“I will end ‘don’t ask-don’t tell,'” Obama claimed Saturday night to a standing ovation from the crowd full of gay activists at the dinner for Human Rights Campaign in Washington D.C.
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Service members Legal Defense Network said he was encouraged to hear Obama’s pledge but added “an opportunity was missed tonight.” He said his group “was disappointed the president did not lay out a timeline and specifics for repeal.”
At the very least Obama is beginning to recognize that not only his detractors but also his supporters are also growing impatient with his empty promises.
“I appreciate that many of you don’t believe progress has come fast enough,” Obama said “our progress may be taking longer than we like.”
Personally I get fed up with the “he said she said” stuff during the campaign season. I think it is still too early to burn Obama for his unfulfilled goals and expectations. It is however reasonable to question him on what he plans to do and how he plans to do it.
With respect to Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C. or “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, Obama has pressure from his supporters to pacify the Human Rights Activist. These activist are growing skeptical after the Defense of Marriage Act debacle where Obama promised to fight for its repeal then turned around and championed the act a few months later.
Recently an article was published in the Joint Force Quarterly that may help Obama and his cause. The article carries no weight but may signal a change in demeanor of the military. It was written by an Air Force colonel, Om Prakash and it won the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay competition.
Prakash argues that the law has been costly, about 12,500 gay men and lesbians have been discharged from the service as a result. He says there is no direct scientific evidence regarding homosexuals serving openly, but there is empirical data as several North Atlantic Treaty Organization Allies have lifted the ban. A survey from Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom found that the decision to lift the ban had no impact on military performance. In closing he argues:
The 1993 “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” law was a political compromise reached after much emotional debate based on religion, morality, ethics, psychological rationale, and military necessity. What resulted was a law that has been costly both in personnel and treasure. In an attempt to allow homosexual Service members to serve quietly, a law was created that forces a compromise in integrity, conflicts with the American creed of “equality for all,” places commanders in difficult moral dilemmas, and is ultimately more damaging to the unit cohesion its stated purpose is to preserve. Based on this research, it is not time for the administration to reexamine the issue; rather, it is time for the administration to examine how to implement the repeal of the ban.
But opposition to changing the law is still strong. Recently the Supreme Court turned down a challenge to the Defense Department policy forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military as unconstitutional. Flag & General Officers for the Military has a list of over 1,050 distinguished retired military leaders from all branches of the service who have shown their support for the 1993 law with personal signatures received by regular mail prior to March 20, 2009. They issued this statement to the President:
Our past experience as military leaders leads us to be greatly concerned about the impact of repeal [of the law] on morale, discipline, unit cohesion, and overall military readiness. We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all levels, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force.
I have a traditional view when it comes to this issue. From my little experience in the military I have seen the law work. I also know that having an openly gay soldier serve next to me would affect the mindset of everyone around. How that would change the mission’s outcome? I have no idea – so I defer to John McCain and Military leaders. “They say, ‘It’s working.’ And right now we’ve got the best military we’ve ever had — the most professional, best trained and equipped, and the bravest. And so I think it’s logical to leave this issue alone. I really do.”
3conservativebros
MacGregor
Johnny M
Timmy K
I am actually in favor of repealing this policy, but I understand your hesitation when our military leaders are against it and think it will affect morale. Living the last 10 years of my life on a college campus and in Chicago may have loosened by feelings on this topic – but I dont see it having the negative reaction by the troops that they are expecting. It may have been a justified position in 1993, but I think we have progressed beyond the stereotypes that might have once existed…if someone thinks a persons sexual orientation might disqualify them as an abled resource to the American military, they may need to go out and meet more people. Like I said though, maybe my environment has blinded me from Middle America. I cant see any reason that a homosexual willing to serve his country has any more or less an ability than I may have.
What I havent seen that Im curious about is a study that estimates how much repealing Dont Ask, Dont Tell would affect enrollment in two senses. First, how many gays would like to enroll once allowed to openly. I may be stereotyping here, but gays usually lean left and the left usually leans anti-war, so how large is the population of available candidates going to increase? Id be curious to see this by sex as well…is there a larger female base than male base that would join the armed forces or vice versa? Also, would the population of heterosexual males willing to enlist decrease if they knew they may have a gay colleague beside them? Is the issue more about the right to do what they want – and not actually a benefit to military enrollment?
