'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Was Always On Shaky Grounds

Real Clear Politics (link to) ^ | 12 Mar 09 | Nathaniel Frank

[PurpleMan]

the current policy was essentially written by six admirals and generals who made up the second study group assigned by Clinton.

The first head of this group was Lt. Gen. Robert Alexander, who told me his team "didn't have any empirical data," so the conclusions it drew were purely "subjective." It was "very difficult to get an objective, rational review of this policy," he said. One group staffer, Vince Patton, tried to provide research to the flag officers in charge, but he said it was never even considered. According to Patton, the policy was created "behind closed doors" by people who were impervious to data, and who relied on fear and anti-gay stereotypes instead.

Rear Adm. John Hutson, who would become the judge advocate general of the Navy, was a participant in that service's talks about whether to lift the ban. Hutson told me the process was "based on nothing. It wasn't empirical, it wasn't studied, it was completely visceral, intuitive." He said that the policy came out of "our own prejudices and our own fears," and that it was a "moral passing of the buck."

These and other military officials have acknowledged what many have long suspected: The ban on openly gay service was not based on sound research because no research has ever shown that openly gay service hurts the military.

[PurpleMan]

(Link to article in site) It appears that the implementation of the policy was done without any due diligence. Ergo, many of the arguments against the policy are flawed as well.

My point is not -- let me repeat --- not that the policy should be overturned, but that it should be appropriately studied before anything is implemented.

[flyfree]

Nathaniel Frank, author of Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America, is senior research fellow at the Palm Center, University of California-Santa Barbara.

[Sister_T]

Frankly, they should go back to the original ban on homosexuals in the military. Period. The military is the last place for this social experimentation crap.

[Lucky Dog]

My point is not -- let me repeat --- not that the policy should be overturned, but that it should be appropriately studied before anything is implemented.

No study beyond the US Constitution, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), public law and logic is required.

Every time this topic shows up, the apparently willful ignorance of some and outright disinformation campaign by others causes my blood pressure to spike. Therefore, whenever possible, I try to put the facts out for all to see:

The legal reality:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION Preamble. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [emphasis added]

In the very first paragraph of the foundational document of our country, the purpose of the military is defined. The military exists to provide for the common defense not to provide a specific “right” to serve in the military. As military service is not a “right,” all kinds of people are excluded for very good reasons, e.g., those physically, mentally or emotionally incapable of performing required tasks, as well as certain categories of law breakers such as felons, etc.,

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, Article. I., Section. 8., [Congress shall have the power ] Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

As enacted by the United States Congress:

Uniform Code of Military Justice

925. ART. 125. SODOMY

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

The following excerpt (passed in 1993) is from Public Law 103-160, Section 654, Title 10—"Homosexuality is incompatible with military service." (See Senate and House Reports, pages 293 and 287, respectively.)

Constitutional challenges to former and current military policies concerning homosexuals followed in the wake of the 1993 laws and regulations. Based on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) that there is no fundamental right to engage in consensual homosexual sodomy, the courts have uniformly held that the military may discharge a service member for overt homosexual behavior.

The logic reality:

Homosexuality is defined practically by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual.

Contrary to popular opinion, the term sexual orientation, an expression based exclusively on “feelings,” does not practically define anyone as a homosexual. To contend that only “feelings” can categorically define a person is to maintain that “feelings of “lust” define one as a rapist or “feelings” of “anger” define one as a murderer or “feelings” of “greed” define one as a thief.

“Feelings” are phenomena completely internal to their possessor(s). No human can know any other human's "feelings" without that other human engaging in some behavior from which those "feelings" can be inferred. Therefore, outside of mental health terms, defining a classification identifier, i.e., homosexual, based exclusively on a human's "feelings" makes the term practically meaningless.

Any human behavior (not driven by autonomic or instinctual responses) that is not voluntary is, by definition, a psychosis.

Therefore, homosexual behavior is either a voluntary choice or a psychosis.

If homosexual behavior is a psychosis, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure. Nonetheless, treated or not, like other psychoses, it is grounds for exclusion from military service.

