Interesting conversation going on. While I don't have an issue with the basic premise of Gays / Lesbians serving there are going to be some real bad issues to resolve that will be done for reasons of equality or diversity and not for the effectiveness of a fighthing force - BTW the reason we have a military.
Even worse than the issues that are going to need be solved - we have significant forces engaged around the world that could use these resources - we will now how have yet another layer of bureaucracy to provide counceling to, opportunity for, and protection from.
From what I've read, the upper levels of the military are incapable of (or hindered from) focusing on what makes a military tick: people, leadership, gas, guns, and bullets but having to spend considerable time and effort on equality and diversity training. I'm all for equality and diversity, but we have ships and planes that don't get required maintenance becuase the personnel that would be performing that are conducting or receiving the diversity training. Now we're going to add more layer to that?
And now, the backlash will begin (
has begun). People that were asked to provide their honest, professional, military opinion and did not support repeal will be labeled as homophobes, unfit or unworthy of the uniform. They will be the next boogeymen steamrolled by the diversity squads that thing that diversity in the military is far more important than the effectiveness of a military.
I don't care what race you are or if you are gay or straight. If you want to server your country, fine. If I were in the military and you were gay, I might sit down and have a beer with you and not have a problem with it, I probably wouldn't want to shower with you. I don't think that makes me homophobic.
DADT might have been the easier way to do this and might have been sufficient until there was some level of peace to work out the kinks.
Ehh, don't think I explained myself well enough, but I have to go to work...
Threaded Mode