Worth Reading Top US Marine rejects Obama plan to repeal gay ban Link:
I have been planning to write about this for a spell now, and with the Commandant coming out with his position on gays in the Military I reckon that this is as good a time as any.
The issue is not whether gays can make good warriors, the Greeks ,and the Spartan in particular, put that to rest a long time ago. The Spartan did not live with their wives, they only visited their wives for procreation sex. For recreational sex the men took a male lover near his own age. The warrior was also expect to take a young boy and teach him the ways of the world, including sex. The greatest of all homosexual warriors was Alexander the Great, a Greek from Macedonia, as well as wives he had male lovers, and one these, hislover Hephaestion, he love most of his life.
Such arrangement worked well for the Greeks because it was universal accepted as normal behavior. There was no free sex in any Greek unit of that time. The partners were bound to one another as tightly as if in a marriage. Jealousy was just as much a problem then as it is now, so the Greeks set rules in place to avoid having it rear its ugly head.
Those who argue for allowing gays to serve openly in the military argue several points: It is unlawful discrimination. Gay should be allowed to serve their country. They can serve as well as heterosexuals.
As far as it being discriminatory, the military discriminates against many people other then gays. Short people are disallowed, obese people are disallowed, People with poor eye sight are disallowed. Disabled people are disallowed. People without a high school diploma is disallowed, so on.
If gays wish to serve their country they are other avenues open to them to provide that service. They can go into Justice, State, the FBI, the BATF, or any of the many other opportunities for gays to serve their country.
But they want to serve it openly in the military. Now the argument against allowing gays to serve openly in the U.S. Military is not an argument about the abilities of gay to make good solders. Rather the argument hinges upon unit cohesion and unit moral. Beyond any argument is the fact that 97 percent of the Military, if they are assumed to reflect the demographic of the general population, are heterosexual.
What do you expect to happen if you change the rule to allow gays to serve as open homosexuals? For one thing, in the USMC anyway, each Marine carry what is called a shelter half. That shelter half is one half of a tent, to make a tent he needs to team up with another member of his fire team to build a shelter. If one of these Marineâ€™s is gay and pit in this very small tent with a straight Marine is the gay one going to be able to restrain himself from hitting on the straight? What happens when a gay succumbs to his urges and does make a pass?
Now let us consider two gay Marines put on guard duty in a hot zone, the night is quite, they have been without sex for a long time, noting to stop them from engaging in a little recreational sex, hell only one of them has to unzip his fly. What is to stop the enemy from coming up on their position as they are occupied with one another?
Are you willing to execute anyone caught having sex while out on patrol or doing guard duty? The French Partisans in WWII had to resort to that to keep men and women from neglected their duty to engage in sex.
What position will a straight Marine be put in if the gay Marine outranks him/her? We already have enough problems with men taking advantage of their rank with women do we want to extent this. Will you start getting Marines who suck their way to the top?
They claim that the gays are already serving with the straight without a problem, if this is so it is a tribute to the â€œDonâ€™t Ask, Donâ€™t Tellâ€ policy, not a damnation of it.