Why allowing gays to serve openly in the military is special treatment

[rudygetsplenty]

I am a staunch defender of gay rights. I view opposition to gay marriage with contempt. However, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is the only reasonable way I can think of to make this work. Consider:
Straight men in the military are prohibited from showering, dressing, or bunking with their female counterparts (and vice versa, of course). The reason for this is clearly that the men's sexual interest in the women would be a distraction to the men (yes, vice versa, but let's not pretend sexual desire affects women the same as it does men), and would prevent them from focusing on their jobs. Indeed, even with the separation, prostitution and rape have been a problem since introducing women to the military; but it is understandable and right that we work to overcome these issues, to allow women to serve.
If we allow gays to serve openly, we are allowing them to consort with the objects of their sexual attraction in a manner that heterosexuals are not allowed to. Why is it ok to let gay soldiers do this but not heterosexuals? Are we to believe that homosexuals are sexually evolved to the point where their sexual attraction does not affect their performance as a soldier? We clearly feel that heterosexual soldiers are not capable of such a separation. Frankly I don't, if I were showering with a bunch of women, it would affect my ability to perform (as a soldier, hehe).
So please, if somebody has a rational rebuttal, I'm all ears.

 

[CriticalThought]

You do realize that 19 other countries have been able to integrate openly gay men in their militarys without having to worry about this, right? What makes America different? Why is this such an issue?

Also consider these points..

1. Even college students can share dorm rooms with gay roommates.
2. Gay men already use the showers at civilian gyms and pools alongside heterosexual men.
3. Gay men in the military who have kept their sexual orientation secret have been able to shower alongside heterosexual men and perform their job admirably and professionally for their country and there is no indication they would do otherwise if they were out.

You are making an issue out of a nonissue.

 

[rudygetsplenty]

You do realize that 19 other countries have been able to integrate openly gay men in their militarys without having to worry about this, right? What makes America different? Why is this such an issue?

Your rebuttal was indeed rational. You asked a good, question, why is America different, but the answer seems obvious - Those 19 other countries' (I thought it was 22) military do not have the combined activity of just ours. During major world conflicts, American forces supply the vast majority of combat troops, dwarfing the total contribution of all of these militaries put together. You can allow children to serve in the military if they don't actually fight (and no, of course I am not comparing gay recruits to children)

Also consider these points..

1. Even college students can share dorm rooms with gay roommates.
2. Gay men already use the showers at civilian gyms and pools alongside heterosexual men.

The atmosphere of a college campus cannot be compared to the atmosphere of troops preparing to serve in combat. More to the point, the protection of our country and counties our govt. chooses to provide military support to does not depend on the success or failure of college students; of course in the normal world homosexuals and heterosexuals can associate or bunk together, the military is an entirely different atmosphere. Same answer for #2, comparing the military with civilian gyms and pools is apples and oranges at best.

3. Gay men in the military who have kept their sexual orientation secret have been able to shower alongside heterosexual men and perform their job admirably and professionally for their country and there is no indication they would do otherwise if they were out.

This is your best point, imo, and I completely agree that there are gay men and women who serve admirably (of course, I'm sure you would agree that there are plenty of gay washouts or lousy soldiers, same as washout or lousy straight soldiers). However, the answer to this is also clear to me. Some men are better than other men, period. They are stronger of mind and will, they would have to be to keep something which is such a large part of who they are a secret. I would imagine that gay men (and women) who succesfully conceal their sexual identity (and who love their country enough to do so) would make far superior soldiers to the average straight soldier, they are simply built of better stuff. A similar phenomenon is found in the Tuskegee Airmen, when members of a group are forced to endure extreme circumstances to excel, the cream rises. But, to say "there is no indication they would do otherwise if they were out" is spurious, how can we presume people's behavior under a certain policy would remain the same under a different policy?

You are making an issue out of a nonissue.

This is the crux of this biscuit. If it's a non-issue, why aren't straight men allowed to shower with women? The title of this post is "why gays in the military is special treatment". While I may not agree with your arguments of why they should be allowed to serve openly, you have not presented an argument of why it is not special treatment. Are you suggesting that there is a reason for the separation of men and women in the military other than sexuality?
Please reply, I would love to be talked out of this position, but I am a slave to reason.

 

[spud_meister]

Tell me, if a gay man is showering with a straight man, are they likely to have sex?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Tell me, if a gay man is showering with a straight man, are they likely to have sex?

