Homosexuals in the military is a yes, it's not a proposition. There are homosexuals in the military, they may not be asking or telling right now, but they're there, just like there are illegals aliens in the country right now. The question is what to do with them. I say you have to keep them because it's just not possible to root out every last one of them to have an all-straight force.
Homosexuality, unlike legal residency status, isn't a trait that can be tested for or proven through a priori knowledge (it's not like you can play some showtunes at the smoke pit and arrest anyone who starts singing along). Other than who they find sexually attractive, homosexuals are often indistinguishable from heterosexuals physically and mentally. Not every gay man is a twink, not every short-haired woman who never wears makeup a lesbian.
Homosexuality can only be observed through actions and despite the opinion of some posters on this thread, homosexuals are capable of 'keeping it in their pants' just like heterosexual men are able to work around women without constantly raping them.
My position is that if you can't test for it, you can't discriminate upon it. Prior to DADT, there was a question on the military entrance paperwork, essentially an sworn statement that one was not a homosexual. DADT didn't move the bar much, it only removed the entrance question and discriminated against gay servicemen upon the commander's knowledge of homosexual acts, which is testable but widens the blackmailing and contract escape loopholes.
Permitting homosexuals to serve with their command's knowledge of their orientation doesn't mean in any way that gay men would be allowed to show up to formation in nail polish and eye shadow and give limp-wristed salutes. Rape and sexual harassment laws don't just magically go away when its a same-sex incident. It does mean that the kids who claim that they're gay to get out their contracts (a good portion of DADT cases volunteer themselves to leave service) will be held to their contracts instead of getting very expensive training and then leaving without the military getting its money's worth out of them.
It also means that a gay serviceman with a security clearance would no longer be such a juicy target for espionage by our nation's enemies. This, more than anything, is my reasoning for allowing gays to serve openly. I agree that it's not in the military's interest to allow gays to serve openly as a social experiment, nor as a way to shoehorn marriage rights to homosexual couples, but it certainly is in the military's interest to keep our nation's secrets safe. If there's a way to keep gays out of any job that would risk national security (a no security clearances for gays policy), it would make sense. I don't think it's possible, since a lot of families have no clue their child is gay until after they leave the home, or if they do, hope that a stint in the military will straighten him out, asking "is Johnny gay" during a background check isn't going to work. It would be a witch hunt (or queen hunt) at best. Out of a lack of reasonable alternatives, I find myself on the 'yes' side of the should homosexuals serve question.
I’ll use your example.
“...but they’re there, just like there are illegals aliens in the country right now. The question is what to do with them. I say you have to keep them because it’s just not possible to root out every last one of them to have an all-straight force.”
So we also legalize all illegal aliens following your line of reasonong to it’s logical conclusion. Real good.
“It does mean that the kids who claim that they’re gay to get out their contracts (a good portion of DADT cases volunteer themselves to leave service) will be held to their contracts instead of getting very expensive training and then leaving without the military getting its money’s worth out of them.”
The army figured out a long time ago it is easier, better and cheaper to get rid of trouble makers rather than keep them in. If some guy wants out he’s going to get out.
“I agree that it’s not in the military’s interest to allow gays to serve openly as a social experiment, nor as a way to shoehorn marriage rights to homosexual couples...”
Your way ensures both of those happening.
“If there’s a way to keep gays out of any job that would risk national security (a no security clearances for gays policy), it would make sense. I don’t think it’s possible...”
If it’s that serious a matter than a simple lie detector test can be used.
“Out of a lack of reasonable alternatives, I find myself on the ‘yes’ side of the should homosexuals serve question.”
I wonder how the heck the military managed to survive for two hundred years operating with a “lack of reasonable alternatives”?
If it isn’t broken don’t fix it. Your way will break it for sure.