The only issue/concern I see with the tossing of DADT is the effect it will have on housing.<quoted text>
Whether or not your story is true, it isn't beyond reality to think that it is. OTOH, it isn't a valid argument against a policy that doesn't examine members of the military through a looking glass that attempts to be a screen for sexual preference. There are plenty of stories involving sexual impropriety directed toward young female troops by men in the armed forces. That it occurs betweem men in the role of superior against women in subordinate military ranks is no argument against heterosexuality. Why should sane people accept the counterpart as evidence against homosexualit?
We know that homosexuals have served honorably for, well, forever. So one is hard pressed to find any reason why one should be allowed to serve openly.
The only part which concerned me was the housing of troops. In Basic there are many troops housed in open bays together. In that situation we separate male from female for obvious reasons. We do the same in the dormitories and tents.
This was simple when gender was the only issue, as sexual orientation was assumed- albeit foolishly. The answer isn't as simple when we are dealing with homosexuality. How should they be segregated? Or should they?
I don't really know the answer to this question, and one could say since there have been no issues, publicly at least, that it is a non-issue. But I am not so sure that the lack of issues doesn't have more to do with homosexuals self-employing their own DADT policy?
But I do agree that sexual harassment occurs in both the heterosexual and homosexual community, and is not an argument either for or against this policy. But it did seem simpler when the answer was simply the separation of the sexes, which could be employed to at least attempt to quell and head off the issue before it occurred.