One of our most important former Generals has had a change of heart on the matter.
Read the story Here.
Do you agree with his arguments?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This blog is dedicated to ethical debates regarding Just War Theory and the Profession of Arms as well as other issues of philosophical and ethical interest. Its primary contributors are future Air Force Officers currently attending the Air Force Academy. The views expressed in this blog are solely the opinions of the individual authors and not of the United States Air Force nor the Department of Defense.
26 comments:
Yes, this is a political issue, but it does effect those in the military. However, I also agree with the article. At this point, I don't think that it is that big of a deal in the military as it was even 10 or 15 years ago. Another thing to keep in mind, is that those opposed to gays in the military use arguements like that it will disrupt the "unit cohesion," but the same arguements were used when women were introduced and when African Americans and other minorties joined as well. They should be held to the same standards, and be expected to focus on the mission. I don't see how sexual orientation can influence the mission if our military remains professional.
From a religious standpoint, I think homosexuality is wrong, BUT I have no problem with gays and lesbians as people. Who am I to push my ideals on others? I'm not. Also, being gay does not make that person evil or bad, I just disagree with their lifestyle. It's all about the mission, which is to serve the US Constitution, not about personal beliefs.
Yes, there will be an initial uproar about introducing openly gay people into the service, but like stinky and sijan smurf said, it's happened before with minorities and women.
Either way, it's my job to follow the orders of those above me as long as they are not unethical or unlawful. I'm not one to decide whether the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is ethical or not, so I'll go with whatever the government says on that subject.
Sexual orientation will not affect the mission - but anyone that says that the fact that the military has not been negatively affected by adding women into our military sure has not been to any "Academy" briefings of late. Or maybe since they are not females they did not finish reading the RO where it says "Females Only" - "Official Bitch out 'round table' session" where girls go and sit at a table where a female officer asks questions like, "Do guys think your ugly" and some say, "Yes" and I sit there and say, "umm no" and think '"ya guys think your ugly, BECAUSE YOU ARE!"'
There is no law against allowing gays in the military, in fact, it says DONT ASK! All the military requires is DONT TELL! If there was any way to HIDE our sex and still serve in the military, I dont doubt that would have been a rule too. When we put the uniform on we are soldiers, not straight females or gay men, we are SOLDIERS.
Once I become General of the Air Force females will not get Different uniforms, will not be allowed to wear earrings, extra pay will go to Dependents, to include gays for all I care, wedding bands will not be worn in uniform, ect ect. We have a job to do, its not meant to be an easy job or a fun job, its SERVICE!
It is important to note that this issue is NOT the same as allowing African Americans or women in the military. Those to whom I speak do not need this explained to them.
Let us, experimentally, set morality aside and instead of throwing out words ike "military" or "political" issue, let us examine the issue from one of practicality. Let me start with the presupposition that gay men are sexually attracted to other men. Whether this is by their own choice or because of genetic predispostion is not the issue here. The point is, however, that this adds another sexual dimension to the proposed logistics of military life.
This demands observation of the present ruling. Take, for example, submarine service. Women are not allowed to serve on submarines because it is not practical / possible to put that number of sexual dimensions onboard as it creates difficult living quarters. The next logical step is obvious.
Let us return, then, to the presupposition: gay men are attracted to other men. This means gay men cannot live with other men as they would be attracted to their roomate and the roomate's work performance would be subsequently affected to the negative. It is also impossible for gay men to live with women (wouldn't you say you were gay if you could shack up in the girls' quarters in hopes of getting a hot roomate?). Gay men would also not be allowed to room with gay men (for the obvious reason). The same rules apply to lesbians for obvious reasons.
Now, having debunked any argument for gays being open about their sexual orientation, let us examine if they were told to "not tell". Let us make a comparison to a situation that will be shown to have the same consequences. Being a gentleman, I will use the guy's example. Let us suppose that there is a hidden camera in the men's shower. The camera has a viewing screen in the girl's shower room and so the ladies can see the gentlemen naked any time they want. Some get a sexual pleasure out of it and some do not. The gentlemen necessarily have a right to shut the camera down. If you do not believe that knowledge of the truth is a priority for you, I have no argument with you or business talking to you.
The camera scenario has the same consequences as gay men in the shower. With gays in the military, I do not know if the gentleman next to me gets a sexual pleasure in the men's shower or not. I do, however, have a right to turn the camera off.
