View Single Post
Old 04-22-2011, 09:13 PM   #8 (permalink)
Freebase Dali
Partying on the inside
Freebase Dali's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,329

I've discussed this before, but being a veteran myself, I do have a DADT perspective from an experience view. On one hand, its implementation was originally to allow gays to serve while maintaining unit cohesion by anticipating any negative effects that biases/fears may cause, and aligning with the gender segregation that's enforced in various situations. On the other, the DADT part of it was based on a an assumption that there would be significant problems as a result of having openly gay members of the armed forces integrating with heterosexuals. The reality of it, via my own experience, says this is not the case... at least from a unit standpoint. Anything beyond that is irrelevant, though.
I've never come into contact with any problems surfacing as the result of gays that were serving along side me and my fellow soldiers. DADT wasn't really a mask of sexuality either... we knew when someone was gay, and more often than not, those people would be open about it regardless.

While I can understand the idea behind its original implementation, I can't really see how it's all that relevant in our military. We'll always have biases against certain things, but when you consider the fact that there are still racists, and there are certainly racists in the military, you can make the comparison that gays will be just as successful in their integration as blacks were. Yes, there are times where military members in positions of leadership make decisions based on biases, but there are measures in place to report and combat it. I don't see why it wouldn't be reasonable for those same measures to be equally useful in cases where the bias has to do with homosexuality.
Freebase Dali is offline   Reply With Quote