Military's gay ban is unconstitutional

[kenofken]

Did you just call these well meaning people delusional? Wow! You’re not going to get much sympathy if you take that attitude.

Where did the sexual addiction aspect of this come into play? Are you saying that the people I’m talking about with SSA are suffering from a sexual addiction now? You don’t even know these people and your labeling them as sex addicts? You’re the one being judgmental now.

In fact everything you’ve said is based on a position of ignorance. These are not people who want to be cured of their SSA. To say so is to admit you know nothing about these people. So, why make statements based on ignorance? To win an argument online.

You talk about honor. You could have pointed out the weakness to the position. Did you really have to say the things you did to make your point?

I DO think it’s delusional for people to think they’re going to be therapeautically reprogrammed to not have same sex attraction. So do all legitimate mental health authorities. The bit about sex addiction is guesswork and inference from what you say about these men having some sort of fear of getting caught up in an unhealthy “gay lifestyle.” That’s usually a veiled reference to real or imagined subcultures of extreme promiscuity. There is nothing unhealthy in the mere fact of same sex attraction or consenting adult relationships. Nor is there any monolithic “gay culture.”

If I’m still off base, what exactly is it these guys are trying to achieve with themselves that warrants something as twisted and dishonorable as DADT? If they mean to live in celibacy, bully for them, but they need to learn to do that on healthy terms. It’s not the military’s problem to try to sterilize the ranks of any temptations for them.

 

[NotCrazyDan]

That’s really all the whole thing boils down to as far as I’m concerned. If someone is willing and able to take on the hell of a job that it is and they can act professionally, the rest is pure bunk. No nation that would have DADT deserves the service of any soldiers. It’s basically saying “we’ll take your service, but we reserve the right to treat you dishonorably for an arbitrary reason.”

Seems you’re dismissing peoples thoughts on this matter without wanting to address them. Arbitrary reasons? No not arbitrary. You may not agree with the reasons given, but that doesn’t make them arbitrary. No nation that has DADT deserves the service of any Soldiers? Should I quit now? Nope. Do you not have the right to be defended even though your military doesn’t want gays to be open with their sexuality? Give me a break.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I actually don’t want anyone, male or female, gay or straight, to be “open about their sexuality” while in the service. The military does have the right to prohibit certain behaviors and discussions within the organization, since strict discipline and a certain form is essential to cohesion, to staying concentrated on the mission, on the unit, etc.

The military also has a right to prohibit romantic relationships, of any persuasion, within their organizations. Same goes for businesses as well – who can draw up a code to explicitly restrict employees from dating while both are employed in the organization. I’ve worked in companies where certain things were simply not talked about, such as people’s private lives, comprehensively. It was the informal “code” of the organization, but there’s nothing illegal or unconstitutional about formalizing that. Sometimes it’s necessary to be specific about such things. As long as the specificity is universal and equal — not confined to one orientation or the other, I see nothing illegal about it. (And of course it requires that people are informed of that ahead of time.)

Just as in the priesthood, if someone feels a compelling urge to discuss one’s own sexual identity, there are professional channels and resources for that, that do not include one’s peers. Those professional resources are the appropriate avenues – both for servicemen/servicewomen, and for celibate priests.

 

[Sonic]

We need to consider another aspect to this discussion. Gay does not refer only to homosexuals. I know this is the popular inference by most people who use the term Gay, but it doesn’t always mean that.

It’s an umbrella term, and it’s used by many people to refer to their sexual identity for various reasons. Some of these people are heterosexual. Yes, there are people who identify themselves as Gay who are not homosexual. This can include bisexuals, transvestites, members of the S&M community, etc. There are a whole slew of people who base their identity on their sexual activity who refer to themselves as Gay. This really does not make the discussion easier for people who have SSA… or make any easier to talk about DADT.

As the term Gay has broadened from homosexual to a much broader sexual identity spectrum, the muddier the debate has become. Where does the definition of Gay begin and end in this debate?

We can’t even define it in some form of agreement whenever it’s discussed in the public arena. One moment gay means homosexual… the next it means a personal identity… the next it means sexual activity.

I think this only adds to the emotions in this discussion.

 

[Sonic]

I DO think it’s delusional for people to think they’re going to be therapeautically reprogrammed to not have same sex attraction. So do all legitimate mental health authorities.

