I doubt that you have any.

But, even if you do, you have to understand the incredibly enormous challenge that homosexuality places on military people. The Romans were acutely aware of it and did their best to try to work around it but to no avail. Given that the military must be highly regimented, problems arise where social experimentation is tried. The place for such experiments is not where lives are truly at stake. Sure, it might be a great resource for some romance novels and movies, but such melodrama is unacceptable when real lives are in the balance.

Your point of view is parochial and narrow-minded. For truly, if gays want to serve, they can do so and have done so while keeping their sexuality a secret. Thus, like anyone who has their priorities straight, focuses on the real matter at hand. Though it appears that I contradict myself, such is not the case. For, by making sexual preference a bone of contention, it overrides the priority of having a strong, standing military by kowtowing to social conscript.

Your position is invalid, sir. If for any reason by making “being gay and proud of it” a priority vs. allowing for people of any stripe to serve humbly, quietly and proudly and keeping sexuality out of it. By spraypainting with day-glo orange the flamers and “women in comfortable shoes” with a bright stripe, you undermine the very purpose of a standing military.

Then, there are the obvious sociopolitical problems of internal retaliation. Take for example the dyke commander who happens to think that the men under her command are against other dykes. “She” then undertakes a witch-hunt and destroys each and every man who has served honorably; Even those who couldn’t care less about the sexual preference of anyone else. Think it couldn’t happen? It already has. http://www.militarycorruption.com/lesbos.htm

So, before you think it’s time that the military be a social test tube…think about what you’re trying to accomplish. You may get gum on your shoe, pal.