So even if homosexual behavior is permitted in society, that doesn’t necessarily mean it should be permitted in the military.

Sodomy is also prohibited, but when was the last time you heard about a Colonel getting stripped of rank and dishonorably discharged for **** his wife in the ***?

This is ridiculous. Why should straight sexual behavior be permitted but not homosexual?

That article was appalling.

Can you expound on that? Maybe I'm naive...I thought it made sense to me: as in, the desire v. behavior part. What is wrong with that?

as in, the desire v. behavior part. What is wrong with that?

Well, for one, the desire alone, if it becomes public, will get you kicked out of the military.

as a former ROTC instructor and legal officer in the United States Navy, I helped deny entrance to potential recruits and prosecuted existing service people for all sorts of behaviors that were incompatible with unit cohesion and military readiness.

Which is not the point of the policy. It is a consequence of the policy. The point of the policy (and when it comes to the military I consider it a VERY important point) is that "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".

Right, because we all know that consenting adults having sex with the people they choose to have sex with needs curing. Honestly, pick a better aphorism.

This was the relevant part to me:

What is wrong with keeping behaviors out of the military that potentially would be "incompatible with unit cohesion and military readiness?"

Especially the 'unit cohesion' part. Don't they kick people out of the military for bad attitudes and fighting and stuff? If you have one guy in your unit who is always picking a fight and generally an *** and you can't trust him to get your back and he is distracting everyone, wouldn't that not be safe for combat? Wouldn't they kick him out? If they don't, I could see the argument.

Because this was disproven millenia ago with the most effective military forces of the ancient world?

"THIS IS SPAAAARTAAA! And we're all bisexual here, thank you."

Beryllin:

Homosexuality is neither a threat to unit cohesion nor the American society as a whole. You have now, for the better part of a decade, continued your religious crusade against non-traditional gender identities with a fervor that amounts to nothing less than zealotry. It is tiresome, pointless, and generally founded on ill-conceived notions about homosexuality bringing about the end of God's Grace for the United States.

That said, your preference for Turek's article is nothing more than confirmation bias. You have not considered it logically or rationally; rather, it affirms your standing opinion on matters of gender identity and sexual equality; therefore, it must be correct. However, Turek's article is based on faulty logic and flawed assumptions.

First, Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation are neither proven as choices nor completely void of physiological causes. They are complex manifestations in a complex system: we need more information before we can say that people are "born homosexual," but the evidence is certainly mounting in that direction. More importantly, both Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation are directly modified and influenced by the greater social construct. This causes all sorts of spectacular complexities and conflicts for the individual on a psychic level and society on a normative level. I can say, however, with absolute certainty that your repulsion and anti-homosexual zeal is nothing more than a social construct reinforced by your cultural sphere and choices.

Second, Turek's argument that the UCMJ punishes behaviors over desires is not exactly accurate. The UCMJ creates a system of social normatives that directly influences and shapes the culture of military behavior and values. We can argue the benefits or failures of that culture and its value sets all day long; but, it remains to be proven that open homosexuality will adversely impact our military in any way. If the behaviors are punished and desires prohibited universally, then what is the negative consequence of allowing the open sexuality of homosexuals? The sexuality of heterosexuals is ALREADY known and not subject to public scrutiny. Rules against fraternization and adultery would apply regardless of sexual orientation. In short, the article is little more than a hasty generalization.

If we're to assume that these rules exist to remove sexual distraction from the military, then we can only conclude that privileging heterosexuality over homosexuality is the result of some greater social normative inherited from society as a whole.

More importantly, if you apply Turek's standard evenly, it actually DEMONSTRATES the oppression and discrimination currently occurring in our military. Heterosexuality is assumed, and Heterosexuals are free to admit their gender/sexual identity. All non-normative groups are not. Consequently, current policy actually suppresses a freedom/license given to those who conform to a certain expectation. Being openly gay does not require breaking any fraternization or adultery rules; nor, however, does being openly heterosexual.

So, yes, I read it; I though about it; I laughed at the bad logic and agenda driven misrepresentation of facts; and I dismissed it as another thread in which Beryllin chafes at the notion another man might want to **** him in the ***.

Um....this isn't Sparta?

Which is not the point of the policy. It is a consequence of the policy. The point of the policy (and when it comes to the military I consider it a VERY important point) is that "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".

I've already given an example of how unit cohesion can be negatively affected by having an openly homosexual infantryman in it. *shrug*

Or better yet, open your eyes and unplug your ears and actually think, instead of feel.