That’s your opinion, and your entitled to keep it.

You need to become better informed. While there are groups who focus on deprogramming SSA, Catholic ministries like Courage do not try to do this.

Please read more about them so you know what is going on.

couragerc.net/

The bit about sex addiction is guesswork and inference from what you say about these men having some sort of fear of getting caught up in an unhealthy “gay lifestyle.” That’s usually a veiled reference to real or imagined subcultures of extreme promiscuity. There is nothing unhealthy in the mere fact of same sex attraction or consenting adult relationships. Nor is there any monolithic “gay culture.”

You seem to be making a lot of inferences in my posts. Our failure of communication seems to hinge on this sexual promiscuity inference of yours. Sorry, but that’s a misunderstanding on your part over the issues. It doesn’t help that you turn around and infer my sources are guilty of the very thing you think I’m trying to plaster on all people who identify as being Gay.

There is no monolithic Gay culture. I’ll be the first to state that. It’s an umbrella term, and includes more than just people with SSA.

However, how else am I supposed to refer to it, when the term Gay is as much an umbrella term as Gay Lifestyle and Gay Culture, and even used by people who identify themselves as Gay. The whole debate over Gay acceptance hinges around a group of people being recognized as a group, but whenever that group is recognized in a argument contrary to any supporting pro-gay stance, all of a sudden it doesn’t apply. It seems to blow away in the wind.

You can’t have it both ways. Either there is a way of identifying who and what is Gay or there isn’t. As far as this discussion is concerned, nothing sinister was meant by it.
Just accept the term as it is and don’t make inferences about it, or come up with a better term for me describe gay socializing (non-sexual), political opinions, spiritual opinions, organizations, and sexuality.

If I’m still off base, what exactly is it these guys are trying to achieve with themselves that warrants something as twisted and dishonorable as DADT? If they mean to live in celibacy, bully for them, but they need to learn to do that on healthy terms. It’s not the military’s problem to try to sterilize the ranks of any temptations for them.

Well, you are off base. You’ve loaded these statements with so much emotion, I’m not sure how to answer for fear of my next comment being blasted again, but I will certainly try if your willing to be less emotional.

 

[Carmel_B]

Yes, there are people who identify themselves as Gay who are not homosexual. This can include bisexuals, transvestites, members of the S&M community, etc.

really???

source please

do they identify as gay or is that just what others call them?

 

[kenofken]

I actually don’t want anyone, male or female, gay or straight, to be “open about their sexuality” while in the service. The military does have the right to prohibit certain behaviors and discussions within the organization, since strict discipline and a certain form is essential to cohesion, to staying concentrated on the mission, on the unit, etc.

The military also has a right to prohibit romantic relationships, of any persuasion, within their organizations. Same goes for businesses as well – who can draw up a code to explicitly restrict employees from dating while both are employed in the organization. I’ve worked in companies where certain things were simply not talked about, such as people’s private lives, comprehensively. It was the informal “code” of the organization, but there’s nothing illegal or unconstitutional about formalizing that. Sometimes it’s necessary to be specific about such things. As long as the specificity is universal and equal — not confined to one orientation or the other, I see nothing illegal about it. (And of course it requires that people are informed of that ahead of time.)

Just as in the priesthood, if someone feels a compelling urge to discuss one’s own sexual identity, there are professional channels and resources for that, that do not include one’s peers. Those professional resources are the appropriate avenues – both for servicemen/servicewomen, and for celibate priests.

This touches on an important distinction between orientation and conduct. Of course the military has the right to insist on certain conduct. It’s just basically professionalism. DADT is not about that, however. To my knowledge, none of those discharged under the policy were caught carrying on workplace relationships, hitting on colleagues inappropriately, etc. So far as I can tell, most of them never came right out and declared their orientation. They were thrown out after McCarthy-esque “investigations” into their private lives or were the victims of petty vendettas by others who outed them.

