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So, should it be repealed?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 was one of the 400,000 service member selected to take the survey.
I would like a return to asking one question Homosexuality (yes/no) If you answer yes, your PDQ’d (Permantely Disqualified) from Military service period. I stated so on the survey.
The Uniform Code of Military justice has cades that are broken if openly gay persons serve, so they can still be brought up on charges.
BTW:
I’m 47 years old and I went back in service after serving 10 years active duty, then took a 16 year vacation from Military service. Keep DADT on the books. Honor, Courage Commitment has no room for Gay people...
They can also serve and NOT be celibate, and many do. If they live off-base the person could be their "roommate".
They just can't flaunt it, brag about it, demand approval for it, conduct parades, openly hustle others, etc.
And that's what they want.
Stossel, you're an ass.
So what goobermint entity owns your body ?
Stossel is taking a good libertarian principle to the extreme: government should not be allowed to discriminate.
Unfortunately, his suggestion violates another, which is that people should be free to associate with whomever they wish - and not associate with others.
If the poofters get to demand acceptance and approval, why not the bestiophiles, the necrophiles, the pedophiles and every other perversion ?
“They can also serve and NOT be celibate, and many do.”
Only until they get caught. That was my point: there are rules, everybody knows them coming in, and if a member decides not to obey the clear rules, the member has no basis to complain when the rule is enforced against him or her. “Can” doesn’t mean “may” or “should”. Ability and authority are not one and the same.
Colonel, USAFR
You won't find Him in ANY libertarian literature. Most people refer to Him as "God".
Stossel is taking a good libertarian principle to the extreme: government should not be allowed to discriminate.
A good libertarian principle? I didn't know there were any. However, you forgot libertarian principle #1 in that phrase: "Unless harm is being done to another". Of course "harm" in a libertarian's mind must be seen, it can't involve the breakdown of the family and society through moral decay.
If the poofters get to demand acceptance and approval, why not the bestiophiles, the necrophiles, the pedophiles and every other perversion ?
You're straying from the Libertarian Party line here; remember the "harm" rule.
Since the left has dealt the State of Arizona a temporary setback in today's immigration ruling, I think we should thank the Libertarian Party for their confused position on the topic. Per there annual Party Platform:
3.4 Free Trade and Migration We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.
Like anything a libertarian does, there always has to be some confusion involved.
What a weak, error-laced, pathetic article. Where to begin....
No he isn't, that is the libertarian position. Libertarians like John Stossell and Noam Chomsky can agree on that basic libertarian principle.
Homosexuals: 1.3 Personal Relationships
"Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships."
Most of the countries aren’t defending themselves anyways
Good point.
What’s also interesting is why people don’t bother asking what is happening in the Caribbean. Jamaica has gays stoned to death in public by angry mobs, on a regular basis too. Is there any concern regarding that fact?
Interesting point. I don’t think most people know details about events in the Caribbean.
You're also neglecting another libertarian position: that individuals (and by extension, businesses) should be free to associate as they wish.
Don't want queers using your facility for activities ? Fine, don't rent to them. Where it gets sticky on DADT, is that government cannot be allowed to discriminate. But a set of rules that would prevent homosexual activism and favoritism could be put in place that would amount to DADT yet be immune from "discrimination" charges.
"The first person to describe himself as a libertarian was Joseph Déjacque, an early French anarchist communist. The word stems from the French word libertaire, and was used to evade the French ban on anarchist publications.[18] In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those who opposed state socialism, such as Mikhail Bakunin. In the United States, the movement most commonly called libertarianism follows a capitalist philosophy; the term libertarian socialism therefore strikes many Americans as a contradiction in terms. However, the association of socialism with libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism with libertarianism in the United States."
Who told you that the military cannot discriminate? When in the entire history of America has the military not been able to discriminate against homosexuals?
As a liberal/libertarian, you are striving to discover for the first time in American history, a new right and then impose that new "right" on our nation, just like you guys did so much of during the 1960s and the Earl Warren court.
In case I don’t get to ping this, out the door in a short while.
Perfect example of why Liberaltarians are morally blind and therefore cannot see reality as it is.
On this, as on some other issues, Stossel pretends that the costs of personal behavior are not overwhelmingly imposed on society as a whole. “In a vacuum,” one can say homosexual behavior is a private choice, but we are not in a vacuum. It has been demonstrated that homosexuals will impose on everyone else to further their own counter-culture.
His position on immigration is wrong for the same general reason: we are not in a theoretical environment. IF we had a totally free labor market; IF we had no welfare state; IF laws were enforced firmly and quickly; IF there were no organized ethnic advocacy ... then unrestricted immigration could shake out in the free market.
Previous large scale immigration was absorbed with less disruption because we were closer to that ideal situation, but it’s absolutely impossible now to ignore the realities - except for someone who is choosing to deceive himself and us for his own agenda.
The list of nations is very astounding in one other factor:
Most all of the gay accepting nations are in a free fall of moral decline, government over spending and unsustainable population decline. They were all once upon a time, among the most moral and highest birth rates. In 50 years, none of those countries will exist in any form resembling those which have existed for the last millennium.
The other list, is mostly Islamic and this is the fastest growing population and religion. In 50 years it will be the dominate political, economic and religious force on the planet.
Coincidence?
Sadly, No.
Homosexuality does not cause societal collapse, but it is rather, the very last warning sign that the bridge ahead is out.
Proceed at one’s own peril.
You are totally right.
I hope to ping this tonight, have been very busy with a house guest but need to catch up on a few things including pings!
Stossel is seriously out to lunch on many, many issues. And you hit the nail on the head. Sort of a case of “If everything was all different, everything would be all different!”
Not exactly a compelling argument.
Oh, and the laws of nature and human (fallen) nature would among the things that have to be all different.
Yes, exactly!
Agreed. But the socialist ideologies are hurting Europe, in tandem with political correctness. Europe’s population is in decline, and it relies on “mercernary work” to fill the gaps. This is similar on so many levels to how the Roman Empire collapsed. Mercernary dependence takes down nations. If Europe stays its course, it may very well follow. Look up the details surrounding the fall of the Roman Empire and the Chinese Han Dynasty, Europe’s situation mirrors theirs of population decline and mercernary hiring.
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.