How best to put this? I agree that don't ask don't tell is bullshit. Gays shouldn't have to pretend to be something they're not in order to serve. How can they be asked to live up to our code of honor while simultaneously asked to sacrifice their honesty and integrity by concealing their true identities and lying about themselves? The don't ask don't tell policy should be removed.

However.

The don't ask don't tell policy is not the law that bans homosexuality in the military. It is an amendment to that law that deliberately creates a loophole that permits gays to serve, by denying the military the right to inquire as to their true sexuality. Thus, even though it's illegal for them to serve, nobody has to know if they do.

And so to the greater issue, the one people TRULY want repealed, which is the law banning gays from serving in the military. This, I believe, is a necessary law. Homosexuality must be kept out of the military, and I can explain the problems that it would, yes, WOULD, create that lead me to say so. But first, I'll point out that these exact same reasons apply to females (whom I also believe should not be serving in the military). And so I suggest, if you truly insist on being "fair", that the same compromise be given to homosexuals. Let them serve openly, but do not send them into combat. Again, I'm sure those of you who have convinced yourselves that fairness and equality have anything at all to do with this will be upset to hear me say that. And if it did, in fact, have anything remotely to do with discrimination, you would be right to be angry.

But it doesn't.

Let me dispel the confusion for you. When you hear the thousands of our top brass (as in flag officers, generals and admirals, those oh so very few who ever have their rank represented by stars and yet who, few as they are, have nonetheless come forward on this issue in the thousands) say that open homosexuality in the military would have an adverse effect on unit cohesion, morale and combat effectiveness, what comes to your mind? No doubt, an image of homophobia, hatred born of fear and misunderstanding, uniformed servicemen looking down on their homosexual brothers in arms. And you probably think to yourself, no way. Our men and women in uniform are disciplined professionals, surely they would do no such thing. And you would be right. We wouldn't, nor would we be bothered in the slightest by openly homosexual comrades serving by our side.

But hate isn't the problem. Love is. This is the same issue that prevents females from serving in combat. See, the problem that is created, the one that interferes with unit cohesion and degrades morale, is LOVE. Not brotherhood, not comradery. Not philia, as the greeks called it. But eros. Love. There is no greater, more powerful, more distracting, more compelling, or more natural bias in the world than love. Make no mistake, there are MANY, even among the most disciplined and professional warfighters in our military, who would abandon their duty, ignore their orders, and forsake their own safety and the safety of their fellows, in the name of love, in the defense of their beloved.

Love also creates favoritism. Suppose you are in command of a small unit. You lead a platoon. You have a very dangerous assignment which you must assign to one of your teams, and only two teams are available. Both are equally effective and equally capable on all fronts, BUT, you have a lover serving on one of them. You tell me, in all honesty, which team would you send into mortal peril? The one with your beloved? Or the one without?

THIS is the discrimination that imperils military service. This is the threat open homosexuality represents. Not hate, or fear, but love. LOVE IS A SERIOUS, AND UNDENIABLE THREAT TO UNIT COHESION, MORALE, AND COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS, and such threats can NOT be tolerated in a military organization, where people's lives depend upon the decisions we make.

So get this through your politically correct skulls. This is not an issue of fairness. This is not an issue of equality. This is not an issue of discrimination. Serving in the military is not a constitutional right which is given fairly and equally to everyone. The military is an instrument of the government, a means to an end, and the laws that govern us are concerned ONLY with maximizing our effectiveness in our task, and our task is combat. Our laws are not to be decided by political correctness, or the feelings of a soft society about what's fair.

The military community must adhere to it's own rules and regulations, it's own laws and standards of behavior which exist seperately from those laws that govern citizens and which would be viewed as harsh and unfair and encroaching upon the freedoms of citizens if they did exist in the civilian sector. This is the way it must be. I will not say whether our laws are better or worse than yours, because that's an opinion and utterly irrelevant. Our laws are NECESSARY, be they better or worse, because they maximize our effectiveness. Our laws are not created in the name of being fair to us, or making us comfortable. They are created to guarantee that we can do the job that is given to us.

Yes, we are taught to overcome out natural instincts and emotions, such as fear, and conquer them with discipline. And yes, we do so admirably. However, everything possible is also done to prevent anything that might make it more difficult for us to do that. To unleash something as powerful as love into the military community would be sheer folly, make no mistake about that.

Now, this same rule applies to females, yet the decision was made to permit females to serve so long as they do not serve in combat, where the existence of love could have life and death consequences. If you ask me, that was a mistake. Even outside of combat, the existence of love and the favoritism that follows will invariably degrade their unit's morale, cohesion and effectiveness. However, at least outside of combat, people's lives won't depend on it. That was the compromise given to females. So, again, if you insist on being "fair", though fairness has no place in the military, you could give that same compromise to homosexuals. If you ask me, though, neither should be permitted to serve at all. It creates more problems than it solves, and again, our laws are not decided by what's fair, equal, or politically correct. You're free to make your choices and live your life, but if those choices make you a threat to military effectiveness, then you should not be permitted to serve. It's as simple as that.

Oh, and before you point to Britain and Canada as examples of militaries who function just fine with open homosexuality in their ranks, perhaps you should take a look at just how much combat those two countries have been in. Put them through what we go through, and then you can say they've proven something. And in all likelihood, what they'll prove is that everything I just said is true.

EDIT: Dread raised an excellent point. Don't ask don't tell is actually better than the compromise females have. Obviously females can't hide that they are female, so they are stuck with their compromise, but if you think about it, don't ask don't tell is BETTER than the female compromise. It guards against the existence of love in combat units (or at least, greatly minimizes the risk) yet permits gays to serve in combat, which most in the military consider to be our primary and most important duty. Exclusion from combat carries a stigma, in which you might be looked down on as somewhat useless because you are unable to serve your primary purpose as a soldier. So really, compared to the alternatives, don't ask don't tell really is the best compromise. It should remain in place.