l have carefully studied the arguments of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and I agree that integrating homosexuals and heterosexuals in the military will cause innumerable problems. I feel strongly, therefore, that heterosexuals should be banned from serving our country.
I speak from experience, having served three years in the Navy as a youth. And I'm here to tell you that no group in our society flaunts their sexuality more flagrantly than young, male soldiers and sailors.
Sex is the first thing these horny studs think and talk about on arising and the last thing on their minds at night. There's no question their preoccupation with the subject seriously detracts from their military efficiency.
Show me an MX missile launch technician dreaming of bedding down Kim Basinger, and I'll show you a proximate cause of WW III.It is not gay soldiers who are raping innocent women in Bosnia, and it is not they who pose a constant threat to our daughters in the next barracks. Moreover, heterosexual hormones are a constant embarrassment to us internationally. You may recall the Brits' complaint in WW II about the three things wrong with American servicemen: "They are overpaid, oversexed and over here."
Personally, I remember the conduct of my shipmate Big Tim (Name Withheld) when we went ashore in Sydney. While the rest of us spent our energies on dances, flowers and alcohol to achieve our common end, Big Tim stood on a street corner and addressed every passable young female with: "Wanna f - - -?"
He was far more successful than we, and while he made few friends for America with his technique, it was a great way, as he put it, to "weed out the unlikelys."
Can you imagine a gay sailor conducting himself so offensively? Of course not. Gays in the military are nothing if not discreet.
Moreover, by simply banning heterosexuals, the Joint Chiefs of Staff will be rid of a host of problems that impede military readiness. No more unwanted pregnancies or paternity suits. An end to the long-running battle over abortions in military hospitals. Our nation's servicemen would confine their sexual activities to themselves.
And because no jurisdiction recognizes gay marriages, we taxpayers would be spared the expense of housing, transporting, medicating and educating hundreds of thousands of military dependents.
Banning heterosexuals would not only save millions, but it would result in a leaner, more focused fighting force. Oh, I know the stereotype homophobes share of the limp-wristed,effeminate gay, but I would commend to them the research of my colleague Tom Meyer, who turned up such gay soldiers as Julius Caesar,Hadrian, Richard the Lion-Hearted and three Greats -- Alexander, Peter and Frederick.
Ask yourself, which general would you rather serve under: Alexander the Great or that well-known heterosexual, George Armstrong Custer?
So if we're going to ban anyone, I say, let's ban heterosexuals. If we don't ban someone, the joint chiefs say, we're going to destroy "unit-cohesion," meaning the ability of all members of a unit to think and look and act alike. And that's going to wreck morale, sap our military effectiveness and lead to a lot of fist fights.
Of course, that's just what the joint chiefs said when President Truman lifted the ban on blacks in 1948. But as General Colin Powell says, that was different.