Women should be able to serve on the front lines in combat positions

Arguments for why women should be able to serve on the front lines:1) Women already hold just about every kind of post/job in the military and make up a substantial portion of the militaryWomen already make up 13.7 percent of the active Army, 23 percent of the Army Reserve and 15.6 percent of the Army National Guard, and many of them regularly face modern day combat situations. As of 2014, Women serve in 95% of all army occupations in the US Army, with the remaining 5% being closed off to women. http://www.army.mil...2) They would just be given the OPPORTUNITY to serve on the front lines. A lot of people against allowing women to serve in the front lines argue that women aren't as strong as men, and therefore they shouldn't be near the front lines since they would be endangering to others around them. However, there isn't some type of quota that the US Army would have to fill or anything if women were allowed to serve on the front lines, there would only be the opportunity for women to meet the same requirements needed to serve on the front lines than men would have to meet. It would be the exact same conditions needed to be met, and if women can meet those same standards that men can meet, then they should be allowed to serve, as they have proven to be good enough to serve on the front lines. 3) Women in other countries are already allowed to serve in front lines, and they haven't had any issues. Currently, there are several nations that allow women to serve in the front lines, such as Canada, Germany, France, Poland, Australia, Denmark, Israel, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway..... Even NORTH KOREA allows women to serve in front line combat situations.....http://www.washingtonpost.com... ^ Also mentioned in the article is that women in militaries that DONT allow them to be on the front lines still allow them in very close support roles, to the point that even as a support, a number of those women do end up seeing combat. Also mentioned is that women in the US are free to serve as fighter pilots and provide air support for battlefield operations. In other words, we already allow women to serve near the front line and literally OVER the front lines, so whats the problem with allowing them to serve ON the front lines like so many other countries have successfully done?4) GaysHear me out on this one. In 2011, Obama lifted the 'Dont Ask Dont Tell' policy that forbade openly gay troops from serving in the military. That policy was first put into place as an alternative to the outright ban on homosexuals from being allowed to serve in the military before Dont Ask Dont Tell came around. A lot of people believed that gays shouldnt serve on the front lines for similar reasons that people today dont think women should serve on the front lines; personal issues, attraction to other soldiers, sexual assault, questioning of their toughness... All the same crap. Since 2011, the public opinion is that gays serving in front-lines scenarios simply isnt an issue. There isnt any major movement out there lobbying congressmen to reinstitute the ban on the grounds that gays just cant or shouldnt serve on the front lines, society has completely made peace with it. If openly gay men have proven themselves to be capable of serving on the front lines despite decades of belief that they couldnt or shouldnt, then women are certainly capable of doing the exact same thing, and should be given the chance to do so. 5) Gangs Hear me out on this one. About 1-2% of the U.S. military belongs to gangs, which is 50-100 times the rate in the general population. Gang members armed with military grade weapons surely could pose a dangerous threat to their brothers-in-arms just as much, if not more so, than a woman, since the US military has members from all of the following gangs within their ranks:Aryan BrotherhoodBloodsCripsHells AngelsKu Klux KlanMexican MafiaWhite power Skinheadshttp://en.wikipedia.org...Now, I don't need to explain to anyone why having a member of the KKK serving alongside a black man on the front lines could be extremely hazardous.... We can all do the math on that one..... My point is that if the US military is okay with allowing literal gang members belonging to gangs that could have extremely racist and dangerous beliefs into serving on the front lines, than it should also be okay with allowing women to serve on the front lines. Think about it, if you had to pick between the normal woman and the racist gang-member as who you would NOT be more comfortable fighting alongside with in a combat scenario, chances are you arent very trusting of the guy with a swastika tattoo on his arm more than the normal woman..... But if the guy who belongs to the gang is allowed to serve in combat situations, than so should women, since both of them (could) pose an (arguably equal) threat to the people serving alongside them. I'll end here for now, back to you con.