Homosexuals in the Military and Natural Law

President Barack Obama is entertaining changes to the Uniform Military Code of Justice to allow openly homosexual soldiers to serve in the military. This scheme is disastrous any way one looks at it, and will destroy the cohesion of the military when the United States is engaged in a two-front war, and troops are stretched to the limit.

---

Brian Birdnow, writing in Townhall (Brian is this author's brother) points out that sexual assaults have been on the rise since Obama has taken office. According to Dr. Birdnow:

"News stories dated March 16, 2010 reported an eleven percent increase in sexual assaults in the U.S. during calendar year 2009. Defense Department officials claimed that sexual assault in the ranks might actually be more common than the numbers suggest because some victims choose not to report incidents for fear of retaliation from superiors. Included in these numbers were 173 cases of men reporting assaults by other men, a startling forty percent increase over the previous year. News stories dated March 26, 2010 reported that the Defense Department will soon implement new measures to make it more difficult to discharge openly gay men and lesbians from military service."

The New York Times agrees According to Lori Manning, Director of the Women in the Military Project and a retired Navy Captain;

"In fact there are more male-on-male rapes in the military than male-on-female rapes"

This dovetails with myown piecehere at Canada Free Press on Eric Massa and the Uniform Military Code of Justice.should give pause to those who believe sexual behavior is not important to good soldiering. This is, of course, about a much larger issue even then the military; it is about the clash of worldviews. The Obamabots want a world with no restrictions on their personal behavior. The concept that there will be limits imposed on their godhead makes them most upset, and they believe in a no-consequence world, a world where consequences are an antiquated idea coming from those bigoted, narrow minded religious types. That is why Liberals of all stripes seem incapable of following a chain of logic to it's conclusion; they can't see the forest for the trees because they do not wish to do so. They hold a fundamental belief in the power of human reason, and when their own reason proves faulty they simply press on as if nothing has happened. Obamacare, is a prime example. Now, anyone who bothers to look at the matter knows that this policy will lead to exactly what conservatives are saying it will; it has happened repeatedly in other countries where tried. That does not matter; they want it, and so will hide their heads in the sand, pretend they don't see the disaster that is looming. They want what they want, and refuse to believe that human reason will not make it work. In their FAITH in human reason they reject reason itself, creating policies based on wishful thinking and Hope and Change. Theirs is ultimately a worship of the irrational, because they simply cannot accept the notion of Natural Law, which is an extension of the notion of Divine Law. Now, one does not need to be a Christian to accept the notion of Natural Law; one does not need to believe in God at all. What one must accept is the idea that there are limitations imposed on human will, as surely as there are physical limitations imposed on human movement. Natural Law can be seen as what scientist and science fiction (and an avowed atheist and humanist) writer Isaac Asimov referred to as the Laws of Humanics, the fundamental way our human psychology operates, as well as the way the world itself works. We think we understand these things, but we cannot even formulate exact economic theories, and the current spending spree of the Administration makes that point quite eloquently; Obama and his people believe that debt is an illusion, that government is key to creating a healthy and vibrant economy. This is based on John Maynard Keynes' theories, which have largely been shown to be poppycock in the laboratory of human experience, but there you have it! That we can't say "if x occurs then the result will be Y" shows that so basic a thing as the economy is beyond our understanding. The lobes and whatnot, but we are still completely at a loss for how a simple thing such as an act of will - say, to wiggle your finger - actually happens. Oh, we can explain about nerve pulses and the like, but how does the actual WILL to make a voluntary movement occur? How does neuroplasticity work? One part of the brain telling another part of the brain to rewire itself? This attempt to understand the human mind has done irreparable damage; consider Sigmund Freud and his theories. Freud thought everything was about sex and repression, and his theories likely stemmed from his own internal struggles. Many have sought to order the world according to Freudian theory, because what Freud did was rebel against Judeo-Christian concepts of chastity (actually, these concepts are hardly unique to Judaism and Christianity). Freudianism was a scientific veneer for a new hedonism. Human beings are wonderfully talented at finding justifications for doing the wrong thing, and, as was observed by Mark Twain, sex is the favorite human pastime, so a theory that says you can do it as often as you like in as many ways as you like with as many people as you like was quite attractive to some. Anthropologist Margaret Mead, writing in Coming