DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

yes. all other western nations have gays serving openly in their militaries. It will be an adjustment at first, but it will not affect anything over time. These are the types of things that people need to let go.

I guess in a way, but the men and women serving in the military must meet the personality characteristics as well.

First and foremost – I am a retired U.S. Marine and a Viet Nam Veteran. I speak from experience.

The psychological harm of having openly homosexual members in a combat unit will not only lose the battle but the entire war – no matter how small the war.

Unless you segregate homosexuals and lesbians, you will lose all integrity within any combat unit – not to mention the trust of one soldier to another.

I caution all of you – Our military is not to be used for social experimentation.

Just my not-so-humble opinion. B)

Firstly, I've never understood the thing against the DADT policy. It sounded like a pretty good plan to me- they're not asked, so they can't be denied entrance, and they don't have to tell. A great deal for all. Unless, apparently you feel the need to flaunt your sexual habits. Which also never made sense to me. (I don't think anyone really cares that much…you don't see hetrosexuals proudly proclaiming that they have sex quite regularly with the opposite sex…or that they are hetrosexual. And I really don't care about the homosexuals' habits, either. ^.^)

Continued…

I also don't understand the argument of how, if we were to remove it, how having open homosexual members would ruin the integrity of a fighting unit. Seems to me we heard that argument when having women in combat units was suggested…but women quite openly participate in military engagements nowadays, and nobody squeaks a word of protest. (Now I don't think women are the best people for the job, but if they're willing to do it, we can't tell them no.) The same deal with homosexuals. I think we'd find that if ordinary soldiers didn't let it matter (which I don't think it should), then the fighting capability of the unit wouldn't be harmed. Such an argument is, in my mind, a copout, and a way to excuse your prejudice.

-Disclaimer- On the subject of homosexuality itself, I do disagree with the lifestyle, and I'm not backwards about telling anyone so, but I don't think we should prejudiced against them because of it.

You don't think people flaunt sexual habits? Are you kidding me? So no guys brag about having sex with different girls all the time?

That's exactly what was said about African Americans serving in the United States Military…

I see your point. I've never heard any guys brag about such a thing, but then I'm around mostly Christian guys, so I probably wouldn't.

O.K., I see your point about ethnicity. However, homosexuality is not an ethnicity.

Since you are obviously (by your name "Barbie_Sue") a female, I know you cannot wrap your brain around the idea of 15 or so guys all sleeping in one squad tent out in the middle of nowhere in some far off country during an armed conflict and knowing that one or more of them is a homosexual and that sometime during the next 48 hours or so your very life will depend on that or those individuals. Whether you like it or not, heterosexuals have an inherent distrust of homosexuals for nothing else than they are homosexuals and no one knows who their next "love interest" may be. Just look at some of the reality TV shows about cops and the like and observe how people react at the death or life threatening injury of a loved one. You cannot have that kind of behavior in a combat unit – and yes, I have the same ideas about women serving in combat units for the exactly same reason.

I can wrap my mind around a whole lot of things, Papadawg. I just wonder, do you know any gays and lesbians? What I'm asking is, do you have any gay and lesbian friends? If you did, I'm sure they would tell you that being in one squad tent with 15 or so straight men would not be where they would even be looking for their next "love interest." Why is it that hetersexual men base everything on sex? Seriously, you think if a tent full of men, or a tent full of women were in a combat zone, the gays and lesbians would be looking for their next "love interest," and not concentrating on the task at hand? I"m thinking if you treated that homosexual with a little respect for wanting to fight and die for his country, you wouldn't have to wonder where his priorities were, you would know. Because, like it or not, he or she is an American, just like you. And like it or not, the gay and lesbian is fighting for a country that really doesn't respect them as an individual. And still, they want to serve. And yet, you want to deny them that right, that honor, because you, Papadawg, have an inherent distrust of them..

And yet, you want to deny them that right, that honor, because you, Papadawg, have an inherent distrust of them… You think your service in the Corp is any more honorable, because you're straight, than their service is in the Corps? And still, they want to fight to keep you free, so you can have that opinion. Go figure.

Okay kid, figure this; All of the homosexuals and lesbians – yes, ALL – that I had contact with while in the Corps had joined for one reason only, and that was to be in close quarters with those of the same sex in hope of having multiple "affairs" with their intended targets. It was that attitude that got them caught, and sometimes being beaten up rather badly by the other men & women. That is not what I call having a desire to serve their country. FYI – I have several homosexual and lesbian acquaintances, and none of them consider me a friend even though some of them I have worked around and with for many years. One homosexual "couple" own and operate one of the best restaurants I have ever been to in my entire life, yet they both know that I would never let any of my grandsons be alone with them for a new york minute. No, I am not prejudiced, I just do not like their sexual lifestyles – and that my friend, is what free choice is all about.

