It’s not specious...it’s plausible.
Actually, the definition of “specious” is “superficially plausible, but actually wrong”.
That is my opinion that it is wrong. If I am wrong, it is not specious...:) I simply don’t think it is plausible.
I would be willing to bet the vast majority of men and women serving in the military would be thrilled with others doing their job as they should, sexuality aside.
I found that one of the biggest sources of friction was people who did not perform professionally as they should, not that a given person was genuinely being outperformed by someone else.
Want to take that up a ratchet? Take the friction now that is seen regarding the perception that people have been promoted to fill a gender quota. Multiply that with the prospect of the perception that promotions that have been given to avoid accusations of sexual discrimination against homosexuals.
I think military life is trying enough without adding in this element.
Somehow, the concept that heterosexuals fear openly serving homosexuals as some sort of threat to their professional competitiveness, is specious. Are you suggesting that homosexuals in the military somehow truncate their professional superiority because they are homosexuals? Exactly how would that work? What does advertising or disclosing one’s sexuality have to do with advancement based on better performance than their heterosexual peers? Remaining “in the closet” has no bearing on performance.
As to the absolutely specious comparison of skin color and homosexuality, General Powell, before he became a Democrat sycophant, testifying before congress, summmed it up susccinctly. Skin color is genetic; sexual proclivity is a choice.