Fail.
Very good article. I used to be against having gays openly in the military until I gave it rational thought. Gays have served in the defense of this country and have served it well. After learning how well it has worked for the Israelis how can we rationally say it would not work here?
You might want to address billeting, the lifetime ban on donating blood and also the treatment of families within the military structure. Also, I’d be interested to hear how it would enhance military readiness and performance.
Interestingly enough, when I went to the site to read the entire article, there was to the left a huge ad for browsing for “gay” contacts. How lovely.
From a WSJ exerpt at “No Left Turns”:
“There are many foolish reasons to exclude homosexuals from serving in the armed services,” writes Mackubin Thomas Owens in today’s Wall Street Journal, but “. . . this does not mean that we should ignore the good ones.” The trouble with too much of the debate over the proposed revoking of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, is that it does precisely that. Those in favor of permitting the service of openly gay individuals in the military are guilty of conflating opposition to the change with simple-minded anti-gay prejudice and they have never confronted (let alone answered) the serious arguments against them. As Owens explains, the central and most imperative function of a military in a liberal society is to win the nation’s wars. All questions having to do the organization and regulation of that military must, of necessity, be subordinate to that over-arching aim. There is no other (good) reason for us to maintain a military if it is not for this purpose.
Serious people—who otherwise have demonstrated no particular animosity to homosexuals and who have unquestionable experience in understanding what it takes to build a military capable of performing this function— have argued, persuasively, that the presence of open homosexuals in the military is a problem for unit cohesion and, therefore, is a distraction from that all important function. Their objections deserve a fair and open hearing, free from cheap cries of “homophobia” and simple-minded comparisons with racial bigotry from the peanut gallery. The problem for cohesion, in this instance, has nothing to do with personal dislike on the part of soldiers or their commanders; it has to do with inherent and unchanging understandings of the nature of warfare and friendship. We cannot insist that these things change just because we would like them to comport with some more “progressive” understanding of “fairness.” Well, I suppose we can petulantly “insist” upon it . . . but we do so at our peril; for nature is an even more stubborn thing than a liberal interest group.
One of the comments was right on the mark. Gays will expect special priviliges.
Now, if one of these guys hits on you, you kick thecrap,out of him and you are up for assault, but he is out on his ear. With the new rule, you would be the one who was out.
When did Israel start accepting gays in the IDF? I was not particularly impressed with the IDF in Lebanon. What about the Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War? Were there gay soldiers in the IDF then?
placemark.
but the military admits hundreds of felons each year, including some violent ones. If unit cohesion can survive the presence of killers, rapists and child molesters, why would it shatter on contact with gays and lesbians?
Thanks, Steve Chapman. [/sarc]
There can be no question that in the past gays have served their the Republic well. That’s because like most sinners like adulterers, thieves, pedophiles, etc they kept their mouths shut and were evaluated on how they did their jobs.
That will not be the case with the ‘me, me it’s all about me’ politically active openly gay soldiers of today. Would you like your straight son being forced to spend the night in the foxhole of a man that may ‘lust’ after your son?
And what would be the cohesion of a unit that put all their gay soldiers together because no one wanted to work with them?
These gay agitators will not settle for the honor just to serve. Next they will complain about promotion discrimination, or partner benefits, or insensitive language directed at or about them.
I recently retired after 29 years of total service and I’m telling ya... combat readiness will suffer. The Army’s warrior spirit is already a hollow shell of itself when compared to what is was during the Vietnam era.
One thing you can take to the bank...tptb that are behind making this official policy of the Armed Forces is no friend of the Republic.
Banning gays gives an automatic deferment from a draft arising from a national crisis or war. This means gays are specifically exempt from defending our country. That seems wrong - brave heteros fighting & dying for the homos back home packing fudge. This makes gays a protected class.
A gay ban would also encourage cowards to claim homo status to avoid service.
I reluctantly support “don't ask, Don't tell”, as I believe it reflects the common sense idea that your sexuality is irrelevant & unwelcome while on duty. While I am uncomfortable about the privacy issues associated with communal showers, bathrooms, & the like, I am not uncomfortable about the idea of a gay soldier sharing a foxhole with me as we battle the enemy.
If you want to ban people from our military, ban the muslims.
My concerns are:
1. How do you maintain good order and discipline when you have Muslims (who believe in executing gays) and gays in the same service?
2. Can OPENLY gay servicemembers be assigned to duty stations where the host country executes homosexuals? If not, then wouldn’t those gay servicemembers be given preferential duty assignments in order to protect them? And if they are given those “safe” assignments - doesn’t that violate the rights of other servicemembers?
I observe that in the USA social-political culture, wherever people with various sex or gender issues work, recreate, or live peaceably with folks in general, they do so on an informal but effective, de facto basis of don't-ask-don't-tell: your sex and gender business is none of my business unless you make it my business.
This seems to work well enough for most people in most settings, including the military.
IMHO, the whole purpose of abolishing don't-ask-don't-tell is not in making a necessary accommodation to permit gays to serve: it couldn't be "necessary," because they serve now and always have. The purpose is opening the door for activists to create social change by their favorite method: coercion:
When I say "they," I don't mean the majority of gay people who are already serving honorably in the military. I mean the social change activists who cannot achieve their aims by the democratic process.
Now I'm not blaming homosexulaity for that I'm just stating a well known fact. The author doesn't seem to know that.
Being in the military is not a right.
No one has responded to the homosexual health concerns, their staggering std problem, sexual promiscuity and blood supply risk, their huge over exposure in depression and mental illness. These are significant problems that the military will need to expend millions of dollars to address.
Are trans-gendered people allowed in? Can they be stopped? Can transvestites be allowed in? Will there be countless law suits and ACLU actions, and is this just a red herring for homosexual acceptance? Does our military need to deal with these issues? Do they have the resources? Why should the US risk our nation’s security on social experimentation? It is not the place for the military to bear this unnecessary risk.
Let us have a little honesty here. It is not a question of eliminating “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” but upon whom it will be applied. If sodomites are allowed to openly serve in the military then all those who are rightly opposed to it will be forced to keep quiet about their opposition. It will be the majority who still hold onto traditional morality, Christians or otherwise, who will be forced into “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” about their moral beliefs. And that is the whole purpose of this push for Gays in the military after all, is it not?
Liberals would neither understand nor care about order and morale.