Almalieque, you clearly haven't followed the history of DADT at all. This has been going on for seventeen years and if you had ever bothered to investigate how politicians defended the policy, then you have no right to get into the discussion.
Maybe you'd also take care to notice that NO POLITICIAN has used the privacy issue as grounds to oppose DADT. Here's one thing to read.
In it, the defense departments general counsel discusses how the historic opposition to DADT was extremely similar to what was holding back integration in the 40's. And he's someone who doesn't believe homosexuality is a "self-identifier" which I assume refers to the idea that being **** isn't something you are forced into. Check this too
--it's a fairly comprehensive list of rebuttles to the typical republican responses (though it is still written as an article--not an essay).
Yet General Amos said that because of “the very tough fight in Afghanistan, the almost singular focus of our combat forces as they train up and deploy into theater, the necessary tightly woven culture of those combat forces,” he would recommend against the repeal right now.
They worry that the marines won't accept the openly **** soldiers. It has NOTHING to do with them being worried about the **** guy seeing them naked. That's like asking for a different surgeon because he's gay. He's going to have FAR more intimate relations with your body than any **** guy in your troop does. But you'd be a dumbass to make it an issue.
Gays aren’t risking dying because they’re dying to do makeovers and make-outs in the barracks. They’re going to adapt and fit in. They’re good at that because they’ve had to be.
Believe me, no one has EVER tried to use the privacy issue to oppose DADT, because it is horrendously weak and is based on a premise of prejudice, which the Republican party needed to avoid if they actually wanted to defend the bill. Notice how they are all super careful to avoid dissing gays? But the fact is that their arguments are extremely weak if you assume that they don't think the troops are irreparably homophobic.
I'm not fu
cking making **** up. These have ALWAYS been the arguments against DADT's repeal. Just because you think you have authority to refute that because you've chatted with some friends doesn't mean squat.
HAVE people made the privacy objection? Yes. But no politician with any hope of defending DADT has. And the fact that most people making the privacy claim often end up asserting that the guys locker room will turn into an orgy doesn't help (no, really, most articulated articles on the subject inevitably mention that the straight guys are gonna turn to the gays for sexual gratification). And THAT'S the biggest objection they make.
I also like the hidden assertion that gays are sexual deviants that will become the whores of bases.
And have you noticed that the privacy option is rarely mentioned even outside of politics? That's because it is grounded firmly in homophobia.
P.S. You DO realize that many other countries have gays in their military, right? Have you noticed that the lack of privacy hasn't caused the entire system to fragment?
Literally the only capacity the privacy issue has been discussed with has been when the Defense Department said there would be some issues to look into if DADT was repealed (note: they were NOT offered as reasons it shouldn't be). You can find them here
, with a pretty good rebuttle, but I'll quote them too:
Despite the uncertainty of timing, another military official said that the Department of Defense was beginning to look at the practical implications of a repeal — for example, whether it would be necessary to change shower facilities and locker rooms because of privacy concerns, whether to ban public displays of affection on military bases and what to do about troops who are stationed or make port calls in nations that outlaw homosexuality.
The second one is a fu
cking joke and has nothing but homophobia to do with it. It's great going to war and having it forbidden from slapping your pal on the back.
The last one is frankly the military's biggest concern. But it's one they already have experience with when it comes to female soldiers in areas that have harsh restrictions on their sex.
But none of these were offered as reasons DADT shouldn't be repealed. They were stated as what the Defense department was thinking about should it fall.
[EDIT] forgot to add second link. Edited, Dec 19th 2010 9:18pm by idiggory