Johnny, i strongly disagree with you on this one. I think you are phrasing most of the thoughtful opposition to this incorrectly. I dont think anyone believes that someone’s sexual orientation somehow disqualifies them from being able bodied enough, i believe the real opposition lies in the potential affects this can have on unit psyche.
Our military is the most important organization the world, why on earth would we want to take the chance an injecting something potentially harmful. The reason i belive this to be harmful basically comes down to the differences between men and women. Although most men dont give a rats ass about a gay guy being close to them, or working with them, or being friends with them, a different dynamic will inevitably arise with groups in the military, living together in close quarters, eating, showering, etc.
You would no sooner put women into mens barracks and ask them to shower together as you could gay men with straight men. If it truly is a difference in attraction that is genetically predisposed, you would have to make exceptions for the gay men. Obviously these exceptions and special treatment could cause unwanted issues.
One thing to note:
Israel apparently made the decision to allow gays to serve openly a few years back, and i dont think there has been any damaging effects, so i will admit there are thoughtful opinions on both sides, and i cant say for sure if keeping Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is the right thing to do. I would just leave this issue up to our military leaders to decide, hopefully they will do the analysis needed and have the experience to make the correct decision.
Lastly, i really hope people can be civil about this issue, it is much deeper than the stage one thinking of gay activists. Much like the Prop 8 Battle in California, there are two sides to the story, and this is not about people being bigots and homophobes and haters, this is about making the best choice to help preserve our military cohesion while keeping its branches running as efficiently as possible. We must not allow the small minded to frame the debate like they did in the Prop 8 battle.
Fair enough. I agree the greater issue is how it affects our military, although I do think that a minority of people for Dont Ask, Dont Tell do so for homophobic reasons – but like you said, its not the predominant issue.
Your point though backs up my questions – I dont know where I stand on this unless someone can quantify how it will affect enrollment numbers/people dropping out/morale among troops, etc… I hear the arguments, but have the studies been done. I hope the Pentagon has drawn conclusions from real data but nothing has been made public from what Ive seen. Id hate to disqualify abled body cadets in a time of war because of the assumption it will hurt troop morale.
Dont ask don’t tell. What a load of bs. Fear mongering propaganda. A bunch of reports assert appx. 10 percent of the pop. is gay. I’ve served with several whom I knew were gay in the Marine Corps and the Army. Stupid pc wastes taxpayer dollars. The don’t ask don’t tell policy is so damn murky, and applied with absolute inconsistency. I love how all the bar room brigadiers and arm chair admirals always pompously speak for all the supposed nay sayers and blather on about good order and discipline. Chaptering pilots with multiple combat decorations and thousands of flight hours? You gotta be kidding. Same goes for the linguists it cost 1m plus to train. The worst thing is it provides an “out” when service becomes inconvenient.
My opinion is There is just as many field grade officers and and Senior Non-Coms that would be good with it as well. Believe it or not, sexual orientation doesn’t come into play much during the work day. Pretty disgusting when you force people that have many times sacrificed what the vast majority of the population wouldn’t to sneak around and live a double life. It’s not like regs allow galavanting around post/base holding hands, hugging, kissing in uniform any damn way. I’ve been an Army Recruiter for four years. Most young men and women I deal with don’t have a problem with it, although their parents and grandparents might.
Now, if anybody wants to have a conversation about improvements that might help recruiting, or issues that adversely affect it, set aside a full day and we can discuss it. DOD has enough on it’s plate finding motivated physically, medically, and morally qualified young men and women to serve without dick dancing around with this silliness.
I was eager to see a response from Clarence or you to see your thoughts spending so much time in service and especially in recruiting. This is an issue that I definately am more aligned with your comment than MacGregor’s. Rarely have I had a discussion with co-workers about sexual orientation, unless its possibly something casual outside the workplace. I picture it being the same in the military. I dont think repealing the act will lead to a bunch of flaming homosexuals frolicking through the showers playing grab-ass. Not that I think MacGregor feels that way at all, I know he doesnt, but I do get that feeling that some of the “arm-chair admirals” as you call them, feel that way. Ive tried to read a little more about the origin of the policy to see where it started and what its become. Seems like it wasnt very well thought about by Clinton to begin with but maybe in ’93 in made more sense. The latest poll I see is that 75% of Americans are for repealing the act, which includes 66% of conservatives. So I dont really see why Obama is hedging so much on this. Obama seems to be someone that researches deeply before making a decision – so I assume there must be something he knows that makes him stall on taking care of this issue. Or maybe not.
