With the debate reopened over the censorship of sexual orientation, what are your thoughts on the subject?
While I can certainly understand the issue with soldiers engaging in adultery (whether heterosexual or homosexual), as that can certainly harm social relations, that's a far cry from a homosexual who simply states that he is homosexual. I think it may be acceptable to restrict what a soldier does, but certainly not what he is. For example, how can a soldier cause any damage by simply stating that he is heterosexual? If he's sleeping around that might be another matter, but then that falls within the realm of actions and not that of being. And even then, it should matter to the military only if the adultery involves another member of the military or a family member or some other situation that does in fact harm relations in the military.
I'd say the same applies to homosexuality. Just because a person is homosexual, it doesn't necessarily mean that he is engaging in homosexual activity, let alone with multiple partners among his comrades at arms. Just as there is such a thing as a celibate heterosexual, so I'm sure there is such a thing as a celibate homosexual. The fact that he is, does not necessarily mean that he does, and so it would seem to me at least that the same could apply to him as to the heterosexual: if he's keeping his gun in his pants, there really ought not to be any issue with his openly telling a person that he's gay any more than to tell them he's straight, as long as he's not bragging about it or promoting it or trying to flirt or make advances on his comrades at arms (which, by the way, would apply equally to a heterosexual).
Any thoughts on this?
While I can certainly understand the issue with soldiers engaging in adultery (whether heterosexual or homosexual), as that can certainly harm social relations, that's a far cry from a homosexual who simply states that he is homosexual. I think it may be acceptable to restrict what a soldier does, but certainly not what he is. For example, how can a soldier cause any damage by simply stating that he is heterosexual? If he's sleeping around that might be another matter, but then that falls within the realm of actions and not that of being. And even then, it should matter to the military only if the adultery involves another member of the military or a family member or some other situation that does in fact harm relations in the military.
I'd say the same applies to homosexuality. Just because a person is homosexual, it doesn't necessarily mean that he is engaging in homosexual activity, let alone with multiple partners among his comrades at arms. Just as there is such a thing as a celibate heterosexual, so I'm sure there is such a thing as a celibate homosexual. The fact that he is, does not necessarily mean that he does, and so it would seem to me at least that the same could apply to him as to the heterosexual: if he's keeping his gun in his pants, there really ought not to be any issue with his openly telling a person that he's gay any more than to tell them he's straight, as long as he's not bragging about it or promoting it or trying to flirt or make advances on his comrades at arms (which, by the way, would apply equally to a heterosexual).
Any thoughts on this?