I don’t think any gay or lesbian soldier will, or ever will, join the military as the point person for some insidious “gay agenda.” I very much doubt whether any of them want to make themselves known as the “gay” soldier in their outfit. They want to do their job without the fear that years of good work won’t come to nothing because of some snitch, or because they happened to be seen at a gay event off duty etc. Discharges are arbitrary because they depend on the whims of commanding officers, colleagues who may have their own axes to grind etc. Plenty of gay and lesbian soldiers do serve without problems. Often times the people in their units do know about them, not because they came out to the world but because there aren’t many secrets in an environment where people work so closely together. What DADT does, however, is offer a system of legalized blackmail to people. No one has been able to explain to me how that serves our national interests.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Post 127 purports to “reply” to mine, but does not. My post which was quoted did not discuss any of the topics in post 127, including anything about a “gay agenda.” My post was strictly about uniformity and an equally applied regulation and enforcement of that regulation. Either everyone can discuss their private romantic relationships, or no one can. My point was, that I can understand any workplace, including the military (which is not just an organization but a workplace) forbidding specific discussion about intimate relationships, or OTOH allowing them for everyone when not on duty, etc. There are a variety of ways of dealing with this – varieties of regulations and boundaries. Actually, in some of my workplaces it has not been inevitable that people learn about each other’s private lives and “no one have secrets.” Discretion is apparently not taught much these days, but when one works with others who are discreet, it is not hard to keep secrets or keep from discussing other people’s “secrets.” Such workplaces that formally or informally “forbid” private gossip are way, way more efficient and focused. It keeps the team from being derailed or distracted, and for that reason I support the military, or any organization, maintaining such boundaries for everybody, only.

There was nothing I hated more, when I first began working, of feeling that I “had” to share my private life with curious co-workers (mostly female, but some male) who apparently were too idle or distractible for their own good and the organization’s good.

Three letters: T…M…I… If it has nothing to do with work, it doesn’t belong there when a person is actively on the job.

 

[Daedelus76]

Having the government “affirm” that homosexuality it is no different from heterosexuality is a governmental endorsement of something that most of society considers a perversion and which the Catholic Church certainly does not affirm. If any of the anti-DADT people on here don’t think doing away with DADT will be understood as a governmental affirmation of homosexuality as nothing but an “alternative lifestyle of equal validity”, .

Repealing DADT has little to do with affirming homosexuality, and alot to do with ridding military service of stigmatization of sexual minorities. A stigma that does kill people. Every year there are dozens of crimes on military bases and by servicemembers based on the perceived sexual orientation of the victim. DADT prevents these people from being protected from a hostile atmosphere because it essentially blames the victim and puts the onus on them, instead of those with homophobic prejudices, to control their behavior.

 

[NotCrazyDan]

Repealing DADT has little to do with affirming homosexuality, and alot to do with ridding military service of stigmatization of sexual minorities. A stigma that does kill people. Every year there are dozens of crimes on military bases and by servicemembers based on the perceived sexual orientation of the victim. DADT prevents these people from being protected from a hostile atmosphere because it essentially blames the victim and puts the onus on them, instead of those with homophobic prejudices, to control their behavior.

This seems unlikely to me. The present command climate is such that pressing charges on someone who came forward as being the victim of sexual assault simply isn’t done.

Gays aren’t the only ones with skeletons in their closets.

 

[Sonic]

really???

source please

do they identify as gay or is that just what others call them?

Well, I’m not going to send you to any websites associated with these activities. That would be against CAF rules. You will find that websites and blogs associated with these activities identify their activities as being gay. You’ll find the rainbow banner and other symbols identified with gay pride linked on the splash pages.

That’s the best I can do without violating forum rules. I thought it was generally known information or at least easily confirmed through private research.

 

[Sonic]

I got curious and looked up the text for 1993 S. 1337… Section 546…

The first half of DADT simply repeats the section of Title 10, 654 of the Military Code. I have posted the relevant section in the text below.

source:psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/dontasklaw.html

THE TABLE OF SECTIONS AT THE BEGINNING OF SUCH CHAPTER IS AMENDED BY ADDING AT THE END THE FOLLOWING: 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces.

(A) REGULATIONS.-NOT LATER THAN 90 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT, THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE SHALL REVISE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REGULATIONS, AND ISSUE SUCH NEW REGULATIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY, TO IMPLEMENT SECTION 654 OF TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE, AS ADDED BY SUBSECTION (A).

(B) SAVINGS PROVISION.-NOTHING IN THIS SECTION OR SECTION 654 OF TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE, AS ADDED BY SUBSECTION (A) MAY BE CONSTRUED TO INVALIDATE ANY INQUIRY, INVESTIGATION, ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION OR PROCEEDING, COURT-MARTIAL, OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDING CONDUCTED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE TO IMPLEMENT SUCH SECTION 654.

