Now that you mention it John, yes, I do see a pattern.
Posted on 07/28/2010 5:42:02 AM PDT by Kaslin
Click here to find out more!
America is one of many countries that forbid openly gay people to serve in the military. Others are: Cuba, China, Egypt, Greece, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Turkey and Venezuela.
See a pattern?
With a few exceptions, those are not countries where free people want to live.
By contrast, Australia, the United Kingdom, Israel, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia and Spain all allow gay people to serve.
No country has America's in-between policy: Gays can serve -- as long as no one finds out about it. Where did that come from?
It happened because Bill Clinton campaigned for the presidency promising to allow gays to serve. After his election, the Democratic Congress decreed that "the presence in the Armed Forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk ... ."
So a compromise was born. The media labeled it "don't ask, don't tell."
Since then, nearly 12,500 service members have been discharged because of their sexual orientation. These have included 800 "mission critical" troops such as Arabic linguists (59 of them), Farsi linguists (nine), medics, pilots and intelligence analysts.
In May, the House of Representatives voted to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," but only after the Defense Department studies the matter and the president, secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff declare that ending the policy would not reduce military effectiveness. The Senate has not voted on its version of bill.
So, should it be repealed? Here are some things to consider:
The American Psychological Association states: "Empirical evidence fails to show that sexual orientation is germane to any aspect of military effectiveness including unit cohesion, morale, recruitment and retention. ... When openly gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals have been allowed to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces, there has been no evidence of disruption or loss of mission effectiveness."
OK, of course they said that. It's the APA. But that doesn't make them wrong.
The Government Accountability Office studied four countries that allow gays to serve -- Canada, Israel, Germany and Sweden. It found that "military officials from each country said that, on the basis of their experience, the inclusion of homosexuals in their militaries has not adversely affected unit readiness, effectiveness, cohesion or morale."
How would members of America's military feel about repeal of the policy? A Military Times poll found: 71 percent of respondents said they would continue to serve if the policy were overturned, 10 percent said they would not re-enlist or extend their service, and 14 percent said they would consider terminating their careers after serving their obligated tours. That's a pretty strong majority for acceptance.
Where do I come down on this issue? It's easy. I'm a libertarian, not a conservative. I don't think government should have any role in our sex lives.
Just as I see no reason why gays should not be free to marry, I see no reason why they shouldn't be free to be in the military. As I wrote in the conclusion to "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity": "I want government to leave people alone. I think people should be free to do anything they want -- as long as they don't hurt anyone else. I may disagree with their choices, but I don't think The State should take their choices away."
I draw my inspiration from Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek. He wrote a postscript to his classic, "The Constitution of Liberty," titled, "Why I Am Not a Conservative," in which he said, "One of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal (today I call it "libertarian") position is based on courage ... to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead ... ."
I'm with Hayek. Unless we do identifiable harm to others, the State should leave us alone.
Thank you! Go forth and have an excellent day! (It appears mine will be rainy, which is good.)
Conservatives, of all people, should be wary of any phrase that includes the word “entitled.” While it’s difficult to see any practical way of *stopping* people from holding opinions that are dopey, even a defense of the privilege of being totally dead wrong on important matters requires argument, not just assertion.
Rant off ... I’m training a student debater, and sometimes I just get carried away!
Besides he is entitled to his opinion, just as you and I are to ours
Why do people like you have to constantly post "he is entitled to his opinion"? WTF said he wasn't? He merely said he was wrong. Sheesh. If you don't want discussion about someone's comments, then don't post the frikkin' article!
If our Arabic and Farsi linguists are flamers, wouldn’t that get them killed by Arabs and Persians at the earliest opportunity? Or “compromised” and blackmailed?
>>> When reading Stossel’s list of countries above, the first thing I noticed is that the no-gays list looked like countries that actually take their military seriously
Yeah the Israelis are so casual about their military.
Most people would have said the thing they notice is the countries on that list overwhelmingly are Muslim theocracies and third world dictatorships.
I agree. Most people would have fallen for Stossel’s clever journalistic sleight of hand.
“I’m sick and tired of, “Europe does it this way and so should we.” (Europe, Europe, Europe! Eyes roll)”
Yeah, that sounds more “Liberal”, not “Libertarian” to me.
