‘Dadt’ was a compromise made in 1993 based on Clinton’s campaign promise to repeal the ban on LGBT soldiers; the joint chiefs were not pleased with this push and compromised on ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Don’t Harass Don’t Pursue.’ This policy should be kept on the books in interest of military cohesion.

The moral claims are relevant to society as a whole but not to the military.

The military is an employer with a defined purpose and should be able to discharge those who get in the way of that purpose, such as disrupting unit cohesion. Repealing DADT would be a disaster, as shown in 1993 and in women in combat debates.

If the whole military is not on board with the decision it will compromise any effect the repeal will have because it will just push existing prejudice under the radar where it will be able to cause violence.

And as far as the numbers go, 10k soldiers is not all that many in a 3 million person military, and we cannot be sure about the discharges because people have been know to use DADT as a way to get out of the military.

Also, according to Marquette Law review, a substantial amount of current potential recruits would no longer consider serving if LGBT individuals were allowed into the military.

The fact is discrimination does exist and the military has to deal with it to serve its purpose, even if it’s being discriminatory in the process.

Further more, pro-gay movements use DADT as a lightening rod issue to rally about while pursuing their causes of marriage and adoption.

If DADT were to be repealed it would destroy support for these movements, destroying any chance of equality in marriage or adoption.

People would see this as a step towards equality and would say things like “look they got the military, but we must keep marriage sacred.” As bigoted as it is, it would happen.

As shown by the reasons above DADT should be kept on the books for the purposes of the military and pro-gay movements.