If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal and/or military behavioral regulations as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc.

Homosexual behavior, in general, like theft, assault, drug abuse, etc., is counter to good order and discipline within any organization, especially a military one.

This fact, just as with excluding convicted felons or drug abusers, is sufficient reason to exclude homosexual behavior practitioners.

The fiscal reality:

Homosexual behavior practitioners are statistically subject to a much higher rate of HIV/AIDS and other deadly diseases than the general population.

This fact alone increases the cost of providing medical care for the services. Increased costs in the medical care arena means reduced financial capability to purchase military hardware and pay other military personnel benefits. In short, it decreases the capability of the country fiscally, to provide for the common defense.

However, there is another, even more compelling, reason for exclusion associated with the disease rate among homosexual behavior practitioners.

The combat asset risk reality:

Because HIV/AIDS and other diseases prevalent among homosexual practitioners qualify as blood-borne pathogens, the presence of homosexual behavior practitioners creates statistically increased, and completely unnecessary risk for the loss of combat resources. The long and short of this fact is that these diseases can be spread, among other ways, through contact with the blood of the diseased individual. The military is its own, largest source of material for blood transfusions. Additionally, in a battlefield setting there is never a shortage of blood to create exposure risks to those who are not homosexual practitioners.

Summary:

Homosexual behavior is illegal in the military for very good, legal, logical, fiscal and combat asset risk reasons. Those who have ignored these strictures, either, willfully, or inadvertently, under the so-called Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy have caused a tremendous waste of taxpayer resources as well as lowered morale within the military. These costs were entirely driven by individual homosexual practitioners’ hedonistic, selfish motives and behavior and resulted in unnecessary detriment to the mission capability of the US defense establishment.

[PurpleMan]

You were one of the military officers on the panel?

[Lucky Dog]

Perhaps, you missed the point: NO STUDY IS REQUIRED.

Homosexual behavior in the military is against the law (UCMJ).

Congress, not the military hierarchy, creates the law (UCMJ).

The UCMJ intended to provide for the good order and discipline of the military in order that it can effectively and efficiently discharge its Constitutional mission of "providing for the common defense."

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what a study of allowing homosexual practitioners into the military contributes to good order and discipline or to "providing for the common defense."

[Lucky Dog]

So, because it’s already illegal there is no reason to look into whether or not it should remain that way? That’s like your parents’ saying “because I told you so.”

Did you even read my first post?

Either way, I do believe the DADT policy is a flawed compromise without any winners.

I suggest you believe in the Almighty and use facts along with logic for the remainder of your positions.

[jimt]

Either way, I do believe the DADT policy is a flawed compromise without any winners.

And I believe you're wrong.

DADT protects soldiers from having same sex soldiers try to hustle them sexually, something the vast majority find repugnant.

DADT prevents flaming queers from acting in ways that the vast majority opf soldiers find demeaning and embarassing.

DADT allows homosexuals who are interested in being soldiers, to do so, as long as they don't act like homosexual sex is the be all and end all of their lives.

I think it's quite a reasonable compromise.

And absolutely as much compromise as should be granted.

What those opposed to DADT want is forced acceptance and approbation of their behavior.

[little jeremiah]

Current resident promoter of the homosexual agenda in play. Article for pingout probably too.

[little jeremiah]

Another one! Lookie what DanDan has on his profile page:

“let’s leave religion where it belongs - at home and in church. keep it to yourself.”

An all around religion-hater. I’ve been thinking about this ‘leave religion out of the public sphere’ thing lately.

There are two world views, to make it very simple:

1. Theist

2. Atheist

One of them has to be the cultural standard. Which one? Theists are in the vast majority, always have been, and this country was explictly founded on the Theist world view, specifically what is called the Judeo-Christian view or standard. So people like this newbie, Purple Man and others wnat to destroy this country’s moral standard (what’s left of it, people like them have been busy for a couple of generations) and have their atheist world view dominant.

There is no neutral, there is no third “default”. It’s either Godly morality or ungodly immorality, there is no other way.

