There are valid reasons behind military#8217;s policy toward gays

Published 12:00 am Thursday, January 17, 2008

Regarding your editorial “Congress should legislate evenly,” which inferred that homosexuals are being unfairly discriminated against by the Congress and the military, I make the following comments:


The military authority structure necessarily gives strong powers and influence to those of higher rank over those of lower ranks. We, like the civilian community, have enough problems with sexual harassment between genders, we don’t need the corrosive effects on morale of predatory homosexuals, or even those who are not predatory, only lonely and in the close quarters military life requires.

Email newsletter signup


Unlike the commercial workplace, military personnel can’t just quit and walk away from an unpleasant job situation. That is called AWOL or desertion and carries both administrative and criminal penalties.


I know of no senior military man or woman who supports the continued service of openly gay personnel. Most oppose the service of any homosexual personnel, but obediently tolerate the mandate of civilian political leadership which imposed the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.


No one quibbles with the quality of work done by homosexuals. In my experience it is normally above average.

We do oppose the effect they have on the other troops.

The major reason many of us do not want homosexuals in the military is because we feel a responsibility to the parents and loved ones of our personnel to maintain as healthy and wholesome an atmosphere as possible, given the dangers inherent in military service.

I can tell you from personal experience that I was told by a rampantly bisexual gent who tried unsuccessfully to seduce me that, “Today’s trade is tomorrow’s competition.”

We’d like to send your sons and daughters back to you in the same or better condition than you sent them to us. We also do not countenance drug use, spousal or child abuse, or problem drinking.


I trust that the discrimination practiced upon pedophiles, restricted from being pediatricians, won’t be the next area of fairness called into question, even when their preferences are reportedly a result of “some unpleasant childhood experience.”

Paul Woods

Brooke, Va.