Rum, sodomy and the lash
Owen Robinson offers his support for gays in the military.
…I think it’s a bit ludicrous to exclude people from military service based on their sexual preference. The military is a very merit-oriented profession where their job is to blow up stuff and kill people. If they do that well, why do we care how they want to tickle their unmentionables?
I always thought it absurd that the military was running Arabic language experts out for the crime of being attracted to the same sex. I understand the military cohesion argument. However, I think if you polled the members of our armed forces whether they would rather serve with someone physically fit and capable of shooting straight even if their personal life isn’t, or serving with someone like myself whose nervous tremors prevent him from going to the salad bar, I think they would have the preference for the soldier with the outlawed preference.
My concern with the military is the question of whether or not we are going to let political correctness interfere with military preparedness. When physical conditioning standards are lowered to accommodate women, when generals express regret over the damage to “diversity” in the aftermath oh Major Hasan’s terrorist rampage at Ft. Hood, those are more pressing concerns than whether a man in uniform looks good to a man in uniform.
It’s time to drop “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” It should have been dropped before. We’re a country at war. Picking and choosing soldiers for reasons other than whether they can do the job they’re volunteering to do is a luxury we cannot afford.
Let me make two predictions:
1) If the change is made, I bet there will be no significant increase in the number of homosexuals serving in the military.
2) Because Owen and I agree on this with the liberals, this change in policy won’t happen.
I agree with your post, except for the sentiment that excluding homosexuals from the military is somehow “a luxury” to be had at all. It is discrimination. Period.
It is not a policy which “we’d really like to implement if we could, but can’t afford right now” like buying a second car when you just lost your job. It is never right, whether at war, or not.
[Reply]
James Wigderson Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Nick, maximum military preparedness should be the goal. Part of the necessary ingredients of a well-functioning military is the cohesiveness of the fighting units. Placing that cohesiveness at risk in pursuit of some social engineering goal (how un-Libertarian of you, by the way) is a luxury most nations can ill-afford. However, in this particular case the risk is well-outweighed by the definite gains, and the exclusion of homosexuals from the military, once arguably a military necessity, now in turn becomes the luxury we cannot afford.
[Reply]
Unnnhhhh…..one caveat.
If changing the rule also requires some ‘affirmation’ of perversion, it’s wrong.
[Reply]
James Wigderson Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
I don’t think “affirmation” is required, as much as it is simply dropping the policy. I realize that a large reason for this fight is over whether or not homosexuality should find legitimacy, much in the same way Wiccan believers point to the military’s acceptance as some sort of legitimacy for not outgrowing Dungeons and Dragons, but it doesn’t change that “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is simply bad policy.
[Reply]
John Foust Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Maybe after this, we can go after the promotion of Christianity within the military.
[Reply]