Sdi 2010 Midterms Impacts Updates
Download 0.56 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- AT: DADT Is Racist
AT: DADT Is RacistDADT Is Not Bigoted- Exclusion Key to Effectiveness The Washington Times 10(Peter Sprigg writer for FRC, March 8, 2010, Sex matters in the military; public opinion changes, but human nature does not pg. 3. July 20, 2010) However, there is another contradiction that has gotten too little attention - a contradiction in the logic of those who favor opening the military to homosexuals. In one sense, they argue that sex matters more than anything; yet in another sense, they argue that sex matters not at all. In arguing that "gays and lesbians" are being excluded from the military just for "who they are," as President Obama and many others have done, they imply that for those individuals, their sexuality is the essential core of their identity. If you think about it, this is odd. No other group in the population identifies themselves, first and foremost, on the basis of their sexual desires and behaviors. The monogamous and the adulterous, the promiscuous and the celibate - none of these groups identify themselves to the world primarily on the basis of their sexuality. Only homosexuals do that. When it comes to their self-identification, sex means everything. But when we seek to examine the implications of allowing such individuals to serve in the military, we are told that sex means nothing. We are assured that putting people with sexual attractions to one another in positions of forced intimacy, sharing showers and sleeping quarters, will have no impact on people's behavior, let alone on their "good order, morale, discipline and unit cohesion." Such claims simply strain credulity. Several years ago (on Dec. 8, 2004) the liberal Washington Post carried a fascinating juxtaposition of stories. First, an Army court had overturned the criminal conviction of a male soldier for engaging in a sex act with a female civilian "in a military barracks" - and some activists were rejoicing that the decision might be a sign the military would overturn its ban on homosexual conduct. Another story indicated that a high-ranking male Air Force officer might be fired for engaging in serial "fraternization" (most of it consensual) with various women. Just below that was a story about sexual harassment and assaults at the Air Force Academy. Those are just one day's examples that illustrate the problems sex already is causing, even under current law and policies, among heterosexuals in the military. And those are under circumstances in which men and women who serve together remain segregated in the most intimate aspects of their lives. Because segregation of "gay" and "straight" soldiers likely would be considered intolerable, forced cohabitation between those who are sexually attracted could only make these problems worse. When conservatives argue that the troops will not accept homosexuality in the ranks, our opponents often misinterpret this claim. They think we are saying that American soldiers are too bigoted and unprofessional to adapt to diversity. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are saying that these troops have legitimate and well-founded concerns about the consequences of injecting additional sexual tension into the already demanding lifestyle of America's warriors. The reality is that sex does matter - but not in the way "gay" activists say. Homosexuals are not excluded from the military because of ""who they are. The distinction is on the basis of conduct and the propensity to engage in that conduct - not on the basis of personal identity. But maintaining discipline in the unique, all-consuming, 24/7 lifestyle of the military has always required placing restrictions on people's personal relationships and conduct that would not be accepted in the civilian world. That is why there are rules against "fraternization" and even laws (in the Uniform Code of Military Justice) against adultery and sodomy. In 1993, Congress reaffirmed what has been this country's policy since its founding - that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. Society and public opinion may have changed since then - but human nature and the unique demands of the military have not. The 1993 law should be retained for one simple reason - because sex matters in the military. Peter Sprigg is a senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council. AT: DADT Is RacistDADT Is Not Bigoted- Exclusion Key to Effectiveness The Washington Times 10(Peter Sprigg writer for FRC, March 8, 2010, Sex matters in the military; public opinion changes, but human nature does not pg. 3. July 20, 2010) However, there is another contradiction that has gotten too little attention - a contradiction in the logic of those who favor opening the military to homosexuals. In one sense, they argue that sex matters more than anything; yet in another sense, they argue that sex matters not at all. In arguing that "gays and lesbians" are being excluded from the military just for "who they are," as President Obama and many others have done, they imply that for those individuals, their sexuality is the essential core of their identity. If you think about it, this is odd. No other group in the population identifies themselves, first and foremost, on the basis of their sexual desires and behaviors. The monogamous and the adulterous, the promiscuous and the celibate - none of these groups identify themselves to the world primarily on the basis of their sexuality. Only homosexuals do that. When it comes to their self-identification, sex means everything. But when we seek to examine the implications of allowing such individuals to serve in the military, we are told that sex means nothing. We are assured that putting people with sexual attractions to one another in positions of forced intimacy, sharing showers and sleeping quarters, will have no impact on people's behavior, let alone on their "good order, morale, discipline and unit cohesion." Such claims simply strain credulity. Several years ago (on Dec. 8, 2004) the liberal Washington Post carried a fascinating juxtaposition of stories. First, an Army court had overturned the criminal conviction of a male soldier for engaging in a sex act with a female civilian "in a military barracks" - and some activists were rejoicing that the decision might be a sign the military would overturn its ban on homosexual conduct. Another story indicated that a high-ranking male Air Force officer might be fired for engaging in serial "fraternization" (most of it consensual) with various women. Just below that was a story about sexual harassment and assaults at the Air Force Academy. Those are just one day's examples that illustrate the problems sex already is causing, even under current law and policies, among heterosexuals in the military. And those are under circumstances in which men and women who serve together remain segregated in the most intimate aspects of their lives. Because segregation of "gay" and "straight" soldiers likely would be considered intolerable, forced cohabitation between those who are sexually attracted could only make these problems worse. When conservatives argue that the troops will not accept homosexuality in the ranks, our opponents often misinterpret this claim. They think we are saying that American soldiers are too bigoted and unprofessional to adapt to diversity. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are saying that these troops have legitimate and well-founded concerns about the consequences of injecting additional sexual tension into the already demanding lifestyle of America's warriors. The reality is that sex does matter - but not in the way "gay" activists say. Homosexuals are not excluded from the military because of ""who they are. The distinction is on the basis of conduct and the propensity to engage in that conduct - not on the basis of personal identity. But maintaining discipline in the unique, all-consuming, 24/7 lifestyle of the military has always required placing restrictions on people's personal relationships and conduct that would not be accepted in the civilian world. That is why there are rules against "fraternization" and even laws (in the Uniform Code of Military Justice) against adultery and sodomy. In 1993, Congress reaffirmed what has been this country's policy since its founding - that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. Society and public opinion may have changed since then - but human nature and the unique demands of the military have not. The 1993 law should be retained for one simple reason - because sex matters in the military. Peter Sprigg is a senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.56 Mb. Share with your friends:
|