What are the implications of the repeal of don't ask, don't tell?

I agree. Same thing applies to Freedom, which often makes me question how free our nation still is when we insist on regulating everything.

SGT Richard H. I completely agree, it should be the same regardless or the person sexual orientation.

I don't see any reason to vote you down. Indeed, I voted you up for having the courage to speak your mind on a very touchy subject. That being said, I'll follow your example and respond in kind. 1) You wouldn't think that the military should be used as a social experiment but it has, many times. For example, integration of the races largely began in the military when Truman ordered them to integrate. It may be argued that it helped break down barriers in the civilian community. 2) I have not clue that sex assaults have increased significantly since the repeal of "don't ask..." It would seem plausible inasmuch as guys don't handle well exposure to homosexuals. 3) I don't think that our Muslim enemies need any more reasons to hate us and more than adding fuel in the tank of a car adds to its horsepower. 4) The slippery slope argument. Actually, there are slippery slopes and this may well be one of them. 5) Degrades morale? Maybe. Sounds plausible that providing an opportunity for homosexuals to engage in sex while segregating heterosexuals from prospective sex partners is not fair and might lead to controversy. I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one.

1) Is just your opinion, and one not shared by most people. Free your mind and take your pick of sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-armys-job-is-not-to-act-as-a-social-experiment/2013/06/26/9f738c72-dceb-11e2-a484-7b7f79cd66a1_story.html

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/06/mike-huckabee-us-military-not-social-experiment

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/08/our-military-is-not-a-social-experiment

Of course, you're not going to find too many liberal sources saying anything against the LGBT agenda because that goes against their progressive narrative!

2) Perhaps you just need to READ THIS with an open mind:
https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2013/05/25/sharp-increase-in-man-on-man-sexual-assaults-in-us-military/
and if you don't want to read, give this a listen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbxQLX3_1Ro
and you can watch this debate at Air University
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4s_kkmwEJY

FYI: Elaine Donnelly is one of two people considered to be foremost experts on homosexuality in the military (as described by the LtCol introducing her at the Air University Debate on DADT, which was held at Maxwell AFB). Elaine Donnelly's resume includes: President and Founder of The Center for Military Readiness, founded in 1993; She was appointed by Sec Def Casper Weinberger in 1984 to be a member of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services; Pres. George HW Bush, in 1992, appointed her to the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces; she has published numerous articles on military personnel issues and has appeared on most network and cable channel networks; In 1997 she became the first woman to receive the Admiral John Henry Tower Award from the NY Naval Aviation Commandery in recognition for her support for Naval Aviation. In 2002 she was the recipient of the American Conservative Union's Ronald Reagan Award.

3) Well... maybe you can begin here:
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/the-islamic-states-views-on-homosexuality
Note: You have to READ the article to find the answer. It's in there, but it isn't spelled out word for word. It isn't hard to deduce from what is being said when taken in its entirety.

ISIS uses propaganda as a recruiting tool, and part of their propaganda is characterizing America as a haven of homosexuality that needs to be punished because of the evil it embraces.

"Even so, the Islamic State has taken such attitudes and precepts to a unique extreme, treating all aspects of LGBT culture as "actions of the people of Lot" and, therefore, as forms of sodomy and moral decay. ... Moreover, IS has taken pains to characterize America as the root cause of homosexuality. ... Besides using homosexuality as a foil for condemning the United States, IS uses its "punishment" of such "transgressions" as an expression of its commitment to reviving the supposedly neglected Islamic penal code. ... Such arguments about killing homosexuals appear throughout IS propaganda. This includes articles in the group's English and French-language magazines (Dabiq and Dar al-Islam) and videos that depict punishing homosexuals as a means of both exacting retribution against unbelievers and "maintaining virtue and deterring immorality."

