I suppose the bottom line here is to continue to do what works or choose to do what feels good. I can't help but equate this scenario to nearly every social experiment this country has tried.
For thousands of generations, there were taboo situations that were avoided for the better of the culture. When those taboo situations become acceptable, there are certain negative consequences that develop. Examples would include divorce, single parenthood, homosexuality, forced integration, weapons control, welfare, etc.
Please don't jump on me for saying those things. I'm not trying to be a one sided, homophobic, bigoted or any other label. I'm simply trying to make the point that when society deviates from the natural order of things, various consequences result. Some small, others greater.
It is my opinion that homosexuals in the military, specifically in combat units, would most likely have negative consequences that outweigh the emotional victory. As for the POGs, that is a different circumstance. Many POGs operated in a non-combat environment that is not all that different from civilian life. Other POGs directly support the combat forces and often serve side by side in dangerous situations. It's those dangerous situations that need to remain optimized. That is to say, focused and undistracted by social experimentation. The fact remains that there will always be soldiers who are creeped-out by homosexuality. That emotion could prove detrimental to a gay soldier and the unit at large if the homophobes hesitate to risk their lives to support the distressed gay soldier...not to mention the emotional distress the gay soldier would add to his already stressful mission. At a time of war, such an experiment is akin to sabotage.
GOD help us if the military should experiment with women in combat units. The distraction of emotional attachment, chivalry and genetically weaker/slower infusions into a unit would be catastrophic.
