DADT was at best an imperfect policy originally designed by the Clinton Administration as an a compromise on the military's then policy of complete rejection of homosexuals in the ranks, a policy borne mostly because of the closed spaces most miltary members lived in and the potential for unneccesary distraction there ensuing.
This is a pretty good summary of DADT. It's worth noting that extremely similar arguments were brought up for women serving in the armed forces alongside heterosexual men.
My only real concern now is that it's going to be turned into another social engineering project where being openly gay is a commendable quality for advancement as "reparations," as left-wing Senators and Congressmen demand quotas for openly gay servicemembers in the upper ranks. All of the barracks issues will be sorted out over time and are generally minor concerns.
"Quotas" haven't been legal since the 1970s so I doubt that will happen. Bakke v Regents outlawed quotas for public institutions in 1978. However, private institutions are still allowed to enact any quotas they want.
As for the idea that being gay could somehow cause people to be promoted faster...this just doesn't happen in the United States. Most people here are still Christian. It's not like being a different race where people can share the same ideological views to advance in ranks even if they look different, there is still a big divide between most of this country and the homosexual population. "Tolerance" just means they put up with gays being around them, we're still a very long way from "acceptance".
Besides, having diversity in leadership isn't a bad thing. It helps the leaders keep the pulse of their incredibly diverse underlings more accurately. I agree that forcing the issue may cause a bit of backlash, but I honestly think the fears of people on the extreme religious conservative side are overblown. I've talked to people who honestly think that letting gays in the military is going to cause all of our deaths.
The "homosexual agenda" exists insofar as gays have organized themselves as a political force on the basis they have common policy goals valuable to them solely because those goals are beneficial to them categorically. To deny such a movement exists because calling it by its name might offend people is assinine.
The issue people have with the term "homosexual agenda" is when it's used as a curse word to vilify attempts at reaching equality, as if the primary goal of every gay man is to subjugate heterosexuals rather than coexist with them. That is insulting not only to human intelligence, but to people fighting for equality everywhere. The homosexual agenda exists only as much as the heterosexual agenda. We want equal rights, nothing more.
They might trot a few people out here and there to show feigned outrage but they'd rather be influencing schoolchildren, not soldiers.
I'm not sure what you're talking about when you refer to influencing schoolchildren but I'm going to sidestep the argument here and assume you're talking about teaching kids that treating others differently because of perceived sexual orientation is not acceptable.
An important point brought up by one of the sites I regularly visit (
Hillbuzz, some gay Hillary-turned McCain-supporter conservatives living in Chicago's gay neighborhood "Boystown") is that DADT was bad because it enabled blackmail and extortion. DADT was never a great policy and my only concerns about it have always been the fallout of overreach to "correct injustices" or whatever euphemism they use for weakening the United States out of spite.
This is a good point. Even if you don't care about the mental anguish caused by having to hide yourself from your friends 24/7, DADT is a law that literally encourages blackmail and extortion. It also encourages lying, which is not something soldiers should be doing to each other. Most people who supported DADT argued that homosexuals would lower unit cohesion because there is a potential for an ideological or physical barrier between people. I would argue that DADT lowers unit cohesion because there is a guaranteed ideological barrier between those same people.
I am pleased no one has yet brought out other militaries because quite frankly there is no comparison. Israel has compulsory enlistment in the military and so naturally includes all elements of the population. Every other military however might as well be a social club compared to the heavy lifting the United States does around the world. Does anyone really care if the fighting ability of the Royal Air Force or the Australian Army is compromised?
Israel could just as easily not allow outed homosexuals in their armed forces. So could England and Australia. The fact is that there have been no repercussions from allowing gays to openly serve in practice. The reason why nobody brought up armies from other countries is because it hasn't been an issue there for 20 years. The United States isn't nearly as progressive as we think it is. Any reason for keeping the ban was purely based on fears that something *might* happen, and not on actual evidence. This is the definition of homophobia. We should be ashamed that it took so long for DADT to be repealed, not patting ourselves on the back for catching up to the rest of civilized society.
Past is prologue and political correctness in the military has already lead to events like the Fort Hood shooting. It is not a question of if it will be tried, but when and how quickly it will be spotted and stomped (if at all).
Yes, it is certainly a question of "if it will be tried". When was the last time you heard of someone going on a straight-killing rampage because they are gay? When was the last time you heard of violence coming
after sweeping strides towards equality was passed? What is the difference between now and last week in the likelihood that this will happen? Wouldn't it be more likely that a homosexual would rampage while they were actually being discriminated against? I would argue that if anything, heterosexuals would be more likely to emulate the Fort Hood shooting because now they have to be exposed to something that some of them don't like in their fellow soldiers. What I'm trying to get at is that this is a problem for EVERY soldier, not just the gay ones.
Yeah, what do you know? Since you're making it seem like you don't know very much at all.
How does this post contribute to the thread?
