Some who oppose the president's promise to lift the ban on the military try to portray gays in the worst possible light and it seems as if their "arguments" sound libelous. This article in The Washington Times, a conservative newspaper owned by Unification Church founder Sung Myon Moon as well as this "Washington Update" posted on the vehemently anti-gay Family Research Council portray gays as sexual predators and to "prove" their point they point to a few instances where a gay sexual predator violated the rights of his or her straight counterparts.
This shouldn't need to be mentioned but:
(a) the fact that some gays are sexual predators doesn't prove that all gays are sexual predators just as the fact that some straights are sexual predators doesn't prove that all straights are sexual predators,
(b) the fact that gays already serve in the military and have largely proven that they can respect the sexual rights of their straight counterparts should prove these particular critics wrong and
(c) no law would really stop a sexual predator from violating the rights of his or her counterparts (just note the articles above) and the rules as they already apply have not and will not protect their victims from sexual assault. Nothing less than their imprisonment would suffice.
I don't believe these people should use these offenses of a few to justify discrimination against the many unless of course, they can accuse gay conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan, U.S. Congressmen Barney Frank (D-MA), U.S. Congressman Jared Polis, and anyone else who is gay of being a sexual predator. Don't count on it, because they might be sued for directing their baseless accusations on specific people.
Our British allies found a way to let gays openly serve in the military. The Israelis don't seem to have any problems. What's the fuss about here? Are the straights going to run to the hills if they spot a gay or two?