It took the left three attempts-including two in a supposedly lame duck session-to repeal the military ban on homosexuality. But they did it. The Democrats and their leftist Republican allies were determined to repeal the ban no matter what they had to do, and no matter what the cost. It was priority one for them . . . just as homosexuality, abortion, and all other social issues always are for the left. Indeed, it is the left, not the right, that is obsessed with the social issues.
Congratulations are in order to the left for (a) actually believing what they profess and (b) repeatedly getting the right to call for “truces” on the social issues-or an outright avoidance of the social issues-all the while the left simultaneously pushed its social issues agenda and succeeded in repealing the military ban on homosexuality.
I opposed the repeal of the ban and I still do. But that’s because I’m a homophobic bigot . . . just like George Washington (and our Founding Fathers as a whole). Nevertheless, I like to look on the bright side of things. And one good thing about the repeal of the ban is that it should put us in good with the pederast Pashtuns as we continue our war in Afghanistan.
Another good thing about the repeal is that the U.S. government relied on solid research to make its decision. One such piece of solid research was to cite foreign armed forces, and their acceptance of open homosexuality, as a reason to repeal the ban. It’s funny, though. I thought the United States had the best armed forces in the world, so I wonder why anyone would want to follow the examples of, by inference, inferior militaries. Oh, well. I suppose it’s just one of those questions that only a bigot like me would think to ask.
Another good thing is that we are now like the ancient Greeks who, as progressives often remind us, allowed homosexuality in their armed forces. However, I do think it strange that progressives regularly have a habit of driving civilization backwards although they always claim they move society forward. I don’t know how this equals progressivism, but it does-just like driving Detroit and Michigan backwards equals progressivism. (I, for the record, am neither for moving society “forward” nor “backwards.” I am for doing what is right-whether that be returning to a moral practice of the past or advancing past an immorality of the present.)
Still, although I am able to focus on the good things coming from the repeal of the ban, my bigoted nature causes me to have lingering questions. For instance, I am curious as to why so-called conservatives who opposed the repeal of the ban now ridicule or chastise those who will not morally compromise their opposition to homosexuality. If one claims to have opposed the repeal but now advocates that the armed forces will be able to work through it and be just as strong as they were before the ban, then I have to ask why one would have opposed repeal in the first place. It would seem to me that a conservative who opposed the repeal of the ban would continue opposing it or work to overturn it-not chastise those who actually have moral convictions that they refuse to sacrifice.
I also wonder how the repeal of the ban will affect the homosexual agenda for society as a whole. Will homosexuals finally be satisfied . . . or will they use this victory as another stepping stone to advance their national agenda. In other words, will homosexuals (and the rest of the left) “drop the social issues” or will they use the repeal of the ban to push harder for homosexual “marriage” for instance? Nah, that won’t happen. Right?
Certainly they must be satisfied after the repeal victory . . . just like they were satisfied after the implementation of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Okay. They’re not going to follow the right’s lead and surrender “the social issues.” Up next, they’ll use this victory to continue attempting to drive Christian adoption agencies out-of-business, persecute military dissenters, punish Servicemen who continue to oppose homosexuality on moral grounds, and otherwise advance their national agenda.
Furthermore, I’m reflecting on what other progressive steps in the military-outside of homosexuality-now must occur to stay consistent with the repeal of the ban. We should start by completely integrating the sexes-whoops! I mean, “genders”- in the armed forces, including living and showering arrangements. Here’s why.
Pro-morality proponents have argued that there should be separate living arrangements for homosexuals and heterosexuals, just as there is for men and women. Homosexual proponents-including the DOD working group-say that we should not do this. Homosexual proponents argue that such a suggestion is specious by saying that homosexuals already live and shower with heterosexuals, acting professionally and otherwise “serving honorably.”
Therefore, I’m sure all would agree that if homosexuals can live and shower with those to whom they are sexually attracted while remaining “professional,” then heterosexuals can do the same. Any suggestion otherwise would be insulting and bigoted. Therefore, the complete integration of the sexes must occur to stay consistent with the repeal of the military ban on homosexuality.
But the pro-homosexual argument against segregating living and showering arrangements for homosexuals and heterosexuals also requires other changes to military standards on morality. In fact, all standards on morality need to be eliminated.
For instance, if the standard is that homosexuals serve professionally and honorably apart from their homosexuality-if the very act of homosexuality is in and of itself moral-then we also need to get rid of all other prohibitions on “immorality” such as incest, adultery, bestiality, drug use, etcetera because we undoubtedly have people in the military now who engage in all these things and yet otherwise “serve honorably” (until they are discharged after being “outed”). Therefore, it’s time to end all discriminatory and odious morality standards so all people can serve “openly” and with “honor.”
The repeal of the military ban on homosexuality has set the standard. Rid the military of all morality lest the U.S. prove itself in conflict with its repeal; lest the U.S. prove itself treading dangerously close to a homophobic bigot such as me. Indeed, rid the nation of morality. It’s the progressive thing to do.
Paul Hair serves in the U.S. Army Reserves as a non-commissioned officer; he is veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He has worked as a civilian in both the government and private sectors. His views are his own and he in no way represents the Army Reserves or any other part of the U.S. government.