I was going to write a parody of this article, but it sort of writes itself. The only thing amusing about the piece is that Americans for Truth [sic] actually presents this piece as though it contains arguments even resembling logical ones. I mean, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this article was written for The Onion but accidentally ended up on The Peter's website instead.
For, the writer begins, after touting his veteran credentials:
"All this patty cake about 'don’t ask don’t tell' or of just accepting homosexuals in the army doesn’t take into account how that affects military life."
Patty cake? Alrighty then. The military expert continues:
"Promotions or assignments are the prerogative of sergeants and officers..... Put a homosexual into that mix and you get trouble when he or his homosexual buddy get into the command structure. Thereafter promotions and assignments will be seen as affected by weird sexual influence. Fairness and respect suffer. Retribution of a very unfair sort may result."
First off, let's note the generally male-centric view of Mr. Roeser. Nowhere does he indicate that he is even aware that lesbians are people too and that they also want to serve in the military. It's all about the "homosexual" and "his buddy." That's okay, though. We get it. All that patty cake about two men together is totally way more threatening than two women together.
Secondly, Mr. Roeser seems to deny that relationships between gay officers and soldiers could be handled between just as they are between heterosexuals in the military. If this is his opinion he should explain why he believes that current military fraternization policies and rules would be insufficient if gay people were allowed to openly serve in the military. But alas, he merely states his inarticulate conclusion as fact: Because of "weird sexual influence," people might think gay guys unfairly promote their gay buddies.
His second reason for excluding gay (men) from the military? Army life is hard and gay sissies just aren't up to it. Or something:
"Also, an army must inflict less than luxurious living conditions including sleeping in double deck bunks, in a barracks, showering en masse, eating from a mess kit, etc....Unit cohesiveness and a certain manly toughness need to be cultivated."
What's that? Eating from a mess kit you say? Nevermind. I'm outta here. But seriously, it's asinine "arguments" like these that leave me convinced that some anti-gays don't actually know any gay people. All they have on which to base their "arguments" are the outdated and stereotypical images of "homosexuals" that have been in their heads since they first heard that "homosexuals" are wrong and perverted. Coming from a man who calls gay rights "patty cake," I'd be willing to bet that Mr. Roeser's image of a "homosexual" is of the effeminate sissy-man from early 20th-century cinema.
Is this a man who is merely concerned for the state of military readiness? Maybe so. Within his article is an embedded photo of the author- a smiling, grandfatherly-type man and descriptions of his achievements as a businessman. Yet, in the last paragraph of his article, the mask comes off to reveal some pretty monstrous and outdated thoughts about gay men. All those who think this anti-gay movement is grounded in reason and "concern" take note:
"The businessman in me must say that the whole concept of someone basing their identity on how they do sex, is repulsive."
Sadly, this confused fellow seems to think that being a businessman gives him some special authority or insight into what is and is not "repulsive"? What are his readers supposed to think? Welllll, he is a businessman, so when it comes to being a competent judge of what's repulsive, we better take his word for it. How strange.
The hateful rhetoric continues:
"Adding the concept of 'gay pride' to it is beyond rationality; that the schools and media try to tell us that the homosexual lifestyle is OK, is nuts. No one looks at their baby boy and says, 'How wonderful, he can grow up to be a homosexual.' That destructive path leads to diseases and a short life for the homosexual, and no grandchildren for the parents of a misguided sexual extrovert."
Ah. It all makes sense now.
A veteran thinks gays are grody. Therefore, gay people shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military. Neat.
As with military "expert" Elaine Donnelly, another embarrassingly inarticulate anti-gay whose intolerance, hatred, and disgust of gay people is so blatant, I can only encourage this man to keep on talking.