In a brief summary (because I dont a full day) – do you think it would have a positive, negative, or no effect on your recruiting efforts? What would improve recruiting?
Johnny, Obama has shown to do the opposite when making decisions. Some decisions that is. Gitmo, etc.
I worry more about the ramifications and proper framing of the debate. Its not about hating gays, denying love, discrimination, blah blah, it about our military and having the best policies in place for them. Bottom line, I dont know the answer.
I iwll say that many times the left of our country does not thinkg things through and they have effectively framed the debate against others without having to answer thoughtful questions or weigh out the potential effects.
No effect. Those that are committed to serve do so. It’s bothersome to me that there is so much real life evidence that homosexuals serving is not contrary to good order and discipline, especially amongst those whom have served with exemplary individuals (The AF Pilot with 2000 hrs of combat missions) who are extremely supportive regardless of moral differences. Although I’m not comparing race with sexual preference, it wasn’t long ago that the same blacks that were helping us kill Nazis were the same ones that couldn’t shop in the same PX or eat in the same chow hall as white Soldiers. This is a backwards and nonsensical policy. Matter of fact, if you were able to see first hand, all the penny ante crap that disqualifies those whom want to serve, you would be amazed. Every new recruiter is.
Gabe i am on the fence regarding this issue somewhat, like i said ill refer to the experts higher ups in the military to decide this, but your last paragraph is somewhat telling. When you say the DOD has enough on its plate finding motivated physically, medically and morally qualified young men and women, thats the issue. Many good people believe those who are gay are not straight morally. Whether or not you agree with this is fine, im not advocating whether or not it is true. But, i will tell you this, the gay lobby, is hateful, loud and hurtful to this country.
Like i said, i dont know what the right answer is, apparently the IDF has an open gay policy in place and thats okay. Id trust the decisions of our military higher ups and analysts to determine whether or not this should be overturned. As long as the opponents to Dont Ask Dont Tell are thinking about it as logically and fairly as i am.
But huh? 10 % of the pop gay?
The two, only two reports I’ve read maintained that one in ten of the population is gay, whether active or not. If I remember, one was called the Hite report. I’ll see if I can dredge one of them up when I have time. This was back in ’97 when I was taking a Sociology class.
Precisely how is the gay lobby hurtful to this country MacGregor? Nonsense.
Wow Gabe. The gay lobby is hurtful to this country in a similar way other lobbys are hurtful. They are too loud, forceful, and dont think things through. I will assume that you didnt see anything wrong with the gay activists who did their best to ruin the lives of anyone who agreed with Prop 8, cept the black folks that is. The gay lobby that tried to find anyone who donated any money to the prop 8 campaign, boycott their stores, muddy up their name and ruin their livelihood.
Similar to the way the activists that feel they were in the right for smearing Rush recently so the NFL had to drop him for the running of minority ownership of the Rams. Similar to the way the enviros dont let us get our own oil so GW and Obama have to go and play grab ass with douchebags like the royal Saudi family. I really find it hard to believe that you dont understand some of these things.
ALSO, to your earlier point, if 10% of the military pop is gay, that means they are more than 2 X their corresponding civilian pop. IF thats true maybe they are more patriotic and the policy should be overturned. You say you disagree with comparing race to sexual orientation, but then make your case for it. So what is it?
Either I didn’t make my point vis a’ vis race to sexual orientation clearly, or you missed it, or both. People looked at the service of minorities in our military years ago much different than they do now. Every large change realizes adjustments that accompany the evolution of change. After a period of adjustment the changed environment becomes the status quo.
I believe in liberty and equal rights for all. One of my beliefs regarding homosexuality that affects my opinion, is I think it has a biological basis. I don’t regard it as a deviant social behavior that can be changed through prayer or otherwise.
I framed my opinion in question form in one of the other posts. Simplified, I’d base my choice (if I had one) on whom I shared a foxhole with based on competence versus sexual orientation.
Johnny
Good points about the stats of recruiting and that should or could play into it. I doubt that the stats would justify overturning the act. 1 in 10 gay seems to be something that is accepted as gay in our population but in 2005 the census had about 8.8 million gays in the entire country. They are underway with a new 2010 census on it.
I think Dan hits a lot closer to the issue for the military. Yes, everyday at work it won’t really come into play by looking over your shoulder but functionally to fulfill a combat mission (what the military is for) special arrangements would have to be made for gays. It is not being prejudice against gays with anything to do with progressing over the past 15 years. It is the same reason military places restriction on other issues such as HIV, Bad Teeth, physical condition, etc… These personal traits affect the mission.
