|
From 1993, March 10th. Akron Beacon Journal:
(please note - titles of letters are provided by the paper)
Until gays bear children, they shouldn't serve
Our new president vows to integrate known homosexuals into the armed forces and, subsequently, to make determinations about their conduct rather than their sexual preference.
All the while, homosexuals will be quartered in intimate proximity with heterosexual personnel, using the same shower and toilet facilities.
It would be far more plausible ti integrate men and women in the same quarters. The financial savings in eliminating separate facilities would be a boon to the military budget.
Employing the same logic as that proposed for gays, if a man was found to be engaging in sexual misconduct induced by the cozy heterosexual ambience, he would then be rejected from service.
I doubt seriously that men showering and cohabiting with women would be any more sexually inspired than homosexual men showering with all men. It simply defies rationality.
The very first time the tender love and devotion of two men is brought to fruition through normal, healthy children, I will be the first to concede that, perhaps, gay deportment has some merit. Until then, I do not feel a president who never spent a day in the military should be determining that gays would not be demoralizing to the services.
< end of letter - the names have been changed to protect the moronic >
So ... a requirement for serving in the military is to be able to produce children? I didn't know that was ever a requirement. I wonder how many would have been discharged for NOT producing children ... and I also remember that, for a while, having some number of children was often a valid reason to keep a person from being drafted into service.
|