The Senate failed to gain enough support to repeal the military’s policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” by a vote of 56-43. Given the current political atmosphere, voters are not likely to be sending as many incumbent candidates back to Capitol Hill as in previous voting cycles, and with the majority in both House and Senate being Democrats, a Republican influx is likely. In all probability leaving any legislation for repeal far in the future.
On this issue, I am against allowing homosexuals to serve in the military. My opposition comes from a belief when a person joins the military he or she has a reasonable expectation of sexual privacy. For example, when women join the military they have good reason to believe that male officers will not enter their barracks, living quarters, latrines, or the showers. Why is this? Because he is a male and she is a female, and men generally speaking, have innate sexual attraction to women. Whether a homosexual makes sexual advances toward a fellow GI is irrelevant.
If this point is obvious, that we do not allow male GI’s into female quarters, and vice versa, for the purpose of sexual privacy, it ought to be obvious why we should not allow it in homosexual circumstances as well. Why is this not as obvious? To start there are many who believe homosexual proclivity is entirely genetic, and is of the same nature as skin, hair, or eye color. Exodus International is an organization which claims thousands of individuals who once identified themselves as homosexual, who, with help, are now heterosexual. This organization and its successes should be cause to doubt the claim that homosexuality is fully genetic, since if homosexuality is of the same kind as skin, hair, and eye color it it cannot change. Second, political correctness and fear of being labeled a “homophobe” or “bigot” will serve to coerce those who feel the issue is not important enough for them to publicly disagree, to go along with the crowd. Third, there are simply many people who believe homosexual behavior is morally neutral or equivalent to heterosexual behaviors and give their full support.
“Don’t ask” was a policy designed to placate and patronize the American public. If the military had good reason to disallow homosexuals to serve, then it did not alleviate the problem at all. It allowed a bad policy to be put in place (from the military’s perspective) and ensured homosexuals a place to serve, just not openly. The policy sends a mixed message, that homosexuality somehow serves some detriment to the military, but homosexuals can still serve.
I think “don’t ask, don’t tell” should be repealed. It should revert to the former policy of a ban all together on homosexual service members. Or be completely removed all together and allow them to serve openly. Either homosexuality is detrimental to the military or it isn’t and the official policy should reflect as such. Since I have never served, I will have to punt to those in a better position to know which policy ensures the optimal performance of the military, those service members both present and past. Service members have been given a survey, the answers of which, are intended to shed light on the opinions of those currently serving. High ranking military officials have already expressed a repeal of the policy will bare negative results to the cohesive structure of the military. It will be interesting to where our military stands on the issue.
_______________________________
Related Articles: Can You Feel The Love?, Unlock That Closet
Sifting Reality 
If the problem of having homosexuals in military is only about having same showers, this should be easy to solve, by building separate showers. That is what was done when women were induced to service. The US army is allready the most expensive army in the world (though not wery cost effective) using over one third of all public money spent on arms in the entire world. In the end this is a strain that will be too much for the economy of the country, but meawhile a few separate showers seems like a cheap way to solve the fact that the army has to lower its standards for new recruits every now and then because of lack of applicants. I bet, that the costs for this could be covered by the price of a single stealth bomber or less. Especially so, if the job was not given to Halliburton.
Showers, bathrooms, living quarters, etc.
OK. Throw in a nother stealth bomber. That should cover it.
The fact that men and women are not allowed in the showers and such together is not merely because of their sexual desires. It is also because they have different bodies, and as such sexual desires and other such humplebunk is encouraged.
As a normal person, I am not interested in just anyone unless I have already an emotional attraction – I imagine this would be an even lesser blow had the person the same body as me!
Then you are kind of arguing for mingled showers and bathrooms.
Whether someone will be attracted to a particular individual is irrelevant. Heterosexual men are attracted to women in general which is why men aren’t allowed in women’s showers. We don’t show them a portfolio to see if they are attracted to them first.
People have a right to sexual privacy. This should be rather uncontroversial.