Fascinating Discussion over at BLACKFIVE on DADT for those following that peculiar bit of social engineering.

.
BLACKFIVE is one of the top military-political oriented blogs on the web. I've frequently reposted their stuff here; they provide a much-needed perspective on both sides of many issues.

Not all of the bloggers there agree, as I do, that if DADT is to be eliminated, it should be in the other direction; that is, gays should not be allowed to serve at all.

My take?

Grim nails it.

The discrimination thing holds no water for me: the military discriminates every day in almost every way.

Too fat? Thin? Tall? Short? slow? deaf? blind? etc, etc?

Cop a walk. And no one gives a damn about THAT kind of discrimination because THAT kind is OK.

And it's "OK" because those things have a material, likely negative impact on the ability to perform the mission.

And that's what this needs to be about: will ending this 'discrimination' based on what is for many an unacceptable life style enhance or hinder the mission?

Will the Armed Forces of the United States benefit as Obama's social petri dish? Or do we risk several levels of bad outcomes if this stuff is adopted?

Just wait until, for example, the family with children is denied quarters because a couple of guys "married" rate the quarters that the family otherwise gets.

At the end of the day, when we bolt on the uniform, we agree to do so under a wide variety of restrictions. One of those, applied to all equally, is that none of us can have an open relationship with someone of the same sex.

Since that restriction is applied to ALL of us, equally, then toss the discrimination argument. Equal treatment of all does not discrimination make. This is mainstreaming a life style considered by many to be immoral... with a goal of reducing or eliminating the perception that is IS immoral. And I fear we will bleed in many different ways because of it.

Obama and many, many others who've never set foot in uniform have no difficulty imposing this on the military.

The question is this: what if they've guessed wrong? Do we get do-overs?

I think not.

DADT was always a terrible law, and should never have been enacted in the first place: it is never a good idea to say that we have standards, but are willing to wink at them. That is an argument for repeal, but given (1) and (2), it is an argument for repeal in the other direction.

Precisely. And next, we get rid of adultery. And then we segue into multiple marriage. And then every other form of regulation of conduct, because SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE is getting discriminated against because of these rules.

It's just a matter of how many and when.

At base, we must always remember: there is no Constitutional right to serve. Combine that with the over-arching issue of mission capability and I'm sorry... but the gays lose.

I just hope we don't lose with them.

It's a long discussion, but mostly quite respectful.
.