"It should be said that my military background is Marine Coprs infantry, which hopefully gives some credibility to my opinion."
"I would describe 'combat effectiveness' as a measure of a unit's ability to defeat the enemy in any circumstance. One of the factors that has an impact on combat effectiveness is a unit's cohesivness -- how well they work together and the degree to which they have each other's backs. No unit is perfect, but certain things can cause varying degrees of divisions. Religion and culture are examples and in this case, sexual orientation. Some in the unit could be ok with having a gay member of the unit, most would not be. This would cause a division thereby decreasing the ability to work well together. It introduces the possiblity of hesitation and the presence of doubt about each other. It makes it into those for, versus those against, not us against the enemy.
My logistical objection springs somewhat from a moral one. I do not believe it is right for the military/government to say that I would have to live with a female servicemember (meaning room with, shower with, etc.) in any environment, combat or otherwise. I feel the same about a gay servicemember, who in essence falls in to the same category as a female. I would feel sexually harassed by the circumstances. I know that just because they are gay doesn't automatically mean they would try to make sexual advances, but there are certain inherent intentions in that sort of grouping, just as having men and women in very personal situations would have. To date, I have not heard anything -- from the military or otherwise -- about any sort of plans in regards to this. It would be a logistical nightmare to have to sort out tents/living quarters/shower facilities for strait men, gay men, strait women, gay women...especially in remote combat environments where resources are limited.
In short, I have moderated my opinion to the point that I believe if homosexual individuals want to join the military fine, but they should be limited to non-combat MOS's, just as women are for the reasons previously mentioned, and all others I didn't mention, because this is not a game, this is life and death. Not to open another can of worms, but the same reasons women are exluded from combat MOS's applies to homosexual individuals, in my opinion. It boils down to saving lives and the effects it would have on a unit's and individual's ability to eliminate the enemy which is how you win wars.
Two people I have known, and gone to war with have become openly gay after finishing their contract and leaving the military. I have nothin against them and consider them friends. Being gay had no impact on their ability to do their job, but they weren't openly gay while they were in the military. The real problems start when things become open, and their relationships with members of the unit inherently change, thereby starting into the problems I've already mentioned."
Links:
US Message Board
Al Jazeera DADT Blog (read comment posts)
Washington Examiner
The New Political
Fox News
Media Theories:
Despite the fact that these articles all have different authors, some common media theory threads run through all of them. The first is that those from conservative news outlets (like Fox News) have set an agenda to maintain their conservative (largely anti-gay rights) viewership. These stories are more likely to go into moral issues with homosexuality in general. They cite military officers and others against the repeal.
Pro-repeal articles are framed carefully. The tone is such that it almost makes readers feel guilty if they don't agree. The articles and posts are worded in a way that makes the authors (and all who agree with them) seem very noble and righteous.
