I already spoke to the bogus point about translators elsewhere — specialized expertise can be contracted out to the civilians; the military already does this for many things. You don't have to turn our forces topsy turvy over such a minor problem.

Since you have studied this for 17 years perhaps you can answer some questions. What will be the impact on recruitment and retention of repealing DADT? Don't give me some kind of opinion, cite a study showing detailed results. The study should include a reasonably robust methodology for identifying potential recruits and determining the likely influence on their probability of enlistment if DADT is repealed. Ditto for retention.

Your statement that “people all up and down the chain of command support this” is apparently your opinion. Cite specifics, and the source.

Here's one from Military Times
Most active-duty service members continue to oppose President-elect Barack Obama’s campaign pledge to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy to allow gays to serve openly in the military, a Military Times survey shows.

Moreover, if the policy was repealed, nearly 10 percent of respondents said they would not re-enlist or extend their service, and 14 percent said they would consider terminating their careers after serving their obligated tours.
http://militarytimes.com/news/2008/12/122908_mi…

Great, thanks!

Well why don't we ask them instead of not only telling them what they have to do since we know better than them, but telling them that we're 'pretty sure' that we know what they should be thinking too?

February 8, 2010– The Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times.

Opposition to gays serving openly in the military has declined sharply among those wearing the uniform today.

An exclusive survey of some 3,000 active-duty troops shows such opposition has fallen sharply from nearly two-thirds (65 percent) in 2004 to about half (51 percent) today. The survey results appear Monday in Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times.

The Military Times exclusive is based on survey results and in-depth interviews with military leaders, both gay and straight. These career-oriented officers and enlisted troops are among those who would largely be responsible for implementing changes to the Clinton-era law and policy.

speaking of 'trivializing', is there some reason you are playing on ridiculous and insulting stereotypes of homosexuals to try to make your points?

In the military, you're supposed to have no secrets from your commanding officer. Continuing a policy that demands exactly that is discriminatory – but as others have pointed out, there is ample ground for the military to discriminate if it was for the better for the military. The real reason why this policy needs to be repealed, is because it hurts readiness (by kicking out droves of highly trained soldiers, many of whom are arabic and farsi linguists), and undermines morale.

And to the folks who say that this will cause people to become violent against gays because they can't handle sleeping or showering in the same room with them, I ask – is it really the case that our soliders can fight and die in the worst war zones known to man, summoning up unimaginable courage in the face of the most horrific situations, and yet they can't handle sleeping next to a man who has a boyfriend waiting for him at home that they actually know about? People who think so little of our soldiers do our military a disservice.

“A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.”

Good to see you on TMV!

I'm always sorry when judgments like “rather bigoted” and “demented” start being thrown into a conversation, because then I know that real issues will not be discussed. One of my friends (who is gay) sometimes throws the epithet “homophobic” into conversations. Funny thing is, he might be right 25% of the time, but the 75% of the time that the label is inaccurate, it actually ends up being counterproductive. The next time, fewer people listen because people will say: “Oh yeah, there's the guy who likes verbally attacking people to try to win his argument.” On the other hand, the link that JS posted (that you like) is effective precisely because it avoids the kind of verbal tear gas that ad hominem labels constitute, and tear gas just makes people run away from you – the divide widens.

If gay “marriage” is ultimately accepted in our culture – and it still may be – it will be because LGBT have won over doubters through kind actions, not harsh words. They have to be better than the other side.

Aren't we ALL paying the price in our fight against terrorism when we kick out gay Arabic translators and we can not find someone to translate known terrorists conversations involving attacks on us? You may be happy with half measures in fighting terrorism, but I'm not. If having a gay soldier translate attack plans and keeps my country from being bombed by terrorists, then that's fine with me. I don't think the citizens of our country should pay the price with their lives because of bigoted and hateful thinking from other citizens.

And we've been studying this for 17 years. There is no problem with studying the problem first and people all up and down the chain of command support this decision, including the commander in chief. What's your problem with that?

Oppressors trivialize any positive support for the group of people they are oppressing. That is what you are doing.

And then, “Everyone knows there are homosexuals in the military”…. “The issue is whether they can flaunt or declare their homosexuality openly and publicly.”

So tell me…. are you afraid that men will start wearing dresses in combat or around the barracks? Tell me how, exactly, homos will flaunt their homosexuality openly and publicly. You've already acknowledged that gays are in the military and always will be. So what about their behavior will send you scurrying for the nearest female to hold hands with?

I wonder if this entire past year, also has been affected by pre-conditioning we all effectively had by the big lurch to the left by the Clinton gang after the 1993 inauguration.

“We've been there before.”  For that reason, I don't believe November is another 1994.  (That goes for any second “Contract with America” stuff, too, for example.)

Interesting. When Truman racially integrated the military he faced the same objections from many, including from five-star general Omar Bradley who said that the Army was the wrong place for “social experiments.”

Similar arguments have been used to oppose full equality and opportunities for women in the military.

(Oh, I am sorry, you are right; it is not the same with gays)

The weird characterizations of gay people by the rather bigoted here must be a result of having never had gay friends. My wife, who grew up in Manhattan, has many. I've found them smart, committed, educated, culturally sophisticated, witty and fun. They don't hit on me, or anyone, are not predatory or promiscuous or in any way more likely to be involved in “sexual harassment” than any heteros I know.

The idea that a guy with a picture on his desk of another guy, or even studly male 'pinups' should bother me, is so foreign and demented, I will never be able to understand it.

They are your fellow citizens, they deserve to be outed and in the military, and you suck for whining about it.