So this article came to me via Military.com, because I read crud like that as a Navy Spouse, and was pretty interesting. The main point made by the article is that it is not Obama’s call, but is in the hands of Congress…so yeah, you see how well that will go. The truly interesting part of this article, as is true of many like it, is the comments. Needless to say they run the gamut from reasonable arguments for, and against the repeal all the way to rambling insanity. Some of them I find genuinely laughable, my favorite being that, to paraphrase “I don’t want some gay guy hitting on me while I am trying to do my job.”
This statement is erroneous on two major levels:
1. It is based on the presumption that by merely being homosexual you are, by extension, completely unable to control your sexual urges. I realize that this stems from common misconceptions that being gay is a choice, or somehow deviant, but anyone who is not living in a cloud of ignorance knows this is not true. You may personally feel that is deviant, and while I would figure you for a moron, you have a right to hold that thought as your own. However, when it comes to policy, it should be made on evidence based research, so sorry kids, not going to cut it.
2. The notion that you, as the owner of this being hit on fear, are appealing to anyone regardless of sexual preference. Let’s face it, 99% of the population falls somewhere on the spectrum between “doesn’t make me puke on sight” and “easy on the eyes.” I feel fairly confident that none these commenters are so alluring that anyone, straight, gay or otherwise, would be unable to resist throwing themselves at them. One guy on my DH’s boat may have alluded to this fear and let me promise you, he was in no danger of inciting anyone to riot with his sexual presence.
It would be laugh out loud funny if it were not so pathetic. Given the prevalence of minorities in the military, I find the support for effectively banning a minority from serving to be a bit difficult to swallow. I can almost get the argument that the policy doesn’t prevent anyone from serving, it just requires that you keep it to yourself if you are homosexual, but why? It is the same as saying “you can serve, just don’t tell anyone you are Jewish/African American/Female.” See how it creeps you out when we substitute another minority?
I say put women on subs and on the front lines, allow those whoa re openly gay to sign up if they desire. Basically, let anyone who is willing and able serve wherever they can. While I personally have no interest in serving in this manner, I wholly support anyone who feels that they do want to. As a corollary, if you don't like working with women, homosexuals, or whatever gets you fired up, then don't serve. Last time I checked it was a volunteer position albeit, with decent pay and benefits.