With military recruitment numbers down, there's been some discussion in civilian circles of relaxing 'sodomy' regulations in the armed forces in order to allow homosexuals to serve openly. However, with the occasional reports from the field of suspected homosexuals being beaten by their squadmates, some wonder if such measures are really appropriate for the notoriously conservative culture of Sciencecracy's military.
The Debate
"There will never be room for gays in our God-fearing service," says Army Chaplain Orel Roze, absent-mindedly fingering the religious device of his office on his lapel. "I mean, uh, think about what it would do to morale. In the military men have to eat, live, and sleep in extremely close quarters and even consensual sexual relationships in the chain of command leads to leadership problems. It's just a natural extension of fraternization rules... and not only that, but our current policy is actually a service to the poor misguided souls, since it prevents any temptation to act on their given perversion... I mean preference."
"God doesn't enter into it," says Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Marleen Smith, head shaking. "Times are changing, and people are becoming more accepting of homosexuals. We have women in the military, and that surely leads to 'temptation', but for the most part everyone's quite professional about it. Allowing homosexuals to serve openly will increase our recruitment pool and actually simplify things; just look at the Navy: hundreds of horny men in steel boxes in the middle of the ocean for up to six months at a time... there has to be a reason that people volunteer for that, right?"
This is the position your government is preparing to adopt.
"This coming from some pampered soul in the Chair Force," scoffs Commander Brian Licorish, calling in via satellite from aboard a destroyer. "Inter-service rivalries aside, ever read some of those ancient sagas about cities being besieged? Those ancient cultures had no problem with homosexuality; actually, it strengthened their resolve and spirit because they were literally fighting alongside their lovers, and anyone in the service will tell you it's all about the guy standing next to you. Now, what if--and this is just a hypothetical, mind--based on this and to counter years of discrimination, only homosexuals were allowed to serve?"
Ох уж эти верующие. Ничего они не понимают в настоящей, крепкой, мужской, спартанской дружбе, которая делает армию только сильней.
Никак не пойму, что предлагают в третьем варианте. Помогите пожалуйста.