|
Gays in the Military! What Would Washington Say?
We
don't have to wonder what Washington though about
homosexuals in the service because he communicated his
position by his actions and his words in this General Order
for March 14, 1778:
At
a General Court Martial wereof Colo. Tupper was President
(10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom's
Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit
sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For
Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was]
found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being
breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of
War and [we] do sentence him to be disniss'd
[from] the service with infamy. His excellency
the Commander in Chief [Washington] approves the
sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such
infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out
of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers
in the Army never to return; The drummers and fifers
[are] to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard
mounting for that Purpose.
George
Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C.
Fitzpatrick, ed. (Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1934), Vol. XI, pp.83-84, from General Orders at
Valley Forge on March 14, 1778.
Jefferson on Homosexuality
Thomas
Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence,
drafted a bill concerning the criminal laws of Virginia in
which he directed that the penalty for sodomy should be
castration. See Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas
Jefferson, Andrew A. Lipscomb, ed. (Washington, Thomas
Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904) Vol. I, pp.226-27,
from Jefferson's "For Proportioning Crimes and
Punishments."
What Clinton Changed: What to Ask When You Attend
Sensitivity Training
Article
One, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the power to make
rules for the military to Congress, not to the President.
Nonetheless, by presidential edict, a few days after his
inauguration and without even consulting Congress, Clinton
announced he was eliminating the following policy, which had
been in effect since the Revolution:
Homosexuality
is incompatible with military service. The presence in
the military environment of persons who engage in
homosexual conduct or who, by their statements,
demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct,
seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military
mission. The presence of such members adversely affects
the ability of the Military Services to maintain
discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual
trust and confidence among service members; to facilitate
assignment and worldwide deployment of service members
who frequently must live and work under close conditions
affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members
of the Military Services; to maintain the public
acceptability of military service; and to prevent
breaches of security.
DOD
Directive 1332.14
The
question we must ask at sensitivity training is what is it
about paying back the homosexual groups who supported
Clinton's candidacy that in any way changed the facts stated
above?
Population Effect: Why Homosexuality
is Dangerous to Society quite Apart from the Bible!
The
common sense argument against homosexuality is so simple you
really have to wonder how any thinking person could suggest
homosexuality is okay. And you can show homosexuality is a
danger even assuming that it is genetic, that is that there
is a "gay gene."
Economists
know that what creates wealth is exchange. The fact that you
and I value things differently means we can both be better
off if we swap. The more swaps there are the higher a
nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
But
what happens to the number of exchanges if the population is
constantly shrinking? It should be obvious, the number of
exchanges will shrink as well. Continuous population growth
is a necessary element to economic growth. Other things
equal, a declining population means less wealth for
everybody because less is produced and exchanged.
Below
we show how a society that does not penalize homosexuality
will gradually vanish. Let's assume the gays are correct and
homosexuality is genetic. They claim that 3% of the
population is always gay and we'll accept this figure,
although you have to wonder how well a gene will be
propogated whose effect is to cause those who have it not to
have children, but assume that is not a problem.
Next,
assume a fertility rate of 2% - 2 kids born to each
heterosexual couple. The U.S. rate is already below 2.0.
Also ignore any other conditions - disease, accidents, etc.,
that might cause a couple not to have children. Assume
everybody has children except gays, whose sexual orientation
prevents reproduction.
Last,
assume society does not stigmatize homosexuality, so every
gay person is able to find a partner, whether or not the
partner is also one of the 3% "genetic" gays.
The
columns show the data on which the graph is based.
Population starts at 100, with 3 genetic gays. Because
society tolerates homosexuality, assume each gay finds a
partner, reducing the number of heterosexual families who
can reproduce. Assume also that every non-homosexual also
marries, so the number of families equals the number of
"straights" divided by two. Each family has two
children.
The
graph shows that the long run effect of tolerating
homosexuality is that the population steadily declines.
Along with a smaller number of people there is, of course, a
decline in economic activity, in the production of new
knowledge, etc. Want to live in such a world?
|
Population
• Gays • Straights
|
100
94
88
83
78
73
69
65
61
57
54
51
48
45
42
40
37
35
33
31
29
27
26
24
23
21
20
19
18
|
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|
94
88
83
78
73
69
65
61
57
54
51
48
45
42
40
37
35
33
31
29
27
26
24
23
21
20
19
28
17
|
|
The
graph shows our guiding principle here at CS. It is always
possible to prove with mathematics that God's rules maximize
human happiness and material well being.
|
