![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Dec. 16th, 2010
For the sake of argument, let's say you live in a country with an all-volunteer military. Let's also assume that you want your country's soldiers to do a good job and have espirit de corps. In short, you do have some standards.
Now, let us say that among your standards are physical, mental and emotional standards - be strong, be tough, be able to think on your feet and not go to pieces if something dangerous happens.
However, in order to keep up with current missions your military needs to meet certain recruitment goals. It is facing a shortfall. You are unwilling to raise salaries for soldiers all that much because they are supposed to be paid in part by their knowledge that they are potentially sacrificing themselves for a greater good.
Which do you think would be more injurious to the espirit de corps of long-term soldiers: letting in soldiers who are of a different age, religion, skin color, gender, or sexual orientation but who otherwise meet all the current standards? Or, putting soldiers on the front line who are mentally unstable, possibly have criminal backgrounds, or may in other ways fail to meet the old high standards by putting in newer, lower standards?
Which soldiers, in short, do you feel are more able to meet the demanding missions asked of our soldiers? Who is better able to succeed? And, more to the point, who is more likely to undermine unit morale?
It is time for the Senate to deem and pass the equivalent bill of the House's recently-passed repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. If you are an American citizen, I urge you to contact your Senator and tell them to vote in favor of S.4023, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010. If the above argument makes sense to you, please us it as your rationale. If security is so important, it should not matter if a solider is attracted to men, women or both, regardless of their gender.
Now, let us say that among your standards are physical, mental and emotional standards - be strong, be tough, be able to think on your feet and not go to pieces if something dangerous happens.
However, in order to keep up with current missions your military needs to meet certain recruitment goals. It is facing a shortfall. You are unwilling to raise salaries for soldiers all that much because they are supposed to be paid in part by their knowledge that they are potentially sacrificing themselves for a greater good.
Which do you think would be more injurious to the espirit de corps of long-term soldiers: letting in soldiers who are of a different age, religion, skin color, gender, or sexual orientation but who otherwise meet all the current standards? Or, putting soldiers on the front line who are mentally unstable, possibly have criminal backgrounds, or may in other ways fail to meet the old high standards by putting in newer, lower standards?
Which soldiers, in short, do you feel are more able to meet the demanding missions asked of our soldiers? Who is better able to succeed? And, more to the point, who is more likely to undermine unit morale?
It is time for the Senate to deem and pass the equivalent bill of the House's recently-passed repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. If you are an American citizen, I urge you to contact your Senator and tell them to vote in favor of S.4023, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010. If the above argument makes sense to you, please us it as your rationale. If security is so important, it should not matter if a solider is attracted to men, women or both, regardless of their gender.