Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, February 3, 1993 TAG: 9302030275
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CAL THOMAS
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
MILITARY AND MORALS
IN HIS "compromise" over ending the ban on homosexuals in the military, President Clinton used rhetorical sleight of hand to attempt to separate the sexual orientation of homosexuals from the sexual acts performed by them.Among many statements he has made on the highly charged subject in recent days, Clinton said he agrees that "improper conduct should result in severance," and that "people should be able to say that they are homosexual - and do nothing else - without being severed."
Is that a plea for celibacy? I don't think anyone in the homosexual-rights movement has ever agreed to that.
It is also a double standard that is not currently applied to heterosexuals. Will unmarried heterosexuals now be forbidden to practice their sexual preferences? Will married heterosexuals be separated from service if they commit adultery?
Besides, how can we define what is "improper," since Clinton is attempting to dismantle regulations against one of the traditionally least-proper forms of behavior in human relationships?
Clinton is also appealing to a standard he denies exists. What else could he mean when he uses words such as "should," "ought" and "proper"? According to what or to whom?
The banning and separation of homosexuals from the military predates the 1982 regulations, but the goal of the policy has never changed: to avoid conduct that "seriously impairs the accomplishments of the military mission."
President Clinton's attempt to drop the ban on homosexuals entering the military and retain those already in service is a unilateral declaration of normalcy for a mostly chosen life style that will have long-term military, moral, cultural and political consequences for America.
His suggestion that homosexuals can control their behavior, implying monogamy, is not true. Numerous studies, from A.C. Kinsey in 1948 to more contemporary ones, have found that long-term homosexual relationships are relatively few. "Sexual promiscuity is one of the most striking, distinguishing features of gay life in America," write Silverstein and White in 1977's "The Joy of Gay Sex." The authors also say that homosexuals represent hedonism in its most extreme form. One-night stands and brief flings, they say, offer constant excitement and variety.
In 1978, the Kinsey Institute published what it described as the most ambitious study of homosexuality ever conducted. It showed 28 percent of homosexual males having had sexual encounters with 1,000 or more partners. And 79 percent said more than half of their sex partners were strangers. Only 1 percent of sexually active men had fewer than five lifetime partners.
While the numbers of partners has declined in recent years because of the threat of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, they remain high and far out of proportion to numbers applied to heterosexuals.
The Kinsey study concluded: "Little credence can be given to the supposition that homosexual men's `promiscuity' has been overestimated . . . . Almost half of the white homosexual males said they had at least 500 different sexual partners during the course of their homosexual careers."
Information like this, centering on what homosexuals do and the risk they pose to themselves and to others, ought to be the focal point for debate.
Serious practical considerations intrude into the controversy over whether homosexuals should be welcome in the military. They include housing and the danger of AIDS. What if a soldier who contracted AIDS in between the military's every-other-year testing was wounded in combat? Would the government be liable if a medic who treated him became infected?
Don't think this will be the end of it. Gay activists have pledged to push for a laundry list of demands because they see the military as the final frontier of a moral order based on a standard rooted in what theologians call righteousness. If the ban falls, America's moral collapse will be assured.
One comment by President Clinton is especially revealing. He told a news conference, "Our country is changing, and we have to listen to other points of view." This is not leadership by conviction and example. This is "followership" by public-opinion poll and cultural barometer. Leaders should lead based on timeless codes of right and wrong. A nation whose leadership does only what seems expedient and not what is right is destined for the ash heap of history, no matter its military power or economic success.
We no longer know what is right because we have rejected any standard other than opinion polls and pressure groups. Homosexual behavior is wrong. People can and do leave the lifestyle. Therefore, the practice does not deserve special protection. It remains conduct unbecoming a member of the armed services. Those who practice it ought not to be in the military.