Who cares what sexual orientation soldiers are. If they can learn and execute soldiers skills, then they should be soldiers. If they get up to their low down , sneaky, net workin tricks, and usurp the chain of command,or desert in the face of the enemy, then shoot them.
Thats why don't ask , don't tell is by far the best policy.When you shoot a deserter, it then is not because he was gay, or hetero, it was becuase he was a deserter period.
No, we do NOT want to go there.
I thought President Reagan's "We Ask, Don't Join" policy was a great one. It worked well.
I do.
If gays are allowed to openly serve, then the military will have an enormous problem, but not the one most people think about.
Consider this... If a gay man is in a unit, do you force straight guys to bunk with him? That would likely create undue tension between the gay and his roomies.
So, would gays be allowed to self-identify and either have a room to themselves (a privelege typically reserved to higher ranking unmarried non-comms) or to bunk with other gays? If gays bunk together, then how do you deal with the male and female soldiers that want to room together? After all, the gays will be rooming with potential mates, and one cannot reward one class of soldier for simply "being" without giving the same opportunities to the rest of the soldiers - that is a definite morale problem.
If the answer is to give everyone their own room, then be prepared for the billions and billions of dollars that will be necessary to accomplish that task worldwide.
I don't like "don't ask, don't tell", but it beats the heck out of creating a class of super-priveleged homosexual soldiers. I know this small argument has little to do with fighting efficiency, but it is an administrative reality for any large organization that houses its people. On that basis alone, openly serving is a non-starter.
It is well established that the demographic group most responsible for spreading HIV/AIDS is homosexual males (check the CDC website for corroborating evidence). Since homosexual male soldiers stand a much higher chance of having and spreading HIV, and given the reliance on fellow soldiers for blood transfusions in combat theaters, a unit would have to either leave the homo back in the rear (no pun intended) when it deployed for duty in a combat theater, or risk infecting normal troops with tainted blood from the perverted deviant. To leave the homo back would mean that the unit would be missing part of the team it trained with in peacetime, and would therefore have to find, train and work into the team structure a replacement. This would be detrimental to the unit's readiness.
Therefore, in addition to the damage homosexuals do to the morale and cohesion of any and all units in the military, they would have an adverse effect on unit readiness.
Homosexuals have no place in the military...now or ever.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!