[Lucky Dog]

Every time this topic shows up, the apparently willful ignorance of some and outright disinformation campaign by others causes my blood pressure to spike. Therefore, whenever possible, I try to put the facts out for all to see:

The legal reality:

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION Preamble. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [emphasis added]

In the very first paragraph of the foundational document of our country, the purpose of the military is defined. The military exists to provide for the common defense not to provide a specific “right” to serve in the military. As military service is not a “right,” all kinds of people are excluded for very good reasons, e.g., those physically, mentally or emotionally incapable of performing required tasks, as well as certain categories of law breakers such as felons, etc.,

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, Article. I., Section. 8., [Congress shall have the power ] Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

As enacted by the United States Congress:

Uniform Code of Military Justice

925. ART. 125. SODOMY

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

The following excerpt (passed in 1993) is from Public Law 103-160, Section 654, Title 10—"Homosexuality is incompatible with military service." (See Senate and House Reports, pages 293 and 287, respectively.)

Constitutional challenges to former and current military policies concerning homosexuals followed in the wake of the 1993 laws and regulations. Based on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) that there is no fundamental right to engage in consensual homosexual sodomy, the courts have uniformly held that the military may discharge a service member for overt homosexual behavior.

The logic reality:

Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (Contrary to popular opinion, the term sexual orientation does not define one as a homosexual any more than the term, “lust” defines one as a rapist or the term “anger” defines one as a murderer or the term “greed” defines one as a thief.)

Any human behavior (not driven by autonomic or instinctual responses) that is not voluntary is, by definition, a psychosis.

Therefore, homosexual behavior is either a voluntary choice or a psychosis.

If homosexual behavior is a psychosis, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure. Nonetheless, treated or not, like other psychoses, it is grounds for exclusion from military service.

If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal and/or military behavioral regulations as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc.

Homosexual behavior, in general, like theft, assault, drug abuse, etc., is counter to good order and discipline within any organization, especially a military one.

This fact, just as with excluding convicted felons or drug abusers, is sufficient reason to exclude homosexual behavior practitioners.

The fiscal reality:

Homosexual behavior practitioners are statistically subject to a much higher rate of HIV/AIDS and other deadly diseases than the general population.

This fact alone increases the cost of providing medical care for the services. Increased costs in the medical care arena means reduced financial capability to purchase military hardware and pay other military personnel benefits. In short, it decreases the capability of the country fiscally, to provide for the common defense.

However, there is another, even more compelling, reason for exclusion associated with the disease rate among homosexual behavior practitioners.

The combat asset risk reality:

Because HIV/AIDS and other diseases prevalent among homosexual practitioners qualify as blood-borne pathogens, the presence of homosexual behavior practitioners creates statistically increased, and completely unnecessary risk for the loss of combat resources. The long and short of this fact is that these diseases can be spread, among other ways, through contact with the blood of the diseased individual. The military is its own, largest source of material for blood transfusions. Additionally, in a battlefield setting there is never a shortage of blood to create exposure risks to those who are not homosexual practitioners.

Summary:

Homosexual behavior is illegal in the military for very good, legal, logical, fiscal and combat asset risk reasons. Those who have ignored these strictures, either, willfully, or inadvertently, under the so-called Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy have caused a tremendous waste of taxpayer resources as well as lowered morale within the military. These costs were entirely driven by individual homosexual practitioners’ hedonistic, selfish motives and behavior and resulted in unnecessary detriment to the mission capability of the US defense establishment.

[Kahonek]

“Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (Contrary to popular opinion, the term sexual orientation does not define one as a homosexual any more than the term, ‘lust’ defines one as a rapist or the term “anger” defines one as a murderer or the term “greed” defines one as a thief.)”

This one always confuses me. So are you suggesting that they’re only homosexual WHILE they’re actually having sex with someone of the same sex? If not, how long does the effect last, afterwards? What about someone who had a same-sex encounter once in prison twenty years ago, but got out and never looked back? What about those who are raped by others of the same sex? Does the act have to be voluntary? Do you have to have sex with the opposite sex to be heterosexual, or are there heterosexual virgins out there?

Do you seriously think that there’s no difference between a guy who has the hots for guys and one who has the hots for girls, as long as they’ve never had sex? Would you distinguish between which one you’d want to marry your daughter?

I think this idea that sexual orientation is a non-entity is really misleading. Are you suggesting that Peter Pace could become just as homosexual as Elton John by getting drunk and having one sexual encounter with a dude?

[supercat]

Summary...

The summary leaves out the most important point: the purpose of the military is to defend the country and win wars. That it can offer any benefit to the men and women who participate in those tasks is a nice secondary feature, but it is not nearly as important as the military's primary function. Those who would compromise the effectiveness of the military to use it as an instrument of social change are at best naïve; note that many of the people who push military social issues don't want an effective military, characterizing such people as 'at best naïve' is being charitable.