John Guardiano asserts my latest reply in our ongoing debate over the repeal of DADT “confuses rather than elucidates our dispute.”
Alas, the only one who is confused is Guardiano:
(H)e conflates and confuses sexual dynamics between and amongst homosexuals with how straight people feel about homosexuals.
Goldstein complains that I have not offered up any “hard empirical evidence” that sexual dynamics shape and affect human behavior. Of course, his demand for such evidence is silly. You might as well demand “hard empirical evidence” that the sky is blue, or that night follows day.
Except that I never asked Guardiano to supply “hard empirical evidence that sexual dynamics shape and affect human behavior.” What I have asked of Guardiano (and still ask of him) is to supply “hard empirical evidence” in support of his assertion that allowing openly gay and lesbian military personnel is “inherently disruptive and detrimental to military effectiveness, mission success, unit cohesion, and good order and discipline within the ranks.”
If Guardiano’s assertion that permitting openly gay and lesbian personnel to serve in the U.S. military is “inherently disruptive and detrimental” then it could be demonstrated by examining other militaries that have implemented this policy. Surely, we can measure what impact, if any, the inclusion of openly gay military personnel has had on the military effectiveness, mission success, unit cohesion, and good order and discipline within the ranks” has had in other jurisdictions where gays and lesbians have been allowed to openly serve. As I have written here previously, I am more than willing to take such evidence into consideration.
So why does Guardiano find such a request unreasonable? The fact that he should consider this line of inquiry the equivalent of determining whether “the sky is blue, or that night follows day” is quite troubling because it illustrates the indolence Guardiano has consistently demonstrated in his approach to our discussion.
Indeed, Guardiano now asserts the repeal of DADT will “do more to undermine American national security than the START treaty.” While it is an imaginative premise, it is yet another assertion Guardiano cannot substantiate. Indeed, Guardiano is being rather simplistic to suggest that START is nothing more than a “narrow technical endeavor that can be turned on or off with relatively little effort.” Former UN Permanent Representative John Bolton has described START as “unilateral disarmament.” Somehow I think an America that is unable to defend itself is far more perilous to our national security than including openly gay and lesbians who have the ability and desire to serve our country into our armed forces.