Since this debate has been going on, I have not heard anyone explain why the military is opposed to gays serving openly in the military.
When I went through basic training, the drill sergeants thoroughly explained to all present that we were no longer black, white, Hispanic, Catholic, Christian, Jews or Muslims; we were now soldiers of the U.S., and uniformity was our key to survival.
Individuality is not conducive to the military environment.
Progressive movements are great for society, and gays should have the right to marry. However, letting any group have its individuality while the rest are forced to acclimate to the military way of life is not wise.
Civilians need to realize that their way of life will never be comparable to that of our soldiers. The military is not about me, me, me; it’s about the team as a whole getting the job done right and bringing everyone back alive. No differences should be allowed to divide the cohesiveness that is needed for our troops to be effective.
Let’s remember that the military is a place where it is a crime to talk harshly about the president. Not showing up for work or being derelict in your duties are punishable by death in times of war.
One would be wise to examine how uniformity and selfless service has made our military the strongest in the history of mankind.
Are we trying to fix something that is not in need of repair?
Cameron Dolezal is an engineering junior and may be reached at [email protected]
You make it seem like they want to wear pink uniforms and shoot sequined streamer guns in the heat of battle.
You brought up religion — no one is prohibited from practicing their religion openly in the military. In fact, there are chaplains provided for Christian soldiers all over the world. There is no compulsory requirement that one BE a Christian to be in the military, therefore, wouldn’t that count as individuality? You contradict yourself, stating that individuality is tossed out the window, yet somehow being able to serve without denying who you are disrupts that.
What I find particularly offensive about your stance, and the stance of many others, is the assumption that gay soldiers would be bad for morale, as if our armed forces, supposedly the best our nation has to offer, would not be professional enough to do their jobs alongside homosexuals. That’s offensive to soldiers, to gays, and to anyone with intelligence, in my opinion.
And yet a Sikh who wore traditional Sikh headdress and had a long, flowing beard just completed basic training. They let him in the military and retain his faith. They should have not let him in or chopped off his beard and hair according to this article, correct?
The UJMC is still subject to the US Constitution; we don’t have two separate legal systems for the military and the “rest” of the U.S. Equal Protection Clause violations are not to be tolerated within the military and in civilian life.
I remember that speech, too. Soldiers are soldiers first, and anything else comes second, religion, friends, MOS, whatever— however, you’re still allowed to do all of those things, without fear of punishment. You can still practice whatever religion you want, you can still have friends who mean a lot to you, so long as those things don’t effect your performance as a soldier.
It’s not like homosexuals want to change the way they can wear the uniform so they can “express themselves”, they just want to be able to serve their country, and do it without having to lie about who they are. Gays are perfectly capable of being good soldiers (ever hear of Tech SGT. Leonard Matlovich? He served 3 tours in Vietnam, won a Bronze Star, and a Purple Heart after stepping on a land mine. He was gay).
DADT isn’t about uniformity. It’s about ignorance and fear. And it’s a disgrace to the United States of America that, in the year 2010, it still exists.
I fail to understand why they are allowed to serve at all, due to the military's own logic. For example, the article says that there is not supposed to be individuality. Then that should mean no seperate shower and bathroom facilities for women and men. Yet they exist. Now, we have gays in the military who are attracted to men being allowed to shower with men. Well, what about men who are attracted to women's bodies? Are they allowed to shower with them? Once analyzed further than one inch deep, the whole logic falls apart. I am not arguing one way or the other, rather, I am attempting to show the lack of logic inside the entire issue.
“strongest in the history of mankind”. Go to Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan or some such place and say that? Oh wait…