Should gays be allowed to serve openly in the military?

To get the debate going, here’s part of an analysis published today by Associated Press national security writer Robert Burns:

Analysis: Signs point to shift on gays in military

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama may get his wish to allow gays to serve openly in the military — not because of his powers of persuasion but because arguments against it have lost traction over time.

A cultural shift since Congress passed a legal ban nearly a generation ago has changed the debate.

For many younger members of the military — those doing the bulk of the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq — it’s hardly a debate at all. Polls show they care little about sexual orientation in their ranks.

Views in the wider society have evolved; gay marriage is now legal in five states and the District of Columbia. Opinion surveys say a majority of Americans think it’s OK for gays to serve in uniform.

"Do I care if someone is gay? I have no qualms," said Army Sgt. Justin Graff, serving with the 5th Stryker Brigade in southern Afghanistan. …

5 thoughts on “Should gays be allowed to serve openly in the military?

  1. not allowing gays to serve in the military is just another form of discrimination. If you can’t find a job anywhere else you can always join the armed forces, unless of course you have a problem with living a lie about who you are. Why shouldn’t gays be able to further their education with the GI bill? I know many straight people who signed up especially for that purpose. OOps there is that discrimination word again. It’s time for people to get over themselves, shut up , and let others decide who is the right person to commit to.

  2. for walk a mile. Your pitiful phrase “you can always join the military” shows your total lack of what it takes to serve our country. The test scores are higher to qualify and our overweight kids can’t make the standard, let alone our youths police and drug involvement issues. I suggest you talk with a recruiter before spouting off about a last resort. It should be the first option for ALL kids from 17-24.

  3. A debate suggests that there is a position to argue for and against. Discussing whether gays should be able to serve openly in the military is not a position, it is an opinion about a discriminatory policy. There was a reason for the policy in the past. The only debate now is whether that reason still serves a valid purpose.

    Years ago, it may have. When homosexuality was so maligned by society that most gays felt forced to live closeted lives, being outed could cause devastating harm. This made gays vulnerable to blackmail etc. and could be seen as a security issue for the military. I think America has moved past this issue. The argument no longer holds. Therefore, the policy should be changed.

  4. You are inferring that I meant unqualified people should be allowed to enlist. As a very proud Navy Mom I know exactly what it takes to serve. I am sure that when he is in harms way my son would appreciate the services of a highly qualified Arabic linguist, 59 of which have been dishonorably discharged though DADT. Google Lt. Dan Choi to see what this policy does to impact our National Security

  5. Well said “walk a mile in ’em” and thanks to your son for his service to our country…

    Also thanks to the gay, lesbian, bi-, transsexual and straight people who teach us, minister to us, doctor and nurse us, advocate for us, and protect and serve us in every role in society. Unless you’re having an intimate relationship with someone, their sexual orientation just isn’t relevant.

Comments are closed.