(D) SENSE OF CONGRESS.-IT IS THE SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT-

   1. THE SUSPENSION OF QUESTIONING CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY AS PART OF THE PROCESSING OF INDIVIDUALS FOR ACCESSION INTO THE ARMED FORCES UNDER THE INTERIM POLICY OF JANUARY 29, 1993, SHOULD BE CONTINUED, BUT THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE MAY REINSTATE THAT QUESTIONING WITH SUCH QUESTIONS OR SUCH REVISED QUESTIONS AS HE CONSIDERS APPROPRIATE IF THE SECRETARY DETERMINES THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO DO SO IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE POLICY SET FORTH IN SECTION 654 OF TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE, AS ADDED BY SUBSECTION (A); AND THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE SHOULD CONSIDER ISSUING GUIDANCE GOVERNING THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES QUESTIONED ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES SHOULD BE AFFORDED WARNINGS SIMILAR TO THE WARNINGS UNDER SECTION 831(B) OF TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE (ARTICLE 31(B) OF THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE).

Here is a link to Title 10 section 654 of the Military code:

law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html

After reviewing this information. It seems to me that the real issue that many people are having isn’t with DADT. It’s with Title 10 of the Military code.

Why is it that DADT is being called a ban on Gays in the military when it is in fact Title 10 that bans homosexual and bisexual sexual practices by personnel?

How is removing section 1993 S. 1337 Section 546 going to remove Title 10 section 654?

 

[Ridgerunner]

When the country needs them our government drafts them into military service and they fight and die for our freedom; so when our country doesn’t need them we ban them; you’re now not good enough to serve in our military? That’s discrimination. **Totally off the mark. The country doesn’t ban them. You know that. Why would you say it does when you know it doesn’t? **

Your argument about the Priesthood and pedophilia is just lame just like the way the LSM reported it. Since the majority of pedophiles’ are married heterosexual men should we ban married men from the military—no I don’t think so. You missed the point. No further response required.

For you information the majority of soldiers does not baptize babies or give kids spiritual advice. Total different job man. Irrelevant response. No further response required.

I don’t know what you think goes on in the military you’re not going to see open homosexuality in the ranks just like now you don’t see open heterosexuality in the ranks, we have a code of conduct that we go by. **I never said anyone did. You hit the strawman right between the eyes with this one. **

Of all the married, boyfriend and girlfriend military couples I never seen them put their tongues down each other’s throats in uniform; that is just not going to happen there is regulations about this. Same straw man. Shot dead already, and does not need another bullet.

Congress already endorsees homosexuality as being equivalent to heterosexuality; have you ever heard of Barry Frank. ** An absurd argument. If a Congressman is convicted of theft, does that mean the government endorses theft? No. And I believe it’s “Barney” Frank.**

Please don’t put words in my mouth; I never said the purpose of the military is to kill people—I said the purpose of the military is to kill the enemy until they surrender there is a difference. ** Military leaders of note would still disagree, and say the purpose is to deprive the enemy of its ability to wage war. That might involve a lot of killing, might not. But this is not an important enough point to continue with it. **

Also the three counties I stated that have professional militaries equal to the United States Armed Forces is Australia, Canada, and United Kingdom. I never mentioned France! Other than the gun-control attitude of the UK all three of these countries are a mirror of us—they seem to be doing ok with this.

Okay. Cross off France then. My purpose was not to mirror your examples. Those countries are not mirrors of the U.S., though I would readily admit they have more similarities than does, say, Russia. They don’t have the same kinds of governments. They don’t have the same cultural heritage. They don’t have the same cultural groups. I’ll grant, they all have laws based on English law and are all English-speaking. That’s about it.

You’re a veteran, obviously, and I commend you for that. But judging by the above post, you have never understood what I was saying. I’ll say it once more. I do not think it appropriate for the government of the U.S. to formally endorse sexual perversion or to equate it with heterosexuality. No Catholic should think that it should, any more than any Catholic should favor the government’s endorsement of abortion or fetal stem cell research.