The issue here, then, is one of practicality. It is impossible for gays and lesbians to serve in the military as there is not room for the facilities that military life necessitates.
We could attack the issue on a moral level, but that is an argument for another day...
I do not understand this...camera analogy.
1) Gays ARE allowed in the military
2) They cannot voice it - which is similar to us not voicing our political views publically. We all give up certain freedoms once we don this uniform.
3) I just better never have to go to any briefings about treating homosexuals "nicely" because of one idiot, and there best not be any special circumstances like roundtable meetings with better food for being different.
If homosexuals cannot voice their sexual orientation in the military, it goes far beyond a restraint on their freedom of speech. So we can't voice our political opinions while in uniform, but we can voice our political views out of uniform. A gay in the military cannot go home and be with their partner openly for fear that they might get turned in. This violates the basic constitutional right of pursuit of happiness. Also, when it comes to unit cohesion, the same concern was brought up when women were allowed in the military. However, this problem was monitored by regs, which do not allow relationships within the chain of command. The same reg would also monitor gay relationships. Sexual Orientation has nothing to do with professionalism and ability. The military is supposed to be an equal representation of the American population. However, the majority of military members are Christain, right wing republicans. The gay population has the right to be included in this representative sample.
Aww...My post was deleted.
Could that possibly have been because I was offensive and a little inappropriate for today's society and how we are suppose to act as Military officers?
If this is correct, does that not prove my point even more - not everyone in the military can pursue their form of happiness, there are limitations on us all - it is still your choice to follow those or not, life is all about choices. I had to give up long hair and many more important things for this chance in a life time - but it is a small price to pay. Personally if cadets who happen to get pregnant or make a child can leave that child of theirs for 4 YEARS and keep that child for 4 YEARS a secret, homosexuals can practice quietly.
Do you need to be public about you sexuality, but have the sense of feeling to SERVE the country you love? Is the US Armed Forces the only place for this - nope.
I do not think this is just a political issue, but it is also a military issue. I do not think the military should be more open to the gay lifestyle for two main reasons.
The first reason is that the gay lifestyle is immoral. This can be argued by looking at how humans were created. Obviously, we were created for male/female relationships (as seen by our physical bodies). Also, the gay lifestyle, like pornography or prostitution, is the manifestation of the degradation of our society’s morals. The spiral to moral degradation begins with self-centeredness, which turns into lust, greed, and envy. These soon do not satisfy enough, and only digging even deeper into pornography and engulfing lust satisfies. And once that has lost its excitement, only the next deeper and darker levels of moral depravity of child pornography and homosexual cravings can satisfy the lustful desires of the morally depraved soul. Hence, a gay lifestyle promotes an unnatural relationship and it is an immoral lifestyle because it promotes passionate lust, envy, and greed for something that one should not have.
Secondly, this is not like allowing women into the military. Allowing women into the military was moral and only required the split of the military into two groups for bunking purposes. Gays, however, should not be allowed to openly serve in the military because of the detrimental effect it would have on military operations. Admitting gays into the military would create a bad work environment because of the aforementioned immoral lifestyle in addition to the need to isolate each one in bunking conditions. Women are currently separated from men in sleeping conditions to separate all parties involved from their sexual counterparts. With gays, however, they could not room with other men because they would be sexually attracted to the men and they could not room with the women because the women would be sexually attracted to them. Therefore, to block all sexual relations, they would have to each have their own room.
This is a social,political,and a military issue.
I agree with the article.
We need to enlarge the military. It doesnt matter whether someone is homosexual or heterosexual, they should be able to serve without fear of punishment for their sexual orientation.
Now, on to the issue of whether or not homsexuality is "bad"... .
I was raised in a catholic school, and was taught that homosexuality is a sin, but the more and more i think about it, thats not true. A sin requires for something to be a choice, and i dont think people choose to be homosexual. Think about it for a second... Why would someone choose to like people of the same sex if they know that its only going to lead to non-acceptance in society. It doesnt make sense.
If someone loves their country enough to be willing to die for it, they should not be ostracized for being themselves. They should instead be allowed to express their feelings (in private...just like the no Public Display of Affection rule for being in uniform) without being kicked out of the military.
Too many people are too closed minded. This seems to be because alot of people are not comfortable enough with their sexuality to accept one who is different.
