The possible repealing of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding homosexuality in the military has sparked a great deal of debate in the past few weeks. First, let's lay out the facts. The “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” legislation that Bill Clinton tried to pass was never passed. Instead a compromise bill was signed into law. Second, if that compromise bill was “repealed” as President Obama has promised, that would mean that the previous law on the books, which allowed commanders (or recruiters) to ask about sexual behaviors and subsequently discharge any homosexuals they find, would be back in full effect.
The legislation passed in 1993 that is usually incorrectly labeled “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” codified Defense Department regulations in place since 1981, which expressed the view that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service.” The only compromise that the bill made with Clinton's “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” attempt was that the enlistment forms could no longer question whether the applicant was a homosexual or not; however, it stated that the Secretary of Defense could choose to put that question back on the forms any time he wanted.
Shall we state what is actually being vowed by the president? He promises to disregard the wishes of the majority of our Armed Forces so that he can make a politically correct statement that will undermine the unity and morale of our troops in order to appease some of his supporters.
The most important question to ask is: Is this legislation needed? Homosexuals are already able to serve in the military, as long as they are discreet about one aspect of their lives that some may not wish to know about. For those homosexuals that find it impossible to keep their intimate lives private, there is no “civil right” to military service. Everyone can serve this country in some way (no one is suggesting that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be citizens), but not everyone should serve in a military capacity. Furthermore, that isn't what we are talking about here because homosexuals already can.
If a homosexual can already serve in the military what is the benefit of the passage of such legislation? None.
It is also important to weigh what the negative effects of the passage of legislation that allows blatant homosexuals to join the military.
Most people are uncomfortable believing that someone unfamiliar is fantasizing about them sexually. That is made much worse by a housing situation that could place the object of objectification in such an uncomfortable position 24 hours a day, seven days a week. You notice the person who sleeps two beds down is always watching you get dressed or is right behind you as you jump in the shower. If that person approaches you with a sexual advance, the situation is made much worse when you refuse them and they either retreat and keep watching you or they become more aggressive. And even if they never approach you, you are still uncomfortable every single day.
A possible factor of permitting out homosexuals to serve is an increase in sex in workplace, hostility, harassment and rape. The anticipated increase is three times the current number of misconduct incidents.
Sexual misconduct is overlooked because of the “politically correct" nature of issue. Those with personal/religious problems with homosexuality will not be promoted and will receive the negative marks on evaluations.
When considering this situation, it is important to remember that military life is not like civilian life. The military assigns people to units and locations and could therefore unknowingly force a person into an uncomfortable position because they do not have the option to leave.
All subordinate personnel are put in the same position that women find themselves in naturally, which is a weak defense from sexual aggressors. They would not have the power to refuse the advances of the ranking person and could be pressured or forced to non-consensual sexual conduct.
It is a medical fact that homosexual men have an extremely high rate of HIV. It is also a medical fact that HIV can be spread from blood to blood. To have these men out on a battlefield, bleeding next to their comrades who are also bleeding would significantly increase the spread of HIV in our military. Obviously, those who were diagnosed with HIV before being deployed would be unable to be deployed. This would increase the number of troops placed in that category but couldn't be discharged by law which would mean that our taxes were paying more salaries (with increased health care needs) while not having as many soldiers who could actually fight.
Department of Defense schools & academies would be required to teach that homosexual behavior is acceptable which would undermine the personal opinions of the teachers and students who do not agree with that position. Adult personnel would be required to attend “Diversity Training” which would use money that should go toward combat training and equipment to save our troops' lives.
The military made up of volunteers would lose troops to the problems that would inevitably happen. Less people would sign up to join. Not as many parents would be willing to send their children to military academies. Surely, there are not as many homosexuals who are chomping at the bit to join the military, that wouldn't already join under the current policy, especially considering the tiny percentage of the population that they make up compared to the people that would be lost because they disagree with such a policy or who might agree in theory but would be uncomfortable in placing themselves in such a position in reality. Therefore, this policy would decrease the size of our Armed Forces.
If the legislation is unnecessary, why all the fuss? It is to push a social agenda. This can be shown by the myriad of social changes that would follow the passage of such legislation.
A survey was conducted by the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) in October 2008. The survey found that 16 percent of respondents supported current policy, while 52 percent want a law to be enacted to not allow homosexuals in the military at all. President Obama, having never served this country in any form of military service, is not qualified to make such a foundational change to the military community.
The Armed Services are not the place to experiment with social policy. Their concerns and comfort need to be placed above the demands of a minority of our population with an entitlement complex. The military is already stretched thin trying to fight within the international stipulations placed on them against a foe who follows no rules, the only experiments conducted should be to test better combat tactics and weapons.
