The Army has been continuing to brief its basic trainees on the upcoming permissible service by open homosexuals.

At Fort Jackson…Capt. Guy Allsup…recently walked 231 nervous basic training recruits through scenarios…

“Does anybody think that this is going to be a drastic change for deployed soldiers?” Allsup called out to the group.

Ignore the paradox of an officer asking new recruits if things will “change.”  The trainees’ answer: 

“No, sir,” they yelled.

“Someone give me a reason why not,” Allsup said.

Pvt. Umberto Werner, 18, of Fayetteville, Ga., stood at attention. He looked straight ahead, clutching his M-16.

“Sexual orientation has nothing to do with our mission, sir,” he said.

“I’ll buy that,” replied Allsup.

While Capt Allsup can certainly “buy that,” it remains questionable whether that is a position the Army should be in the position of teaching.  It is, after all, a moral position inconsistent with the beliefs (religious or not) or many servicemembers.  The article even revisits that point:

Of all services, the Marine Corps has least welcomed the repeal. In the survey, nearly 60 percent of Marine respondents said their unit’s effectiveness “in a field environment or out at sea” would be negatively affected by repeal.

The military’s “training” has specifically said it was not out to change beliefs or personal morals.  The original concept of repeal was that homosexuals would be allowed to serve — and the military would not take a position for or against homosexuality itself.  Increasingly, conversations like these with trainees seem to contradict that portrayal, though the tacit support of homosexuality was not unforeseeable by those who opposed repeal.

When the repeal, which was supposed to be a “nonevent,” still elicited questions about resigning from the military (even from these ‘more enlightened’ younger-generation recruits), Capt Allsup presented an interesting perspective:

Allsup told the recruits…they signed up to accept the ethical and moral foundation that governs the Army.

Now, what foundation would that be?  And what of the assertion that no one would have to alter their moral beliefs in the face of repeal?

Its a fascinating characterization for a society intent on allowing open homosexuality precisely because it cannot “impose morality.”

And it is hardly the end.