On to tackle the "cant room with them" argument. This is invalid due to faulty logic. Thats like saying that a man and a woman can't be in the same room without succumbing to sexual urges. It doesnt make sense. I am sure that there are homosexuals rooming with heterosexuals all over the country in colleges. There are also heterosexual males and females rooming with one another. There arent rapes every day. All people have self control. Thats not saying that it doesnt ever happen; Its just not always the case.
At first I was surprised by the relative calm of the first two posts before my first one because this is usually such a hot-button issue. I guess I thought too soon and I'm glad to see such a charged discussion, but I can't accept personal attacks. I don't exactly know Respect_Piñatas intent, but don't make assumptions about another person's comfort level in their sexuality.
It is not a sound progression of logic to say that someone who is against homosexuality is therefore uncomfortable with their own sexuality and closed-minded. Just because someone won't change their mind does not make them closed-minded. People can logically go through their opinions and either keep or change them. They have the right to do so and the military is here to protect that right. If one thinks through their opinions from every angle then they are not being closed-minded (this logic is sound). The only way someone is closed-minded is if they refuse to look at their opinions from every angle. It has very little to nothing to do with comfort levels.
I'm sad to hear that the 'Female Only Round Tables' ser loras mentioned are like that. I agree that that kind of situation is frustrating. I do not agree, however, that we should all look identical in every way; it seems dehumanizing. Are we to be a bunch of machines that look and feel and think alike? No, it's individuality (yes, even in military service) that promotes innovation in methodology and technology. Are uniform standards that are different necessary for individual thinking? No, and I'm not saying it's a slippery-slope either. I just think that there is a balance and like ser loras, I don't think we're there, but what ser loras proposes goes too far (it's just my opinion, I'm not stating that as fact).
Back to the original subject: my opinion that homosexuals have a lifestyle I disagree with but they should be allowed to serve regardless still stands. I wonder if some who are so vehement about not letting homosexuals in the military have ever taken the time to get to know someone who is gay. I have met "flaming" (I do not mean that in a derogatory way) homosexuals and those that are gay but you couldn't tell unless they told you. Guess what? They can be funny, boring, stupid, smart, nice, jerks, and everything that also describes straight people. If they cannot control their impulses so that they end up raping someone of the same sex, then they are no different than a straight rapist. They should be court-martialed and given the same treatment as a straight person. Do not assume that because they are homosexual they are so immoral that they would harm another person like that. They are not automatically evil people like it seems some of you are implying. A person's orientation does not predict if they will take part in unlawful behavior.
My last point invalidates the argument that homosexuals would have to be separated from everyone else, but for the sake of argument, let's not assume that. The same problem would still persist with how things currently stand; men and women are separated, but it doesn't stop rape. So I go back to my earlier point: if they cannot obey the law to not sexually assault another person, they should get the same treatment as straight perpetrators. Therefore, separating them is unnecessary. If a straight person is uncomfortable with their homosexual roommate then I think they should get over it. Take, for example, a foreign exchange student that slurps their food because that is what's polite where they come from. I don't care if you think it's annoying, you can switch rooms at semester. What about when we graduate? Well, you can choose where to live more readily out there than you can here, so it's still something that can be fixed by moving. The line is crossed if the homosexual roommate harasses the straight one and vice versa, but until then it should be a non-issue.
I ask that you take each person's argument and analyze it, not the person who makes the argument. I have seen the worst of human behavior on blogs elsewhere; please don't bring that in here where the title of the blog is "Rational Reflections from Sijan to Vandy." Personal attacks do not belong here.
Daniel - I agree that Homosexuals Should be able to serve and openly, but if we cannot even solve problems with what is in between our legs, which church service we attend; how, are we expected to get along with something so controversial in the society. Yes, the military is suppose to be above that, and be the first to make changes, but then again we are also suppose to be that equal representation of the society we serve and protect.
I look at it like this, we cannot hide everything about us so we are forced to be constantly bombarded by "tolerance" briefings. I would willingly hide the fact that I am "straight" if it gave homosexuals the chance to serve "silently" too.
I was also a little confused about your seperation...are you saying that men and women should not be seperated?
And...I do not fully agree with your final statement about "attack." Yes, we should not let it get so out of hand that instead of saying something with a point, that we just say, duck your stupid....but this is a blog where we are allowed, to a point, hide behind some "name" and say what has always been on our mind but were never given the chance to speak it, without real consequences - if we dont want it to get so heated, the topics should not be so controversial and our names should be our real names. When I attack someone personally I am admitting that I cannot come up with a good counter argument, but I am still not convinced and I am admitting this fault and basically asking for more from "you" to either sway me one way or the other. We are all seeking for the right answers, even though the right answers may be as simple as - yes we SHOULD be able to get along with gays in the military, but its just NOT going to happen without a boat load of Time, Energy, and Money.
