reply to post by Southern Guardian
What young soldier isn't sexually hyperactive? Lol, I think that charge has already been fulfilled by the heterosexuals. With that being said, I
think the main argument against homosexuals in the military is that it will disrupt unit cohesion and spark sexual harassment, in form. Take for
instance both the barracks and showers. The argument is that male soldiers wouldn't want to be in the showers naked next to some guy who seems to be
aroused at your presence or the bunk for that matter. Also, in the field when it's cold, bone chillingly so, you strip buck-naked with your buddies
and sleep in the fart sack together to benefit from each other's body heat. Because you are literally only as good as your weakest link, such a
scenario could endanger the the whole unit for a plethora of different reasons,.
The theory is that in such a scenario, soldiers would dissent if there was a flaming homosexual, drooling from the mouth and poking you in the back.
However, in reality if you are stuck in a situation like that, the last thing you are going to be worrying about is whether your buddy is excited or
not. Another thing that dispels such a notion, is that you know the men in your squad, platoon and company like you know your own family, sometimes
even better. You train together, eat together, party together and even go through hell together. Not only that, but our soldiers, sailors, marines and
airmen are all highly trained professionals (most of us anyway) and behavior like that stated above is only indicative of amateurs. So, while on paper
the argument seems valid, in reality it holds no water (at least for the vast majority of the time).
Will it happen? Absolutely (on as exceptions, not the rule) and that's almost a guarantee (it even happens with heterosexuals), though soldiers adapt
and overcome. I think that it will, for the most part, only affect trainees, novices, cadets and those going through their initial training to where
they lack the professionalism indicative of a soldier. With that being said, stepping outside of your comfort zone and dealing with "demons" that
you don't want to deal with, adapting and overcoming, is part of being a soldier, sailor, marine or airman.
I think that the biggest advocates for the ban, are the civilian leadership and the portion of the public who has never served. This is a group of
people who wouldn't be affected anyway and so they are irrelevant to the over-all equation. You know, on paper a lot of things seems to make sense,
though reality always seems to be a little different. We should always air on the side of "right", "equal" and "fair" and make adjustments to
accommodate accordingly. After all freedom, liberty and justice does have a price and that price is to make said adjustments and deal with the
consequences as they come.