Wrong. No special arrangements. There are retired homosexuals that have been generals and highly decorated SOF warriors. They already serve in other nations, they are already serving this nation. What a stupid and backward piece of legislation. We all are tested for HIV regularly. If you are HIV positive, you don’t go to combat. In one of my old units, our mechanics were at 60% strength. We had a lesbian who was an awesome mechanic working in the orderly room through a 10 month chapter (when somebody gets kicked out) process. I might frame the question like this: Who deserves to stay in the Military, One whom is a stellar performer, always on time, passes his/her physical fitness tests, shoots expert on the range, volunteers to work late, and is gay? Or one that can’t make it to work on time, can’t qualify with his weapon, pass their PFT, and who does the bare minimum required? I’ll put it another way. Would you rather have a competent squad leader that was gay and could keep your squad alive, or a hetrosexual squad leader with no tactical savvy?
I dont doubt they can serve honorably. No one questions they can do that competantly. But as you know there are special arrangements for certain things in the military, like you said with HIV, and plenty of other reasons. Do you disagree with Dan and I and think that gays could serve openly then sleep in close quarters and then in a community setting shower with everyone without repercussions? I think that would play a big role with a wingman or squad. Therefore special arrangements would have to be made to accomodate them. Right
Timmy, That AF Pilots squadron knows he’s gay, to include his boss. He’s got all sorts of personal statements and endorsements to back his request to be kept on. I don’t think there is a clearer argument than that. Nontheless I appreciate your and the other contributors opinions.
Gabe your argument is not correct. And i think you are missing Tim and I’s point. Take away the idea of thinking Me or anyone on the fence with this issue as being actively anti-gay. I am far from that and MOST people are.
Where some of my concerns, and assuming tims are as well, is with the potential ramifications of overturning the policy. Remember, a gay person isnt necessarily the problem, but i can just see it now, ACLU sues the DOD for not allowing (enter radical idea here).
So let me get this straight. Allowing gays to serve in the military openly, in your opinion, will not create any issues? Will not have any effect on recruitment? Will not open the door for additional policies/lawsuits/quotas being enacted? Will not have any effect on morale or ability to function cohesively under any circumstances? If these are the case, then i am for overturning the policy. =)
MacGregor, This was a good discussion board. I appreciate being able to contribute. You pose some good considerations. I don’t feel it would be that big a deal, but I’ve been known to be wrong, according to my wife at least 🙂
Gabe
“What a load of bs. Fear mongering propaganda. The don’t ask don’t tell policy is so damn murky, and applied with absolute inconsistency.”
Maybe true but hardly a reason to repeal it. I see this like SSM, why cant civil unions be enough? They can have all the same rights (i know CU arent the same) and tax credits or whatever but leave the sanctity of marraige alone. Then with the military, why isn’t serving your country enough? Do you have to serve it openly Gay?
“live a double life” “It’s not like regs allow…”
So they are not living a double life they are just living the normal military life. I want to debate religion and politics in at work in the air force. It is not allowed the in the regs… As you know there are regs for a reason and they are not to stop someone from being gay or political but to allow orders to be followed without any blurred lines.
Of course it’s a reason to repeal it. It doesn’t make any sense. By the way, there is no regulation against “leading a double life” whatever that means. Your argument is weak to say the least. What does sexual orientation have to do with following orders? What about the silver star recipients who were gay? If I had extra time I’d post some really silly regs that are still on the books. My argument doesnt concern civil unions, taxes, or anything else, just being able to serve under regs that make sense.
Tim, good points. I agree with you, and thats why i mentioned the fact that many times activists only see the issue through a narrow prism. Like someone who supported Prop 8 to change marriage back to what the folks wanted, the opposition could only see them as evil and hatemongers and bigots. When any rational person should be able to understand each issue like this is complex and good thoughtful people can have legitimate opinons either way…
Thanks for writing this post. Looking forward to more stuff on this topic going forward.
Thanks for the perspective Gabe
What does sexual orientation have to do with following orders?
You said it for me, NOTHING,
That is what the military is about.. following orders. The only reason to repeal it is to let gays serve openly. I say your sexual orientation doesnt have anything to do with your job so leave it out. Leave it out just like thousands of soldiers leave out their personal preferences or hinderances. Serve your time like everyone else, Why do they need to have their personal preference known to serve?
I would argue, they dont NEED to let it be known to serve, but they shouldnt be disqualified to serve if it is in the open.