This is the crux of the issue. With a straight male-straight female combination, you have two people who's sexual orientation are compatible, possibly leading to sexual activity. When you combine a straight male and a gay male, these sexual orientations are not compatible for sexual activity.

 

[CriticalThought]

Your rebuttal was indeed rational. You asked a good, question, why is America different, but the answer seems obvious - Those 19 other countries' (I thought it was 22) military do not have the combined activity of just ours. During major world conflicts, American forces supply the vast majority of combat troops, dwarfing the total contribution of all of these militaries put together. You can allow children to serve in the military if they don't actually fight (and no, of course I am not comparing gay recruits to children)

You do realize that the modern trend of warfare is coalition building? Whether or not we allow openly gay troops to serve in our military, our troops will be required to serve alongside and share facilities and resources with openly gay troops from other countries. Just a thought to keep in mind. Iraq and Afghanistan has already demonstrated this as our troops have worked alongside openly gay troops from the UK.

The atmosphere of a college campus cannot be compared to the atmosphere of troops preparing to serve in combat. More to the point, the protection of our country and counties our govt. chooses to provide military support to does not depend on the success or failure of college students; of course in the normal world homosexuals and heterosexuals can associate or bunk together, the military is an entirely different atmosphere. Same answer for #2, comparing the military with civilian gyms and pools is apples and oranges at best.

And yet the leaked poll of the Pentagon survey indicates that most troops do not care about serving alongside gay troops. You "different environment" argument is not really holding to the reality.

This is your best point, imo, and I completely agree that there are gay men and women admirably (of course, I'm sure you would agree that there are plenty of gay washouts or lousy soldiers, same as washout or lousy straight soldiers). However, the answer to this is also clear to me. Some men are better than other men, period. They are stronger of mind and will, they would have to be to keep something which is such a large part of who they are a secret. I would imagine that gay men (and women) who succesfully conceal their sexual identity (and who love their country enough to do so) would make far superior soldiers to the average straight soldier, they are simply built of better stuff. A similar phenomenon is found in the Tuskegee Airmen, when members of a group are forced to endure extreme circumstances to excel, the cream rises. But, to say "there is no indication they would do otherwise if they were out" is spurious, how can we presume people's behavior under a certain policy would remain the same under a different policy?

Aside from the fact that it has not changed in any other country which has allowed openly gay troops to serve? Because there are cases where gay troops have come out to their comrades and have continued to serve admirably. Take this gentleman for example...

This is the crux of this biscuit. If it's a non-issue, why aren't straight men allowed to shower with women?

Pregnancy. You are trying to compare men/women to heterosexual men/homosexual men as if they are perfectly comparable, but the reality is that homosexual men cannot get pregnant but women can. And there are few things quite as disruptive to the military as soldiers getting pregnant.

The title of this post is "why gays in the military is special treatment".

You are the one arguing that they should receive special treatment, when there is no indication that they need to receive special treatment. Had you considered that there are probably thousands of bisexual men in the military who could be just as sexually attracted to the heterosexual men they are serving with and that does not change even if they are married to a woman with kids? Are you going to exclude all bisexuals from serving or make them use special showering facilities? Or has it sunk in to you yet that they have managed to serve all this time without their sexual attractions getting in the way of doing their job?

 

[rudygetsplenty]

Tell me, if a gay man is showering with a straight man, are they likely to have sex?

I'm going to try to reply to each reply; your's is the easiest. Of course not, but certainly there will be 2 gay men showering together. They are certainly more likely to have sex than a man and woman showering together.

 

[rudygetsplenty]

This is the crux of the issue. With a straight male-straight female combination, you have two people who's sexual orientation are compatible, possibly leading to sexual activity. When you combine a straight male and a gay male, these sexual orientations are not compatible for sexual activity.

A good point, and similar to the point above, so I offer the same question, what if two gay men (or women) are showering together? BTW where the heck did you find that bitchin' quote (about Jesus)?

 

[spud_meister]

I'm going to try to reply to each reply; your's is the easiest. Of course not, but certainly there will be 2 gay men showering together. They are certainly more likely to have sex than a man and woman showering together.