of Age in Samoa, helped buttress this theory, which was of huge help to the "free love" movement. (Many of Mead's conclusions about the sexual liberty in Samoa have been debunked.) And this scientific cover is the justification of just about every sexual rebellion. The North American Man-Boy Love Association (mentioned by Brian in his piece) is a pedophile group whose purpose is to make molestation legal and acceptable. Their justification? Freud said we need easy, open sex to reduce repression and make us psychologically healthy. NAMBLA claims that, by easing the sexual tensions of young boys, they are making them healthier and better adapted. They are public benefactors, they are! The arguments to destigmatize homosexuality were much the same, and the attempts to allow openly gay soldiers to serve are merely an extension of this desire for absolute sexual freedom - a freedom that Freud sold to a willing public. But we were not built that way, and human experience should have taught us something. Look, food is good too, but gluttony is bad and people become sickly and perish young when they overindulge. We cannot live without food, but neither can we live with too much. We can't eat anything we wish, either; some foods are poisonous. The same argument holds true for oxygen; we can't live without it, but pure oxygen is dangerous in many ways. It needs to be cut with nitrogen. Now, we can live on pure oxygen, but it tends to be toxic with long exposure, and it certainly is dangerous in other ways, because it is corrosive and a fire hazard. Oxygenation causes browning of meat, just as it causes rust in metal, and it causes browning in our bodily meat as well, requiring antioxidants to keep our flesh healthy. We cannot live without it, but we cannot live with too much. Ditto water; we die without water, but drinking too much causes brain swelling and death. Sex is much the same; there are parameters, restrictions on our sexual behavior that are inherent in the way the world works. Liberals, obsessed with the power of their own will, refuse to accept this simple truth. They simply refuse to accept any restrictions. And sex has a bad habit of being contagious, like the common cold; the more one sees of it, hears of it, the more one thinks of it, and eventually the more one acts on it. What have been the results of our wondrous sexual revolution? STD's, broken families, illegitimacy, psychological trauma for adults and their children alike, molestation, rape, incest. We have systematically dismantled our restrictions, restrictions bought through painful experience, and, like a highway with no dividing line and no speed limit, we have wrought terrible crashes. Society has always restricted homosexual behavior - there is a reason for that. That is not to say that adults should be coerced or persecuted for their sexual behavior. But they certainly should not be celebrated for it, either. And there is certainly nothing wrong with placing reasonable restrictions where necessary. A man who is under five feet tall cannot expect to play in the NBA, nor can a man born blind expect to be a pilot for American Airlines. A community agitator and neo-Marxist shouldn't expect to become president of the United States (oops, I just damaged my own argument). There are natural limitations imposed by conditions. A ban on homosexuals in the military is one of those restrictions. But the Left hates any such restrictions - and the military, too, so this is the perfect way to kill two birds with one stone. Kill. Keep that word in mind. The military defends us, and that defense is through violence against those who would do violence against us. Death is always at the door of the soldier, who must trust his companions with his life, and be prepared to give it for them. What a soldier does not need is to fear going to sleep in his foxhole and finding himself being bothered by the man who is there to protect him. He said, He said arguments break the cohesion of the unit, and sexual activity among the troops is a bad thing, for it generates hard feelings and disputes. Who among us hasn't had a bad breakup with a significant other? Now, if that other happens to be the soldier who is to protect you while in combat... But what of fairness, one may ask? Is it fair that some should die so others may take their pleasure? If the military means that much to a gay person, he or she can forego their activity while in the service. There have been plenty of people who have remained celibate in life. It may not be entertaining, but if military service means that much to them... It used to be believed that sex weakened the legs of a boxer, so many trainers forbade sexual activity to their guys. Former heavyweight champion Primo Carnera's trainers went so far as to tie a rubber band in an anatomically uncomfortable place to avoid any nocturnal issues while the champ slept. (Granted, Carnera wasn't a good champion, and was beaten to a pulp by Max Baer.) If boxers can remain celibate, why not a gay soldier? At least he can remain quiet about it, checking his sexual orientation at the door (along with his race, background, and other personal history that individualizes him.) Again, it's a matter of priorities. But this isn't about the wishes of patriotic citizens who happen to be gay; it's above fundamentally transforming our civilization, about changes times and laws. Sex is lawful in any manner we wish because we say that it is - end of story!