In the armed forces, we try to segregate by sex, to avoid too intimate contact between the sexes. The rationale for antagonism to open homosexuality is the same.
That's almost fair, I suppose. It depends on whether you think that trained soldiers are such slaves to physical impulse that they'll ignore discipline and have sex with each other (whatever gender), and allow such relationships to override training... hehhehheh. Well, maybe that's true.
OTOH, I was in the TA sigs (Territorial Army - like your National Guard, I think, entirely voluntary and part-time, sigs = signallers ~ telecoms) and that managed quite well as a mixed regiment. There may be valid arguments against close-proximity mixed regiments, the Israeli's found such unsuccessful, but since homosexuality has been around for millennia, it clearly hasn't caused any great problems. The Athenians and Spartans, for example, were not noticeably weakened by it... the opposite, if anything.
, it is not a matter of simple "naturalism", but of fulfilling the needs of man as a rational and social animal, concerned with the good order of society.
And I don't see how this is affected for the worse by treating all people as equal. Regardless, to put it bluntly, of which genitalia they prefer and how. |
