D.A.D.T Policy

http://www.youtube.com... Thank you, NukeTheJuice, for opening this debate. I'll try my best not to be offensive. I first need to say that I do support a modification of the "D.A.D.T." policies , however, not an elimination of the overall policy. That said, the "D.A.D.T." has been very effective towards the goal of having an inclusive military. "An estimated 65,000 gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons are currently serving on either active or reserve duty, and it is estimated that there are another one million gay, lesbian, and bisexual veterans."[1] A poll taken by The Washington Post/ABC, conclude that in 2008, "Seventy-five percent of Americans believe that [homosexuals] should be allowed to serve in the US military.", openly, 78 percent believed they should serve. I do not dispute that there would not be an outcry of dissents if the entire "D.A.D.T." was lifted, but polls are polls. This particular poll chooses it's demographics. Here is a poll that, a: requires participant to seek the poll[2](i.e. not random phone call to whoever is home at the time)b:allows for more specified answers c: so far has sampled 200% more participants. http://usmilitary.about.com... Only 40% of respondents support a complete lift on the ban. The rest still support some aspect of the ban. I fall in the 2% that believe Homosexuals should serve openly, but that homosexual conduct (as well as heterosexual conduct) should be banned between active soldiers, and sodomy should remain banned outright. The reason why I would change the policy to allow soldiers to state their orientation is because of the potential that one can blackmail a fellow soldier or officer. I'm sure I'm in agreement with my opponent that our soldiers will perform their duties regardless of the regulations or knowledge of each others sexual orientation. And it seems that for the most part that this is exactly what has evolved from the initial policy in question. It is the other aspects that I believe must remain. Participating in sodomy is a health concern.[3]The Congress has the obligation to retain the good health of soldiers and make any rule in pursuit of "prepar[ing] for and to prevail in combat should the need arise"[4]. The activity would also put other soldiers in unnecessary risk. The duties required by many and possibly most aspects of military operations puts soldiers at risk to exposure to disease host. There is no reason to increase this hazard by allowing personnel to engage in such risky behavior. This portion of the D.A.D.T. should not be changed. Male Homosexual acts should remain banned because the behavior demonstrates the propensity or intent to engage in sodomy. Since Lesbianism does not demonstrate the propensity or intent to engage in sodomy, females could be exempt. The military should not be burdened with having to prove an actual event, so male homosexual activity should remain banned in it's entirety. I will pass on the financial aspect. I am sure my opponent would agree that if it were to be shown that it would cost more to lift the ban, it would not discourage her opinions. >>>>> >Lifting the ban ensures that Arabic linguists and other critical specialists are not fired for being gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Lifting the ban protects 65,000 service members from being fired by the largest employer in the country for being lesbian, gay, or bisexual.<<<< I agree, however I don't think the military has crippled itself by firing legions of homosexual linguists. The US military is not an employer. There is no Constitutional right to serve. The 14th amendment does not prohibit the government from " tak[ing] away your natural born rights such as Life, liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness.", and it certainly doesn't trump Art. 1 sec. 8 par. 14; ('Congress shall have the power...")To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces. If we were to concede to both a right to serve and a right to serve "gay", this would completely disrupt both military and civic affairs. Would it not be construed to shield any activity deemed "gay" from disciplinary actions, no matter how disruptive to the "high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion."[4] One of the websites my opponent endorsed demands that Congress "Amend military medical and uniform regulations that discriminate transgender[sic] servicemember[s][sic]"[5]. Yes, we should allow men to wear female uniforms. This won't invite any disruption in the daily activities of the military. Klinger never achieved his goal. The military cannot be burdened with the problems that ensue when the privilege to serve becomes a right. Certain provisions of the "D.A.D.T." policies should remain enforced for "[t]he primary purpose.... to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise." Including any activity that puts the soldiers at unnecessary risk. Homosexuals in the military should be able to state their orientation, but "homosexual acts" should continue to be banned. All acts of sexual nature both heterosexual and homosexual should be banned between soldiers while on active duty. Congress has full authority to do as it desires and it should remain that way. [1]http://www.palmcenter.org... [2]This statement should not be construed to imply my being offensive to the "GLBT[Gay, Lesbian,Bisexual,and Trans gendered] Community". [3]http://www.freerepublic.com... [4]http://www.law.cornell.edu... thanks Tarzan [5]equalitygiving.com Con, argument 1