whole vote seemed to smack of spite as much as any base moral arguement by many.
And for that vote, the gay community can blame the Mormons or the Catholics or whomever but the last people they will examine is themselves and their own obstinant behavior in the streets of Los Angeles and San Francisco.
So, you see, you and I share common ground on this one.
I think we do...it is difficult to have civil disourse on this subject, as many people on both sides can get pretty emotional about it.
Folks might care if the only donor in the unit with their kid's blood type happened to be HIV+....
Jean Valjean is an example of when laws are not just and go against nature. Cicero is the one that stated that laws that go against Natural Law and God’s Law are unjust. (This was way before Christianity, by the way.) Valjean was not defying nature at all, on the contrary, so I don’t get your analogy there.
My problem is that happiness (pursuit of virtue—Founders knew that happiness could not occur without virtue) can never exist if you go against Natural Law. Where that begins is the natural right of a baby to have a caring biological mother and father. Anything else is not optimal for the emotional health of that child. It goes back to the philosophical questions such as, “Who am I?”
The lack of material wealth does not lead one to become immoral. The formative years of a child is when you either instill character and morality, or don’t. The current black families are swimming against Natural Law—single, unwed mothers, which causes children to be given no direction, no morals. Those things are learned, like all behaviors and behaviors have to be modeled.
The current out-of-wedlock black families proves what happens when laws go against nature and reward immorality. Welfare legislation has promoted unnatural living arrangements and destroyed black families and their future—their children.
I know of many black (and white) people who have suffered great poverty who have excelled in life without having to resort to crime or immorality.
Most cultures throughout the history of the world have not condemned homosexual activity nor encouraged monogamous marriage, so we have examples of what happens in those type of situations. Great inequity and slavery abounds! Anywhere homosexuality becomes rampant and admired, pederasty is involved. “This older man would educate the youth in the ways of Greek life and the responsibilities of adulthood, and he would also take the boy as his lover.” Homosexuality is learned; it is a gender identity problem caused by abnormal situations in a child’s life. Many studies validate this and only modern progressive writers dispute this with propaganda and “feelings”, rather than with scientific truth.
To learn that behavior, you have to abuse a boy. To advocate homosexuality, is to advocate child abuse. A civil society could never condone that behavior.
Why do you think NAMBLA has their motto? Why does Kevin Jennings advocate books that have kindergarten boys practicing sex acts on each other? I’ve raised four boys and say that is unnatural and sick, destructive behavior. Why have the priests who were guilty of molesting boys, talked about their childhood molestation? The “gay gene” doesn’t exist, just like the baby-raping gene. People who rape babies were severely abused when they were young; it is absurd to say they were born with a baby raping gene.
My bottom line: I can not condone a lifestyle that abuses children and models for them a nihilistic, destructive lifestyle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.