The Kyle File

Think of it like this. If homosexuals are allowed to openly serve in the military, where should they sleep? Should we house them in barracks with the gender to which they are attracted? Do we house them in barracks with the opposite sex because homosexuals are not attracted to members of the opposite sex? In that case, they would still be seen as the only woman in the men's barracks or the only man in the women's barracks. Maybe we should have “gay barracks” where all homosexuals are housed together? Then it would be seen as discriminatory, either against those who are housed in “gay barracks” or maybe even against those who are howsed in separate men's and women's barracks, because the people in the “gay barracks” aren’t forced to sleep separated by gender as heterosexuals are. Let’s face it, rules are for everyone, and no one should be excluded from following rules just because they behave differently and don’t feel that the rules should apply to them. Either things must be kept as they are, or the whole rule of men's only and women's only lodging should be changed. So here are the two best solutions for allowing homosexuals to serve their country. Either homosexuals should be allowed to serve as long as they aren't asked and they don't tell what their sexual orientation is, or we change the rules of lodging entirely, so that men and women, no matter their sexual orientation, are howsed together in the same barracks. Obviously, for all parties concerned, "Don't ask, don't tell" is the best and most favorable solution, allowing anyone to serve their country and not forcing them to reveal their sexual orientation.