4) I have no problem with Transgenders who were born with defects such as an extra chromosome XXY/XYY or hardware from both sexes, and whose sex had to be determined by a doctor. They can not help that. I do have a problem with people who are mentally ill and who claim to be a gender that does not match their XX or XY chromosomes. And actually I have no problem with them per se... just with them serving in the Armed Forces. We (as taxpayers) do not need our military having to deal with TG issues when we have plenty of better-qualified candidates not needing drugs or shrinks to help them with their mental health related gender and social issues. It simply isn't cost effective having to work around their special needs, such as separate bathrooms, separate accommodations, etc.

5) You seem to not know where to begin whenever you have no credible argument to support your position. If you take the time to read and watch the links (HINT HINT), the answer is contained in them... but if you were to take time to read the comments from others, you will find that I'm not the only one thinking #5 IS an issue:

SGT Kristin Wiley stated in her comment: "I mostly seeing #5 being an issue. So if you're homosexual you can live in the same barracks room, hooch, etc as your current bf/gf. Whereas as a heterosexual living in the barracks will be lucky if the barracks policy will even allow their bf/gf to enter the room. I can't agree with enforcing that standard, when the standard is so clearly unequal. If we want equal rights for homosexuals, transgenders, etc than they need to be equal for EVERYONE. The regulations put in place to protect these minority groups, is creating an unequal standard for the majority. I brought this up during the initial DADT repeal training and they just told me that yes it will be unequal, but there's nothing we can do to change that."

===========================================================

More sources and articles of interest:

Center for Military Readiness (founded by Elaine Donnelly) << !!!
https://www.cmrlink.org/content/gays-in-the-militay

AmericanTraditions.Org articles:
http://www.americantraditions.org/articles.htm

http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/Destroying%20Morale%20and%20Morality%20in%20Our%20Armed%20Forces%20and%20Exposing%20Our%20Troops%20to%20AIDS.htm

CNS News:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/straight-troops-must-shower-gays-says-dod-working-group-gay-men-have-learned-avoid

This is the standard Liberal response to an argument they have lost. In fact, it is their FPF: "your sources are all propaganda based from bias organizations. We all know that if it's on YouTube or Fox News it has to be true (....sarcasm....)."

I don't like Fox News either and quit watching it after they blew the first GOP Debate and outed themselves for their Progressive Establishment bias. That doesn't mean I don't filter what they put out and still regard some of it as factual... just as I do for CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC (on those rare occasions when they actually tell the truth). I don't discredit the information just because it came from a source I don't like. I look at who they reference as the source of their reporting and do my best to filter out all their bias.

Never mind that the YouTube videos were of an actual military conference AND an interview with Elaine Donnelly, President and Founder of the Center for Military Readiness, whose credentials I listed -- just as she was introduced at the Air University DADT Debate. She is in both YouTube videos.

Not one link or line item was mentioned specifically by Lindsey in "his" response, which tells me that "he" never bothered to skim the articles past the first thing "he" could take exception to. Note to Lindsey: if it has a dominant Y chomosome and a penis, it's a he.

As for the links being old and irrelevant. Is 2013 going back too far? The military HAS been used as a testbed for social experimentation for quite some time. DADT came out during the Clinton Administration, back in 1993. The repeal of DADT came out when? How about Dec 2010 -- over 5 years ago!!!

"You have no ambition to become more knowledgeable outside of any source that does not fit the confines of your personal opinions. Ignorance is bliss in your case and a continued discussion would be irrelevant and pointless."

You know, I was thinking the same thing!

Very typical response from a homophobic, misogynists' person. Glad to see you are retired or if you still in, you probably be dead knowing about the tolerance in the Army...sex assaults increased?? lmao...stupid reasoning

From a military standpoint, if we support same sex marriage, then we need to ensure they are held to the same sexual harassment policies and are processed equally for adultery. A female soldier I knew at my last unit explicitly told a male soldier what she wanted to do to his wife. That is strongly inappropriate in my opinion, as the female soldier is blatantly stating that she wants his wife to commit adultery for her own self-interests. If I knew sexual harassment reports could be made as a bystander, I would have filed one. That behavior is not tolerable from any perspective, but freshly after the repeal everyone was afraid to report this behavior for fear of 'discrimination'.