Why are they more likely to have sex than a man and a woman though? And if they're showering together, logic is that they won't be alone, and I'm certain that the straight soldiers would be some what uncomfortable with them having sex. And referencing back to your OP, the DADT policy does nothing to solve this issue of sexual attraction, as gays will still be showering with the focus of their desires, and were gays to have sex with the straight soldiers, I'm fairly certain a discharge (no pun intended) would be the consequence of such action, irregardless of if DADT was in effect or not. And in studies conducted by militaries that have allowed gays to serve openly, it has been shown that their was no impact on unit cohesion, morale, performance, or any indicators of a militaries effectiveness.

 

[rudygetsplenty]

You do realize that the modern trend of warfare is coalition building? Whether or not we allow openly gay troops to serve in our military, our troops will be required to serve alongside and share facilities and resources with openly gay troops from other countries. Just a thought to keep in mind. Iraq and Afghanistan has already demonstrated this as our troops have worked alongside openly gay troops from the UK.

I like this point, but it doesn' relate, men serve alongside women as well. I am certainly not questioning a gay person's ability to serve, or most straight people's ability to serve alongside gay people.

And yet the leaked poll of the Pentagon survey indicates that most troops do not care about serving alongside gay troops. You "different environment" argument is not really holding to the reality.

This actually is completely beside the point. I'm not arguing that most troops have a problem with it. (although, if I strung along with the majority, I would have voted Republican last week when I mailed in my ballow). Take a poll asking these same troops if they think being in the military is a different environment than going to college, what do you think they'd say?

Aside from the fact that it has not changed in any other country which has allowed openly gay troops to serve? Because there are cases where gay troops have come out to their comrades and have continued to serve admirably. Take this gentleman for example...

What, you don't agree with me so you want to make me cry? Well it worked, I hope you're happy. This isn't the only example, I've seen several, and they're heartbreaking. So is every single starving person who would cut off their arm, not to come to America, just to send their kids here. We're still not letting them in, because of the reality of the problems which would arise from the flood of immigration.

Pregnancy. You are trying to compare men/women to heterosexual men/homosexual men as if they are perfectly comparable, but the reality is that homosexual men cannot get pregnant but women can. And there are few things quite as disruptive to the military as soldiers getting pregnant.

Ahh, yes. So by this logic, if a woman had her tubes tied, she could shower with men? This is your new best point, however I don't believe (and do you really believe) that the only reason we separate men and women is the risk of pregnancy? tbc in next reply...

You are the one arguing that they should receive special treatment, when there is no indication that they need to receive special treatment. Had you considered that there are probably thousands of bisexual men in the military who could be just as sexually attracted to the heterosexual men they are serving with and that does not change even if they are married to a woman with kids? Are you going to exclude all bisexuals from serving or make them use special showering facilities? Or has it sunk in to you yet that they have managed to serve all this time without their sexual attractions getting in the way of doing their job?

[/quote]
Indeed I have considered this, but even if it is true it only shows that the special treatment doesn't cause problems, you're still not giving an argument of why it's not special treatment. Besides, it's probably not true. Are you suggesting that there has never been a bisexual or gay man whose sexual attractions did not adversely affect them? I don't mean in regards to their fellow soldier's reactions (of course we know there have been incidences of homophobia- although these should not be a reason to keep DADT, we shouldn't make policy to protect the sensibilities of bigots). I mean to where it affected their performance as a soldier? How could we know (and why would it make sense to think) that there has not been such occasions? And the thing about bisexual showers, it just wouldn't work, you'd need one shower for each man.
It seems I should clarify my position a bit here. Men are driven by their sexual desire, nobody should argue with this, I would think. Sexual desire drives men to murder & rape. It topples empires. Some men are destroyed by their inability to deal with their own sexual desire, some destroy others. This is the real reason men aren't allowed to shower with women, not because they'll get pregnant, because it will consume the men. If our military only accepted soldiers with enough control over their sexuality to ignore it when it is best for our country, we wouldn't have much of a military. Why are we expected to accept that gay men do not still have the same sexuality? They are still men, are they not? I can accept your position as a valid point only by accepting the idea that pregnancy is the only reason for separation of men and women, but do you really believe that?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

A good point, and similar to the point above, so I offer the same question, what if two gay men (or women) are showering together? BTW where the heck did you find that bitchin' quote (about Jesus)?

Another poster posted the quote and I liked it so much I put it in my signature.

I believe the military has rules on fraternization. These rules would apply in these situations as well.

