Off the top of my head, homosexuals cannot serve in the military and have a civil union in Hawaii. Do you still believe the quoted statement is true?
Homosexuals most certainly can serve in the military and, we are told, do. What they cannot do is openly express their homosexuality to their fellow soldiers.
People argue (and have in here) that since heterosexuals can tell their fellow soldiers that they have, e.g., a girlfriend or wife, that the government (the armed forces in this case) should officially adopt the position that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivalent.
I am personally persuaded that the latter argument is absurd on its face because they are quite obviously not equivalent. One is a sexual perversion and the other isn’t. Of course, some argue that homosexuality is not a sexual perversion; that one’s belief that it is, is dictated by religion, etc, etc. But once one begins endorsing perversion from that which is natural, it seems to me there is no logical end to it. Ruth Bader Ginsburg seems to have endorsed the idea that the age of consent to sexual activity ought to be 12. Well, that’s quite possibly her belief, but it’s regarded as a perversion by most. Should soldiers be able to bring their underage lovers to live in base housing with them? Should those who like sex with animals be entitled to put Lassie on their allotments, or take Lassie to social events for couples?
If a soldier happens to be a member of one of those Mormon sects that believe in plural marriages, should that be acceptable if he brings his eight wives to social events for couples? Should they all be accommodated on base housing?
If a male soldier wants to be in drag all the time on base, should that be okay if it’s his sexual compulsion? Should that be his “right”, or should there be some semblance of societal standards applied?
For that matter, if a soldier wants to inform others on a more or less constant basis, that he performs repulsive acts with his girlfriend; let’s say sadism or some extremely degrading thing, should that soldier be allowed to do that? Should he be allowed to bring her to social events in chains, perhaps, and smeared with filth, just because his sexual compulsions drive him to do and display such things?
There has to be a line somewhere. Homosexual activists want the “normal” line to be moved to include their sexual proclivities, and, in wanting the abolition of “don’t ask, don’t tell”, they want the government to endorse the normalcy of their perversion. But once done, (and this government will probably do it) it will actually push other people onto the other side of the line. Perhaps it’s okay with some if the more traditional-minded people in this country discourage their sons or daughters from joining the military (or simply pass it up themselves) because sexual perversion is officially endorsed there, and because they will, in the military, be obliged to pretend, against their own beliefs, and against the beliefs of most in society, that it’s normal themselves. It’s hard for me to think it’s okay.
And what, precisely, would civil unions in Hawaii do for homosexuals that they cannot do contractually? I guess it would depend on how one wrote the law. But that isn’t the point, though, is it? Recognition of civil unions (or “gay marriage” for that matter) is, again, governmental endorsement of a sexual compulsion, of which there are many others. It is reasonably clear to me that “official sanction” in society is the objective, not the achievement of some kind of “right”.
.
. UGH!