Homosexuality In The US Military

The idea that any able-bodied US citizen with a clean civil and criminal record should be denied the opportunity to serve their nation is reprehensible. In fact, if the idea of an American citizen being denied civil rights by the government (or anyone) doesn't make you feel this way, you need to contemplate your sense of patriotism. The opposition to homosexuals in the military is nothing more than a fear-based reaction to the real world. It's time to, if I may use this colloquialism, "man up" and deal with it.

I have yet to hear a comprehensible reason for not allowing homosexuals to serve openly. I have only heard or read bullshit. A comment thread on the subject on Military.com is pretty typical of the Neanderthal-sees-fire-for-the-first-time reactionary mindset that it boils down to. The two main "reasons" seem to be 1. "I don't want a fag looking at me in the shower," and 2. Homosexuals are an abomination to God.

While neither of these are any real form of reasoning, I guess I should address them:

1. a. Fags have probably already looked at you in the shower (maybe you just weren't hot enough to warrant a reaction?), b. Open showers are not as common in the military as they would have you think, c. Stop being a sissy.

2. Maybe if you agree to keep your childish/fearful/hateful religion to yourself, homosexuals will be more willing to keep their homosexuality to themselves.

In short, if these sissy-mary bible-thumpers want to serve in a military where their Middle Eastern god's detestation of homosexuals is part of policy, I think the Taliban has some openings. Take your divided loyalties and go; we don't need you dragging America into the Dark Ages.

Some of these idiots try the "troop morale" angle. Well, what's worse for troop morale than sending thousands of Americans to their deaths (or mangling) and orphaning American children in senseless occupations of backward countries? Where's the uprising there?

How about the fact that women do not have to meet the same standards as men to have the same military occupations? I KNOW multiple standards are bad for morale (in fact, it cost me my flight status, and the accompanying additional monthly pay, at Fort Bragg). Where are the phone calls to radio shows, press releases from members of Congress, and various other forms of protest about what this does to morale?

I served in the pre-DADT (Don't Ask Don't Tell) military and don't recall homosexuality ever being a concern to anyone I ever served with in those eight years, three months and two days. I am sure I must have served with homosexuals. So? If they meet the same physical and mental standards as any other (in my case) soldier, then leave them alone.

There are strict sexual harassment regulations in the UCMJ (SEE NOTES 1 and 2). These can just as easily apply to homosexuals as to heterosexuals (SEE NOTE 3). If some homosexual looks at you in the shower and winks at you and you get scared, you file a sexual harassment complaint (after you stop sobbing, pry yourself out of the fetal position, and mop up the puddle of urine). THAT'S WHAT THE DAMNED RULES ARE FOR!

Yes, when DADT is stricken down, bogus sexual harassment complaints will be filed at first. So it needs to be made clear that false accusations will be punished quickly and severely (making false accusations about a fellow military member is pretty close to treason, if you ask me). This won't be an easy transition -- growing up is tough -- but with some honesty and courage (and maybe even a little compassion from all), the process can be made as painless as possible.

Military readiness is not something I take lightly (one of many reasons I oppose undeclared wars and unnecessary occupations of foreign nations). Really, if someone can give me a good reason -- a reason that is not based solely on fear -- why a group of otherwise-qualified citizens should be barred from serving their nation, I am listening.

XXX

NOTE 1: The UCMJ is the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the basis for military law in the US. You may read as much as you can stand here: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm

NOTE 2: A non-military woman called in to WNYC's Brian Lehrer radio show to complain that the military should be more worried about sexual harassment against female military members. I became so incensed at this distorted depiction of the military that I called in to the show. Unfortunately, they ran out of time before I could get on the air to correct this. The civilian world is much more lenient than the military when it comes to sexual harassment. I regularly hear things in the workplace and in public that would end a military career.

NOTE 3: I'd bet that if you were to compile statistics, you'd find the "anti-fag" contingent to be over-represented as subjects in sexual harassment investigations. They merely fear someone doing to them what they do to others. I think this is called "projection."