{"id":41117,"date":"2017-06-28T00:30:48","date_gmt":"2017-06-28T03:30:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/?p=41117"},"modified":"2017-07-12T00:44:21","modified_gmt":"2017-07-12T03:44:21","slug":"breaking-world-will-end-if-transgenders-banned-from-us-military","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2017\/06\/28\/breaking-world-will-end-if-transgenders-banned-from-us-military\/","title":{"rendered":"Breaking: World Will End if Transgenders Banned from US Military"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"There are indications that\u00a0successful attempts to use the US military as a tool for normalizing neo-sexuality in the American culture are coming to a grinding halt. President Trump’s decision not to proclaim American “pride” in homosexual behavior for the month of June gave LGBT activists a case of the vapors, and more recent news<\/a> indicates the DoD is pushing back against allowing transgenders to enlist (previously discussed<\/a>) [emphasis added]:<\/p>\n

Military chiefs will seek a six-month delay before letting transgender people enlist in their services, officials said Friday…<\/p>\n

Officials said Friday that the chiefs believe the extra half-year would give the four military services time to gauge if currently serving transgender troops are facing problems<\/strong> and what necessary changes the military bases might have to make.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Despite the fact a longer delay was denied, it’s that second sentence that has homosexual activists worried. If the US military actually considers potential problems <\/em>(say, an absurd policy on “male pregnancy”<\/a> or public outcry over allowing men in women’s showers<\/a>), it may choose to reverse the policy change\u00a0— and that’s something about which gay activists are apparently very worried, probably because even they admit there are problems<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But they cannot abide<\/a> the military hindering their social agenda, no matter the cost\u00a0[emphasis added]:<\/p>\n

Stephen Peters, spokesman for Human Rights Campaign, said the group is disappointed with the delay request.<\/p>\n

“Each day that passes without implementing the final piece of this important policy harms our military readiness and restricts the Armed Forces’ ability<\/strong> to recruit the best and the brightest<\/strong>…”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Let’s get this straight: The LGBT community claims there are so few transgenders there won’t be a significant impact<\/a> if they are<\/em> allowed to serve. Yet they also claim not<\/em> allowing them to serve “harms our military readiness”? How\u00a0did the US military survive for centuries without the fraction of a percent of the female population who thought they were men?<\/p>\n

Ashley Broadway-Mack of the American Military Partner Association (the organization founded by\u00a0Stephen Peters), went a step further:<\/p>\n

Secretary Mattis has made clear he believes there is a need to increase troop levels, so this proposed delay is disappointing because it\u2019s such an incredibly important recruitment change…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Here’s a reality check. The US Service Academies recently commissioned 970 USAFA graduates, 935 USMA graduates, and 1,053 USNA graduates (and that doesn’t include the Coast Guard or Merchant Marine academies).\u00a0That represents about 20% of all US military commissions each year.<\/p>\n

Of those, two — just two<\/em> <\/strong>— have declared themselves “transgender,”<\/a> making up 0.07% of service academy commissions — or closer to 0.01% of all commissions in the US military.<\/p>\n

That’s<\/em> what Broadway calls an “important recruitment change”? With respect to numbers, they’d do far better by claiming there was a recruitment problem because the military’s weight standards were too stringent, and yet overweight people should have a “right” to serve, with the US military bending over backwards to accommodate them<\/em>. Far more people are kept out of the military due to issues other<\/em> than sexuality, and yet few (though not no one<\/a>) are advocating removal of those barriers — because, in those<\/em> cases, there isn’t a push to lower standards for serving in the military.<\/p>\n

It seems gay activists are taking on the same mantle they accused their opponents of having: a doom and gloom, world-will-end melodrama in an effort to support their cause. When the numbers won’t help, Broadway, Peters, and other LGBT activists will make an unsupportable appeal to emotion.<\/p>\n

The irony? They’re taking on exactly<\/strong> the same argument:\u00a0Acceptance of their opponent’s cause will hurt recruitment and military readiness. And if Broadway and her allies are now claiming recruitment is<\/em> a problem, they’ve just validated the argument against the repeal of DADT.\u00a0 Well played, Ashley.<\/p>\n

In truth, it seems homosexual activists have little to worry about. The DoD is largely seen as being on “autopilot<\/a>” or even\u00a0continuing\u00a0President Obama’s progressive policies, since President Trump has not successfully installed his own complete administration yet. Various<\/a> military bases<\/a> continue to “celebrate” their “pride”<\/a> in homosexual behavior<\/a> in June, despite the President not issuing a proclamation for it. (The Army even posted a video<\/a>.)\u00a0 An Air National Guardsman received permission<\/a> to wear his uniform at a gay pride parade, despite the long-running controversy over the issue.<\/p>\n

A US Soldier recently spoke out in an official article<\/a> admitting she’d self-administered testosterone well before any authorization for\u00a0transgenders in the military.\u00a0 Know what would happen to other<\/em> women who took testosterone in the military without medical authorization, besides improving their PT scores?<\/p>\n

Largely, LGBT activists seem more concerned about the fragility of their cause. They are now coming to realize that an agenda foisted on the military and the public by fiat can be removed just as easily<\/a>. To wit, if “because Ash Carter said so” is good enough reason<\/a> to change the policy, then “because James Mattis said so” is good enough reason to change it back.<\/p>\n

And that is all the more proof that this is little more than social experimentation. That which is right or wrong should be without argument. There is no lasting argument that promotion of homosexual behavior is “right”. Rather, it lives or dies on the whims and winds of political change.<\/p>\n

By contrast, there is a strong natural argument for traditional marriage and “normative” sexuality. While there have been plenty of discussions about how people “feel,” you can’t get around biology. An XX chromosome is one thing, an XY something else. It simply “is.” It’s a scientific fact — something skeptics normally cite when they object to faith-based “religious” positions. Now, however, it is LGBT activists who are relying on faith rather than science.<\/p>\n

Further, the family unit has long been recognized as the fundamental building block of a society. As the family goes, so goes the Nation. But “the family” isn’t simply whatever we define it to be.\u00a0 Rather, it is<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Notably, both of those arguments can be made entirely apart from religion, but there is certainly a religious argument as well. God made man and woman, and He made them to be man and woman. God did not make man to be a woman, or vice versa, and He made them to be complementary to, not the same as, each other.\u00a0 Man and woman —\u00a0husband and wife — reflect the very nature of God.<\/p>\n

In other words, whether from a religious or secular perspective, there are strong, lasting, moral arguments to be made regarding “normative” sexuality — while the same isn’t true for the neo-sexual movement trying to use the US military to advance their sexual agenda in society.<\/p>\n

One is a lasting truth, and it will be truth regardless of efforts to make it otherwise. The other a fleeting social construction, and it will never be truth, regardless of efforts to make it otherwise.<\/p>\n

Also at the Stars and Stripes<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

ADVERTISEMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n