A Question of Priorities (DADT won't end it. How about cross-dressing, transgender, and bisexual?)

American Thinker ^ | June 05, 2010 | Demosthenes

[neverdem]

Earlier this year, while testifying at a Senate hearing, a former NATO Commander and Marine General, John "Jack" Sheehan, committed an extreme violation of political correctness. He contended that openly gay soldiers undermine military effectiveness. The general has since apologized for his comments after apparently getting his mind right. Nevertheless, as Congress and the president have renewed their push for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) and the Secretary of Defense has offered tepid support, perhaps his original statement merits more careful consideration.

The story General Sheehan told the Senate involved a Dutch military unit responsible for guarding the town of Srebrenica during the Bosnian War. The Dutch, like many European nations, allow homosexuals to serve openly. This particular unit, according to the general's sources from within the Dutch leadership, was under-strength and poorly trained. As a result, Serbian forces were able to overwhelm the Dutch, handcuff them to telephone poles, and then execute over eight thousand of the town's men and boys. An incredulous Senator Levin asked the General if Dutch leaders told him that this massacre was a result of openly homosexual soldiers. The General replied "Yes, they included that as part of the problem."

Assuming that, unlike Senator Levin, you are able to control your moral indignation for a moment, consider what the General was trying to say. He was certainly not saying that the mere presence of gay soldiers in that particular Dutch unit caused it to fail. General Sheehan and others object to the president's proposed repeal of DADT not because they believe that gays are somehow unqualified to serve. Instead, the objections center on the effect such a policy change would have upon the mission first mindset of our military. Ultimately, this decision is much larger than whether or not we should allow openly homosexual service members. Repeal of DADT would signal a significant shift in American military policy from a focus on military effectiveness to an individual's "right" to serve.

The repeal of DADT will have real military costs. Currently, many soldiers live in military barracks that are segregated by gender. In a post-DADT military, housing a lesbian soldier, for example, with either gender is extremely problematic. This is not because soldiers are homophobes, but because most would find that it violates their natural inclinations of sexual modesty. This desire for privacy is particularly acute in intimate situations such as sleeping, bathing, and dressing. Maintaining minimal levels of privacy would become even more difficult when units are deployed and options are further limited. These logistical issues will require either a massive restructuring of military facilities and procedures or a reprogramming of every soldier's perception of sexuality. The former creates massive disruptions of the military's systems with an unknown impact on morale and discipline, while the latter is unrealistic.

Openly homosexual soldiers create more than logistical problems. The military is an environment radically different from civilian society -- one of intense discipline and unquestioning loyalty. In this world, distractions can be catastrophic, and sex is the ultimate distraction. This is particularly true for those in their late teens and twenties, a demographic that represents a large percentage of the military. Whenever you are around people you consider sexually attractive or people who you suspect may consider you sexually attractive, there will be distractions. The military can establish policies in an effort to minimize these distractions (we have had reasonable success with gender integration, for example), but these policies themselves create inefficiencies. Thus, the issue is whether we should incur these inevitable costs.

Moreover, the repeal of DADT will not end this debate.  If homosexuals are allowed to serve openly, then cross-dressing, transgender, and bisexual soldiers will soon follow. The housing difficulties discussed earlier would be quickly followed by debates over uniform requirements, grooming standards, and military etiquette, all of which are currently delineated along gender lines. The confusion created by such a policy would be devastating to military discipline.             

All of this is not to say that openly homosexual service members would lead directly to military defeat. It is safe to say that, for time being at least, the technical and tactical superiority of the United States' military could overcome whatever costs we would incur by repealing DADT. Instead, the argument is that the increased cost in maintaining military effectiveness without DADT is unwise. A similar cost-benefit analysis has led to military policies that bar other groups from service; currently the military prohibits Americans who are too heavy, thin, tall, or short, or who have various medical ailments, from service. The military is forced to group people by characteristics, weigh the costs and benefits of each group, and determine what best fulfills the needs of the armed forces. A shift away from our mission-first mindset decreases overall effectiveness, and these subtle erosions have a cumulative effect. Our military can bear these additional costs only to a point, but eventually, it may be an American unit that is handcuffed to telephone poles -- or worse.

