Thursday, May 20, 2010
US Stands Alone in Ban Against Gays in Military
During a recent congressional hearing on the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell," policy, countries from around the world testified to how little openly gay people in their military affected the morale of their units. The Canadian Army, the Royal Dutch Army, and even the British Royal Navy, all took turns criticizing "the Land of the Free" for banning another equality. The countries stated that by allowing gays in their military they have "better retention of qualified soldiers and sailors in key positions", "more volunteers to choose from", and "because gays and lesbians are less likely to become parents, they tend to stay in the military longer." They also stated that there was absolutely no evidence that homosexuals did not get along with any other members. There seems to be no reason behind keeping gays from their natural right to serve in the U.S. military.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Missy-I'm glad you posted something about this, during my blogging time I also blogged about "don't ask, don't tell." I don't understand the US Army's issues with homosexuals serving, it's obvious that their excuses that it will hurt the army are invalid. I agree with the other countries, and I think their "land of the free" criticism is accurate. After all, isn't the military pretty desperate for enlists? Why turn someone away simply based on their sexual preference. I am glad to hear that theses other countries have spoken out for allowing openly gay people in the army. It's about time the US give up their prejudices.
-Katie Jensen
wow this is amazing. finally evidence that shows that sexual orienttion has no efect on military service. this shows that we should get rid of current policy such as dnt ask dont tell.
I completely agree with the other statements. I just find it preposterous how the U.S is still lagging behind this issue. Many other countries of this world have gay men and women serving in their army and have openely admitted to find little problem. Why can't the U.S just follow this example. Its amazing that gay men and women are willing to die for their country and we cannot simply respect them as human beings.
I really like this post. I personally agree that sexual orientation has nothing to do with how well one can fight or defend their country. These soldiers choose to do what they do. This means they will put all they've got into what they are doing.So no matter what they sexual orientation is,it will have no effect at all in the outcome.I also like the point that because gays and lesbians aren't as likely to get married and start a family, they may be the ones better off to fight in the military. They will remain loyal and this can be beneficial to the country, since more experienced soldiers will be in combat.
Yes i agree with everyone here. There is no reason to keep homosexuals out of the military! They are not less effective soldiers, they are not a hinderence in the protection of the united states. Many people are unwilling to serve their country and anyone with the courage and pride to serve should be allowed to. Being homosexual doesn't affect your ability on the battle field.
Missy, I really like that part in your post where you talk about how "the Land of the Free" simply banned another equality that should be given to all humans, whatever their sexual preference is(it shouldn't matter, so if your a gay/lesbian you're not human??)
I feel one of the key reasons why there is a "don't act, don't tell policy" is because a lot of soldiers, not just the commanding officers are somewhat reluctant to work with people who may be gay/lesbian. What I've noticed living in the bay area is that there are a lot of people who expressively open about their sexual identity. However, maybe in many other parts of the US this is not prevalent or even existant and for the soldiers coming from that area, gays and lesbians may seem very different although in reality they aren't.
I also really like Missy's reasons for why gays/lesbians should be allowed to serve their country. I thought that it definitely portrayed the many benefits to enlist them rather than to not enlist them. Also if soldiers are worried that maybe gays/lesbians are going to "check them out" or "hit on them" I personally don't think they have anything to worry about because generally gays/lesbians tend to go for gays/lesbians... I really don't see any valid reason to keep gays/lesbians out of the military.
Wow, I didn't know that the US was the only country that banned gays from enlisting in the military. The reasoning behind the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy seems to be totally based on prejudice, especially the one that gays would hurt the morale. There is no just reason and I like how the other countries addressed this. I really like the comment about how gays are less like to have children, so they would stay in the military longer. This is a logical reason, which I think is such a greater reason (along with equality and the other reasons states) over ones that the United States cites, which seem really unjustified and subjective.
Hey what's up? Alright here's the thing. DADT is just like Prop 8, institutionalized discrimination. There is no tangible reason why gays should be less allowed than others to serve. Furthermore, if gays are drafted, they are allowed to serve... So we can be forced in yet forced out at the same time. Sort of, um, stupid. Point being: Most of America is homophobic. Don't believe me? Spend a couple of hours in Arkansas and come back to me and tell me with a straight face that the rest of America is ok with gays. What surprises me is how little is actually is being done that has a concrete effect on this.
In my surprising defense of DADT,I think Bill Clinton had the right mindset when he put this into effect. I really think he meant this more as a protection against gays from being asked. I think his main emphasis was for the Don't Ask part. What he needed to do, though, is compromise by putting in the don't tell part and subsequent expulsion. But Bill Clinton has recently come out (forgive the pun) against DADT and says that times have changed since the law was enacted and it is time that it is removed. I do agree with him to that extend. Gotta miss that guy ;) Subscribe to my blog (my ligit blog that has a fanpage :P ) jgalisatus.blogspot.com!
Post a Comment