 

[rudygetsplenty]

Why are they more likely to have sex than a man and a woman though? And if they're showering together, logic is that they won't be alone, and I'm certain that the straight soldiers would be some what uncomfortable with them having sex. And referencing back to your OP, the DADT policy does nothing to solve this issue of sexual attraction, as gays will still be showering with the focus of their desires, and were gays to have sex with the straight soldiers, I'm fairly certain a discharge (no pun intended) would be the consequence of such action, irregardless of if DADT was in effect or not. And in studies conducted by militaries that have allowed gays to serve openly, it has been shown that their was no impact on unit cohesion, morale, performance, or any indicators of a militaries effectiveness.

The reason they are more likely to have sex than a man and woman is simple, they're men! Men have much lower standards for having sex than women, I'm sure we can both can agree on this. My boss is gay, his favorite reason to give for gay not being a choice is that if it was a choice, every straight man would choose it, it's so easy to get laid! Of course you're right about sex in the shower, it's not actually going to happen there, but it is unquestionably a distraction, which again is why we don't allow women to do it. LOL you're a liar, you certainly intended that pun and if not you should have. As far as the study, this is a different issue. I'm a dkeptic, so I'm skeptical of studies, I'm sure the Republicans will pull some poll out of their ass at some point showing opposite findings. However, overall, I am certainly willing to accept the possibility that it is true, that allowing gays to openly serve would be beneficial overall. But we would still be treating gay men differently than straight men, unless the whole thing was made coed.

 

[rudygetsplenty]

Another poster posted the quote and I liked it so much I put it in my signature.

I believe the military has rules on fraternization. These rules would apply in these situations as well.

Of course, but if these rules are all that's necessary, why not allow men and women to shower together and count on the rules to keep things in line?

 

[CriticalThought]

What, you don't agree with me so you want to make me cry? Well it worked, I hope you're happy. This isn't the only example, I've seen several, and they're heartbreaking. So is every single starving person who would cut off their arm, not to come to America, just to send their kids here. We're still not letting them in, because of the reality of the problems which would arise from the flood of immigration.

I'm more focused on the fact that he came out to his fellow Marines while he was serving and they did not care. He is a living contradiction to the problem you seem to be claiming exists.

Ahh, yes. So by this logic, if a woman had her tubes tied, she could shower with men? This is your new best point, however I don't believe (and do you really believe) that the only reason we separate men and women is the risk of pregnancy? tbc in next reply...

I think a lot of it comes from tradition. Some from fear of sexual impropriety. Some from fear of rape. Some from fear of pregancy. And probably several other reasons I cannot think of as of yet. The point remains that you cannot compare men/women to heterosexual men/ homosexual men. It's an entirely different situation. For one, heterosexual men and women are sexually compatible whereas heterosexual men and homosexual men are not. For two, the consequence of pregnancy exists.

You're still not giving an argument of why it's not special treatment.

You haven't really thought this out. You are assuming that gay men like having to shower with people they may find sexually attractive but who have absolutely no sexual attraction towards them. I'm gay and while I do not have any experience with serving in the military, I do have the unpleasant memories of showering back in high school and I can tell you that the potential embarrassment of popping an erection kept my eyes firmly on the floor the entire time I was in there. It isn't special treatment, it is a handicap.

Men are driven by their sexual desire, nobody should argue with this, I would think.

I would think anyone who isn't a rapist would argue against that point.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Of course, but if these rules are all that's necessary, why not allow men and women to shower together and count on the rules to keep things in line?

I'd be fine with that.

 

[rudygetsplenty]

I'd be fine with that.

Then we're pretty much on the same page for the gay issue. I wouldn't be fine with that, but if the military were coed I wouldn't have 1 single argument against gays in the military.

 

[spud_meister]

The reason they are more likely to have sex than a man and woman is simple, they're men! Men have much lower standards for having sex than women, I'm sure we can both can agree on this. My boss is gay, his favorite reason to give for gay not being a choice is that if it was a choice, every straight man would choose it, it's so easy to get laid!

Well, I'll concede you that.

Of course you're right about sex in the shower, it's not actually going to happen there, but it is unquestionably a distraction, which again is why we don't allow women to do it. LOL you're a liar, you certainly intended that pun and if not you should have. As far as the study, this is a different issue. I'm a dkeptic, so I'm skeptical of studies, I'm sure the Republicans will pull some poll out of their ass at some point showing opposite findings. However, overall, I am certainly willing to accept the possibility that it is true, that allowing gays to openly serve would be beneficial overall. But we would still be treating gay men differently than straight men, unless the whole thing was made coed.

