My response to a lady on facebook who spoke out against gays in the military

@Kathy- First of all what section of the constitution references the sexual preference of service members? I can't seem to find it anywhere. Since we are using political doctrine to help validate our points, what about the Bill of Rights ..."Right to bear arms" or perhaps the Declaration of Independance- "All men are created equal?" I gather that references don't mean that much anyway, if the Constitution began with "Gays should be allowed to openly serve", there would undoubtedly still be people like you contesting your point. Secondly your statement "How uncomfortable would it be for all other males to have a guy checking them out, watching them shower!" only proves to everyone that you, like other opponents, are more worried about your own feelings and perceptions than the real unjustice of the matter. If the true intent is to avoid "harassment" then the military ought to eliminate all possible forms of potential harassment and make it a uni-sexual military. How would you feel if our government said "allowing women in the military creates more problems than it is worth?" Also, the fact that you would associate a gay man with a cross-dresser only shows yours unreasonable logic and true inner bigotry. Not all gays are cross-dressers, not all cross-dressers are gay, and believe it or not, not all gay people want to check you out in the shower. Our country has a proven track record of not doing the right thing; let's not forget how we treated african-americans (during the time the Constitution was written) and perhaps more applicable to you, how we treated women until the 1920's. We have proved time and again that while we think we are doing the right thing, we clearly infringe on the rights that we all have equal access to. Dr. King said "Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremist for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?" What he meant by this was that regardless of how we feel about something, at the end of the day we have to choose between right and wrong, unfortunately there is no in between. I hope that one you can realize the true implications of the choices you make. I hope you understand the true message you send to the world when you openly support the infrigement of basic human rights. Thank you for serving in the military, and thanks to the government who gave you the freedom and option to do so.

Air Force Sergeant Discharged Under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy

After nine years in the Air Force, Sergeant Jene Newsome was discharged after a local police officer notified Air Force officials that Newsome was a lesbian. Although the manner in which Newsome’s sexual orientation was discovered and subsequently reported is bothersome, I would like to use this opportunity to focus on the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
The “Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces” of The United States Code makes a clear point as to why homosexuality is forbidden in the armed forces. The underlying message is that homosexuality can impede on the high level of unit cohesion and combat effectiveness of military units. The policy gives fairly clear reasoning as to how homosexuality can impact the success and mission of the military; from my reading the policy does not in any way imply that homosexuality is “wrong” by god or immoral, simply not an acceptable fit for military life. Based on my reading, I feel a utilitarian approach has been taken when setting this particular set of rules. It’s fairly easy to see their point of view that regardless of whether the act of homosexuality can be deemed right or wrong, there is a strong concern that such acts (or lifestyle) would be a disruption to the masses. It is apparent to me, that in order to avoid overall dysfunction (and/or “pain”) the writers of this policy have opted to “please” the group as a whole, without regard to the individual.
I feel I have a firm grasp on why this rule is in place, now I would like to focus on other aspects of the argument. Still approaching this from a utilitarian point of view, it is hard for me (with the knowledge I have of the situation and rules) to assign blame or fault on Newsome. For the purposes of this argument, I am going to refer to Newsome as a Rule Utilitarian. Understanding that her homosexuality may be cause for concern and could potentially lead to the “pain” or unhappiness of the masses, Newsome opted to keep her sexual identity a secret and abide by the “Don’t Tell” guideline. To me, this is an obvious selfless act in which Newsome (perhaps) puts aside her own personal agenda in order to achieve the greater good. Someone might refer to the fact that she was breaking a rule by being homosexual and she was being selfish by keeping it a secret (alluding to the fact that her homosexuality would in fact be a disruption to the masses.) I would argue that Newsome in fact did not break any rule or guideline as the understanding is “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” If the guideline is in fact to keep your sexual identity as a personal matter and to not let it interfere with or even become known by the masses, then I feel Newsome did nothing wrong; the guideline is not “Don’t be homosexual” it is “Don’t make your orientation a public matter.” Taking this one step further, one could argue that Newsome is not being punished for breaking any rule (remember she is not the one who informed the military of her sexual orientation,) but instead is actually be ostracized and punished for the mere fact that she is a homosexual.
This is a good example of my main concern with utilitarian theory. On paper it may be easy to digest the fact that we may need to make individual sacrifices to benefit the masses, however, when an individual is actually sacrificed to achieve this goal, it shines a different light on our priorities and humanity.