Military policy DADT = BAD

Alright I am going to go, sentence my sentence on your arguments. "I know it makes me uncomfortable to sleep in a dorm with a gay guy. ." >> I am sorry. I know it does not make me uncomfortable. I realize that this will make some people uncomfortable. However the idea of your comfort or uncomfort with this situation has no basis in this argument. Also there have been studies that have been done on this idea and many of them say that service members would be very uncomfortable with the idea. However similar studies were taken in, I think the number is 13, other countries and after they lifted their equivalent of DADT no actual negative impact was seen. These countries include Australia, Great Britain, and Canada. One being our closest ally to the north and Great Britain being our closest ally in general. Also it should be noted that we are serving beside them in Iraq right now without some kind of detriment. "The GAO researchers noted that 13 Western allied countries allow homosexual men and women to serve in the military without restrictions and officials from the domestic departments that had prohibited discrimination of sexual minorities reported, ‘they had not experienced any degradation of mission associated with these policies'" (Evans). "Before Canada lifted its gay ban in 1992, a survey of 6,500 male soldiers found that 62% said they would refuse to share showers or living quarters with a gay soldier. But when the ban was actually lifted, follow-up studies found no increased difficulty with recruiting, discipline or performance, and few if any resignations were attributed to the change in policy. A similar scenario unfolded in Britain, where two-thirds of service members indicated that they would not serve with gays if the British ban were eliminated. Following the lifting of the ban, studies found no increased difficulty with recruitment" (Frank) "Australia, Israel, and Canada also eliminated bans without experiencing any increase in antigay violence" (Belkin) "The majority of soldiers are heterosexual, so they would not like to be with a gay guy." >>This in itself is fundamentally a bad idea. This is in essence saying people "would not like to be" with anyone who is different in any way. I obviously think that if a gay made a move (some type of sexual harassment) on a service member he/she should be kicked out, but I feel the same about any type of sexual harassment. And gay service members are not more prone to sexual harassment. They are human like me and you. Also do you have any evidence that heterosexual people do not like being around homosexuals? To say people do not like being with people who are different is not only a horrible idea but will never work in the real world as people are different on so many different levels. Not just a sexual orientation level. "I feel that gay men, have as much right to be on the front lines as women" >> Good, me to. "For all the women who are serving, you are doing a great job." >>I think women in the armed forces are doing as well as men. "Gay men, have a right to serve with other gay men, like women serve with other women." >>First off I am talking about gays in general here, not just gay men. Gay women also. Furthermore, you say women serve with other women, yeah, but they serve with men also. And gays serve with straights as it is in the status quo. Lastly apply what I said about the other countries having lifted their ban and not having any problems afterwards. "I have nothing against gay guys, but they make me uncomfortable, when I am alone with them. " >>See my first argument please. "There must be other guys like me in the fact that they feel this way." >>Definitely but we can see through the experiences of other nation's armies that when actually put in the situation there isn't a problem. Also our military policy should be based on what is right not on what the feelings of some. "Life in the armed forces isn't always comfortable, but we should keep them as comfortable as we can in every way, for everybody." >>Notice you said "for everybody" at the end of that. Everybody includes the gays. When you are forcing them to hide who they really are at stake of loosing their career is this really right when compared to the alternative of some having to be mildly uncomfortable. Also one more thing, you are arguing that this would make people uncomfortable and this would decrease the effectiveness of military is what i'm getting from this, but I want you to consider this: "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). If you want to evaluate this just from a standpoint of what helps the military the most.... here is your answer. Finally from a social standpoint please consider this: "'In the military,' said the Army JAG officer who deployed to OEF while serving in the Navy, ‘we learn to follow rules, and we promote what we're told to promote.' She said the result was that laws and policies sent clear messages about what was and was not acceptable in the service. ‘The best thing you can do as a soldier or sailor is to stand up for what the military says is right.' If the military said that gays and lesbians were welcome, it would have an enormous impact on attitudes toward them in the service. But ‘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'" (Frank) Can we as a society allow this?