President Obama need to take his little social experiment elsewhere. Leave the military alone. These are the men and women who lay their lives on the line on a daily basis. Should't their opinion be respected when it comes to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
Keep in mind that multitudes on the Left despise our military and everything it stands for. Therefore, they rarely sign up. So, let's face the truth. Many in our military are conservatives who believe that homosexuality is wrong and do not want it thrown in their faces.
Surveys have shown that if DADT is repealed, that a significant percentage of our military personnel will end their service to our country. Can we afford to take that risk during a time of war? Our national security should and must come first.
Read from One News Now:
Soldiers left out of policy change debate
"A pro-family leader and former Marine says it will be up to people outside the military to voice concerns about the negative consequences of repealing the ban on homosexuals serving in the military.
The pressure to repeal the 1993 law that bans homosexual military service increased this week when Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-Connecticut) introduced the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010. Congressman Patrick Murphy (D-Pennsylvania) is the lead sponsor of similar legislation in the House of Representatives. (See related article)
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (FRC) and a Marine Corps veteran who strongly opposes President Obama's call for repealing the ban, finds it unfortunate that over the next 12 months when the policy is supposed to be reviewed, rank and members of the military will not be able to express their opposition to any change in the policy.
'People have to understand the military culture -- they follow orders,' he explains. 'So don't expect the military to be free to speak out against this radical policy change. If the military is to be protected, and by extension the nation, the American people are going to have to speak up and say, "Don't play games with our military."'
Perkins adds that service members who oppose homosexuals serving in the military might do their talking with their feet.
'A 2008 Military Times poll suggests that ten percent of those in the military would not re-enlist [if the ban were lifted],' he notes. 'This is going to have a very significant impact upon retention and recruitment. Most of those who serve in the military hold to traditional values.'
The FRC president believes that as his children come of age, it is going to be a very difficult question as to whether they will carry on the family tradition of military service because of policies such as this."
Another factor to consider is health risks associated with homosexuality, something I've never heard discussed, but a subject which should be addressed.
Read from One News Now:
Don't ask, don't bleed
"Consider that current U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM – aka 'gays') from donating blood. Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration categorically confirm that if MSM were permitted to give blood, the general population would be placed at risk.
According to the FDA: '["Gay" men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors.'
The FDA further warns: '["Gay" men] also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in ["gay" men] than in the general population.'
A 2007 CDC study further rocked the homosexual activist community, finding that, although 'gay' men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.
Do the math: If 'gays' are allowed to serve openly – as to appease leftists' euphemistic demands for 'tolerance' and 'diversity' – how much more would soldiers in the field – where battlefield blood transfusions and frequent exposure to biohazards are commonplace – face pointless peril?
All things considered (and we've only scratched the surface), is it any wonder that, according to a 2008 Military Times survey, almost 10 percent of currently enlisted personnel say that should 'gays' be allowed to serve openly: 'I would not re-enlist or extend my service.' Furthermore, 14 percent warn: 'I would consider not re-enlisting or extending my service.' The potential exodus of up to 14 percent of military personnel from our all-volunteer services would be devastating.
When we apply these uncompromising medical and administrative realities to the 'gays in the military' debate, we find that, objectively, and based solely upon medical science and the imperative to maintain good order and unit cohesion, homosexual behavior and military service remain today as oil and water.
Yet, inexplicably we see reckless movement from this administration, liberals in Congress, and even a handful of high-ranking military commanders toward military homosexualization. This type of San Francisco-style social experimentation within the ranks of the armed services would demonstrably weaken, not strengthen, our military, jeopardizing national security.
In a purely civilian world perhaps we can afford to grant liberal social engineers a manageable level of latitude to play fast and loose with wistful 'gay rights' rhetoric. However, it's an entirely different proposition when bad behaviors place others – particularly those who've already waged life and limb for country – at both an unnecessary and avoidable level of risk.
For these reasons (and many more) allowing practitioners of the homosexual lifestyle to serve openly in our armed services should not and must not be 'tolerated.'
Mr. President, it's your sworn duty to place national security above misguided ideology and extreme special interests. It's high time you begin to take your job seriously."