Last week, the House of Representatives voted to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that prevents gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people from openly serving in the U.S. military.
The Senate Armed Services Committee voted to repeal it as well. Next, the Senate will vote. But even if the Senate passes it, nothing will change until the Pentagon completes its study on Dec. 1.
It’ll be on this day that America finds out if we are ready to let gay people fight for our country.
If feels almost absurd that the previous sentence was just typed. Why is it that we bar people from serving in our military if they are willing to die for our country? Because they are gay? What do DADT proponents assume, that gay men and women will want nothing but sex any time, any place, at any cost?
Yes, they do. According to Maj. Gen. Rick Goddard (ret.), who is on the board of directors of the Georgia Military Affairs Coordinating Committee, “Gay men in particular exhibit an appetite for anonymous sex with many partners.
Traditional base gathering places — libraries, theaters, bowling alleys, gyms and athletic fields where both active-duty and military dependents frequent — become targets of opportunity.”
If it dumbfounding that people are basing their opinions of DADT off terrible and false stereotypes. Do they really believe that gay men and women want nothing but sex? Do they believe gay men and women will ignore their military duties? Because if so, they need to look no further than their straight counterparts for that.
Remember the Guantanamo sex scandal in 2005? What about the Air Force Academy sex scandal in 2003? Or what about The Tailhook scandal in 1991?
There is no solid evidence that allowing gay people to openly serve in the military will adversely affect it. DADT costs tax payers millions of dollars each year from the costs of gay investigations and discharges, then training their replacements, according to the Government Accountability Office. Wars are already costing Americans billions of dollars just to fight them. To use money to discharge someone that does not need discharged is a waste.
In the end, DADT needs to end. There are soldiers who take on multiple tours in wars because the army does not have enough soldiers to ease current soldiers’ burdens.
If someone is willing to die for our freedoms, shouldn’t we let them do that despite their sexual preference?
Don’t let the ignorant stereotypes fool you.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
timbap_ajs 1 year, 10 months ago
I think it is ridiculous that gay people couldn't be in the military. If anyone is willing to fight for the country, they should be able to in the best way that they can, not be shunned away. The fact that people are being "kicked out" of the military due to their sexual preferences when other soldiers are being sent out on multiple tours because there is a shortage of soldiers is also absurd. timbap_ajs
Steelrain6 1 year, 11 months ago
After more than 20 years of military service at the command level, I have seen many honorable military service members who also happened to be homosexual. In "real" military units that serve in combat, there is very little practice of discrimination based on sexual preference or even sexual behavior. Modern soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines don't have the old prejudices and attitudes of previous generations. Military personnel do not have time for things which do not increase survival chances. This argument, a political argument without much actual effect on real soldiers daily lives, is seen as just one more distraction that diverts attention away from the real mission.
I thought it might be useful to point out two things about the way that the military thinks about sex in general and homosexuality in particular. From a military standpoint, sex scandals in the military are not seen as bad because there is sex involved; they are seen as bad because they typically involve abuses of rank or power and can also create situations where family life becomes a big distraction from the military mission.
Homosexuality, again is typically not that big an issue in a military unit except when a situation involves those same issues: abuse of rank or power, or distractions from the mission.
You've taken a strong stand that sexual behavior should not be used to deny anyone the right to serve. If the problem were simply sexual behavior this issue would have been settled a decade ago. It is virtually impossible to discharge a service member for anything short of serious or even disgraceful behavior. So, when "sexual distractions" occur and have an impact on a military unit's mission they often escalate quickly to the level of seriousness required to discharge the service member rather than having to deal with the issue on a recurring basis. It is just an example of the old adage that if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
TIMBAP_WAS 1 year, 9 months ago
It is completely outrageous that citizens of the United States are unable to serve in the military because they are gay. Being gay is no reason to deny a person's right to protect their country and family. This country as a whole needs to move on from its anti-gay views, just like almost every country in this world has, and not risk any more soldiers' lifes on the battlefield just because gays can't join the military. As I recall, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that states that a person who loves the same gender shouldn't join the military. The government needs to stop pulling an "Animal Farm", and let gays have their rights just like everyone else.