Replies

Whether they ask or tell is of little import to me. I understand why the military takes the position it has, and I understand why homosexuals would like the same opportunity to serve their country.

As the parent of a soon-to-be Marine my ONLY concern is the transmission of HIV/AIDS in the battlefield. Chances of blood to blood contact among brothers in arms under fire would be higher.

I honestly don't think any heterosexual man or woman is going to accept a pass made at him or her by a homosexual. I also don't want to think that homophobia among straights would make homosexuals at risk for fratricide. What is done in the privacy of one's own home is totally up to them. I wouldn't like to think the military would approve of sexual encounters among the men and women of whatever sexual orientation out in the open in the barracks.

Everyone needs to take a hard look at the real issues and dangers of Gays serving in the military. It's not about the sex, it's about the disease if it's present.

Every time this topic shows up, the apparently willful ignorance of some and outright disinformation campaign by others causes my blood pressure to spike. Therefore, whenever possible, I try to put the facts out for all to see:

The legal reality:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [emphasis added]

In the very first paragraph of the foundational document of our country, the purpose of the military is defined. The military exists to provide for the common defense not to provide a specific “right” for some sexual perversion practitioner. As military service is not a “right,” all kinds of people are excluded for very good reasons, e.g., those physically, mentally or emotionally incapable of performing required tasks, as well as certain categories of law breakers such as felons, etc.,

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, Article. I., Section. 8., [Congress shall have the power] Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

As enacted by the United States Congress:

Uniform Code of Military Justice

925. ART. 125. SODOMY

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

The following (passed in 1993) is from Public Law 103-160, Section 654, Title 10—"Homosexuality is incompatible with military service." (See Senate and House Reports, pages 293 and 287, respectively.)

Constitutional challenges to former and current military policies concerning homosexuals followed in the wake of the 1993 laws and regulations. Based on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) that there is no fundamental right to engage in consensual homosexual sodomy, the courts have uniformly held that the military may discharge a service member for overt homosexual behavior.

The logic reality:

Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (Contrary to popular opinion, the term sexual orientation merely clouds the issue. This term does not define one as a homosexual any more than the term, “lust” defines one as a rapist or the term “anger” defines one as a murderer. Any term that merely refers only to a “feeling” is completely irrelevant to voluntary, reasoned behavior in a military unit.)

Any human behavior (excluding autonomic or instinctual responses) that is not voluntary is, by definition, a psychosis.

Therefore, homosexual behavior is either a voluntary choice or a psychosis.

If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal or military regulations and restrictions as is any other sexual behavior such as incest, pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc.

On the other hand, if homosexual behavior is a psychosis, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure. Similarly, if it is a psychosis, it is just as valid for the military to exclude sufferers of this psychosis as any other.

The practical reality:

The military currently and validly excludes known malefactors such as felons and drug abusers because of their negative impact on good order and discipline. Similar negative impact on good order and discipline is also sufficient reason to exclude homosexual behavior practitioners.

Beyond excluding those whose behavior potentially decreases good order and discipline, the military also excludes certain categories of diseased individuals. There are two reasons for this exclusion.

The first exclusion reason is because of the elevated risk to their fellow service personnel that the presence of these diseased individuals presents. The second is the unnecessary, increase in costs of providing medical care to these individuals and the consequent negative impact to military budgets that this increased care causes.

Homosexual behavior practitioners are statistically subject to a much higher rate of HIV/AIDS and other diseases than the normal population. This fact puts homosexual behavior practitioners squarely into the population category to be excluded from military service for both of the reasons cited above.