Unless you made the entire miliatry co-ed, you would have to have some form of law that was discriminatory, that part is unavoidable, and having gays barrack with straights is probably the best situation that you can get without mkaing the whole situation more complicated, unless you enforce DADT across the board and discharge anyone for talking about sexual orientation. And on those studies, here's one from my own country, we allowed gays to serve openly in 1992, and this study was completed in 2000, so it is quite comprehensive. And in case you don't feel like trawling through the entire report, here's an excerpt.

In November 1992, the Australian Defence Forces lifted its ban on open gay and lesbian soldiers. Using all available data from military, academic, non-governmental, and other sources, this report assesses the extent to which the lifting of the gay ban has affected the well-being and performance of the Australian military.

Based on the results of prior studies, eighteen in-depth interviews with informed military and non-military observers, and other data, this study finds that the full lifting of the ban on gay service has not led to any identifiable negative effects on troop morale, combat effectiveness, recruitment and retention, or other measures of military performance. Furthermore, available evidence suggests that policy changes associated with the lifting of the ban may have contributed to improvements in productivity and working environments for service members. Key findings include:

· Senior officials, commanders, and military scholars within the ADF consistently appraise the lifting of the ban as a successful policy change that has contributed to greater equity and effective working relationships within the ranks.

 

[rudygetsplenty]

I'm more focused on the fact that he came out to his fellow Marines while he was serving and they did not care. He is a living contradiction to the problem you seem to be claiming exists.

Nonsense, that's like showing one productive marijuana user to show that marijuana is harmless, or one stoner loser to show that it should be illegal. I understand that this video pertains more to the reaction of his fellow soldiers than anything else, and it's a tribute to those soldiers, but one apple doesn't represent the barrel.

I think a lot of it comes from tradition. Some from fear of sexual impropriety. Some from fear of rape. Some from fear of pregancy. And probably several other reasons I cannot think of as of yet. The point remains that you cannot compare men/women to heterosexual men/ homosexual men. It's an entirely different situation. For one, heterosexual men and women are sexually compatible whereas heterosexual men and homosexual men are not. For two, the consequence of pregnancy exists.

No question as far as the comparing men/women to homosexual/heterosexual, but comparison of men/women to homosexual/homosexual is unquestionable comparable. One is naturally sexually attracted to the other, simple. The pregnancy is a very strong point, there is of course rampant pregnancy in the military.

You haven't really thought this out. You are assuming that gay men like having to shower with people they may find sexually attractive but who have absolutely no sexual attraction towards them. I'm gay and while I do not have any experience with serving in the military, I do have the unpleasant memories of showering back in high school and I can tell you that the potential embarrassment of popping an erection kept my eyes firmly on the floor the entire time I was in there. It isn't special treatment, it is a handicap.

I am absolutely not assuming that, and realize now that my use of the word "special" has suggested a positive connotation, as if I were saying "preferential". I would have been better off with "different"; I'm not suggesting we would be treating gay men better, simply that we would be creating a different set of rules for them than are currently in place. Indeed, your reminiscence of high school drives my point home, certainly it did affect you. You are a better man than me, btw, were I to shower with a group of women the ugliest floor in the world could not keep me flaccid. Of course I have it easy, I would not have to fear retribution for my erection as I'm sure you would have.

I would think anyone who isn't a rapist would argue against that point.

This is the only thing you've said this entire time which seems completely ridiculous to me, unless you are severely misunderstanding my meaning. Clinton didn't rape Monica, but he allowed his sexual desire to compromise his effectiveness in governing our country. Men cheat on their loving wives regularly without raping. They risk STDs and criminal prosecution for prostitutes, to satisfy their desire, without raping. Men will risk (or willingly abandon) their careers, families and lives for sex, without rape. Religious zealots destroy their own minds wrestling with their beliefs and their natural urges (sadly many of these do turn to rape). Sexuality is one of the most powerfully compelling aspects of a man's personality, how can you possibly suggest otherwise? For that matter, if sex wasn't such a big deal to men, why would homophobia even exist (let me know if this question doesn't make sense)?
You mentioned tradition, and you may have a very good point there. The military is nothing if not traditional, and maybe it is no longer necessary. As it seems likely that DODT will be repealed, I hope it is not necessary. If it were up to me, although so far I have not been dissuaded from my position, I would repeal it now and allow gays to serve, not because I think it would be good for our military, because I'd love to have something to ram down the throats of homophobes (with the same glee I took in Obama being rammed down the throats of racists). I admit that I never understood the level of homophobia that existed in this country until recently - I grew up in Southern California, but some of my gay friends grew up in the South, and have helped me open my eyes, as did my general foray into the history of politics (Christ I must have cried through half of "Milk", people sure are ****ed). However all in all, I have always presumed that gay men were pretty much the same as straight men except they like men instead of women; which is why I'm so stuck on this issue. I really appreciate the exchange, this is how I learn. I went from (mostly) liberal to (somewhat) conservative and now I'm back to somewhat liberal. but mostly because conservatives have flown all the way off the deep end.