DanDan and Purple Man - if you want atheism to dominate and be the cultural standard, if you want homosexuality accepted and actually enforced on others as acceptable, normal and just as good as normal sexuality, if you want no mention of God or prayer in public life, then find some place that is already like that. Our country was founded on basic moral principles and standards that are based on eternal religious principles, since they are common to all monotheist religions (and some that aren’t, like Buddhism).

Quit trying to destroy this country, you will not succeed. If you think that FR is a good place to promote your godless immorality, you are wrong.

[little jeremiah]

Check out DanDan’s home page and my comment to him above.

[Thombo2]

“Article for pingout”What’s that mean?

[little jeremiah]

I am alerting one of the people who run the Homosexual Agenda Ping list that I also sometimes help with.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

perverts in the military advocate alert

Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

Checkout: http://SilencingChristians.com

[DirtyHarryY2K]

I think DanDan went ByeBye.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

The Few The Proud The Queer...
Yeah, That’ll help recruit our nations finest. /s

[DirtyHarryY2K]

"it should be appropriately studied before anything is implemented."

What's to study? Homosexuality = Square peg - Round hole.

[PurpleMan]

“What’s to study?”

As I recall the gripe against Clintoon was that there was no discussion/study on what the impact to the force would be.

According to the article, the generals/admirals who made the decision had no empirical data, only subjective conclusions.

If you have empirical data...

[PurpleMan]

Besides your arguments being flawed (not you position on this just your arguments) I can understand why you are upset. Having a black and white world-view in a grey world causes consternation.

I don’t recall saying it should be overturned. I only pointed out the those who made the decision admittedly used no empirical data to study the effect, period.

But then again, their using empirical data would assume that they are atheistic in their world-view since this is a theistic subject that does not need empirical data?

One hopes that in government policy decision the “God said it; I believe (my interpretation of it); and that settles it” mindset does not become a default to theonomy.

[little jeremiah]

I’m talking about universal morality which is theistic based. Not blind this or that. That is a silly fake argument you are using merely to make my position look fanatic.

But funny thing - science, reason, health, common sense and Nature all support theistic morality. Odd, hunh.

Empiric data would mean putting homosexuals in the military, seeing how it worked, comparing everything (otherwise all the same) with none, etc. No need for that. The above mentioned reasons are all that is needed. In fact, it would be irrational and cruel to experiment with putting homosexuals in the military to “see what happens”.

The bottom line is that homosexuality is NOT normal, NOT natural, IMmoral, deviant, and ruins society when it is promoted and accepted as equivalent to normal sexual relations and orientation. That’s it in a nutshell. Therefore, homosexuals should not be in the military, nor in the priesthood, nor in positions where they interact with youth.

Homosexuals need help, not flattery and obeisance.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

If you have empirical data...

I don't imagine the generals/admirals who made the decision had no empirical data on serving dog s**t on a regular basis in the chow hall either, only subjective conclusions.

You'd probably have better luck advocating perversion in the military over at the daily cos or the DUmp.

[ODDITHER]

That is the trouble with allowing a very small group whose minority status is based on a lifestyle choice that can’t be proven and isn’t visibly noticeable unless they choose to tell others.

You would have to either house them separately and have entire “Gay” unit and that would be viewed as discriminatory. There is nothing worse than jealousy in close quarters.

However the activists won’t ever be satisfied until all Americans become homosexuals or they control us breeders. They would be marching against being house separately.
They would want subgroups to be allowed to join the Army. All we need is a bunch of Klingers in the military.

Many homosexuals are not only very immature,but Deep down they hate what they do and who they are. Like anyone with an addiction others with the addiction want everyone else to be as miserable as they are.

The only way you could treat all individuals in the military equally is to either go back to the old ban, or continue the don’t ask don’t tell.

It is their choice to join the military and their choice to actively engage in risky and life threatening sexual behavior. Therefore they should know that abstinence will be a requirement. All soldiers regardless of their preference should know that sexual relations between soldiers will not be allowed.

