Giving the patent approval to behaviors that are nihilistic and destructive to social order, only encourages those practices and puts homosexuals in a power to use their “special protection status” over new, young, and naive recruits. They can force their attentions on others through rank which is where the danger occurs. To think that that will not happen is ridiculous when that is why men and women were separated. If you think that men and women can not control their sexual urges, then multiply that by 10 because homosexuals are at least that much more out of control and aggressive.
Homosexuals lack of “control” is well documented and for centuries considered a mental illness—public restrooms, bushes in public parks, priesthood assaults on boys. Homosexuals promiscuity and pedophilia victims far exceed the numbers from the heterosexual community when ratios are figured. Their “emotional” control over their reasoning makes them a danger. Their lack of moral constraint makes them a supreme danger. That is the bottom line. You want the military to “approve” of a destructive behavior. With no “shame” applied to behaviors, they become mainstreamed. Since homosexuality is a learned behavior, homosexuals have been fighting for the right to mainstream that behavior—to muzzle our most masculine men and make them impotent to fight the homosexual propaganda.
This undermines the freedom of religion—people have the right to have moral codes—to judge behaviors as good and bad and if the military forbids its troops from expressing disgust for certain behaviors, then it gives it tacit approval. It is imperative for the military to have a moral code. For egalitarian societies, where women are not degraded and used as breeders and slaves, homosexuality can never be condoned.
Look to the Spartans who practiced rampant homosexuality (women had no rights) and the recruitment of young boys was incorporated into that military. Yes, they had an outstanding military and homosexuality was used to encourage cohesion (just like the Nazi Brownshirts who used the Hitler Youth for recruits)(pantheistic culture encouraged it and all sexual immorality—pedophilia was rampant since it is learned and necessary for recruitment.)
Judaism and Christianity were the forces that ended the pagan practices. That is why we see the destruction of Christian principles now: to give freedom to all sexual immorality and perversions.
I have a problem with this reasoning in one respect. The two corollaries I point to are found in literature and life. The first is the character of Jean Valjean in Victor Hugo's Les Miserables. This individual, when faced with starvation, false accusation and total annihilation, opts to steal a pair of candlesticks from the Catholic Church. The argument from the constable is that he is irredeemable and needs to be incarcerated forever. However, it is clear that this man is noble even heroic but that circumstances beyond his control, imposed by a draconian society have led him to this. The second is the young black man in America. Faced with little prospects, double the unemployment, no food, no hope and a wrenching despair that spans decades, he turns to violence or theft. Does this mean that all young black men are violent or thieves? I am not sure. I'd like to hope that even the most loyal of dogs, when cornered will show teeth and resort to less than polite behavior when given no alternatives.
We as a society, for centuries, have told a significant portion of our population that their behavior is unacceptable. Whether it is socialized or natural, it hasn't mattered. We have made that decision. In a sense, we have forced what seems natural to them, into the sewer, the underground, the darkness. Are we to feign surprise when they act on their behaviors in the sewer, the underground and the darkness? Aren't we in a sense, calling the effect the cause in this instance? Aren't we reaping what we ourselves have sown and aren't we adding insult to injury when we tell them that their behavior in the darkness which we cast upon them IS the very reason we have cast them into the darkness. Would that any of us might rise above this circular logic after decades and centuries of externally imposed self-loathing.
An example of this is the Catholic priest. In the repression of the 1950’s a young single man with no predilection for marrying a female or living a lie was offered no opportunity but to become a priest, it was the only occupation beyond suspicion where a single man could go. It was a “higher calling”. It was a way to mask the self loathing society had thrust upon him in a cloak of communal respect. But it wasn't a cure, solution or road to happiness. The condition remained beneath the vestments and the repression continued. What some chose to do was wrong but are we to be surprised given the dead end course, we as a society set them on, that some ended up where they did?
These are some things we need to think about.
We certainly do not treat other less fortunate parts of our society with the same pariah status from such a young age.