The Pentagon's report on the impact of repealing DADT is out

[Carmen813]

By your standards, not allowing three hundred pound lardbutts to serve would make us fatty haters. The military is NOT an equal opportunity employer, nor should it be. I can't serve, for instance - I'm too old, even though there are obviously jobs I could perform perfectly well. Women aren't allowed to serve in combat roles, even those who otherwise pass all the requirement. The military is full of discrimination. But the difference between military service and other jobs is that lives are at stake. If cohesion and moral suffer in the military, people will die who would otherwise not die. Thus gays serving openly in the military have a much higher stake than, say, gays serving in the postal service, and those who oppose gays serving openly cannot simply be dismissed as homophobes.

Women have served in combat roles for quite some time. The military likes to pretend they don't, but let's be real. We have female combat pilots, and have for some time. There is no such thing as a "frontline" any more. As the old Marine going says "you are a rifleman first."

The arguments against gays serving in the military have all been heard before. We can't stop segregating units because it will disrupt unit moral. Guess what, it does, and then when its over with, the unit is stronger. There is little reason for DADT to remain in place. It costs us well trained troops at a time when we do not have the resources to lose them.

Of course this probably won't change any votes. The new plan is to just attack the study since the arguments merits fell flat on it's face.

 

[werepossum]

Women have served in combat roles for quite some time. The military likes to pretend they don't, but let's be real. We have female combat pilots, and have for some time. There is no such thing as a "frontline" any more. As the old Marine going says "you are a rifleman first."

The arguments against gays serving in the military have all been heard before. We can't stop segregating units because it will disrupt unit moral. Guess what, it does, and then when its over with, the unit is stronger. There is little reason for DADT to remain in place. It costs us well trained troops at a time when we do not have the resources to lose them.

Of course this probably won't change any votes. The new plan is to just attack the study since the arguments merits fell flat on it's face.

I think very few if any people believe that allowing gays to openly serve will not cost us more well trained troops than it will gain us. The people we will lose are primarily those we can least afford to lose during a war - older, senior NCO and to a lesser extent junior officers. It's never good to lose such institutional knowledge; it's particularly bad to do so in times of war.

 

[fskimospy]

I think very few if any people believe that allowing gays to openly serve will not cost us more well trained troops than it will gain us. The people we will lose are primarily those we can least afford to lose during a war - older, senior NCO and to a lesser extent junior officers. It's never good to lose such institutional knowledge; it's particularly bad to do so in times of war.

What are you basing this on? In fact, the study done by the Pentagon says exactly the opposite of what you say. It identified low-mid grade officers and senior enlisted as the LEAST likely to leave due to repeal. The highest attrition group was found to be junior enlisted, the most easily replaceable members.

If you think lifers are leaving the service before their 20 years because some gay guy came out, you're hilariously mistaken. You can't pry those guys out of the service before their pension. I also have zero idea why you think junior officers would leave due to this.

 

[zsdersw]

I think too many of you are unfairly basing your concerns about homosexuals serving openly on the stereotypes about us.

It's a matter of common sense: are the insecure, flaky, effeminate, drag queen twinky boys going to enlist for service and actually make it through basic training? Highly doubtful.

Something that may shock you is that there are a lot of different types of homosexuals, and the diversity within the GLBT community is as significant and pronounced as it is within the rest of the general population.

In other words, there are macho gay guys who aren't insecure about their sexuality, don't have mental health problems, and who don't pose any greater of a security risk than anyone else.