So the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says bein' a 'mo is a bad thing, and that DADT is best left in place.
First of all, surveys have shown that active U.S. military personnel are becoming more and more fine with their co-workers being LGBT.
Second, how many other first world countries allow military members to serve openly without any detrimental effects whatsoever? Yeah.
Third, if you're going to say "the military shouldn't support immorality," then, fine, go ahead and fire people who are adulterous (which I actually didn't know they'd kick you out for). But why stop there? Surely there are a lot more other reasons to actively seek out and discharge people - Wiccans, perhaps? How about them uppity coloreds? And really, women only serve to "weaken unit cohesiveness," so let's get rid of them, too.
Fourth, he later apologized for not clarifying that he's basing all this on his personal upbringing, which obviously is the best possible course for the entirety of the U.S. Army, right? Because the U.S. can't "endorse" any kind of "immorality," right? And it's far more moral to have 65,000 servicemembers lie to their compatriots, right? I mean, it's that kind of attitude that got him elected him to... oh, wait a second...
It's amusing to watch the pundits come out of the woodwork once again with the whole "undermines morale" and "social experiment" bullshit, the same crap used before Truman had the balls to enact EO9981. And guess what? We ended up with a stronger military in the end, so they can suck my brass monkey.
Besides, who needs those language translators, eh? It's not like they're important these days, really, ever since the Universal Translator was developed in Enterprise.