Ethics

Looking into this question I wonder about several things. I respect the merit of the question but also see the discrepancy in the importance. I think that posing this question through the context of the military cuts the question short in my eyes. Living in a country where military service is optional and considered a career I can't see them guaranteeing any rights to soldiers. I don't understand why anyone would join the service, and if they did why they would expect any rights or guarantees of equality is even more perplexing. Your sexual orientation also seems irrelevant in context of the army. You don't mix your personal life and your career in any other field why make it clear in that one. Of course I see the implications of having to live with other soldiers and the resentment that may occur between soldiers who are openly gay or lesbian. Being heterosexual you may feel uncomfortable with another person looking at you change when knowing they could be attracted to you. But you have the same protections of sexual harassment as anyone else.

So now that I have made my point of view a little clearer here is the answer to the actual question. The book is asking if being open about your sexuality is important for ensuring self-respect and a sense of dignity. Through the eyes of Ruse it is. He constantly states that "naturalness ought to be defined in terms of culture and not simple biology". What Ruse is saying is that when people state that homosexuality is unnatural they are actually confused on the definition of natural, that they are creating their belief of what is natural based on culture not biology because "species after species, right through the animal kingdom, students of animal behavior report unambiguous evidence of homosexual attachments and behavior". That the biology of animals, which we are state no definite lines of