Hear the audio version here (segments older than 3 weeks may be unavailable)
Well this just makes sense, doesn't it? If you aren't going to ban homosexual behavior in the military because it is what feels natural to those who engage in that behavior, then how can you ban other sexual behavior if it is what feels natural to others? This is the line of logic that the Obama administration, our media, cultural elites and "rights" activists didn't want to engage during the debate of repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
No, instead they made it about discrimination - implying that a group of people were being discriminated against rather than a behavior. I suppose if you wanted to label people based on their sexual behavior you could say they were being discriminated against.but how far do you want to take that silliness? The military bans theft, so are they "discriminating unfairly" against kleptos? The military bans promiscuity and adultery, so are they "discriminating unfairly" against heterosexuals? The military bans drunkenness, so are they "discriminating unfairly" against alcoholics? We can define people by their inappropriate behavior all day long, and in the process manage to claim that they are being unfairly discriminated against when we prohibit inappropriate behavior.
And that makes my point - this discussion and debate should have been around this central question: is homosexual behavior something that is conducive to a strong fighting force? But we didn't have that conversation. No, the liberals led us down this path of stupidity about supposed rights violations, and now we all feel so much better about our sense of fairness by repealing the ban on a very destructive behavior.
And, as a consequence, guess what? We're only getting started with this social experiment:
With homosexuals now able to serve openly in the military, the gay rights movement's next battleground is to persuade the Obama administration to end the armed forces' ban on "transgenders," a group that includes transsexuals and cross-dressers.
"Our position is that the military should re-examine the policy, the medical regulations, so as to allow open service for transgender people," said Vincent Paolo Villano, spokesman for the 6,000-member Center for Transgender Equality.
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), which pushed to end the military's gay ban, is urging President Obama to sign an executive order prohibiting discrimination based on "gender identity."
...
A White House spokesman declined to provide Mr. Obama's position on transgenders in the military, referring a reporter to the Pentagon.
"Transgender and transsexual individuals are not permitted to join the military services," said Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez. "The repeal of ?don't ask, don't tell' will have no effect on these policies."
The SLDN says "transgender" is commonly identified as an umbrella term for "transsexuals, cross-dressers, gender-queer people, intersex people, and other gender-variant individuals."
Let me go out on a limb here and just assume that we all understand the supreme ignorance of allowing cross-dressing and transgendered behavior within military ranks. Hopefully that one is something that we don't have to explain. So let me ask those geniuses who suspended their own rationality and jumped on board the "anti-discrimination" bandwagon the left drove regarding homosexuality in the military: how do you deny cross-dressers the right to serve? How can you claim to be on the side of "equality" for all people of all sexual backgrounds and preferences, if you are going to turn around and deny access to "transgenders?"
You can't. Because the moment you start trying to draw lines and say, "Well, but their behavior is not appropriate for what the military is," you totally undermine the basis for what you just argued regarding "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." This is what happens when you build your intellectual positions upon the shifting sands of moral relativism. I worry what happens when we build our military on the same.