And earlier you asked the question: “Do you disagree with Dan and I and think that gays could serve openly then sleep in close quarters and then in a community setting shower with everyone without repercussions?”
What type of reprecussions are you taking about? Lawsuits? Abuse? On the homosexual? Or on the straight? Im not naive to the point there is still hate in America, but I hope we are advanced enough in the Armed Forces to promote civility amongst our service members. Im sure that something negative would end up occuring – but I dont know if that is enough to leave the policy alone.
The reprecussions are that (i bet) a overwhelming majority of males would feel uncomfortable showering with a homosexual. Some would feel uncomfortable with having them watch you take your piss test…. etc Those are the problems and the special arrangements that would be all to have someone’s sexual orientation known. This doesn’t have to do with ineptitude, bigotry, or civility just human nature.
That is what i like about DADT, they can serve and it won’t affect anyone. Like Gabe said, sexual orientation doesn’t have anything to do with following orders. Let the Military themselves decide if gays should be allowed to serve openly.
Don’t let political pressure, politcal correctness, or any other BS interfear with Military operations.
I’m 99% sure the straight guy next to me at a bar urinal has checked out my junk more times than any gay guy will ever do! 🙂
I get your point, I just dont think its tha significant. I think once the shine wears off after the policy has been enacted for awhile, no will ever think about it in their daily activity. Really, homosexuals are not sexual deviants looking to play grabass with all the straight guys (Im really happy Ive been able to use the term grabass twice in this comment chain)…
What I do fear is the first isolated negative incident that happens (which will be inevitable) and the media firestorm to follow against the military. You know it will be off the wall coverage.
Johnny, It’s definitely a party bonus when you get to sprinkle nifty phrases and euphemisms within your post. School wise, it’s often the only motivational factor remaining, except of course some good strong coffee! I also think it’s funny when the late night hawkers sprinkle their schtick with foreign phrases, such as: “These beautiful ’18 lengths of gold chain are going to go muy pronto! So get your credit card out”. Appreciated your contributions.
I forgot to say when writing a 20 page paper
Johnny i agree with Tim. To not think there would or could be issues with these things is to deny there are differences bt the sexes.
Wow, I am a little late on this one, but at least I don’t have to reply 10 times like you all did.
Gotta have my brother Gabe’s back on this one. No affect what so ever to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
I think the point that Gabe failed to make is what makes you guys think that soldiers don’t already know who in there unit is gay. Everyone already knows 90% of the gays in their unit and the ones they don’t know are gay wouldn’t tell you they were gay even if they could by military law. Or should I say most already know 90% of the gays in their unit. The gays you know in your non-military jobs don’t tell everyone in the workplace that they are gay and they don’t in the military either. I have showered in close quarters, and lived in close quarters with gays and it doesn’t bother me a bit. Just as long as he doesn’t touch me or sexually harass me, I don’t give a damn. Oh and by the way, if you repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, it would still be against military regulation to touch or sexually harass as it is now.
I came in the Army in 1987, before Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and retired this year, Gabe’s career was about the same length except he served in the Marines and Army. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has changed nothing. It made it legal for gays to serve but they are not supposed to tell they are gay, and you are not supposed to ask. We knew who in the unit was gay in 1987 when I came in and we knew in July 2009 when I retired. To say it cost a lot because of prosecution in discharging soldiers who are found to be gay is crazy too. I can’t back it with figures, but do you know that a lot of the soldiers getting thrown out for being gay used it to get out of their contract. The only thing DADT did was give gays an unfair advantage to get thrown out of the army, not with a dishonorable discharge but with a less than honorable discharge, that a straight soldier can not do. If you don’t think that this doesn’t happen then you are mistaken, I have known it to happy for fact. I even knew a guy years ago who couldn’t get a compassionate reassignment to move to his home state cause his wife took his kids their after they divorced so he just went to the command and told them he was gay. He wasn’t even gay. So don’t believe the figures on soldiers being unfairly discharged because they are gay. That is probably the best argument I have for repealing DADT. So people can’t use it as a way to get out of their contract. They should have to fulfill their contract just like every soldier who signs one.
Will there be some homophobes who beat up some gays. Of course there will, will it happen as frequently as it happens on the streets of the good old USA, no, cause soldiers are more disciplined then your average citizen.
