Posted on 07/28/2010 5:42:02 AM PDT by Kaslin
Click here to find out more!
America is one of many countries that forbid openly gay people to serve in the military. Others are: Cuba, China, Egypt, Greece, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Turkey and Venezuela.
See a pattern?
With a few exceptions, those are not countries where free people want to live.
By contrast, Australia, the United Kingdom, Israel, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia and Spain all allow gay people to serve.
No country has America's in-between policy: Gays can serve -- as long as no one finds out about it. Where did that come from?
It happened because Bill Clinton campaigned for the presidency promising to allow gays to serve. After his election, the Democratic Congress decreed that "the presence in the Armed Forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk ... ."
So a compromise was born. The media labeled it "don't ask, don't tell."
Since then, nearly 12,500 service members have been discharged because of their sexual orientation. These have included 800 "mission critical" troops such as Arabic linguists (59 of them), Farsi linguists (nine), medics, pilots and intelligence analysts.
In May, the House of Representatives voted to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," but only after the Defense Department studies the matter and the president, secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff declare that ending the policy would not reduce military effectiveness. The Senate has not voted on its version of bill.
So, should it be repealed? Here are some things to consider:
The American Psychological Association states: "Empirical evidence fails to show that sexual orientation is germane to any aspect of military effectiveness including unit cohesion, morale, recruitment and retention. ... When openly gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals have been allowed to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces, there has been no evidence of disruption or loss of mission effectiveness."
OK, of course they said that. It's the APA. But that doesn't make them wrong.
The Government Accountability Office studied four countries that allow gays to serve -- Canada, Israel, Germany and Sweden. It found that "military officials from each country said that, on the basis of their experience, the inclusion of homosexuals in their militaries has not adversely affected unit readiness, effectiveness, cohesion or morale."
How would members of America's military feel about repeal of the policy? A Military Times poll found: 71 percent of respondents said they would continue to serve if the policy were overturned, 10 percent said they would not re-enlist or extend their service, and 14 percent said they would consider terminating their careers after serving their obligated tours. That's a pretty strong majority for acceptance.
Where do I come down on this issue? It's easy. I'm a libertarian, not a conservative. I don't think government should have any role in our sex lives.
Just as I see no reason why gays should not be free to marry, I see no reason why they shouldn't be free to be in the military. As I wrote in the conclusion to "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity": "I want government to leave people alone. I think people should be free to do anything they want -- as long as they don't hurt anyone else. I may disagree with their choices, but I don't think The State should take their choices away."
I draw my inspiration from Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek. He wrote a postscript to his classic, "The Constitution of Liberty," titled, "Why I Am Not a Conservative," in which he said, "One of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal (today I call it "libertarian") position is based on courage ... to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead ... ."
I'm with Hayek. Unless we do identifiable harm to others, the State should leave us alone.
I note that Greece, the cradle of Western civilization, still retains the ban.
Just saying...
When reading Stossel’s list of countries above, the first thing I noticed is that the no-gays list looked like countries that actually take their military seriously. The gay military countries look like the ones that are constantly trying to play the PC game even if it undermines their national security.
My opposition to Homosexuals in the military is quite simple. Just like Intravenous drug users and other drug impairing lifestyles, Homosexuality brings a life style that has Biological effects as well as morale and efficiency effects.
And as far as a Heterosexual having a Disease like HIV, Hepatitis A/B/C or whatever else pops up in the future. Then they too aren’t eligible for being in the military either.
Imagine being on the battlefield where you need a lifesaving direct blood infusion. Well, I guarantee you’ll take whatever is available. But if it turns out that that Blood infusion saved you right then and there but condemned you at the same time to a long and lingering death. Maybe it wasn’t such a good deal after all.
So to avoid that potential problem in the first place you make that lifestyle a negative in that line of work. That means no IV Drug Users, No Recreational Drug users and No Homosexual lifestyle users, No carriers of incurable diseases.
Being in the Military is a choice the Military Member made freely and voluntarily. There was no draft, therefore the rules were laid down up front before they became a part of the Military.
