Gays in the Military

The absurdity of placing the value of one’s sexuality above one’s career security can be exemplified by a UNC-Chapel Hill undergraduate’s grievous mistake of “coming out” her senior year to senior ROTC officials. Almost at the completion of a full ROTC scholarship at one of America’s finest institution, this cadet had the bright idea that her sexual preference somehow became more important than her lifelong love of the military and her dream of becoming a military officer. What was she thinking? Often in adolescence where love is a primary part of an individual’s self-perception, selfish emotions drive achievement. Only later in life after educational and social maturation occur does the need to control one’s emotions with the mind become more important. It is possible this grievous mistake was necessary in beginning this process of development. American culture with its capitalist root does not help young people’s schooling on love and sex. Without the necessary (but often disdained) intervention of religion or education, there is naught left to assure young Americans can make an enlightened decision regarding their sexual definition. The task of separating one’s sexuality from the ranks while in America’s armed forces could seem overwhelming. For this reason “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was created and suggested by then Secretary of State Colin Powell to President Bill Clinton. It was a simple plan. It said that gay soldiers, if not in uniform, could not be persecuted if they attended gay bars or participated in gay rallies. It was a simple modest plan that promoted both humbleness and humility, a combination that took into consideration religions’ labeling of homosexuality as sodomy. Only without this contingency could homosexuality be considered moral. With the continuing surge of homosexuality in America whether coincidental or not, major institutions have taken pot shots at Christianity in the last few years. It seems the gay agenda has been put into place and a large populace still is attempting to gain its acceptance into mainstream American society. Why are homosexuals so concerned about defining a public platform with which to define themselves with an issue traditionally private and discreet? America itself has struggled with the commercialization of sexuality, and in most cases this actualization has proven a failure. America’s social conscious over decades decided to replace the sometimes bawdy and depraved and not-so-inconspicuous display of commercially available sex in Times Square in New York City. Who is to say it was a success? Disney and sex seem to be polar opposites. Was it appropriate that the Lion King replaced Linda Loveless? It can’t be mistaken that America has puritan roots, roots often that desire to be overlooked. If asked if Shaker, Amish, or Quaker customs would be acceptable to most modern Americans, unequivocally the answer would be no. It has been up to Larry Flynt to decide the dividing line between conservative and liberal sexuality in America. It is true America is based upon principles of freedom, and it is understandable that homosexuals are seeking asylum like many oppressed immigrants. “Give me your tired, your poor.” The difference here is a religious issue, one that must be mitigated by God. Literal translation of educational scriptures are anachronistic, so it is conceivable homosexuality may not buy you a ticket to hell. The reluctance to accept what traditionally has been perceived as immoral behavior into America’s mainstream is understandable. Its acceptance into the modern American military armed forces should be delayed until a greater understanding is achieved.