That is NOT the same thing as saying homosexuals should be banned from the military; something I never said. DADT does NOT ban homosexuals from serving in the military.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Repealing DADT has little to do with affirming homosexuality, and alot to do with ridding military service of stigmatization of sexual minorities. A stigma that does kill people. Every year there are dozens of crimes on military bases and by servicemembers based on the perceived sexual orientation of the victim. DADT prevents these people from being protected from a hostile atmosphere because it essentially blames the victim and puts the onus on them, instead of those with homophobic prejudices, to control their behavior.

Of course repealing DADT is a governmental affirmation of homosexuality. In addition, it is an affirmation of placing people in intimate contact with people for whom they have a sexual attraction; an absurdly hypocritical thing to do, since the military does not, e.g., put men and women in the same barracks or shower rooms.

It does formally equate homosexuality with heterosexuality, since those activities that currently involve affirmation of heterosexual relationships (base housing, spousal allowances, post social events, etc) will have to be applied to homosexual relationships as well.

Finally, anyone who imagines that the homosexual activists will not use the argument that “well, if the military is okay with it, why not…“X”” in order to oblige the society to further affirm the lie that homosexuality and heterosexuality are simply “alternative lifestyle choices”. Nor could anyone with any sense seriously believe the homosexual activists will not advertise homosexual soldier “ideals” among the young.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Repealing DADT has little to do with affirming homosexuality, and alot to do with ridding military service of stigmatization of sexual minorities. A stigma that does kill people. Every year there are dozens of crimes on military bases and by servicemembers based on the perceived sexual orientation of the victim. DADT prevents these people from being protected from a hostile atmosphere because it essentially blames the victim and puts the onus on them, instead of those with homophobic prejudices, to control their behavior.

As to your second point, if point it be. Do you really think that repealing DADT will prevent people from looking down on homosexuality? Do you not imagine that it might actually increase it?

Why, by the way, do you assume that all violent confrontations between homosexuals and heterosexuals in the military are the wrongful acts of the heterosexual alone? I think this is carrying homosexual advocacy a bit far. But I think you may, unfortunately, be correct in thinking homosexuality will be a “protected status”. This does shift the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused; something I perceive you favor, and which puts the accused in the position of proving, not a fact, but a negative. One more reason for straight young people to avoid the military, and for their parents to discourage their joining.

But I will also add one other thing. Nobody has touched on this, and I don’t mean to make too much of it. If anyone thinks the enormous revulsion Hispanic society has for homosexuality will disappear if homosexuals can openly say they are homosexual in the military, that person does not know much about Hispanic socieities. A significant number of people in our armed forces are Hispanics.

But, as I have said before, Obama will repeal DADT for certain. He will do it as soon as he thinks it will not put additional targets on the backs of our service people serving in Islamic countries; something repealing DADT is sure to do. But Obama is resolved to leave the Middle East ASAP anyway, so it will be soon.

I’ll repeat that the Marine Corps Commandant opposes repeal of DADT. The heads of the Army and Navy are silent on the subject, notwithstanding their boss would surely want them to support his position. One can imagine that Obama would sack them for that, but of course he needs them for now.

 

[kenofken]

Okay. Cross off France then. My purpose was not to mirror your examples. Those countries are not mirrors of the U.S., though I would readily admit they have more similarities than does, say, Russia. They don’t have the same kinds of governments. They don’t have the same cultural heritage. They don’t have the same cultural groups. I’ll grant, they all have laws based on English law and are all English-speaking. That’s about it.

You’re a veteran, obviously, and I commend you for that. But judging by the above post, you have never understood what I was saying. I’ll say it once more. I do not think it appropriate for the government of the U.S. to formally endorse sexual perversion or to equate it with heterosexuality. No Catholic should think that it should, any more than any Catholic should favor the government’s endorsement of abortion or fetal stem cell research.

That is NOT the same thing as saying homosexuals should be banned from the military; something I never said. DADT does NOT ban homosexuals from serving in the military.

The government wouldn’t be endorsing “sexual perversion.” Getting rid of DADT would “endorse” Americans who can and are doing the job as well as straight colleagues. The Catholic Church doesn’t have to endorse homosexuality in any way, but our military and government are not branch offices of the Vatican. DADT is worse than a ban. It’s a selectively enforced after the fact ban. It’s a policy which demands that service members lie in order to do us the favor of keeping us safe, but at the same time aggressively seeks to catch them in that lie and punish them with loss of their career.