I'm not a kid, Papadawg. I'm also not naive enough to believe that only the gays and lesbians in the US Military want to have multiple affairs with their intended targets. The only difference is that the straight men and women can do it proudly, and not be afraid of being thrown out of the service. Do not lecture me about the gay code of conduct, unless you're going to mention the sexual lifestyles of the straight military members. So, you don't care how qualified anyone is, if you don't like thier lifestyle, they should not serve in the US Military? That, my friend, is NOT free choice.. that is your prejudiced, homophobic view…

"homophobic" . . . A phobia is a fear. I do not fear homosexuals or lesbians, so get that out of your mind.

By the sheer number of hits on this thread, you can see that this is a rather hot topic. My personal views on the subject do not make me an enemy, they are just my personal views and convictions acquired by a lot of life experience. I, too, am not a kid. I am not the prejudiced one here since I am not the one doing the name calling. I stated facts and you got angry. The facts are just that, factual accounts of my personal experience with the homosexuals and lesbians that I have come into contact with while I was in the service. Others have had different experiences and therefore have different views on the subject. What I am trying to say here, in a nutshell if you wish, is that no one has the right to force their lifestyle ideas on anyone else. By forcing the U.S. military services to accept homosexual and lesbian service members will have a very detrimental effect on the efficiency and effectiveness of our armed forces. A military service member is a weapon, a living breathing expendable weapon. If a weapon has to be redesigned to accommodate its various characteristics which do not lend itself to the job it was intended to do, then that weapon is not cost effective. Continued below.

To continue . . .

When the military looks at a weapon, be it old or a new design, there are many factors that they must consider. Overall cost; What will it cost to continue to use an old weapon, what is the development and training costs of a new weapon and what is the cost of redesigning an old weapon to a new task. Practical deployment in a combat situation. And finally, life expectancy on the battlefield. These are just a few of those considerations. Most recently the military had to redesign the infantry unit to accommodate a second sex (female), at great cost to the taxpayer. Now the "powers that be" want them to redesign the infantry unit to accommodate a third and fourth sex (homosexual and lesbian), and to what cost to the taxpayer and to what effectiveness level? These are the pure cold hard facts of the situation. Continued below.

When I entered into combat in Viet Nam we had a fairly good weapon called the M-14 rifle. It was versatile and easy to maintain and did not malfunction under wartime conditions. Then the powers that be decided that we needed a newer rifle and they gave us the M-16 rifle. The M-14 design was based on the tried and true world war 2 M-1 rifle design, whereas the M-16 was a totally new concept. I lost a lot of my squad members (experienced combat Marines) to the unexpected many malfunctions of the M-16. Unfortunately, due to political reasons, our military is still using that basic M-16 design and from what my nephew (U.S. Army) and my son (U.S. Marine Corps) tell me they are still having many problems with the design. I hope that this helps explain that a flawed design costs unneeded casualties no matter what the political desires could be. Forcing the military to integrate homosexuals and lesbians into their ranks for purely political reasons, I fear, will have the same effect as forcing the less than reliable M-16 upon us in the middle of a war in Viet Nam. I know from experience that the casualty rate will skyrocket and the politicians will put the blame elsewhere than their flawed reasoning.

People die in war, that is a fact of war. But they do not need to die unnecessarily. Especially just so some dirt-bag politician can pat himself on the back. I only hope that you can understand my reasoning now. If not, well that is your loss.

I'm not at all angry, and I actually understood what you were trying to say, before you felt the need to condesend to me with the weapons, M-14 rationale. I'm a woman, with a college degree, not an idiot.

I do not agree with you, and my experiences were not at all like yours. My problems came not with the gays and lesbians, but with the straight men, who did not understand what the word NO meant. From platoon leaders who threatened bad evals if I didn't do as they said, to men like you, who flat out told me I didn't belong in this mans Army… You get the picture. So, my view is a whole lot different than yours, for many reasons…

We're all Americans.. We all should have the right to serve our Country honorably. like it or not, Papadawg…

It is NOT a "right" . . . .

It is a privilege, and privileges are EARNED!

I did not serve in the Army. There is a vast difference between Army and Marine Corps. There is also a vast difference between a college education and life experience.

It was not my intention to condescend you, I tried to explain the difference between an effective weapon and one that is not and the cost in money and human lives.

Your experience in the military is what many females experienced. I was a military policeman. As a senior SNCO I did my best to treat those under my command equally. As a retired Marine and police officer, I know the value of the opposite sex in certain (figure that as you will) situations. I also know when they can be a detriment to certain situations, just as males can be in other situations.

We have had a very good discussion here. Do not let your anger get in the way of reasoning. Have a good day.

I don't see how having homosexual members in a combat unit would inherently hurt said unit's effectiveness…unless the members of said unit let it hurt.

And as Sue pointed out- it's not just homosexuals that have a problem with sex. It's the hetrosexuals too.