And just when has THAT ever happened???
To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a time in U.S. history when openly gay, lesbian or bisexual individual have been allowed to serve.
I was in the Navy for 13 years and yes, there were always some around, but they kept it damn quiet and if they were ever officially identified, they were booted out.
Refusing to acknowledge is NOT the same as "see no reason."
Why isn't Stossel citing the credentialed opposition?
Not hard to figure out...
Stossel has just ‘noonanized’ himself.
I’ll part ways with Stossel on this issue, though much of the time he is very good.
Stossel is doing the work of the CATO Institute, whose leader recently co-wrote an article with some extremely left wing pundit/think tank guy (I forget the name). CATO basically endorses gay marriage.
That is a degradation of the institution.
Your response made my day!
What the heck's wrong with discretion in regards to one's sexual preference? That's all don't-ask don't-tell demands. What used to be considered good manners is now discrimination?
World. Up. Side. Down.
These have included 800 "mission critical" troops such as Arabic linguists (59 of them), Farsi linguists (nine)
If they had been very Cunning Linguists they wouldn't have been kicked out.
BUMP
Stossel thinks he is taking a libertarian position but in fact there is nothing libertarian at all about providing special status for homosexuality. We separate the facilities for men and women based upon a prejudice towards natural human sexuality. Most reasonable people would call it a violation of a woman’s rights if she was forced to bunk and shower with men. Obviously then by the same logic it is a violation of the rights of all soldiers to be told that they should have to shower and bunk with people who are openly expressing a perversion for their same gender.
Any true libertarian should believe in protecting the rights of individuals (our soldiers) and not telling them that they have no choice but to be subjected to homosexual perversions where they shower and sleep. Why should we have two different standards in regards to protecting the rights of soldiers? Separate the genders based upon discrimination of perceived heterosexual behavior but then tell soldiers that they have no choice but to be subjected to the perversion of the fascist activists. Stossel is taking the position of wanting to force his perverted morality on soldiers.
Yes. Let’s let gays serve openly in the military so we can be more like France.
I take it that Mr. Stossel has never served in the military.
And I can't believe Stossel would hold up Denmark, Slovenia, Luxembourg and Estonia and comparisons.
More people live in Brooklyn than live in Slovenia or in Estonia or in Luxembourg.
Stossel has been DEAD wrong a lot lately. First illegals, noe rump rangers. Go away John....we hardly knew ye.
(sigh)
Normally, I am a big fan of Stossel, but not this time. The issue is NOT about people's sex lives. It's about how close people end up sleeping together in the military.
Most people either paid no attention to or have forgotten what Clinton said in '93 after he visited his first aircraft carrier as POTUS (or EVER!) - "Wow, I didn't realize they slept so close together!" On most Navy ships, there is barely 3 - 4 inches between one person's nose in a berth, and either the next berth above him/her or the overhead. Sailors are typically stacked 3 and 4 high aboard ship and a practice called "hot bunking" (in which two sailors are assigned the same bunk on different shifts) is not unusual.
In the Army, you may well find yourself in tight quarters in a foxhole sleeping nose to nose with a fellow soldier. In NONE of these situations, do heterosexual men want to worry about whether someone in the bunk below them or the foxhole next them is getting an erection thinking about seeing them naked in the shower (and, yes, there are open showers with multiple shower heads in the military). THIS is why people like Clinton and Stossel who have NEVER served a minute in the military shouldn't decide what's best for the military. If Clinton and Stossel want to share sleeping quarters with gays, that's THEIR CHOICE, but they have NO BUSINESS depriving ME of MY right to choose based on their beliefs!!!
Hmmmmmm. Interesting. Let me try that:
A)Birds have feet.
B) Pigs have feet.
C) Pigs can fly.
Awesome! I have a whole new way to look at the world!
Well, putting Iran on the list is somewhat misleading. As Achmajined has told us, Iran has no people who engage in homosexual acts.
Taking “Policy” advice from a libertarian is like taking economic advice from the government; you know down deep the only reason they’re weighting in is self-interest...
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.