Do you think that this wouldn't hold true for lawsuits? I'm sure that the whole claim that they'd sue over something could occur for any issue. Not enough "left handies appreciation?" Law Suit. You provide no specific reason why this isn't happening on other issues, or that if it is happening on other issues that the increase caused by the repeal of DADT would cause an undue burden on the military's current ability to deal with said lawsuits.
Other issues have been mostly resolved. Homosexuality is a unique circumstance different from something like skin color or religion. Unlike the military whose recruits will likely bear the makeup of whatever the local population is, there will be an upper limit on gay integration in the military. They will never exceed more than a tiny percentage of any company, and I'd bet there would be another outcry if you made an all-gay regiment, so that's out of the running. Combined with the fact the pool of potential gay servicemen is already limited because of strong correlation between leftist (generally military-averse) values and sexual orientation means you have a limited pool of people to begin with. There will always be "the one gay guy" or "the two gay guys" at any given time. That singles them out much more than six black guys in a company of 15.
Your claim that the must ask if they aren't asking is total bull shit. If that was the case, why isn't there a DADT about adoption or the names of your grandparents or any other nonsense. You do realize that 10 USC 654 does ban the service of gays in the military, it just precludes investigation into if the people are gay or not.
At the end of the day there are situations that apply to the military that civilians never deal with. Comparisons to the readiness of other armies is ludicrous. Israel has mandated enlistment so their military population is effectively their entire population. Every other military is, by comparison, impotent, incompetent, insignificant in scale, or tertiary. We do not want to emulate those militaries, who by and large lift the lightest loads. Their situation and ours is not comparable.
To repeat, this just isn't true, if they repeal 10 USC 654, all it would do is mean that you couldn't expel people for being gay.
If that's all it means, that's fine. But jumping from that position to the position of the OP that labels all opposition as bad faith opposition is something I will not tolerate. As I understand it, this vote is still contingent on what the Pentagon decides in their study. They are analyzing how to repeal it, not whether. I have serious reservations about either, but it's in the Pentagon's hands now.
I agree with this, but I believe that it would be more positive for the solider's moral be able to admit to their sexual orientation without fear of being expelled from the military. The creation of a situation that forces soldiers to lie through admission is never a good idea.
I can't believe that you don't have the confidence in our troops that they wouldn't be prejudice against other soldiers. You might not realize this, but your arguments could easily be used to support the old racial segregation in the military, something which I believe that you will agree was a failed policy.
You are the one demanding 99 out of 100 troops conform to the demands of 1 out of 100. Why do you not have the confidence that 1 out of 100 troops can handle keeping their orientation to themselves? Why do you want to call me out for supporting the concerns of the vast majority while getting a free pass when your demand what serves only the smallest minority?
It is nice, in the abstract, to ignore human beings have pre-existing prejudices. It is downright foolhardy to believe they won't come out when subjected to intense situations and close quarters, especially when it involves sexual concerns. Everyone has prejudices, even the high-minded (or more blunty, especially the "high-minded".)
To me the only difference between a gay husband and a best male friend or a roommate is previous sexual activity. Just leave out the word "husband" or "lover" and you can talk about who is waiting for you back at home. If your jocular knucklehead flyboys are talking about their sex lives that's unfortunate, but they can get canned by talking about their wives or girlfriends that way. If people take it to mean this "friend" is a gay lover and they attempt to rat you out, they will be in violation of DADT.
Furthermore you cannot hide your skin color. It is an immutable characteristic that can be determined from a distance. Homosexuality is different in that it affects how you might behave in various relationships instead of what you look like, and no one can know for certain unless you tell them. These are basic distinctions that are never accounted for in most people's logic because to do so would undermine the idea that the gay struggle is equivalent to the black struggle. It is fairly easy to determine with certainty someone's skin color. How do you "prove" you are gay other than your word?
Hipmonlee said:
Religion is never a metric important to any mission. It has zero value either positively or negatively. What "being open" does is create tension in the ranks. You have a bunch of (mostly) men in their teens and twenties in close quarters and tense situations. Someone else in your unit gets a promotion? "It's because your CO hates Christians/panders to PC!" The idea there will not be lawsuits and internal strife over a repeal of DADT is ridiculous. We're talking the same class of activists who sued I dunno some stupid thing some stupid Christian sued for once upon a time for the heck of it. The military cannot be neutral on any policy. If the upper ranks don't think there's enough "Christian appreciation" they will host a day for it and each soldier will be mandated to attend, no matter how they feel. You will effectively force 99% of the military to cater their lives to 1% of recruits whose Religion being openly accepted is more important than the feelings of everyone else in the unit.
"Hey, you can work here, but if you mention your husband, then that's going to be all sorts of trouble.."
Have a nice day.
Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan. He was coddled by PC in the military because of his religion and look at what happened. Nobody wanted to flag him because "Muslim" was treated as a protected class and soldier's didn't want to lose their career for subjecting him to scrutiny. I am not saying that a homosexual is going to start shooting things up like Hassan after DADT is repealed. What I am saying is you can expect any coddling of a minority in an occupation that is supposed to be standard, uniform treatment for all soldiers to have adverse effects to some degree.
