Actually, the definition of “specious” is “superficially plausible, but actually wrong”.
That is my opinion that it is wrong. If I am wrong, it is not specious...:) I simply don’t think it is plausible.
I would be willing to bet the vast majority of men and women serving in the military would be thrilled with others doing their job as they should, sexuality aside.
I found that one of the biggest sources of friction was people who did not perform professionally as they should, not that a given person was genuinely being outperformed by someone else.
Want to take that up a ratchet? Take the friction now that is seen regarding the perception that people have been promoted to fill a gender quota. Multiply that with the prospect of the perception that promotions that have been given to avoid accusations of sexual discrimination against homosexuals.
I think military life is trying enough without adding in this element.
I would agree with you completely regarding advancement to fill quota. It is a moral hazard. But I have news for you that you are probably already aware of. The man sitting in the White House has blown that arguement all to hell.
We already have moral hazard to the nth degree all around us. This man was pushed forward over and over again without the top grades, top acumen, top performance only because he was the “well spoken black man” and didn’t he make us feel good about ourselves?
After forty years of advancing women and minorities this way, nothing that is done for the homosexual, fair or unfair, will dramatically alter the moral hazard landscape with which we are already riddled.