A huge part of military culture in this country is about teaching young recruits the concept of service with honor. Yet with DADT, the military institution, and by extension we, the American people, are telling these young people that honor is a one-way obligation. They can give us the best years of their lives in very hard conditions, but we reserve the right to treat them in a sleazy, cowardly manner that treats some of them as utterly disposable. Any nation which truly believes it is OK to send people to die for those values deserves to be defeated by its enemies.

 

[kenofken]

As an addendum to that rant, I fail to see how accepting the service of a class of people “endorses” what they may, or may not be doing in their private lives. The military accepts straight young men and women, probably 90% of whom engage in forms of sex the Church considers “perversion.” Since we don’t screen them out of the military or put them in jeopardy of their jobs, is the military saying their sexual practices are equal to the sort of “normal” procreational relations called for in Humanae Vitae? I don’t think anyone reads that into their being in the military. We simply expect them to carry on professionally in the workplace.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The government wouldn’t be endorsing “sexual perversion.” Getting rid of DADT would “endorse” Americans who can and are doing the job as well as straight colleagues. The Catholic Church doesn’t have to endorse homosexuality in any way, but our military and government are not branch offices of the Vatican. DADT is worse than a ban. It’s a selectively enforced after the fact ban. It’s a policy which demands that service members lie in order to do us the favor of keeping us safe, but at the same time aggressively seeks to catch them in that lie and punish them with loss of their career.

A huge part of military culture in this country is about teaching young recruits the concept of service with honor. Yet with DADT, the military institution, and by extension we, the American people, are telling these young people that honor is a one-way obligation. They can give us the best years of their lives in very hard conditions, but we reserve the right to treat them in a sleazy, cowardly manner that treats some of them as utterly disposable. Any nation which truly believes it is OK to send people to die for those values deserves to be defeated by its enemies.

DADT does not force people to lie. FYI the “DA” part stands for “don’t ask”. No lying is required. And your assertion that DADT is “worse than a ban” is just absurd. Allowing homosexuals to serve without advertising their sexual perversion is “worse” for them than banning them from the military altogether? Nonsense.

“Utterly disposable?” Because they can’t openly tell people within the context of the military “I’m a homosexual”, that makes them “disposable”?

Certainly the government of the U.S. is not a “branch office” of the Vatican. Yet, as a Catholic, one has an obligation not to simply endorse whatever some segment of the public wants the government to endorse. If that were true, Catholics would have no moral obligation to oppose abortion, fetal cell experimentation or euthanasia, for that matter. Citizenship does not trump conscience, or should not, anyway.

 

[Aquinas62]

After dadt is repealed, the next thing demanded will be a “Rainbow Service” ribbon. The demands will never stop. It has become “the love that dare not speak it’s name” to “the love that won’t shut up”

 

[Ridgerunner]

As an addendum to that rant, I fail to see how accepting the service of a class of people “endorses” what they may, or may not be doing in their private lives. The military accepts straight young men and women, probably 90% of whom engage in forms of sex the Church considers “perversion.” Since we don’t screen them out of the military or put them in jeopardy of their jobs, is the military saying their sexual practices are equal to the sort of “normal” procreational relations called for in Humanae Vitae? I don’t think anyone reads that into their being in the military. We simply expect them to carry on professionally in the workplace.

This really doesn’t work.

The military presently does not purport to regulate the private lives of homosexuals in the service. It merely requires that they keep them private.

I’m not sure 90% of heterosexuals engage in perverted sex. Possibly you might be running with the wrong crowd, and have gotten that impression from so doing. But let’s assume it’s so. The military (as one of the other posters who promote repeal of DADT pointed out) does not allow overt advertisement of one’s perverted sexual practices with members of the opposite sex either. But the homosexual lobby demands, it appears, that it be excepted from that. To advertise that one is an active homosexual at all is to advertise that one engages in sexual perversion. Of course, it is precisely the objective of the homosexual activists to oblige society to formally decree that homosexuality is not perverted, but is equivalent to heterosexuality, (“just a variant of normal”) and that’s what the homosexual lobby wishes to accomplish with the repeal of DADT.

And you’re entirely correct in saying the government now simply expects those in service to carry out their jobs professionally. The homsexual advocates wish to add to it that one may also (if one is a homosexual) announce that one is a sexual pervert and, by action, demonstrate it.