The prompt:
"Choose an issue of importance to you-the issue could be personal, school related, local, political, or international in scope-and write an essay in which you explain the significance of that issue to yourself, your family, your community, or your generation."
The Intolerance of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
Since its inception, the United States of America has been slow to change. This
systemic Conservatism, while not necessarily justifiable, is certainly
understandable. We all, as U.S. citizens, are a very culturally diverse people.
From the traditional serfs of Russia to the historically wealthy French
nobility, all Americans are said to be given an equal opportunity. All
Americans are said to have an equal chance at the American dream. Why then,
with this supposed equality within such admirable diversity, is the United
States still plagued with the evils of bigotry? Why is it that a man or a woman
who is openly attracted to a member of the same sex is not allowed to fight and
die for his or her country? It is because of the ingrained, inherent
intolerance of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". This is neither justifiable nor
understandable. It is a disgrace. And it is only with respect to this issue
that I can say in truth that I am ashamed to be an American.
Behind the overt dogmatism and discrimination of those who would put forth
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) lays a weak masquerade of logical argument.
Supposedly, a sexually open military would cause disorder amongst the soldiers,
a claim not only unsubstantiated, but demonstrably absurd. Several other
countries, including most of those of Western Europe allow gays and lesbians to
openly serve, and there is no perceived "disorder" among their troops. The
United States is the only industrialized country that does not allow these
people to serve openly in its military. This personally embarrasses me.
Further, I am embarrassed that the core argument for DADT is a complete
rehashing of the argument for a segregated military (id est disorder). And
lastly, not only am I embarrassed, but I am offended on behalf of those who
would think of the U.S as a beacon of equality. The law's text states that
service members must "accept living conditions . . . characterized by forced
intimacy." This unsubstantiated notion that gays and lesbians are unable to
sexually control themselves should in no way be tolerated in a resolution to
Congress. In addition, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" personally offends me. I have
several gay friends with whom I empathize, and on their behalf, I passionately
believe that the continuance of DADT into the 21st century is absolutely and
irrevocably unacceptable.
Personal matters aside, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a disgrace to the United
States. With the U.S. held up as a fervid guardian of freedom and Democracy,
its adoption of DADT merely seems like a bad attempt at irony, in the present
day. This is even true when one probes down to the true root of the bigotry of
DADT, religious intolerance. From the perspective of several religious
denominations in the United States, homosexuality is dogmatically seen as
abominable and sinful. As a result, there are several individuals in this great
country who seek to deny gays and lesbians their due human rights at any
opportunity, usually via state or federal action. The hypocrisy of this is
apparent when one studies the blatant separation of church and state embedded
in the U.S. Constitution. From the persistent, founding principles of freedom,
justice, and equality of the United States, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a
blatant, embarrassing contradiction.
The United States of America, in my opinion, is the greatest expositor of
freedom in the world. How is it, then, that we are in this position?
Unfortunately, this question still eludes me. What is clear, however, is that
the enforced bigotry that is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is unacceptable, and we,
as Americans, should not accept it anymore.
Thank you for the critiques!! :D
This personally embarrasses me.
Wow, what a strong argument you make in this paper. It has all the elements... logos, ethos, and pathos. I see emotional appeal in the sentence above, but also you make a strong logical argument in the point about European nations allowing them to serve... and ... well, it does not have ethos. It would have ethos if you quoted the top generals who said they support its repeal.
But anyway, this is a very strong essay. It would be even stronger if you cited a few more sources.
But why still argue about it? We have repealed it now...
:-)