When you have to trust the other guy with your life, you don’t want him staring at your crotch while you are showering.

[PurpleMan]

“...to make my position look fanatic.” No, just to make your positions look religion based, which it appears to be.

WIthout getting into a complete and total discussion on rights as discussed by the Constitution/Dec of Ind/Fed Papers/etc, we differ from, let’s say Iraq which has in Art. 2 of it’s constitution: “First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation.” We have a freedom of religion. Say, if a religion accepts some belief you do not accept, are we not to bound to afford them the same freedoms and protections?

If not, how do you make the determination. Based will of the majority? Cultural history? Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?

You say “ The bottom line is that homosexuality is NOT normal, NOT natural, IMmoral, deviant” — based on?

These are arguments that occur in the public forum. Is it important to persuade those who don’t agree with you?

Hoping to just move the dialogue and reasoning forward (here and in my mind).

[PurpleMan]

“advocating perversion”

Arrrrrgh!

I’m advocating people to work out arguments that persuade people. It’s that what we want to do?

[PurpleMan]

“advocating perversion”

Arrrrrgh!

I’m advocating people to work out arguments that persuade people. It’s that what we want to do?

[DirtyHarryY2K]

I’m advocating people to work out arguments that persuade people. It’s that what we want to do?

It's just plain common sense to keep perverts out of the military. Has nothing to do with religion.

There are no "private bedrooms" in the military

[little jeremiah]

I have no religious bias, in the sense of trying to push sectarianism, or even wanting to pressure anyone into any kind of religious or spiritual belief system, church, synagogue, temple or anything of the sort. On the contrary, I use universal moral principles to guide my intellect.

The only other option is to reject universal moral principles and be guided by one’s own faulty mind fueled by whims and desires, or other peoples’ faulty minds fueled by their whims and desires, and the faulty minds they were similarly influenced by.

Read my comment above about how there is no neutral ground. Either you are a theist or at least accept the theist moral principles, or you are an atheist and reject universal moral principles. Actually there are many atheists on FR who admit that they are guided by religious based universal moral principles and are glad those principles are still (to some extent) guiding our country and civilization in general. They admit their debt to such principles. This kind of atheist is fine - they aren’t trying to shove a-theist rebellion of moral principles down everyone else’s throat like you and the fellow who got banned upthread.

Of course, there is a subset of the second - fake religionists who are merely the second in a cloak.

Your phony rationalism is merely that - consciously fake talking points, probably obtained from websites dedicated to that art. All religions in the world condemn homosexuality as deviant, sinful, unnatrual and so on.

Common sense, medical science, psychology, and statistics support this.

You are a shill for the “gay” agenda and I’m starting to think you don’t belong on FR.

[PurpleMan]

“there is no neutral ground.” In the debate there are, what 25% firmly ensconced on either side of the issue, maybe even 30%? That leaves 40-50% who have yet to choose a side. They are the “neutral ground” that has to be persuaded in the marketplace of ideas.

“All religions in the world condemn homosexuality as deviant, sinful, unnatrual.” However, there are those beliefs (sects of) who now do “approve” of in the Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist, Unitarian and Jewish denominations. If “all” doesn’t mean “all” what does it mean?

“You are a shill for the “gay” agenda and I’m starting to think you don’t belong on FR.”

I’m a shill for Socratic dialogue and discussion, something we all need to become better at. In a pluralistic society, culture and nation it become more and more of a necessary tool. Hell, Lame McCain couldn’t persuade people to vote for him and he lost BHO did and won.

AS an aside, I would contend that the turn in the attitudes on abortion are because of people being persuaded through evidence, basically scientific, on the viability of life earlier and earlier and the questions raised about it not because people saying, “The Bible/religion says it’s wrong.” But then again, that’s a subject for a different discussion.

[little jeremiah]

By no neutral ground I don’t mean peoples’ opinions. I mean philosophically and morally there is no , institutions of higher learning, many traditional foundations and at this point much of the judiciary is saturated with leftists promoting the “gay” agenda (amongst other leftist agendas), the regular people who are influenced solely by these institutions and their agendas are misinformed and ignorant.

