Repealing the ban on open homosexuals serving in the U.S. military would be a mistake of historic proportions, but the mainstream media are turning a blind eye.
First, there would certainly be a mass exodus of normal men from a homosexualized military, leading to the reinstatement of compulsory service. The entire premise of a military system based on voluntary service is that young men will want to serve. But will normal men want to volunteer when they know they will share close quarters with other men for whom they will be objects of sexual interest? It is a recipe for huge morale problems.
Then there’s the likelihood of physical conflict among the troops. Will proud young men being honed to become weapons of aggression against America’s enemies tolerate being ogled in the showers or touched inappropriately or bunking near sexually-active sodomites? Undoubtedly blood will spill over such (inevitable) indignities.
But what will be the political consequence? Once homosexuals are invited to serve, the authorities will be committed to integrate them into the ranks, which means “sensitivity” training, anti-discrimination policies, and all of the other “politically correct” nonsense that has been such a disaster in the other spheres of our society. These policies have smacked of pro-“gay” fascism in the civilian world; how much worse would it be in the rigidly-controlled environment of the military?
A sizable percentage of men would not willingly subject themselves to such an environment. So, ironically, reinstatement of the draft would be made necessary by “homophobia,” and for that reason the anti-war Lefties would suddenly become defenders of compulsory service.
Of course, no amount of “sensitivity training” will change the fundamental nature of young men and so it is likely that some form of segregated service would eventually be proposed. (We’ve seen this trend begin to arise in public education, where all-”gay” schools are the latest development.) This would be the biggest mistake of all, raising the specter (over time) of a homosexual takeover of the military branches.
Most people don’t realize that male homosexuality does not always lean to the effeminate. Historically, male homosexuality was much more often associated with hyper-masculine warrior societies which were usually very brutal and very politically aggressive. The most recent example was in Germany. Hitler’s initial power base when he launched the Nazi Party was a private homosexual military force organized and trained by a notorious pederast named Gerhard Rossbach. Rossbach’s homosexual partner Ernst Roehm, who was also Hitler’s partner in forming and building the Nazi Party, converted the “gay” Rossbachbund into the dreaded SA Brownshirts.
“Many of the [S.A.’s] top leaders, beginning with its chief, [Ernst] Roehm, were notorious homosexual perverts,” wrote the preeminent historian of the Nazi era, William Shirer in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
In The Homosexual Matrix, C.A. Tripp writes that “[f]ar to the other extreme [opposite of effeminate ‘gays‘], there are a number of utterly masculine, sometimes supermasculine homosexuals….They are obsessed with everything male and eschew anything weak or effeminate….Unquestionably they represent the epitome of what can happen when an eroticized maleness gains the full backing of a value system that supports it.”
Masculine-oriented male homosexuality tends also to be pederastic in nature, meaning that it often involves relationships between adult men and teenage boys. The ancient Spartan army, for example, drafted young teen boys and paired them with adult homosexual soldiers. Brownshirt leaders in Germany recruited boys from the local high schools for sex. Roehm himself once briefly fled Germany for South America over a scandal involving a young male prostitute. This bodes ill for the young men who will be our future draftees.
The scenario I see unfolding if we allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military is an initial period of turmoil in which members of the services would attempt to show their opposition through the limited means available to them. This would result in a clamp-down by military authorities in an effort to force acceptance, accompanied by a sensitivity-training regimen. One or more incidents of violence against homosexuals, real or staged by the “gays” themselves, would ensure prioritization of the politically-correct policies, and justify pro-homosexual “affirmative action.”
Next would come a severe drop in enlistments and re-enlistments, triggering the reinstatement of the draft. This would in turn begin a degeneration of the moral and ethical culture of the services as those with the highest personal values would be most likely to leave, being replaced, in many cases, by men whose motivation is to share a male-dominated environment with others of similar sexual proclivities.
Whether or not a segregated service was initiated, a homosexual subculture of servicemen would form, characterized by intense internal loyalty and political ambition. Eventually, this “army within an army,” buoyed by pro-homosexual “affirmative action,” and the ability to act covertly (due to the fact that some would remain “closeted”) would come to dominate the services. What would they do with such power?