in San Francisco. However, the general consensus is that allowing them in the service represents a rubber-stamping of their existence rather than a concerted effort to discourage it. Though the homosexual lobby often cites the fact that gays have always served in the military as a justification for lifting the ban, this sort of reasoning is wrong. There are many other types of behavior that the military has been unable to completely eradicate, such as discharge and use of illegal substances. No one would ever deny that these things happen in the military. But the point is that if they were made legal, there would be more instances of them. To use the lack of perfect implementation as a pretext for legalization is equally absurd in the civilian world: Do we legalize criminal behavior on the grounds that "people have always done it"? Another parallel that is frequently drawn with gays in the military is that of the situation of women in the military. Though largely a male institution-"Symbolically, the military represents masculinity more than any institution other than professional sports”-women have been a part of the military since World War II and the women's support units have been abolished since 1978.But, like that of race to homosexuality, the comparison is invalid. Women are not permitted in combat units -an exclusion that for homosexuals would be hard to implement, at best. They also have separate barracks and facilities, which would be equally as unpractical to homosexuals. If the admission of homosexuals into the military causes adverse effects on the morale of the soldiers, then the debate should be re-opened there. The military's function is to protect democracy. The sacrifices associated with military service may be very great-up to giving up one's life. Excluding homosexuals from military service seems petty, everyone should be allowed to defend their country. Moreover, the politicizing of such issues undermines the...