Honestly, I'm not angry. I'm just passionate about what I believe. I'm 57 years old, and I've had my share of life experience.. One can have a college education and life experience!

I understand that the Marine Corp believe there is a vast difference between them and the rest of the Armed Services. From what I saw, a bullet is a bullet, and dead is dead.

You believe it's a privilege to serve, I believe that everyone should have the right to have that privilege. How can you earn a privilege when you aren't afforded the right.

I agree with you on the good discussion.!!

No appreciable effect on combat units in almost every other Western military (including Israel). Most of them made a bigger deal over it than our current military has when the rule was changed. This is to our military's credit.
Discriminatory by limiting and questioning the patriotic abilities of otherwise capable people.
Used in a discriminatory way to expel women at a far higher rate than men. Something like 60% of the DADT expulsions in the Air Force are accusations or charges toward lesbians, when women make up less than 20% of the Air Force.
Used as a "get-out-of-jail free card" by homosexuals who enlisted for social benefits like ROTC but did not wish to serve in wars (not very common, but it has happened), which provides a reverse discrimination against heterosexuals who might also not have wished to serve in particular combat arrangements. Basically once you're in the military you should have the expectation of doing some things you probably won't like, regardless of gender or sexual orientation
Sex and fraternization was already a problem between heterosexuals in the military, this is a canard
There are already up to 60000 homosexuals serving in the military by some estimates. They're just not serving "openly".
The policy has been unofficially suspended in some combat areas, and was officially suspended during the 1st Gulf War with no effect on "unit cohesion" or performance. Dan Choi is back at work for example.

Personally speaking and getting out of the ridiculous amount of statistical and moral weight against this policy as being unnecessary and wrong, the more people who want to go off and fight or serve their country who are permitted by this country to do so without useless restrictions or requirements, the less likely it is that I'll have to go.

Yes the law should be put to an end. If you agree join my group on Facebook.
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/group.php?gid…

You know I avoided this debate on purpose because I didn't feel I had anything new to contribute, but now I do. Obama is a bigot. He clearly thinks that homosexuality is a sin and just can't come out and say it openly because he knows it would kill him politically. Here, I've written a blog post regarding this.
http://omgobama.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/on-behal…

So yeah. F*CK YOU OBAMA!

There is no reason for homosexuals to serve in the military. Don’t ask don’t tell is flawed in that it allowed some of them to slip under the radar. They have no business in the military for they have nothing to contribute to society.

Ok, papadawg, I am one of several hundred gay/lesbian people that I know who are UNABLE to serve under the 'Don't ask don't tell' policy and of those I know ALL of us want to serve not for sexual conquest, (as I assume was your goal) but for the chance to serve the greatest nation on earth as a front line defender of YOUR freedom to bash us for our lifestyle. I am happily 'married' (at least we would be married if that were possible) to my beautiful partner of 3 yrs. I can also say with complete confidence that everyone else that I know (and by that I mean better than having just met them in a bar a couple of times) like me are people that would not be hitting on any other members of their unit. Now if a member attended a gay/lesbian bar with the intent of returning with someone of the same gender and was reasonably convincing in their attempts that would be an entirely different situation. And even then they probably would not, because, in a unit you are family, so would you go trying to sleep with your sister? I doubt it so why, if I come to think of you as a brother, would I try to hit on you? We are people just like you and we can love our ( our meaning, yours and mine) country with the same fervor as you and we can choose to go to the front lines to die for our country just like you! The primary difference between me and you is the fact that you are completely incapable of moving past your prejudices long enough to befriend anyone who is homosexual, and to be open enough with them to understand that we respect you for your choices and just want to be respected in spite of our choices! Put it this way Respect the Person, their character and their heart, not necessarily their lifestyle.

Now I want to say to you personally, from the deepest place in my heart,

Thank you for your service and sacrifice to my country!

And now would you please do me the honor of stepping to the side (not down or back) and allowing a new generation to come in with new ideas and new innovations that they would like to contribute to the betterment of our mutual society?

Liberty, i was like you raised in a strict conservative christian home and I'd like to say that in the outside world it is not just a keep it quiet thing. For me to join would mean telling the love of my life that my career in the military was more important than them… Because you wear sexuality like your hair color or your eye color, you might die your hair and your red hair may be black for a time but it still grows red! or you may wear blue contacts on your eyes but they are still hazel underneath and when you wake up in the morning. growing up I felt like I lived inside a bubble now I have stepped outside of that bubble and it is a completely different world out here!
just once you ought to find your craziest friend (a high school buddy that was known to party or as close to that as you can get) and go to a bar or a club in your nearest city-worth-mentioning (i live in a small town, can you tell?) and sit in a corner or at the end of the bar that offers the best view of the room and tell the bartender that you are the designated driver (you get free sodas all night) and watch the people around you interact with each other. You might just be surprised at what you see (think of it as a learning experience).