Gay Americans profess a desire to serve their country out of patriotism. Sixty percent of combat troops believe that gays serving openly in their units would be detrimental to their units' fighting ability and thus to America's interests.
Does it not follow that the best way gay Americans could serve in a patriotic way would be to choose not to join the uniformed armed services, but to seek employment in other agencies related to homeland security?
It bothers me that the question is always framed in terms of what's fair to particular individuals and not to what's best for America's military readiness. It seems to me that someone whose foremost concern is country and service would always choose to sacrifice his own personal ambitions if they threatened in any way to detract from his country's military readiness.
The Boy Scouts are anathematized because they will not allow homosexuals to join their group. And yet can you imagine the reaction from the Girl Scouts if it was suggested that a 18 year old heterosexual boy was to be assigned as a GSA troop leader!
There is far more to be considered when approaching this problem of sexual proclivity than just the trivial argument of "It's the same as .skin color. And don't tell me that other armies allow homosexuals to serve. Look closely at them and where they are assigned and, more importantly, what reputation for combat do those forces have. I know, I know Alexander had his Ten Thousand but every one of them was a homosexual as was their leader. They didn't allow heterosexuals to be part of that band of brothers.
Powered by ScribeFire.
