Posted on 07/07/2008 8:16:52 PM PDT by markomalley
Congress should repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law because the presence of gays in the military is unlikely to undermine the ability to fight and win, according to a new study released by a California-based research center.
The study was conducted by four retired military officers, including the three-star Air Force lieutenant general who in early 1993 was tasked with implementing President Clinton's policy that the military stop questioning recruits on their sexual orientation.
"Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion," the officers states.
To support its contention, the panel points to the British and Israeli militaries, where it says gay people serve openly without hurting the effectiveness of combat operations.
Undermining unit cohesion was a determining factor when Congress passed the 1993 law, intended to keep the military from asking recruits their sexual orientation. In turn, service members can't say they are gay or bisexual, engage in homosexual activity or marry a member of the same sex.
Supporters of the ban contend there is still no empirical evidence that allowing gays to serve openly won't hurt combat effectiveness.
"The issue is trust and confidence" among members of a unit, said Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, who retired in 1993 after working on the issue for the Army. When some people with a different sexual orientation are "in a close combat environment, it results in a lack of trust," he said.
The study was sponsored by the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California at Santa Barbara, which said it picked the panel members to portray a bipartisan representation of the different service branches.
According to its Web site, the Palm Center "is committed to keeping researchers, journalists and the general public informed of the latest developments in the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy debate." Palm himself was "a staunch supporter of civil rights in the gay community," the site says.
Two of the officers on the panel have endorsed Democratic candidates since leaving the military - Army Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, who supports Barack Obama, and Marine Corps Gen. Hugh Aitken, who backed Clinton in 1996.
Air Force Lt. Gen. Robert Minter Alexander, a Republican, was assigned in 1993 to a high-level panel established by the Defense Department to examine the issue of gays in the military. At one point, he signed an order that prohibited the military from asking a recruit's sexual orientation.
Alexander said at the time he was simply trying to carry out the president's orders and not take a position. But he now believes the law should be repealed because it assumes the existence of gays in the military is disruptive to units even though cultural attitudes are changing.
Further, the Defense Department and not Congress should be in charge of regulating sexual misconduct within the military, he said.
"Who else can better judge whether it's a threat to good order and discipline?" Alexander asked.
Navy Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan said he had no opinion on the issue when he joined the panel, having never confronted it in his 35-year military career. A self-described Republican who opposes the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war, Shanahan said he was struck by the loss of personal integrity required by individuals to carry out "don't ask, don't tell."
"Everyone was living a big lie - the homosexuals were trying to hide their sexual orientation and the commanders were looking the other way because they didn't want to disrupt operations by trying to enforce the law," he said.
I work with homosexuals a lot in my job. I don’t hate them.
I could certainly see the military hiring a great homosexual Farsi translator.
I don’t see why our enlisted troops should have to shower, bunk, train and live with him.
I appreciate the service of all the troops, even the homosexual ones, and I especially appreciate when they “don’t tell” and keep their sexual preferences quiet, rather than using our military as the latest social frontier for the advancement of the Cause.
I know there are some homosexuals who would just like to be who they are and have no agenda to promote. I also know they are a small minority of the homosexual population.
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.
thanks for the ping, wagglebee.
Most don’t really consider what they’re asking of our troops....they don’t consider the BLOODY battlefield.
And, if I can help you, but you can’t help me when blood is needed or first aid is needed, then there’s a HUGE morale problem in addition to a huge battlefield safety issue.
Would you want your child receiving a transfusion from a known gay who had a test months earlier? I wouldn’t.
So allowing homosexuals to sexually harrass normal men is ok for morale. How many men are inclined to deck a queer for viewing his private parts?
I will be the first to acknowledge that many, possibly even most, homosexuals are decent people despite their sinful lifestyles. I believe that in the average work enviornment they can work side-by-side with everyone else without their homosexuality becoming a problem.
However, there is a sense of trust and brotherhood (I’m still not a big fan of women in combat) that is absolutely necessary on the battlefield and this requires the ability to have complete trust. And no matter what anyone says, homosexuality interferes with this.
As far as blood transfusions go, I do not believe that male homosexuals should EVER be allowed to donate blood or organs. This IS NOT a reflection on them as individuals, nor does it discount the reality that many do take steps to lower health risks, it is simply a realization of the inherent health risks of their lifestyle. How many of us would get behind the wheel of a car or get on an airplane that was manufactured with parts that were “thought” to be free from defects a year ago, but could very likely be defective now?
Outstanding illustration!!
Umm, in order for the military to not “leave” them alone they must support sodomy in the first place.
Hint, sodomy nor adultery goes big with most military personnel. You see, people's BEHAVIOR not skin color or genitals must be JUDGED in the strict environment of an all VOLUNTEER military.
Yes they are homosexuals in the military, as well as adulterers, pedophiles, liars, thieves ect... What is your point besides forcing the acceptance of behaviors deemed sick and perverted by many military members? "Human rights"? I guess those who deem homosexuality morally reprehensible have no rights?
What do generals know about unit cohesion?
To leave homosexuals alone who are not assaulting or harassing others is not supporting sodomy. Since sodomy is not illegal in the US what is you proposed postion the military should take that is not already included in their code of conduct? Should they prohibit sodomy off-base or off-duty?
Nearly every article posted on FR about public sex has been about homosexuals (and often it's group sex). This includes oral and rectal sex in public restrooms, truck stops, public beaches and parks.
Knowing the preponderance of evidence that this demographic group gladly practices private behavior in public, would you be willing to share a communal shower with them if they were allowed to serve openly?
You have to put each bisexual in their own room...
I guess you're not reading the thread. See what the guy said earlier about showering in the military.
I assume your comment means homosexuals can't serve because they have communal showers? That's a long way to go around a problem that can be easily solved.
I worked in various prisons and I can tell you there are at least a few ways to stop the troops from grabbing each other in the shower.
It never ceases to amaze me that people would be excluded from military duty because those brave, combat ready soldiers, marines, and sailors, and airmen and women might be oogled. People ready to kill and be killed afraid to shower together. The horror!
No one has "the Right to Serve." Just like I don't have "the right" to be a starter for the Lakers.
How did you handle the situations? Did you complain to your chain of command?
Currently the situation is this, a bunch of guys go into a shower and take care of their personal hygiene. Everyone can reasonably assume that it is relatively safe as all present are “straight”. There is some guarantee against unwanted advances, the homosexual making those advances could get drummed out for it.
Now, allow gays in the military to serve openly. We can readily document where they claim sexual intercourse in public restrooms and showers is just “part of the homosexual lifestyle”. Now, if a gay suddenly decides to be agressive, the target of his “affections” will likely wind up in counseling for refusing his advance. As has already been stated, the military doesn't do anything halfway. They would literally have “advisers” from the homosexual aberrants telling them that they have to allow this behavior.
Here's an example of what passes for propaganda and smear tactics. Someone posts the ridiculous even pornographic photos of a gay-pride parade. Numerous posters come along to titter and sneer and paint all homosexuals the same as those who were in the photos. Anyone who even knows more than one homosexual knows that's a gross exaggeration and a propaganda technique.
And you don’t want to know what you have to do for the hermaphrodites..
If the military allows abberant behavior on base or on-duty, then some leaders need to be retired. You don't keep people out of the military because the leaders are too weak to manage and enforce the rules of conduct.
I said what I have to say about showers above. Oh, and read what the other guy said before.
I supervised showers in several men's prisons for two decades and never made a move or fell in love.
By the way, the UCMJ forbids oral sex, anal sex, indecent public acts, and pretty much any sex that isn't conducted in a missionary position for the purpose of procreation. How are you going to square that with gays?
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.