I weigh it like this; in order for homosexuals to serve they can either do it quietly OR Every other soldier, airman, and seaman will need to go to countless briefings and there will be countless logistic problems and then countless discipline issues with hazing and harassment to include assault. And I do not think our military in this time, is ready to handle those problems when we have yet to solve the simplest problems of "sex."
It's a touchy issue. however, i do agree with the notion that it is a political rather than a military issue. I suppose it will be just like when we first let women into the military or even the Academy. There were tons of people who really opposed the idea and it was very heated at first. but people got over it. now we think of it as very common place. if gays are allowed in the military there will probably be a very similar evolution that takes place. i think it is also important for gays who favor this idea to realize that they will be just like the first women or blacks or any other minority: at first it will be difficult and they have to accept that fact. all in all though, i agree that the military needs any american who is willing to fight and support our cause. as long as being gay does not hinder their ability to accomplish the mission, i see no problem with it.
Ser Loras - Yes, I believe that men and women should not be separate, but that's an even more touchy issue than homosexuals in the military and I can't predict whether it'll be detrimental or not (in the WAY long run). I would like to think it wouldn't be, but I'm more confident that homosexuals in the military would be much more welcome than no separation between sexes. It's a crazy idea, I know, but why not throw it out there? When would this be a logical next step in making everyone "equal"? Heck, when is it a logical next step to let homosexuals serve openly? Is it now? Historians will argue about it after the fact. For now, we need to decide whether it's a good time or not and keep asking it until it gets there. If it never gets there, well... I guess it is that strong of an issue then.
I don't understand how personal attacks are justified, according you to (if I'm interpreting correctly), just because you can't think of a logical response. I admit that it's not "because you can't think of a response that you're automatically 'beaten' and you should change your opinion." No answer to an argument does not make that argument "right" or "correct" compared to your stance, but a personal attack won't bring about a logical response either. If anything, to use a cliche, it more often than not becomes a slippery slope of personal attacks. I say nip it at the bud by not attacking someone in the first place.
Bottom line is that we are members of the military called to a higher duty. We are here to uphold and defend the law and then complete the mission. Regardless of sex, sexual preference, or personal issues, our purpose is to put aside ourselves for the greater good. If we cannot serve without getting too distracted by our sexual urges then you should not serve. Every institution and organization is driven by some form of need. We have homosexuals in our military who have put themselves aside for their duty. It seems that our culture is so conservative that if even homosexuals were allowed in the military, the openess of their sexual preference would probably be repressed based on our cultural norms. If the need merrits enough people then chances are as a nation we would allow homosexuals rather then institute the draft.
As professionals are we that petty that we cannot set aside our personal issues in order to accomplish a common and greater goal?
The biggest problem I see with homosexuals in the military is that it will affect the mission. Whether it is right or not, many people will not feel comfortable serving with a gay person who openly voices their sexuality in public. It is not good for a gay person to be put in a situation where he may not be fully accepted by the rest of the unit. That endangers him and everyone else who is involved. I want to believe that anyone who loves this country and wants to fight for its cause should be allowed to. However, one must understand the circumstances that will occur.
I agreewith the fact that it is a major political issue but at the same time has a major impact on the mission of our military. I believe that a person's sexual orientation should have no bearing on whether or not they can accomplish a task. However, this does not mean that an open policy about such an issue would be ok. I think that it would take along time for our military culture to fully accept anyone with major differences.
It took long enough for people of different race and gender to be fully accepted and integrated. This situation would be no different. Although, after these differences were confronted then there would be no major detriment to the mission of the military.
First, the argument that this is immoral is absurd. Maybe it is to you, perhaps because of your religion, but your religion does not determine what is immoral to others, only to yourself and your beliefs. You can not impose the beliefs of a religion upon others, especially not in this country, that’s the beauty of this country. Which why I think not allowing gay marriage is unconstitutional. Now to the more appropriate argument:
Gays should be allowed to be open about their sexuality and in the military. The shower analogy, at least here at USAFA, this could easily be solved by getting something as simple as a shower curtain. The girls’ showers have them; the guys’ showers could have them just as easily.
To the argument that gays would detract from their potential roommates if they lived with a straight man; this would simply not happen. The same rules would apply to gays as to straight people. Take USAFA again for example, the gay roommate, just like his straight roommate, would not be allowed to engage in sexual actions within the room, eliminating the threat of an uncomfortable viewing situation. This act may even make a roommate uncomfortable if his straight roommate was engaged in the same actions with a member of the opposite sex. Furthermore, sexual harassment rules would still apply. Just because someone is gay does not mean they would, or would be allowed to, constantly flirt with or try to get their roommate out on a date. Just as a man can not take these actions upon a woman in the military, sexual harassment rules would stop this action once it had been addressed once between the roommates.
For those of you who do not believe in gay marriage, or gays in the military, I believe I will be laughing at you when, perhaps less than 30 years from now, our society accepts it. You are the same type that would have been racist in the 60’s. Just because something is different or you think it is wrong you try to impose you will upon that minority. This issue will be looked upon in similar light as the integration of African Americans, as a pathetic time when closed minded people exercised tyranny of the majority against a good and equal people.
If we take a step back and look at the time period during the Clinton administration, gays in the military was a hot subject of debate. Not but a few years later, after policy was created, the subject again surfaces, moving one step further; an attempt to nullify the "don't tell" clause. Might I propose the a few questions; The article claims that a "change in the policy will reflect a change in social values." Are society's values attuned to a higher moral standard thus advocating change, or are they delineating from the morals once held by so many? I would argue the later.
While it is not my place to judge, I beleive it is my place to voice opinion. By allowing room for change in the "Don't tell" clause, I beleive it distracts our focus on the mission and allows room for more problems within our military. What would we become if commanders were forced to deal with men and women who joined the military in hopes of finding a mate, rather than serving one's country? Where would we be if there were continual harrassment in the barraks by open admittance of ones sexuality? How would we deal with a man who believes he was supposed to be a woman; require less of them? Most importantly, how many more "straight" individuals would we turn away if they had a "bad experience," were being "hit on," or were forced to be under the command of these openly gay individuals? Would it not detract from unit cohesion, effectiveness, and basic followership? While I do not frown on them as individuals, I beleive that their lifestyle would have many unintended consequences if the "Don't tell" clause were dropped. At least with the clause in place, it provides a clear indication to gays presently serving in the military that there are boundaries and the mission comes first. It severly limits all discussion and action involving ones sexuality, thus maintaining the professional aspect of a standing military.
The issue is in fact a political one though I see it more as an ideological struggle. I have voiced concern, I have brought up issues for debate, I do not know the answer. If Sun Tzu were alive today, he would say that political leadership must take the burden to convince the American people to close the gap of differing interests.
Ultimately, I beleive that it would cause more trouble than it is worth. I beleive that there would be many unintended consequences for merely ridding a clause that has little to do with the overall mission. Gays can serve in the military, they also are able to serve just as effectively as a "straight" individual, so, what is the problem with keeping the clause "Don't tell?" Shouldn't the people focus on the mision rather than sexuality?
Let us for a moment consider the stuff we learn in philosophy class. If we apply the doctrine of double effect, we can see if Mr. Aquinas would have thought gays should be open in the military. The main effect of gays being in the military is good (diverse force, non-discrimatory, etc). However, the bad effect (relationships in dorm rooms, showers, and most importantly promoting homosexuality) are the very means to the good effect of allowing homosexuals into the military, thus failing the doctrine of double effect. The reason that we could not promote homosexuality in the military is because we hold ourselves to a higher moral standard than society. Just as the nation was shocked when one of our members was seen in "Playboy," the nation has expectations of the military. The military allows people to be gay; however, we should and do not necessarily promote it.
I personally do not agree with homosexual behavior, but I do not think that they are bad people. I think that they can still do their job and get the mission done. I do think that it will create complications and areas that will have to be altered and add things that will need to be taken into consideration. I feel like gays could be allowed in the military and it would still be able to get the job done. The part that I have to figure out still is how would this affect the United States... by allowing gays in the military would that be sending the message to all that the United States supports gays? I am not ready to support that message. I am not sure if that would lead to... "gays can fight for this country and yet the country won't allow them to even get married" because I don't agree with allowing them to get married. I am not sure of the affects allowing gays in the military would cause to the United States.
The question of allowing homosexuals in the military is of political nature. There are problems that the military faces and if allowing homosexuals in the military becomes one they will figure out how to move forward. If not they will become ineffective and the leadership removed and replaced with someone who will fix it.
Many blogs here argue about the morality of homosexuality. That is not the political question. The political question is if the military should be comprised of the people it protects. America is becoming ever increasingly homosexual and many are open and proud to be. Who would know better the freedoms they are fighting to protect than those who would be persecuted or even killed in some regions of the world if open about their sexuality? The military is set up to defend the constitution and the citizens of the United States even gay citizens should be allowed to defend a body that governs them.
Since when did homosexuals become unable to control their sexual impulses? How is a straight person any more capable of restraint than any homosexual? For anyone out there that believes that if open homosexuals were allowed into the military we would see an increase in sex related crimes and negative instances, think about the fact that there are those who live and work among you now who are gay and are doing a pretty good job keeping their sexual urges at bay. They probably show more restraint and more control than heterosexuals in the military.
Second, think about the impact that keeping that part of their lives concealed day in and day out has on their work performance and on the mission. You and your work may be fine because they have kept quiet, but what about theirs. Sexuality is part of who we are. WE can try to keep it out of our workforce as much as we can, and there are things that should, but to ask a person to be somwone who they aren't because it makes you uncomfortable...Is that right? What if tomorrow somwoone told you that because of an opinion that you held, a paradigm that you saw the world trough, a way you live your life, that you could not die for your country and the ones that you love. I don't know about you, but that would suck.
Lastly, using the DDE on this scenario is only appropriate if you find this to be a moral issue. DDE does not work, if you find nothing prohibitive in homosexual conduct. And last time i checked, relations were still occurring in the dorms between heterosexual people. That doctrine just doesn't quite fit here unless everyone is on the same bandwagon with you that homosexual actions are immoral.
One last thing to ponder on. Everyone on this blog, except for a few, have said that while they don't find homosexuality wrong, it would impact the mission with those who do find it wrong. Since when did the minority get to impose its morality on the will of the people? This is a political issue, but the military is a political entity, let us not forget that we still have the responsibility to that charge.
Let'em out.
Yes, this is a political issue which affects those who serve in the military. The military's policy is in place to keep gay military members from openly stating their sexual orientation while they are at their work station, not to supress their personal views 24/7. In the military their are people from all different backgrounds who believe in many different things which don't interfere with the mission because they are personal beliefs which are kept in check while working with other. Yes, gays can serve effectively in the military as long as they don't try to push their way of life on others or are open about it to the point that it interferes with the mission and their interatciotns with others. It's ok to be gay, thats a personal decision, as long as it doesn;t interfere with the mission.
I believe that homosexuality is immoral. However, because that belief is based on divine law, it is not accepted by atheists, and another natural argument must be made. I will not make a natural law argument against the mindset of homosexuality entirely; however, I do propose that at least homosexual acts are immoral. I propose the argument below (as I have also used elsewhere) that homosexual acts are immoral based on the Thomistic approach to natural law.
1. If two people are engaged in homosexual acts, there is no possible way that procreation will occur
2. If people do not procreate, then they directly inhibit the perpetuation of the human species
3. If people directly inhibit
the perpetuation of the human species (by not procreating), then they are directly frustrating the natural end of human sexual relationships
4. If certain actions frustrate the natural ends of some members of society, then those actions frustrate the natural ends of society as a whole
5. If people’s acts directly frustrate the natural end of society, then their acts are immoral
6. Some acts are homosexual
7. Therefore, homosexual acts are immoral
Therefore, with this argument, I propose that we do not support immorality in the military by allowing homosexuals to practice openly and at the minimum, continue to enforce the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
I was actually going to give a few arguments for why i think gays should not be in the military, however, many of you have good arguments for the other side. Some of my arguments would include the idea of unit cohesion. I still do believe that there would be a great deal of tension, especially extending from the extremely anti-gay in the military (a reasonably large group). Consequently, in a time of war, as our troops are running thin (as the article suggests) Im not sure if it would be a better tradeoff to have more troops, but more tension within our own ranks. Even though i cannot predict the amount of tension that would result, or for how long it would result, I believe that the safest thing to do would be to address this matter when we are not at war (whenever that is). Also, as the coffe cup mentioned, the military would be in a predicament on how to assign rooms to openly gay members, which ,again, i do not think we should be dealing with during a time of war.
Post a Comment