Weakening a Country

Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:10 pm Daniel J. Summers

(Disclaimer: The President, as Commander in Chief, can set whatever policies he desires. Congress, as the body that creates law, can create whatever laws its members want. Nothing you may read below is targeted at any particular officeholder; it is my analysis of this policy. Furthermore, this analysis represents my personal analysis, and should not be construed to be official policy of any governmental entity. Feel free to comment; however, any comments that are derogatory to me personally or groups in general, either here or on Facebook, will be deleted without comment - stick with the issues or stay silent.)

Well, it looks like Wednesday is the day. What has passed Congress, and will be signed by the President, repeals the 1993 law mandating that homosexuals could serve in the military, provided they did not reveal their sexual orientation. This doesn't mean that tomorrow is the military's “coming out” day or anything; it simply means that the 1993 law is gone. It appears, though, that there is significant political pressure from the top down to somehow integrate a path to allow openly gay servicemembers in the United States military. I have a problem with this. Well, I actually have several problems with this.

1. Open shower bays must be replaced.

The reason male and female military members do not shower together is self-evident. While there are many things military members are asked to sacrifice, the indignity of showering with someone who considers you a potential sexual partner has not been one of those sacrifices. If this goes through, that changes. I would think that military spouses would be all over this for that very reason. Maybe they are, but nobody has asked them. I don't know if female members feel this way, but I know that this male does. The way the male mind thinks about sex cannot be discounted; as one of the three major drives of humans, it cannot be ignored. Men are more forward, and are more apt to make passes at the object of their desire. Putting heterosexuals in this position is something the military should not do. It happens - I can attest from personal experience. However, I have yet to have that experience as a military member.

Open dorm bays present similar problems, but not nearly the magnitude of the showers. The entire living condition thing should be addressed, but IMO, the showers are the biggest deal.

2. Homosexuality, like it or not, is a security risk.

Part of being in the military requires a security clearance. The existence of anything over which one could be blackmailed (excessive debt, arrests, etc.) is a huge red flag. Even gays who are “out” may not be completely out - there may be people that they have refrained from telling (for whatever reason - doesn't really matter). Even with openly homosexual military members allowed, there may be closeted gays, due to the social stigma. This is something over which they can be blackmailed. Allowing known security risks to appease a social agenda is not a choice that a nation that's serious about it's survival makes. (Of course, this is the same government that's staged the largest “security theater” in history - but I digress.)

3. Homosexuals have a higher incidence of HIV than heterosexuals.

A politically-incorrect truth, but truth nonetheless. The military teaches first aid as a part of normal pre-deployment training, and it's quite useful. In addition to all the other battlefield risks, now we would be exposing servicemembers to the potential of acquiring HIV in the course of saving their buddy's life. Either that, or HIV becomes a non-deployable condition - and, if you're not deployable, today's military doesn't want you. However, there are rules in place preventing dismissal due to medical conditions - how's that lawsuit going to go, the first time a gay military member is discharged for contracting HIV?

Using the military for social experiments is certainly popular. To what other group of people can you give moderately-nonsensical orders, and have them do their best to carry them out? However, this argument remains, in spite of how many are tried before. It doesn't matter to me how many other nations allow openly gay members - isn't the United States military supposed to be better than all the other militaries in the world? Doing something just because some other military does it is ridiculous; when it doesn't pertain to something that will actually help us win wars, it's doubly so. I do not, for the life of me, understand the left's fascination with Europe. We've kicked the butt of every European country we've fought! Why are we trying to emulate them?

But back to the social experiment. I am absolutely convinced that this is a back door (pardon the pun) for gay marriage. Why? Because it's a slippery slope (and, despite those who scoff at slippery slopes, they do exist, and this is a big one). Gay servicemembers will want dependent privileges for their significant others. They can do this either by recognizing a same-sex “spouse”, or by allowing servicemembers to designate a person to receive benefits in lieu of a spouse (let's call them ILOS). If it's the former, there's a whole “The military does it!” chorus; if it's the latter, that will lead to even more expense, with uncertainty for the ILOS. Either way, it's a losing proposition.

5. Military service is a privilege, not a right.

There are many reasons someone may be disqualified from military service - why is homosexuality different? Over 10 times the number who have been discharged for homosexuality, on average, are discharged due to weight. For non-combat positions, who cares? Obviously, the military does - you can be the best at your job, but if you can't meet this standard, they'll be happy to have you as a contractor. Military standards have been developed over centuries, and represent what is necessary to defend our nation. I have yet to see the warfighting case for allowing openly gay servicemembers. The military isn't fair; fair doesn't win wars.

6. Many people find homosexuality morally abhorrent.

I guess I'm just all kinds of politically incorrect on this one. However, I know I speak for myself and lots of other people when I say that I do not want my children around homosexual couples. Am I going to have to keep them from the bowling alley, the commissary, the exchange? Where does a military member's right to free exercise of religion end and another's right to free expression begin? Furthermore, I can tell you that just like I can't make somebody a Christian by taking them to church, you will not change my mind on this, even if I'm assigned to an otherwise-gay organization. I have this quaint belief that words mean things, and when my God calls it an abomination, I'm pretty clear about what He means.

Going into this without addressing these (and other) concerns would be foolhardy at best. Even with these concerns addressed, this is simply not a priority, not important, and will not help us defend this nation. The lawsuits alone will wreak havoc on the military. The military knows what sort of people it needs to accomplish its mission, and it should be free to define those parameters without regard to whose feelings get hurt. Since when is the military supposed to care about feelings, anyway?

So where does this leave us? Remember, as I said above under #4, the military will do their best to carry out the orders and still do their job. That's how we roll. I hope these speed bumps don't slow our rolling too much.