To: PurpleMan
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 Dont Ask, Dont 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.
4 posted on
03/12/2009 1:39:24 PM PDT by
Lucky Dog
To: Lucky Dog
You were one of the military officers on the panel?
5 posted on
03/12/2009 1:50:35 PM PDT by
PurpleMan
To: Lucky Dog; ODDITHER
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.
34 posted on
03/13/2009 2:32:32 PM PDT by
LunaticRex
(...there's two kinds of people, my friend. Those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson