DADT should be repealed in favor of allowing gay service members to serve openly.

I'll address the contentions similarly. I also urge voters to vote on the debate, not on your stance on the issue. Contention 1: Were the survey results directly from members of the military? If not, there could be unreported harassment. Contention 2: "when the military is giving the message that there's something wrong and shameful about being gay, then we're also giving the message that to hate gays is acceptable" But we're not giving the message that being gay is bad, we just don't want to know. It may be for the reasons I stated earlier, or it may just be because it doesn't matter. Either way, the idea of a DADT policy does not say that homosexuality is bad. Now, a "don't tell" policy might imply this, because it puts all the pressure on the soldier to keep it secret. But since there is also a "don't tell" part, it also includes pressure on the other soldiers to not ask, or they will be ejected. This is the military's way of saying, "It doesn't matter if you're gay or not, but don't tell anyone/don't ask anyone, so we don't have any problems". Contention 3: "Yes it does. Any heterosexual service member can quite clearly state that they are heterosexual but the moment a gay service member states that they are homosexual they are ejected from the military." Actually, DADT applies to all members of the military. If you are heterosexual but are asked if you are gay, you have no more obligation to respond than a homosexual does. Otherwise, you would automatically know who is gay, and DADT would be pointless. For example, if you are gay and you scream it out, you should be ejected. If you are straight and you scream it out, you too, should be ejected. DADT stands for "don't ask, don't tell". This translates into "Don't ask about a person's sexuality; don't tell about your sexuality". As you can see it regards sexuality in general. Now look at these examples. Example 1: Bob is gay. He enlists in the military and serves for one year. A high-ranking officer asks him if he is gay. He replies "yes". He is ejected for telling, along with the officer for asking. Example 2: Jim is not gay. He enlists in the military and serves for one year. A high-ranking officer asks him if he is gay. He replies "no". He is ejected for telling, along with the officer for asking. Contention 4: "Secondly this hurts unit cohesion in morale status quo not because service members dislike gays but rather because gay service members cannot be entirely open with their fellow service members, they are always hiding something." Not exactly. Many people in the military may be hiding something that they feel is embarrassing; it could be anything. The fact that a soldier is gay should not hurt their morale any more than these things would. And if not telling is preferable to other people with [what they feel is] embarrassing, then it should be the same with homosexuality. Contention 5: a) "People currently do not serve in the military because they are opposed to the militaries current anti-gay policy." I don't see it as an anti-gay policy. Nor have I heard of anyone who does. Many people interpret it as a policy to protect private information that may be the target of harassment. b) "This would stop everyone from wondering who is gay and would allow the gay service members to better bond with their peers because they would no longer be guarding secrets from them." Like I said before, many people may be guarding other secrets, and they may not want those to be found out. (Otherwise they wouldn't be secrets.) Also, why would you need to be wondering who is gay, unless you plan to do something with that information? I don't expect to have anybody say, "Oh, you're gay? Yeah, I was just wondering". However, I do expect that if you spend so much time trying to find out who's gay, no good will come from it (harassment, talking behind their back, etc.). c) This is not discriminatory. If it was, then you would be required to provide your sexuality in the questionnaire, and you would be rejected if you were gay. Or there would be a disclaimer stating "If you are gay, you will not be accepted". Those two examples would be sexual discrimination. However, since you are allowed in, just you're not allowed to provide the information, then it is not discriminating. Remember, you still have to follow DADT if you are heterosexual. d) "And then, if those service members are discovered to be gay we must then eject them, at which point we lose all the money we just spent and must spend all that money over again to rerecruit, retrain, refeed, and reequip a soldier to fight in the gay soldiers place." Like I said earlier, if there are "discovered", they will most likely not be ejected; only if they tell. Example 1: John is gay. He enlists in the military and serves for one year. A high-ranking officer asks him if he is gay. He replies "yes". He is ejected for telling, along with the officer for asking. Example 2: John is gay. He enlists in the military and serves for one year. A high-ranking officer sees a letter fall from his bag. He picks up the letter and reads it; it is a letter from his mom, responding to him telling her he is gay. The officer cannot eject John, because he never told anyone if he is gay or not. So it is only a waste of money if they break the rule. And we all know that if you break certain rules in the military, you will be ejected. "According to the Pentagon, it has discharged more than 10,000 service members for being gay, including nearly 800 with skills deemed ‘mission critical' by the Department of Defense" (Ralls)." They must have told/broke the rule.