He does not want the government involved in sexual politics, but is content to have the Government Accountability Office and the American Psychological Association influence this area of military policy.
He cites the experiences of other countries. Who cares what other nations do? These are different cultures with different worldviews and different forms of governance ranging from communism to Islamic theocracy.
His article did not explain what the repeal of DADT will look like. Will it mean that homosexual soldiers may openly flaunt their relationships? Will it mean that recruits must allow openly homosexual doctors to give them their physicals? Will it mean that transgenders can cross-dress and wear makeup? Will chaplains be barred from pastoral counseling? Will it mean that anyone who objects will be branded "homophobic" and forced to undergo sensitivity training?
Stossel defended his opinions with the lame excuse "People should be allowed to do what they want so long as no one gets hurt." Does he seriously believe this should be the foundational basis for the armed forces deciding who gets to serve?
Military readiness is not a popularity contest. Its mission is for the USA to have the most superior fighting force in the world. Its rules and traditions are beyond the scope of libertine freethinking.
mamaditto
No comments:
Post a Comment