Ethical = morally correct and honorable.
The Congress is once again up to sneaky tricks. They are planning to vote on the repeal of the the military personnel eligibility act of 1993. Knowing that this legislation should be subjected to a full debate where it would be unlikely to pass, they have instead chosen to attach this legislation as an amendment to a Defense Authorization Bill in an attempt to sneak it under the noses of the American people. It is my understanding that a vote on the legislation to repeal the prohibition against allowing homosexuals to serve in the military could take place as soon as this Thursday or Friday. (Not DADT [Don't Ask, Don't Tell], although that is what it is commonly called. DADT is catchier than the military personnel eligibility act of 1993.)
In my opinion, it is unethical to require people who have volunteered to give their lives to defend this country to have be changing clothes, showering and/or sleeping in the same accommodations with someone who views them as a potential sexual partner. The stress of combat is no place to add that sort of uncertainty and pressure into an already volatile mix.
The military personnel eligibility act of 1993 was passed unanimously by the Congress in 1993 because they recognized, as did the American people, the real and ethical implications of allowing that situation to occur. (Would it be acceptable to put men and women together in showers and barracks? No. Common sense dictates that such a situation would create unacceptable levels of risk for all involved even without the added pressures of combat stressors. Then why should it be acceptable to do this?) They also recognized that many of those currently serving(by some surveys up to 40%) would refuse to continue to serve under such conditions and many would opt not to enter military service at all who otherwise would have.
The members of the population who choose that lifestyle and also wish to serve in the military are simply demonstrating that they do not understand the meaning of the word "sacrifice" by pushing this agenda through. And I don't think that the numbers that choose that lifestyle and wish to serve in the military will make up for the numbers of active duty soldiers who have said they would not re-enlist if this law is changed.
That Congress has chosen to attach this measure to a military funding bill, rather than vote on it as a separate measure is a show of cowardice. Our military personnel deserve better. Let's give them better in November. But until then, call your Congressmen in Washington and let them know what YOU think. The number is: 202-224-3121
"For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed. "~ Isaiah 9:16
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
The House approved the amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2011yesterday. On the same day the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee advanced anidentical measure in a 16-12 vote to be included in the Defense Authorization Act.
And a Happy Memorial Day to us all.
November.
"In my opinion, it is unethical to require people who have volunteered to give their lives to defend this country to have be changing clothes, showering and/or sleeping in the same accommodations with someone who views them as a potential sexual partner."
Yes, what a tragedy this would be. Sorry, babe, I can think of a lot more unethical practices in the U.S. military than potentially uncomfortable changing accommodations. Furthermore, most gays consider the homophobes' obsessive fear of being hit on by someone of the same sex totally ridulous. Why would you assume you are attractive at all to someone else who, frankly, just wants to do their job and get home safely?
What I find really tragic is the loss to this country of dozens of highly qualified speakers of Arab languages, because of the DADL policy. We'd be in a far better situation in our Middle Eastern adventures if these folks had been allowed to stay.
The good news is that men, at least, seem to be finally coming around. Hopefully someday you will follow suit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/opinion/05blow.html?ref=opinion
Nanette,
First of all, welcome to the blog, I think. I am not a "babe" by any measure, and I would request that you not refer to me as one.
You seem to think that the stresses of combat and the long stretches of enforced physical closeness that may be part of a military life are equivalent to showering at you local gym. I disagree.
I don't really care how those who choose that behavior view the fears of others. It's really not relevant to this discussion. This discussion is whether or not it is ethical to require those who put themselves in harm's way for us to add this stressor to an already highly stressful situation. I think it is not.
As for your assertion that DADT(I am assuming that the DADL was a typo, please inform me if I am in error.)affected translators would be of benefit to us in Muslim countries, I would like to inform you that homosexuality is a capital offense in many Muslim countries (and condemned in the quaran and the suras as well). (That means they kill you for it.) I think very few people in a Muslim country would be happy to find that they had been subjected to the company of a homosexual for any reason.
Further I would ask you to consider that fear of being hit on by someone who chooses that lifestyle is not the only reason to be cautious about associating with those who choose it.
There is the disrespect for one's family and community that may indicate a lack of respect for healthy behaviors in other areas. There is the higher than normal incidence of several diseases in that population which may lead to the spread of those diseases throughout a community through infidelity, curiosity or licentiousness. Then there is the general disreagard of such people for the polite conventions of the society in which they live. Those conventions exist to smooth over relationships within the community. For someone to disregard them for their own pleasure is not healthy or desireable. These are all excellent reasons to avoid the company of those individuals who pursue this lifestyle choice and to discourage such choices in one's own community.
That men, according to your article, seem to be "coming around" is not good news for our society in general. Rather it is an indicator of the fact that we are declining as a society.
Post a Comment