Second, the denominations you mention are NOT what I mean by “religion”. I mean the scriptures themselves and the traditional teachings founded on these scriptures. Of course, there is the Metropolitan Community “Church” started by homosexual activists. Many current denominations have no scriptural truthful foundation to much of what they believe, profess and teach. The Bible, the Talmud, the Bhagavad Gita and Puranas, as well as Buddhist teachings, all promote monogamy (husband and wife) and condemn sexual immorality, including same sex acts.

You inclusion of the 0bama’s “victory” proves my point. The MSM was totally in bed with him, he received 3/4 of a billion dollars much of it illegal from overseas, and many states had open primaries and that is at least part of the reason why McCain became the candidate. Add to that ACORN and who knows how much associated voter fraud and intimidation at the polling places, and you call this a cut and dried victory?

You are a shill for leftism in general and the homosexual agenda in particular.

[PurpleMan]

“You are a shill for leftism in general and the homosexual agenda in particular.”

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

[little jeremiah]

LIke the lie that people are born homosexual, and that homosexuality is benign and natural and that homosexuals have “rights” that need addressing via courts and legislative action. And that anyone criticizing the “gay” agenda is a hateful bigot and needs sensitivity training.

[PurpleMan]

It appears a little Pee Wee v Francis is called for:

-You’re crazy.
-I know you are, but what am I?

-You’re a nerd.
-I know you are, but what am I?

-You’re an idiot.
-I know you are, but what am I?

I know you are, but what am I?

I know you are, but what am I?

I know you are, but what am I?

-I know you are, but what am I?
-Infinity!

[LunaticRex]

Lucky Dog - well-thought out and erudite argument. I agree completely.
ODDITHER - As I have posted here before, I spent 23 years in the military, and I can tell we wouldn’t have to create gay units. The main logistical problem would be that the DoD would have to either double or half the number of barracks and latrines. See, we now require two types of each, one for males and one for females. If we were forced by public opinion (or the Democrats, who don’t seem to care about public opinion) to allow homosexuals to serve openly, we would either need four or just one. In fact, dropping to one is the only idea which makes sense because as it is now, people don’t have to be concerned whether there are sexual thoughts happening in the shower. Now, some will say that homosexual people would be equally prefessional as heterosexual ones, and that may be true (I have doubts), but consider this: If they let me shower with the females, I guarantee that from time to time (several times each day) on deployment in the sand pit or somewhere, I would be having sexual thoughts. So would the females. People who are naturally (or unnaturally) sexually attracted to others who happen to be soapy and wet, will at times have sex. And that violates the UCMJ.
Besides all of which, military people already know who among us is gay. We should just keep it the way it is. If men start swishing into battle, and women...well, gay women are already pretty “out” in the service for the most part, let’s just say there would be a lot of individuals getting hurt and a lot of others getting into deep trouble. There are those here (now) who will say “Good! Serves them right.” But think how badly that will degrade military readiness. THAT is all that matters, that is what good order and discipline is all about. If you try to force me to get my brown eye out around men who wolf whistle, we would soon have an all-swish force. Surely even those among you who haven’t served (and you know who you are) can see that wouldn’t be effective.
Finally, for those who still don’t habla, once the homosexuals (it would primarily be the males, as women already know the score - they’re just smarter about it)...anyway, once ‘they’ win this battle, they will lose interest and this will stop being a problem. Faggots do not want to serve, they just want to win. The only gay males I’ve met have been in medical or personnel-type career fields. They don’t want to die anymore than heterosexuals do; it’s just that we are willing to if need be. It isn’t just some game to patriots.

[Lucky Dog]

Lucky Dog - well-thought out and erudite argument. I agree completely.

Thank you.

[Lucky Dog]

These are arguments that occur in the public forum. Is it important to persuade those who don’t agree with you?

Please refer to post number 4 above and cite those portions you think are not persuasive. If you can offer sound counter arguments, I would be interested in hearing them.