But it only takes one incident to trigger an investigation. Any evidence at all that one is gay (even an offhand remark made to someone before one enlists) can count. Supposedly, the DADT policy was supposed to allow gay people to serve so long as they were circumspect. Unfortunately, as it has been enforced, the policy is actually MORE intrusive than the one that preceded it, since more gays and lesbians were dismissed under the policy than before. That trend has reversed in the last couple of years (I'm curious as to why THAT might be), but under DADT, the only way a gay person can serve without fear is to 1) never have sex, 2) never talk about sex, either before or after enlisting, and 3) never evince any offense at anti-gay remarks/jokes/harassment that one sees. According to a recent DoD survey, 87% of military personnel report hearing derogatory speech about homosexuals, 85% report that such speech is tolerated, 37% reported experiencing or witnessing anti-gay harassment. Source: History of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"wrong. you have to have proof, and you have to have proof that it has occurred multiple times to establish a pattern of behavior.
Not sure what you mean by this. If the policy would be the same no matter, what, what is the problem?exactly; and the reasons that ban is in place apply to not repealing DADT
Consider this: Someone who objects so strongly to gay people that he/she cannot serve with them--such a person is bad for unit cohesion, isn't he? Is the problem the gay person, or the one with the bad attitude against them? A person is a person is a person. Military personnel (at least those with similar training) are supposed to be interchangeable, no?one who needs team success to come far and away ahead of individual success.
I see your point here, but does the military not have means of dealing with opposite-sex attraction within units? Could these methods not also work for LBGT soldiers/sailors/marines? We earlier had a thread about the problem of pregnancy by female soldiers--at least that problem is avoided, so the problem of sexual tension between same-sex personnel is arguably less complicated.there you are incorrect for two reasons:
1. it's not just "the next bunk" in the combat arms. in the middle of cax out in the desert in the winter i've slept three Marines to a sleeping bag, huddled in a pile, spooning with your buddy.... the proximity almost literally can't be overstated.
2. everyone seems to assume that the source of tension will be strictly hetero-homo sexual. there is no reason to suspect this is the case; the main source of tension (for example) in the mixed-gender units is between the sexually compatible. i'm unaware of a single mixed gender unit that has deployed without having issues that stem from that basic of human drives.
It also seems to me that the ordinary barriers to military service also take care of much of the problem some people fear. I mean, there's no way I could be a marine. I'm simply not masculine enough (this isn't about sexuality, just personality). I wouldn't survive the first week of boot camp. Five AM PT keeps the riff raff out.