The anti-DADT people focus on what is "fair" or "just" to the individual homosexual citizen who desires to serve. But the military is a rare place in our society, one that values unity and conformity over individuality. This model has worked exceptionally well over the previous two hundred years. What worries General Sheehan, and others who share his point of view, is the shift in military philosophy that would be signaled by repealing DADT. The debate is not over whether gays are brave, patriotic, or willing to fight for their country (lots of them are). But rather, is our ultimate concern in military policy decisions advancing current civilian/social values or fielding the most effective military possible?

Demosthenes is a lawyer whose current employment prohibits taking a public position on political issues. E-mail correspondence may be sent here.

[LomanBill]

>>The anti-DADT people focus on what is “fair” or “just”
>>to the individual homosexual citizen

How ‘bout focusing on the negative impact homosexual citizens have upon the biological and social fitness of communities that normalize their behavior?

[elhombrelibre]

We’re also going to cross the bridge of polygamous serving if DADT changes to everyone has a right to serve. Polygamous can rightly say whose business is it of anyone’s if consenting adults choose to live as a plural marriage. Why not have private Smith and his six wives move into post housing? Just build more housing. After all, he’s too valuable to lose. He speaks an unusual language. And his wives each chose to be his wife. Who is to say one man one wife? Why should we be so judgmental?

[friendly_doc]

There’s no such thing as a “homosexual citizen”.

Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOUR. Some citizens (probably most of them) choose to engage in non-reproductive sexual behaviours, such as sodomy, oral sex, masturbation, etc.

The rest is just political posturing.

[DontTreadOnMe2009]

This is the world we now live in:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
___________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 1, 2009

and he did it again in 2010 !!!

---

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER PRIDE MONTH, 2009
- - - - - - -
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Presidential-Proclamation-LGBT-Pride-Month/

Amazing, don’t you think???

And your taxes are paying for the web site too !!!!!!!!!!!

[pawdoggie]

This author hits a lot of the key points/problems that will (not might, will) occur when the "End of the Volunteer Military amendment", as I like to call it, goes into full effect. The author missed the issue of HIV/AIDs. Currently, service members who are HIV positive are "non-deployable" (i.e. they get a free ride, medically speaking). In both war, and in peace-time operations and training, contact with human blood is practically unavoidable. So are homosexual service members who contract HIV/AIDS going to be declared liable for their medical treatment ("not in the line of duty")? What about those service members who might come in contact with Private Lance's blood, in the course of applying first aid and/or life saving measures? Do they get the "PC Medal of Honor"?

This whole thing reminds me of the so-called, "Equal Rights Amendment", except in that case state legislators actually thought througn the potential second and third order effects, and rejected that measure.

[Jack Hydrazine]

“DADT won’t end it. How about cross-dressing, transgender, and bisexual?”

“We’re also going to cross the bridge of polygamous serving if DADT changes”

Why stop there? What about a man and his dog? Or a man and his 500 husbands? Or a woman with more than one wife? Or a woman with 20 husbands? How about a man and his camel? What about a parent and child, teacher and student, a clergyman and his choir boy, or a scout master and his boy scouts? Don’t forget about men being married to their cars, robots, or pillows!

Think those are strange? Check this link out.
http://www.oddee.com/item_97042.aspx

We are opening up a real can of worms when we get away from the traditional form of marriage.

[Salman]

Just remember folks, DADT was the compromise.

"Back to normal" does not mean hanging on to the status quo, it means prohibiting homosexuality in the military altogether.

Cross-dressing? What is currently the difference in uniform between the sexes?

Hard to realize how far gone we are sometimes.

[LomanBill]

>>homosexuality is a BEHAVIOUR.

 

Are dysfunctional conditions like XXY and Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome BEHAVIORs; or are they physiological manifestations, in response to environmental stress, that activist Eunuch's perched upon the temple steps have learned to exploit.... as they always have?

 

Observe the order of precedence in Romans 1:25+

Rom 1:25-28
 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator — who is forever praised. Amen.

 

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

 

28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
NIV

Proliferation of sexual (homo and otherwise) dysfunction is a CONSEQUENCE of un-Godly disorder.

 

And the Religionist Eunuchs always coveted the power of those they were inbred to serve...

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee 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.

Just in case someone needs more arguments against homosexuals in the military. Anyone who thinks repeal of DADT (other than to roll it back to "ask, and if they give the wrong answer, out the door") is a good or neutral thing, they either need to read this, or they're a leftist tool.