 

[rudygetsplenty]

Well, I'll concede you that.

Lol yeah no getting around that one.

Unless you made the entire miliatry co-ed, you would have to have some form of law that was discriminatory, that part is unavoidable, and having gays barrack with straights is probably the best situation that you can get without mkaing the whole situation more complicated, unless you enforce DADT across the board and discharge anyone for talking about sexual orientation. And on those studies, here's one from my own country, we allowed gays to serve openly in 1992, and this study was completed in 2000, so it is quite comprehensive. And in case you don't feel like trawling through the entire report, here's an excerpt.

I sure don't like trawling, thanks for the excerpt, that's quite encouraging. I mentioned in another post, I'm actually in favor of repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, but I don't like the way it's argued (just like I'm in favor of legalizing weed, but people who argue that it prevents lung cancer just screw it up for everyone!). Some day I'll be arguing with a conservative why DADT should be repealed, and I need ammo, I found myself with a strong argument in favor of not repealing it (which I still have yet to see a single conservative use, it's friggin' amazing, they just stick to the same anti-gay rhetoric they apply to all gay issues), and I need help. I like yours, it is discriminatory, but it's necessary to defeat the larger discrimination of not allowing them to openly serve.

 

[CriticalThought]

...

I disagree with your sentiments. The only reason I believe gays should be allowed to openly serve is because DADT is bad for national security, has been deemed unconstitutional due to how it has been enforced, and does little to improve our military's readiness. If repealing DADT were not good for the military and the country, then I would not support it.

 

[rudygetsplenty]

I disagree with your sentiments. The only reason I believe gays should be allowed to openly serve is because DADT is bad for national security, has been deemed unconstitutional due to how it has been enforced, and does little to improve our military's readiness. If repealing DADT were not good for the military and the country, then I would not support it.

Then you don't have a very strong position. Indeed your statement in and of itself is contradictory, constitutionality does not relate to the strength of our military. You say DADT is unconstitutional because of how it is enforced, if there is a constitutional way to enforce it shoudl we do so? If all you are concerned with is the strength of our military, you would have to be more concerned with the reality that there are more homophobes than homosexuals in this country, and the ratio is exaggerated in the military. If more people say serving with gays would be a distraction to them than there are gays who want to serve, then they should not be allowed to serve, if the only consideration is the strength of our military. If gays are allowed to bunk and shower with other men, then a straight man has a very valid complaint that he should be allowed to bunk and shower with women, particularly if he has had a vassectomy. Maybe this country shouldn't be homophobic, but it clearly is; this is particularly true in the South, where the majority of military recruits come from. There have been countless problems which arose from allowing women to serve, the main problems being rape, prostitution, sexual harassment, and pregnancy (the only issue which cannot apply to gays), however this also increased the recruiting pool by 50%. Allowing gays only increases the recruiting pool by 10%. The only valid point you would have is that overall repealing DADT may be good for our country, as overall it may eventually contribute to popular acceptance of gays. However currently it is only adding strife to our country, and to our military.

 

[CriticalThought]

Ah, now we have debate.

Indeed your statement in and of itself is contradictory, constitutionality does not relate to the strength of our military. You say DADT is unconstitutional because of how it is enforced, if there is a constitutional way to enforce it shoudl we do so?

Yes, people have been outed and investigated in ways that violates their 1st and 5th amendment rights.

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules

If all you are concerned with is the strength of our military, you would have to be more concerned with the reality that there are more homophobes than homosexuals in this country, and the ratio is exaggerated in the military.

Once again, you are forgetting that a majority in the military do not care whether gays serve openly. Whether or not there are a lot of "homophobes" is also irrelvant because anyone who cannot serve professionally in the military should not be there. More and more our soldiers are required to work alongside openly gay soldiers from other countries and if they cannot do so professionally, and endanger their mission as a result, then it would be better if they were not there.

