I didn’t find the article online, so some readers that don’t get the paper delivered and read online only may have missed it. I am referring to the article by the San Francisco columnist [Debra Saunders] giving her reason why the opposition to the current DADT policy should capitulate.
However, if you are opposed to something on a moral basis is there ever a time you should capitulate? The writer pre-supposes the battle to be lost, therefore give up.
First of all, let’s get back to basics, why should a vociferous minority championing abnormal behavior get their way? I submit, if it weren’t for liberal media pressure this would never happen. Does anyone in the media really care about esprit de corps or know what it means?
We have an all-volunteer service, currently at war. Is there any sane reason to cause even a slight disruption in morale and effectiveness? No, other than some minority activists claiming their integrity is being compromised by not being open about their abnormal behavior. If it is so important for them to openly practice abnormal behavior let them get out of the service. That’s right, it’s not gay, or funny, or cute, it’s abnormal and unhealthy.
People want to be gay in an open society, that’s their prerogative. The military is not open society. Abnormal behavior does not need to be institutionalized, nor promoted. Many of those practicing that lifestyle claim they are born that way, and it is normal for them. Regardless of their claim, it is not normal for society at large, and if it were, there would be no society at large. They don’t procreate, they perversely recreate in an unhealthy lifestyle.
In conclusion the military should not be in the business of promoting or facilitating this practice, regardless of a few homosexuals being drummed out who lay claim to otherwise meritorious service. What about the loss of other valuable members that do not want to associate with or ignore open homosexual behavior in the service? I submit this should be the larger issue.
Porter Downey III