Collegiate Times

Over the course of history, the inevitability of the rise and fall of superpowers has been proven. The daunting empires of Alexander, Rome and Great Britain have all fallen. But beyond the elementary level of dates and names is the actual history of the empire and the choices its rulers made. Of the three, Rome and Britain were exceptional because they were not only empires, but republics.

However, the great powers of antiquity and the modern era were each presented with a choice: to save their empire, or to save their republic. Here, the history speaks for itself. Rome, in choosing to salvage its empire, lost its republic; Britain lost its dominance, but retained its political structure. The American federalist system, which James Madison showed in Federalist No. 51, has its greatest strength in that it can operate over a great expanse of territory. The great triumph of America is in being able to maintain our ideals without compromising our international strength.

However, if this is the theory behind our nation's government and not just a part of morale-boosting rhetoric, how can we allow the "don't ask, don't tell" policy? The policy was created in an executive order of President Bill Clinton in 1993 as a loophole to allow homosexuals to serve in the Armed Forces, so how can we let it continue to infringe on the rights of homosexual Americans?

In a column for the Weekly Standard, James Bowman writes that ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would lower morale, cause many servicemen and women to leave the armed forces and potentially have detrimental effects in war. Bowman continues to say that service is not a right, noting that we do not allow the very young and the very old and those with mental disorders to serve. Bowman's over-simplification is true; we do not and should never allow children and retirees to serve in combat. But homosexuals in the service can include young, able-bodied and patriotic adults. Schizophrenics are likewise barred from service, but it has been several decades since homosexuality was considered a mental disorder.

An argument that may be especially amusing for college students is his stance that differing views on love would cause problems. Bowman contends that homosexuals view love as simply as a "friendship carried to a higher power," while heterosexuals "have always resisted any simple equivalence between sexual love and friendship."

Heterosexual college students are infamous for blurring this line, as well as the names we have, which I will not indulge in saying, and they are culturally acceptable - as long as it is a heterosexual activity. The military is equally infamous. Furthermore, it is not as if homosexuals are sex-craved maniacs. If they cannot serve alongside other men because they will naturally pursue their comrades - an insane notion - might we then simply segregate men and women in the armed forces and the workplace as well, since by that logic, men will naturally pursue their female counterparts? That is, of course, unless heterosexuals are somehow more evolved and able to separate these two aspects of their lives. I think I can speak for every heterosexual guy when I say we are not.

Continue Reading: 12 Next »