If more people say serving with gays would be a distraction to them than there are gays who want to serve, then they should not be allowed to serve, if the only consideration is the strength of our military.

Contrary to what you might think about how our military is ran, a soldier's duty is to follow orders. If they are to be distracted from fulfilling their mission by something as petty as their fellow soldier's sexual orientation, then they should not be serving.

If gays are allowed to bunk and shower with other men, then a straight man has a very valid complaint that he should be allowed to bunk and shower with women, particularly if he has had a vassectomy.

This argument was debunked just a moment ago. A heterosexual man should not be allowed to bunk with a heterosexual women because they are sexually compatible. A heterosexual man is not sexually compatible to a homosexual man. It is a fallacious comparison to make.

There have been countless problems which arose from allowing women to serve, the main problems being rape, prostitution, sexual harassment, and pregnancy (the only issue which cannot apply to gays), however this also increased the recruiting pool by 50%. Allowing gays only increases the recruiting pool by 10%.

You haven't really presented a good case of any problems that will occur from allowing gays to serve and yet we can provide evidence from 19 other countries where no such problems have occured. Your argument is frankly insulting because it insinuates that the American soldier is less professional than those of those 19 other countries.

The only valid point you would have is that overall repealing DADT may be good for our country, as overall it may eventually contribute to popular acceptance of gays. However currently it is only adding strife to our country, and to our military.

That just demonstrates how uninformed you are. Since it was established, over 13,000 troops have been discharged under DADT. During the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 300 translators/language specialists have been dismissed under DADT at a time when there was a shortage of such a vital unit. Translators are essential to intelligence operations and as a result vital information which could have saved lives of soldiers or protected civilian lives could have been missed from not having those units on the ground. That alone seriously threatens national security and military readiness.

 

[Gardener]

There have been countless problems which arose from allowing women to serve, the main problems being rape, prostitution, sexual harassment, and pregnancy .

and while we are at it, we should prevent all non whites from serving because of the racists in the military.

Heck, why stop there, even? If we are to draft regulations based upon the desire to avoid untoward behavior, we should stop this silly use of vaults to protect the money at the banks. After all, it is all that money that creates the bank robbers, isn't it?

 

[Manc Skipper]

There is no special treatment. Straight men troops have just as much liberty to have sex in the shower with other troops as do homosexuals, if they wish.

 

[hallam]

I am a staunch defender of gay rights. I view opposition to gay marriage with contempt. However, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is the only reasonable way I can think of to make this work. Consider:
Straight men in the military are prohibited from showering, dressing, or bunking with their female counterparts (and vice versa, of course). The reason for this is clearly that the men's sexual interest in the women would be a distraction to the men (yes, vice versa, but let's not pretend sexual desire affects women the same as it does men), and would prevent them from focusing on their jobs. Indeed, even with the separation, prostitution and rape have been a problem since introducing women to the military; but it is understandable and right that we work to overcome these issues, to allow women to serve.
If we allow gays to serve openly, we are allowing them to consort with the objects of their sexual attraction in a manner that heterosexuals are not allowed to. Why is it ok to let gay soldiers do this but not heterosexuals? Are we to believe that homosexuals are sexually evolved to the point where their sexual attraction does not affect their performance as a soldier? We clearly feel that heterosexual soldiers are not capable of such a separation. Frankly I don't, if I were showering with a bunch of women, it would affect my ability to perform (as a soldier, hehe).
So please, if somebody has a rational rebuttal, I'm all ears.

While I see your point, if the DADT rule was to reduce distractions of military personnel, then DADT doesn't actually do this. Gay individuals who serve in the military under your scenario are still distracted when trying to hide. Straight individuals are somewhat distracted trying to determine if one of their fellow soldier is homosexual should that person do something that would call his/her sexuality into question. Removing DADT just seems to trade distractions. Mind you I would agree that this is special treatment for the reason you detail; but it is special treatment that limits discrimination since removing DADT would remove the discharge that occurs with being outed. the removing of this discharge discrimination should be a necessary thing.

However, to eliminate both distractions outlined above, a military would have to integrate both sexes and have women as combat troops. Removing DADT seems like our generations compromise since the majority are not ready to have women as combat troops (MO, I don't have hard number on what the American public opinion is on women in combat).