The illusion that the homosexual lifestyle is a normal way of living has been successfully propagated by promoting a “victim” image for homosexual persons, and by the pseudo-science alleging a ‘gay” gene.
Of the reports alleging, or promising soon down the road, a “gay” gene, not a single one has survived scientific peer review. There is no “gay” gene.
On the other hand, the evidence does show that homosexual persons are indeed victims — but overwhelmingly of their own behavior, not that of others.
Typical homosexual behavior includes regular contact with fecal matter from oneself and from sexual partners, tragically reversing several centuries of learning about cleanliness, and thus several centuries of growing lifespan. Homosexual behavior makes no more sense than playing in the toilet.
All available evidence indicates that the lifespan of practicing homosexual persons is drastically shortened by their behavior. No reliable study indicates otherwise. The lifespan topic is taboo among homosexual advocates because the evidence is so damaging to their case.
I can't help but believe that changing the meaning of marriage breaks down our society. When I was growing up, most people were of the same mind when it came to good versus bad or right versus wrong. Now there are no clear lines. Parents must have a hard time teaching morals to their children when there are so many contrary messages. Even some of the churches are falling to hedonism.
If anyone has a sense of history, I think that they can predict to where it will all lead!
Senate Testimony: European Militaries Are Not Role Models for U.S.
3/22/2010
http://cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=378
The LGBT Law for the Military:
How Does This Improve Military Readiness?
The Marriott Wardman-Park Hotel, Washington, D.C.
February 18, 2010
http://cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=368
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Bleed”:
By J. Matt Barber
The U.S. military has always discriminated. There are a host of malignant behaviors such as illicit drug use or habitual criminality that can render a person ineligible to serve. As my father-in-law learned, there are also benign maladies such as vision impairment or flat feet that can bar an otherwise eligible applicant. Any number of behaviors or conditions with varying degrees of severity can dash one’s hope of donning the uniform.
This is discrimination only insofar as “discriminating minds” with expertise in these matters have found that such restrictions are necessary to maintain excellence in our historically unparalleled fighting force.
In formal recognition of the long-established finding that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service,” federal law – Section 654, Title 10 – objectively prescribes the following:
•The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise;
•Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion;
•The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service;
•The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability; and
•There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
Indeed, federal courts have ruled over and again that a prohibition against homosexual conduct within the ranks of the military is both constitutional and justified.
So now that Barack Obama is president, what has changed? Is there something about “out and proud” homosexuality, hitherto absent or unseen, that suddenly makes it compatible with military service? Is there something about our military that has, for the first time in history, made it compatible with this particular lifestyle?
The answer to both is no.
http://americansfortruth.com/news/dont-ask-dont-bleed-health-risks-and-gays-in-the-military.html
If our Arabic and Farsi linguists are flamers, wouldn’t that get them killed by Arabs and Persians at the earliest opportunity? Or “compromised” and blackmailed?
Precisely why they shouldn't be in uniform to begin with.
I agree.
Define "worse". They all stick with the "it's my body and I can damn well do with it as I please" insanity.
Yeah, I see a pattern. That list is a "Who's Who" of socialist mediocrity, appreasement, and decadence.
No thanks.
John blew it here (no pun). Every time somebody wants America to be like some other country or countries, I shudder.
That's always a liberal Democrat thing.
Disappointing.
Last I heard, homosexuals are 3 times more likely to rape their fellow servicemen than the non-homosexual population.
And of the countries he uses as examples, only Israel has an active military. I don't believe the author has made his case.
Libertarians are the left’s fifth column in the conservative movement.
Proof there is no difference between liberals and liberaltarians on multiple issues and good reason why the libertarian cancer needs to be cut out of the conservative movement.
Really? I see this as a potential 24% leaving if the policy were overturned. I suspect many of these are our strongest military people too.
Stossel is seeing things in a lop-sided way.
We're supposed to believe losing 29% of military personnel wouldn't be a problem?
Apparently, Stossel doesn't understand that many don't want to undress, shower, bunk with or share a foxhole with someone that might have a sexual attraction to them.
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.