The coming LGBT military

I have a few questions I haven't heard anyone else ask about the attempt to do away with the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

I've read all the studies.

I've heard all the rhetoric.

I've listened to all the debate.

But I'm curious about what is not being discussed – the unforeseen but inevitable issues that will arise very quickly after the new policy is instituted.

As I understand it, the reversal of "don't ask, don't tell" would mean homosexuals and lesbians would be welcome in the U.S. military. There would be no prohibitions against sex between two or more men. And there would be no prohibitions against sex between two or more women. At least I have not detected any concerns about group sex.

I raise the issue because it was not that long ago that the military was very concerned about group sex. In fact, the entire nation was scandalized by it.

The incident occurred in 1991. It was called "Tailhook." And, if my memory serves, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were outraged at what took place at the Las Vegas Hilton Sept. 8-12 during a convention of Marine and Navy aviators. Now granted, what started out as an orgy degenerated further so that some of the activity was non-consensual. What a shock – that the tolerance of group sex could degenerate so!

Anyway, my key question is whether the condoning of homosexual sex will be limited to only couples. If so, where is that written? And why is the homosexual lobby going along with such archaic restrictions if they exist? Has anyone in the U.S. Congress thought about this? After all, the sanctioning of same-sex marriage in some jurisdictions has already led to challenges by polygamists who want to get into the action – using exactly the same legal and moral logic.

I also need to remind those so enthusiastic about the scrapping of "don't ask, don't tell" that those pushing this agenda call themselves the "LGBT movement." They don't just promote special rights for monogamous same-sex couples. Not by a long shot. They also promote the very same special privileges for bisexuals, transvestites and transsexuals.

Has anyone thought this through?

This barrier about to be broken down hardly represents the last taboo.

Why is it that no one conducting these multimillion-dollar government studies and advocating such a drastic change in policy is looking through the implications?

Are Congress and the U.S. military also ready to embrace transexualism and transvestism? If not, on what basis does it make a distinction? Or do we just worry about that down the road?

How will and should military recruiters respond the day – and it's coming – a man tries to enlist while wearing a dress?

How will and should military recruiters respond the day – and it's coming – a woman tried to enlist who was formerly a man or in the process of becoming one?

How will and should military authorities respond the day – and it's coming – when the first homosexual triangle is discovered?

I know how this column will be received by "progressive" elements of our society. They will call me a bigot. They will ridicule me for suggesting what I say here is absurd and, for some reason, will never happen. That's what they said when I suggested same-sex marriage would lead inevitably to calls for polygamy. But those lawsuits followed immediately after the judicial rulings in favor of same-sex marriage – and for good reason. The arguments are the same. The logic, or illogic, is the same.

These are questions of morality, and when you change moral standards, you open up a Pandora's box of unintended consequences.

Isn't it better to explore these questions before such a radical change in policy?

Isn't it better to follow the argument through to its logical consequences?

Isn't the defense of U.S. security worth it?