DADT should be repealed in favor of allowing gay service members to serve openly.

DISCLAIMER: The word "gay" is not meant to be offensive or used as a crude term for the people of said sexuality, but only for lack of a shorter and more accurate word. 1. If it is silencing a minority, it is only for the benefit of everyone in the military. If there are people serving in the military who oppose gay rights, they may openly oppose and verbally or physically abuse their gay peers. This can lead to no good; if reported, it can result in ejection of the offender from the military. If this happens often, many people will start to get ejected. And, reported or not reported, harassment and/or abuse because of your sexuality has a negative effect on morale and performance, possibly for other people who were not open about being gay and for gay rights supporters who cannot stand to see gays treated unfairly, in addition to the person who is being harassed. 2. It does not imply that being gay is bad, it implies just what it states: that it is in the best interest of most, if not all, people in the military to keep quiet about their sexuality. They will not be "destroyed" if their sexuality is revealed; they will be ejected, and not for being gay, but for breaking the rule, which as I showed in point 1, is for everyone's safety/benefit. 3. As I said above, DADT does not imply a wrong. It also does not impose a religious anti-gay view on anyone in the military, as it only asks of a person to keep quiet. They also understand that if they break this rule, they will not be ejected for being gay, but for breaking the rule. 4. "Before this law was in place gay service members truly had to serve in secret and no one knew that they even existed except when they were found. " Since as you just stated, they were found, people knew they existed. Since anyone could lie about their sexuality, there was still no telling whether anyone in your unit was gay. If your statement is true, then it was essentially the same before as it is today: Gay people can still serve, and their sexuality has to be kept secret. "Now that this law has been passed service members know that there are gays serving among them but not who. " The assumption than in your unit, there are gays among you but you don't know who, should not be made in the first place. There may not even be any gay people in your unit. And the fact that there may be gays among you should not affect your morale. 5. "For one the people who disagree with this policy and do not serve in the military because of it would now be open to do so. " Open to do what, serve in the military? There would still be gay people in the military, so they would not serve. "For two, the unit cohesion and moral issue would no longer become a factor. " The morale is not an issue for the people who aren't gay. However, by making people targets for insults towards gays, it would decrease THEIR morale. "Thirdly, gay units are no lesser at their job" This doesn't mean they will be lesser at their job if their sexuality is kept secret. Being openly gay will not make them any better than they were before, and gay people are still admitted into the military, so excluding is not a problem since they ARE admitted. "Finally this would actually save the military money as hiring and training a service member only to find they are gay and kick them from the military is to waste money. " Finding out that member is gay will only result in their ejection if they tell. If you find out that they're gay from that person's family member, or going through their personal belongings, for example, they can't be ejected because the didn't tell. Therefore, the repeal of DADT will no harm and will not be as effective, safe or beneficial as having DADT in place will.