Politicians in the United States continue to debate the merits of allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the armed services. It’s an interesting debate to watch.
The one side continues to cite the importance of the “supposed” need that the greatest, most effective fighting force in the world (US Military) should succumb it’s moral standards to aspire to the likes of the “mighty” French and Belgian armies . . . . Such insane and nonsensical arguments easily invalidate any semblance of credibility amongst the pro-homosexual left.
This same side of the argument continues to claim that homosexuality is just like one’s race – predisposed and unalterable. You’re born that way, and that’s all there is to it. Yet, outside of quack science being propagated largely by the pro-homosexual left, there is absolutely no evidence to clearly demonstrate a genetic linkage to pre-destined deviant sexual behavior.
The other side of the argument continues to abide to several time-tested principles that yet to be refuted:
– Homosexuals who act like homosexuals have a known negative effect on the “good order and discipline” of the armed forces and any organization that must often endure extreme physical and psychological deprivations so common in combat and stressful environments.
– Moral standards in the military such as the regulations that prohibit adultery and homosexuality reinforce good order and discipline of any organization and greatly contribute to making our Nation’s military the most effective fighting force in the world. We did not become a Superpower military by accident and there’s no guarantee we’ll remain so.
– The fact that a substantial number of military are outright opposed to homosexuals openly serving in the military and should be a legitimate concern providing good evidence that the costs of such a politically motivated policy shift would far outweigh the benefits of keeping the current policies that work so effectively. Many in the military also express uncertainties about such changes neither for nor against such a change. This survey conducted throughout the Department of Defense had all sorts of flaws. It asked for neither objective nor comprehensive feedback from service members. Never did the survey simply ask the yes or no question of whether or not the surveyed service member supported homosexuals openly serving in the military. Furthermore, the quantity of information allowed to be submitted online was limited to 1,000 characters of type to include spaces, about the length of this paragraph.
There are countless concerns in how allowing homosexuals to openly serve will affect the US Armed Forces.
One very legitimate concern involves the simple fact that if the restriction barring homosexuals from openly serving in the military is lifted there will be a greater number of homosexuals trying to join the military. This is simple logic to most people – if you can serve openly and easily despite the sexual deviancy one adheres to, than it can be expected more homosexuals will desire to serve. If it’s easier for homosexuals to serve, than one can naturally expect an increase of homosexuals signing up to serve. This leads to the simple question . . . is the military ready for homosexuals to openly serve in the military?
Well, one thing the military isn’t ready for is the increased health concerns naturally associated with the homosexual and bi-sexual “lifestyle.” A recent 2010 non-political, neutral study by the Center of Disease Control published findings that demonstrate an increasing trend of HIV infections in “Men having sex with Men” (MSM). Such behavior and “lifestyle” associated with the homosexual community will undoubtedly contribute to an increase in HIV infections throughout the Fighting Force. The report cites a number of very applicable facts that should be a concern to the politicians, American taxpayers and military service members:
– MSM account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the U.S. (48%, or an estimated 532,000 total persons).
– MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections).
– While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).
– MSM are the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.
It would be naive that they would practice any form of “selective abstinence” and limit their sexual partners only to those serving in the military. Heterosexuals typically don’t practice such “selective abstinence”, so can it be expected that homosexuals would? The concern is that if a homosexual joins the military and continues to practice homosexual behavior indiscriminately between civilian and military homosexuals alike, there will be a significant increase in HIV infections throughout the US armed forces. What has been debated little if at all is the long-term increase in fiduciary costs to the taxpayer military health care system (TRICARE) that are associated with the medical treatments associated with allowing homosexuals to openly serve.
This discussion about the effects on healthcare is only scratching the “iceberg.” The myriads of challenges and costs are yet to be comprehensively and logically debated in the halls of Congress and on the public airwaves. The arguments in support of homosexuals openly serving constitute a largely politically motivated effort based on countless fallacies and leftist propaganda.
The myriad of concerns associated with getting rid of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy clearly demonstrate to many Americans that it must be replaced only with the original and most effective policy of comprehensively prohibiting homosexuals from serving at all.
Outside of such obvious health cost concerns a more comprehensive list of concerns not mentioned here that would undoubtedly have a significantly negative impact on the US fighting force can be found at the Center for Military Readiness website (http://www.cmrlink.org/)
Take a moment and make a difference and write your Senator and Congressmember concerning these important concerns.