The advocates of allowing open homosexuals to serve often cite the example of Israel or Britain, both of which have integrated homosexuals into their military services apparently without incident. But they have done so in circumstances which do not allow for any objective assessment of the success or failure of the experiment. In Israel, all citizens must perform military service, which presumably affords much more scope for diluting the impact, if any, of the presence of homosexuals than would be the case in an all-volunteer army like that in the United States. In Britain, the change came about in response to an order from the European Court of Human Rights, whose decrees have the force of law. For this reason, it would not be in the interest of any officer who valued his career prospects† to remark upon any problems that the presence of gay soldiers, sailors, or airmen might be causing in their armed forces. Nor has the performance of the British Army in Iraq or the Royal Navy in the Persian Gulf been such as to render all suspicion of damage to morale, good order, and discipline ridiculous.Got it? The Royal Army & Royal Navy are so full of queers (which the homos on the European Court of Human Rights forced down their throats) that they can't fight worth a damn. So pay no attention to the Limey Queer-in-Chief, he's no manly man.
* Not to be confused w/ the bowdlerized version: "Fuckin' sheep, I'm on the rag/They got my balls in a plastic bag".
† A British version of career first, country second. See how the mean liberals quash dissent & free speech? A MAN should be able to say anything he wants about anything, including Butt Pirates, & not have to worry about his career.
No comments:
Post a Comment