So Congress has passed a bill which ends the so-called "Don't ask; Don't tell" policy on gays in the military which was one of the most brilliant things ever done by the Clinton administration. What is so typical about this legislation as is true with most liberal/socialist legislation is that it attempts to end discrimination against one group by discriminating against another larger group. Liberals simply cannot look past our differences and find ways for us all to get along. Instead they must demonize one group for the edification of another. And of course, this is not really done for the good of either group, rather for the good of the politicians who can once again claim the holier than thou personna they so dearly love to use to mask their evil nature. Ask yourself a question; 'What was really wrong with this policy?'. If a gay person wanted to serve their country, they could. If they wanted to fight terrorism, they could. All they had to agree to was not to be 'openly gay' while in uniform or on base. Granted, this may cramp their style a little but the same is true if we do away with the policy. Many straight individuals could claim that openly gay members on base would 'cramp their style'. So what we had with the "Don't ask; Don't tell" policy was a pretty good compromise on a basically insolvable problem. What are the possible drawbacks to ending this policy? Let's look at a few facts.
1. Many religions view homosexuality as an abomination. They are commanded by their religion to disassociate themselves from this lifestyle. Regardless of whether you agree or not, this is their faith and their teachings. The numbers of people who fall into this category are far greater than the number of gays who want to serve.
2. Many individuals in combat units are type 'A', aggressive and intense personalities. Say what you will, but when the stuff goes down on the front lines, these are the guys you want watching your six. Many of these individuals see homosexuality as a weakness, a sin and they worry about unwanted advances. You would probably call them homophobic. Fine, I don't think they care what you call them (just don't say it to their face!). Again, however, in the case of front line combat units especially, they are much more prevalent than the number of gays who wish to be there.
3. Members of the opposite sex are not allowed to sleep together or shower together for obvious reasons. If this policy is lifted and now we will have openly gay members of the military, will they be getting separate sleeping and bathing facilities? If not, are heterosexuals now going to be able to sleep and bath with the opposite sex for whom they hold an attraction? Well? It's hardly fair to let one group sleep and bath with the ones to whom they hold an attraction and not let another now is it? You see this being fair thing is not always as easy at is seems.
4. A very good argument can be made to anyone who cares to hear the truth, that the members of the first two groups mentioned above make up a large portion of the individuals that make the U. S. military a formidable fighting force. In many cases throughout military history our soldiers have prevailed in situations where the odds were overwhelmingly against them. It is the unknown factor; some call it the 'fighting spirit'. Using the military for some kind of social experiment or simply to push an agenda that may in and of itself be intended to weaken our military is to risk diminishing this fighting spirit. This will most certainly cost American lives in some cases such as mentioned above.
So what do we see here? We have a situation where the religious beliefs and feelings of the many are being subjected to the feelings and beliefs of a few. We have a situation where potentially, individuals in the majority are going to be forced to sleep and bath with the minority who openly find them sexually attractive. This same 'privelege' will not however be extended to the majority. We have a situation in which on line fighting units may question the tenacity and focus of all of their members causing unneccessary stress in an already life and death situation. We have a situation in which American soldiers may be put to a greater risk because of a possible loss of fighting spirit. And what is all of this for? Ostensibly to soothe the feelings of one small group of people who rightly or wrongly believe they are being discriminated against in the military, in which there is no obligation for them to serve. We have a situation where liberals once again are going to punish the many for the sake of the few. Many can't understand why. Fundamentally it is because liberals don't think straight. They believe there exists a Utopian society that is there for the taking if we will only listen to their politically correct solutions to every problem that can possibly arise in the life of a human being. They believe that they alone understand this and if we all just let them run our lives we will all be one step closer to that Nirvana. Sadly, the truth is that not only do they typically not really help the few since they always further marginalize them, but indeed they hurt the many in the process. This of course takes us exponentially further away from the supposed Utopia; which of course does not exist on Earth.
Finally, all of this can be thought out and expressed by an old curmudgeon living in the middle of Texas, biding his time till the good Lord sees fit to bring him home. And yet, the smartest minds in politics can't figure this out? Or, can they? And...if they can, and yet they do it anyway, then why? Is it possible that their real intent is to harm the cohesiveness of American fighting forces? I know that you find this hard to believe, but ask yourself why would one do this if they knew it was a bad idea? Surely some are just going along to get votes, but the ones behind the scenes, the ones who really push the issue to the forefront; do you believe that they have the U. S. military's best interest at heart? Really?
by: Keith D. Rodebush