Gabe’s other point that I think feel on deaf ears cause maybe he didn’t explain his point is, it is not like all of a sudden gays in uniform will be walking to the chow hall holding hands, or kissing each other in uniform, or any other forms of affection in uniform… It is already against military customs to do so. When in uniform you can’t even walk around holding your wife’s hand rather than your significant others.
I could actually give a damn if they repeal or revise it and think that most homosexuals who serve could give a shit either. Most of them feel it has little to no affect on their service. I don’t think it has any affect on recruting either cause they can serve, they just can’t tell anyone. It doesn’t mean they can’t go to a gay bar, it means they can’t say they are gay, it doesn’t mean they can’t live with a significant other, just means they can’t tell that they are in a relationship. I say the change the policy to Don’t Ask, meaning the chain of command can’t ask so the homophobes won’t discriminate, and Tell If You Want, just like they do in all other walks of life. Homosexuals know there is an amount of stigmata, and discrimination to being gay from some people, so some tell, and some don’t….
“Will there be some homophobes who beat up some gays. Of course there will, will it happen as frequently as it happens on the streets of the good old USA, no, cause soldiers are more disciplined then your average citizen”.
You make a good point Mac, I’m pretty impressed with your post.
You more eloquent said what Ive been thinking with the added bonus of 20+ years of experience. Thanks for the response.
Clarence, thanks for the point of view
“No affect what so ever to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”
You are discrediting all the legislation that that congress and the military went through to get this compromise. I believe they went through that process for reasons other that bigotry and harassment. The reason is difference of sexes and i believe that same problem exist today.
“all of a sudden gays in uniform….”
True, that is why sexual orientation isn’t important.
With the loopholes, you make a good case to keep it so they can benefit.
Timmy oh Timmy, don’t know what to do with you on this one….. For starters I will say out of all the comments on this post, I never understood a single one you posted. When arguing your point, every time, you seemed to prove the point of the person you were arguing against was right….
Once again I feel this has happened…. I didn’t discredit all the legislation that congress and the military went through to get this compromise… I discredited the whole policy; it is BS for the above stated reasons… Don’t really care about a compromise that politicians made for votes in the next election which is all the policy ever was.. You see you left a key ingredient out, it wasn’t a compromise between congress and the military it was the gay rights lobbyist shoving a failed and flawed policy down the throat of the military through those they control call congress… It was the extreme religious right wing lobbyist fighting against a failed and flawed policy who also control who, congress… The military was only fighting politics as usual… You call it a compromise, I call it failed, flawed, and useless from the get go….. Wasn’t worth the paper it was written on, why, gays still get thrown out of the army. What did it do but buy a few votes in the next election….
On your second point, about “all of a sudden gays in uniform….” I honestly couldn’t tell by what you said whether you agreed with me or disagreed.
Ok, you don’t discredit the legislation but you do discredit the policy as failure.
Hmm… The point that hasn’t been addressed is there would be sessiones made for gays serving with heterosexuals. Are you not acknowledging the difference between sexes? I think the policy did and that is why they went through the legislation process to appease both sides and still work for the military.
The second point we agree on. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with serving, the difference is we both think that works for our argument.
Clarence/Gabe/Johnny,
The one other question i thikn still needs to be addressed is that of the inherent difference bt the sexes and the potential accomodations that must or will be given to gays should they be allowed to serve openly.
I dont know much about the topic, i just worry of the effects it may have. For instance, is there not different accomodations given to women compared to men regarding living situations etc? I am asking becuz i dont know. If there is, like it or not, those will eventually have to be given to gays. Male sexual nature, regardless of the sex of the object, is uniform in its capacity and desire.
Although of course we are not that bigotted to think that any gay guy sleeping near us or showering amongst us is there to try and get with us, but an EASY case can be made that special accomodations must be taken to ensure these types of instances dont occur. Just like you would never force a women into a potentially comprising position, you could not do that to a gay person, or a straight person for that matter.
Clarence i do love your point that it wont be a problem with discrimination or problems anyhow since military personel are light years more disciplined then us civilian folk. That i agree with, just think its more complicated than a simple, i dont care if im in close quarters with gay people. Any good person doesnt care, its the differences bt the sexes, typically regarded as inherent between the different orientations. If sexual orientation is regarded as fixed opposed to choice, asking a gay man to do everything with a straight man carries the same proclivities it does when regarding man/woman interactions.
[…] President Obama, most recently in his State of the Union Address. Here on ThreeConservativeBros, we have debated the issue at length, often times coming up with more questions than proposed solutions to the problem. Whether or not […]