A not so gay reception
Why repealing don’t ask don’t tell, women on submarine duty and other social experiments will be the demise of the U.S. military:
“To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.” George Washington
It is fascinating to see people take on such a defensive stance for gay rights and the repeal of the military’s ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy. There are two clearly identifiable 
factions involved in this debate – which by the way, are not even interested in supporting the military even in general, only have their sights aimed at exacting social change – those who defend the homosexual lifestyle even though they are not gay and gay people. At no point have operational readiness and overall morale issues being considered by proponents of the repeal, including many in the higher echelons of the military. The idea of equal rights within our armed forces is very appealing to those who support gay rights, believing that personnel who practice homosexuality are overly treated with disdain and discriminated against but there is much more to this argument.
The purpose of this piece is not to determine or discuss the nature vs. nurture of the homosexual lifestyle but rather to illustrate the lack of balance in how this controversial policy may be implemented. Clearly, by leaving the most relevant points out of the public’s discussion in the media the topic of gays in the military, the fact that their sexual preference is not the most important contribution to their service to their country, will work both for and against them in the end. Moreover, by allowing yet one more social experiment to be introduced into an already burden military system is truly of a destructive nature rather than pursuant to preserving national security.
The cause du jour
Gay activists such as the lackluster TV personality Rachel Maddow attended Congressional hearings in support of gay rights in the military. It is even less relevant to the debate to have Maddow, a self-described Air Force brat and lifelong activist, to see the issue is not about gay rights. Other members of the left-side media such as columnist Dana Milibank of the Washington Post praised Admiral Mike Mullen’s courage and wished that Mullen be awarded a medal for his courage. This support could not be more misguided. The important thing about military service keeping the service member’s identity separate is to ensure unit cohesion, to name only one. This is also the best way to maintain pride and professionalism within any military unit but emphasizing the quality of its people and their mission performance. Though this may be considered to be a catch all term there is more than just being able to get along or work together well.
Old problems, new perspective
During the 1980s many changes within the U.S. Navy, a service where personnel can find themselves in close quarters onboard ships, had begun to show some impact in the ability to deploy capable units into combat. Back in the 1980s issues such as outfitting restrooms for women and dealing with male/female attitudes do not compare with the potential introduction of even more frivolous accommodations.
The crux of this debate rests on the fact that by allowing one social experiment that goes against military conduct will do nothing more than create an even more ‘protected’ or privileged class of people who can do no wrong and who will probably abuse the service. If this concept is hard to believe then let’s look at the problem with from the combat operations perspective, to include another catch-all cause of assigning women to submarines. This is hardly in concert with national security or unit readiness; just like the early issues encountered in the Navy when women began sea-shore rotations, the outfitting of submarines, which do not enjoy the luxury of room 
as in the surface fleet, will pose even more problems. In speaking with former submariners the idea of mixing the sexes is not really the issue; again, the ability to perform every task without worrying for personal modesty and potential cases of sexual misconduct. Submarines will have to undergo modifications that may be expensive and intrusive in the end because given a small number of female officers would have to actually share quarters refuse to go to combat on ‘moral’ grounds and disrupt unit readiness. Modesty, since men living in tight quarters will at times be forced to ignore in order to fulfill their mission, would be then cast as the priority. This is hardly training like we fight. Dare we think of a man or woman taking offense to someone’s nudity total or partial – because those pucker-factor moments won’t wait for folks to don their britches first – and choosing to focus on the uncomfortable moment rather than impending war?
There is such a thing as common sense which tells us that the personal whims of one group can easily destroy the unity and effectiveness of our armed forces. Regardless of the argument that other countries have experimented with some of this type of all-inclusiveness may show its progress in how they fight. Ultimately, what senior leadership calls diversity will turn into the open door our enemies need in order to gain strategic dominance. Do we see the Chinese, Russians and even Venezuela make drastic social changes to their services? No. Their main focus is to fight and win wars…
…not guess if that guy in your unit is like the one in The Crying Game.
This essay is clearly the work of a person who has no writing ability, no compassion, and simply not a clue as to how the current world works.
It is changing, lady. Change with it, or watch the world pass you by.
Also, you kind of seem like you are a bigot. (If that matters to you.)
Toodles!
Bill,
Thanks for posting but you left so soon. I invite you to expand on your response to my article by perhaps providing examples of what bothers you. This piece as I stated, is about focusing on what the military services need, not to please individual social whims, which is exactly what has happened in the services. I am not going to defend your claim that I sound like a bigot because it is irrelevant to this discussion. Gays will always serve in our military. I have served with many who were superb in their jobs and their sexual orientation was not an issue ever. Others want to make that the purpose of their service which is misguided. The issue is the overt display of a bevahior where it affects the overall mission, not the people themselves.
Perhaps you’d like to return for further debate and though I”m not here to talk about my own qualifications the piece, regardless of the angle, would have incited the same reaction as you have exhibited. All that can be done is present the argument from one perspective and go from there. The way the world is changing seems to suit you and that is fine however you should try to see things from other points of view without feeling threatened. These changes are not for the better and I stand by that belief.
By all means, Bill, do come back to chat.
Someone who is gay and is willing to go die for your freedom seems ironic in respect that the military wont allow them the freedom to be who they really are. Being gay is not a lifestyle its a sexuality lifestyles are chosen sexuality is not. Discrimination based on sexuality must be stopped. Why does it hurt people to see others happy I just dont get your point at all sorry. Gays are already serving and the Military hasnt demised yet. I say let someone willing to die for lyour freedom serve honorably without fear of getting discharged. Like another poster said “Change with the Times Lady”
Hi Joe, thanks for posting.
The confusion here is that I am a purist protecting the institution, could care less about sexuality as much as I am concerned about a strong military. Is that unreasonable? In my service, which goes back to high school corps of cadets, I’ve never had a drop of problems with gays at all. In the 80s people served and most others knew their orientation but unless there were personal clashes no one really came out with great force to ‘out’ them. The issue at hand, and perhaps I can help you understand, is that sexual orientation is not important. It is the service and focus on the service that should matter. this is not about lack of ability to perform one’s duties; only about chosing self-expression in an environment and profession where these traits are not conducive to operational readiness. Even some people I know who are gay and served would agree partially to this argument, however, yes, they probably would want to express themselves more often. You can’t change mainstream society. You can also try to legislate core beliefs and attitudes but human nature rejects that.
I don’t by the way, agree with people going out of their way to ‘out’ someone. I would much rather let people live peaceably as long as the overall purpose of the service is not affected. And that goes for both straights and gays.