Should the ban on homosexuals in the U.S. military stand or be repealed?

Answer 1

I support the "Don't ask - Don't tell" policy. That subject has no place on the job. It doesn't help achieve the mission, and it makes people uncomfortable. What people do on their own time is their business; they don't need to share that with everyone else.

Answer 2

I think it shoud be repealed. If someone wants to fight for their country enough to go through the harrassment that people even suspected of being gay or lesbians go through right now I think they should have the right to do so. It is just another form of discrimination by people that are scared of something that is different from them. The current policy is too often used as an excuse to discharge people (especially women) that may not even be gay, in retaliation for other things.

If you look at some of the positions that the personnel that have been dismissed under this policy you can see where our military has been weakend. In 2001 after 9/11 the miltary stated that they needed more translators yet in 2002 about 200 Arabic translators were discharged under the policy. in 2005 742 lesbian, gay and bisexual service members were discharged by the Defense Department. These dismissals continue to diminish some of the most vital positions in the military, with over 322 language specialists and nearly 800 specialists with training described as "critical" having been discharged between 1994 and 2003.

By dismissing these people who are highly specialized because of their sexual orientation not only does the DoD lose all the money that it may have invested in training these people over the years but they don't have the people to fill these positions.

If you check the links below you can find the statistics as well as finacial impact this policy has had. Interestingly enough in times of war the DoD doesn't seems as concerned about people's sexual preference (ie in 2000 - 1231 people dismissed/discharged, 2004- 668 people dismissed/discharged)

Answer 3

The military has one purpose, and that's National Defense.

It isn't a social engineering or headstart program. No one has a "right" to serve in the military, and the military has no obligation to provide equal opportunities for anyone based on gender, height, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or physical disability.

What matters is the individual's contribution to the cause, but that isn't merely a matter of what they can do, it is also a matter of their impact on the service.

It's possible that being a known homosexual won't matter to anyone. I don't know how soldiers would feel about that today, but I can tell you about twenty years ago in one unit. An otherwise good soldier was discovered to be a practicing homosexual, and morale in the unit plummetted. The reason was because soldiers take their self-image from the people around them, their buddies. Also, they got a LOT of ridicule from other units for having him in their midst.

Is that "right"? Probably not, but what are the options? Sacrifice the lives of the many for one person's "right" to be a homosexual? Sacrifice combat readiness for one person's "right" to be a homosexual? I had to decide whether to spend my time teaching my soldiers to be modern sensitive men, or get rid of this guy and get on with teaching them how to prevail in combat. I did everything I could to encourage him to request separation from service, which he did within days.

So the real answer to your question is:

Don't ask me, ask company grade officers. They know what the mission is and how the decision will impact it, and nobody else does, and nothing else matters.

If you want to base this decision on popular opinion and "what ought to be", you might as well just disband the military, because that isn't what they're for. They're for dealing with unpleasant reality, and if you want to make them do that within the confines of someone's fantasy society, it'll never work anyway.

Answer 4

It is becoming increasingly impractical to treat homosexuals as a lesser class of citizen or criminal.
I am not here to argue for or against homosexuals.
They may be victims of a disease, they may be flawed, they may be an affront to god or they may be none of these things. Regardless of what they may be, our society is becoming more tolerant towards them and the bulk of our society views them as equal citizens entitled to equal rights and treatment under law. The military is therefore obligated to view them the same. While I recognize that the military is an institution charged with great responsibilities that should supercede politics and social niceties, it is also representative of our society. If we are a people united formed of men and women hailing form every ethnicity we also include homosexuals among our people. The military not only defends the united States but also represents it. So it should not exclude any accepted part of it.
The time has come to do away with the ban.

Answer 5

Repealed. There's already homosexuals in the military, and since the military (well, at least the army) is so desparate for people, why kick good people out simply because of what they do behind closed doors? It's a stupid policy.

Answer 6

There is no ban on homosexuals in the military!

There's a ban on OPEN homosexuals in the military.

This has proven that homosexuals can serve just fine. It's not the gays that are the problem, it's the straights with hangups over it.

Answer 7

Repeal it. If we're really trying to get the best and brightest possible into our military, then their sexuality is a pretty stupid reason to bar someone who might be able to crack a code that could save Wichita from a nuclear suitcase bomb.

Besides, if HOMOsexual activity is a potential distraction, then so is HETEROsexual activity.

Answer 8

It should absolutely stand! Although....homosexuals can join, but there is a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. If you freely admit it, then you're gone. As well you should be. If homosexuals are given the same rights as straight people, then it would give the impression that this should be an accepted thing. It shouldn't be an accepted thing. It's not how things are meant to be.

Answer 9

Of course you meant the ban on openly admitted homosexuals.

Strike it down immediately. It serves no useful purpose.

Answer 10

that depends on alot things. 50 yrs ago if u told anyone that women would be serving in the military then u would be laughed at all the way to the looney bin. if they want to join up and serve why not let them. we allow blacks whites browns yellows and even foreign nationals why should we keep the homosexuals out of it?

Answer 11

Well it's really a half'er to be honest. They can join, they just can't come out to everyone.

Believe me, think of the consequences that poor SOB could suffer at being honest. There are a lot of good ol' boys in the military that just don't think it's right. Why endanger someone even more than they already are?