Don T Tell Rhetorical Analysis
December 26, 2011
Morality versus Logic Throughout history Americans have seen many pushes for equality that have changed what America is today, including the Civil Rights Movement and Women’s Suffrage. However, today Americans are faced with a new movement; the homosexual movement. Homosexuals have been discriminated against for hundreds of years. A recent controversy that activists are fighting for is homosexuals being able to fight in the armed forces openly. The policy of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, or DADT, has allowed homosexuals to serve, but in secrecy. Many people believe this is the “fair” thing to do. However people such as, pop icon, Lady Gaga say “fundamentally it’s against all that we stand for as Americans.” (Gaga). Gaga said this on September 19, 2011 during a gay pride rally. Rallies like this show that this has been a major topic that has been discussed recently. Under the signature of President Obama and influence of people such as Lady Gaga, DADT has actually been repealed and no longer considered legitimate.
Gaga …show more content…
became a pop sensation in 2008 and ever since she gained this power she has used her music to stand up for what she believes in. Gaga is known for supporting the gay community so it is easy to see that she would be appalled and motivated to speak out against something like DADT. In the town of Portland, Maine, she gave a speech that did indeed attack the validity of DADT. She was making a plea to Maine Republicans, Olympia Snow and Susan Collins to join the Democrats and override John McCain and the controversial policy (Gaga). She believed that after this speech the two republicans would join the Democrats and vote to repeal the DADT policy. Gaga was obviously on the side of repealing DADT, but many do not agree with her. Many people say that she has no idea what she is talking about and that DADT should remain as a law. This argument can be turned into one short question; is DADT based off of morality or logic? The repealing side would say that it is based off of morality and stands no ground in the present values that Americans stand for. The non-repealing side would say that it is based off of cold, hard fact and it has every reason to stay where it is. Through extensive research, and all biases aside, the side that has more validity is the side of repealing DADT. By examining both sides of this argument it becomes clear that DADT is based off of morality. Many people do not actually understand the origins and reasons behind the DADT policy, so in order to fully understand this argument; the history of DADT must be presented. DADT is a policy and not a law. The actual law is called USC Section 654, Title 10, (Bowman). This law created in 1993 states, “The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.” (Bowman). This is saying that any acts of homosexuality within the armed forces would create a sense of what the famous Prussian war theorist Carl von Clausewitz called “friction” and the “fog of uncertainty”, and that could cause the performances of the other men to be altered (Owens). This altercation is one that could not be risked. DADT is the order that Bill Clinton made that implemented and circumvented this law. Bill Clinton was faced with the problem of what to do to make both sides happy. On one hand, the high standards of morale, good order, discipline, and unit cohesion could be affected and this could affect the performances of the people who need to be at their best for they are fighting for not only theirs, but the lives of every person in America. On the other, homosexuals were perfectly capable of fighting and they could even be some of the best soldiers out there. He decided that the law that lets homosexuals fight as long as it was in secrecy would be best. It was a compromise; both sides got what they wanted (Owens). However, the homosexuals were actually not getting what they wanted. Ever since this law came into place, homosexual soldiers have fought for it to be repealed and others have fought for it to remain as a law, thus the basis of this argument. As presented there are two specific sides to this argument, but one stands out more than the other. This side has claimed that they have been discriminated against and had their constitutional rights taken from them by DADT. They believe that DADT is based off of morality and this belief is supported by their arguments. These people have voiced their opinions and this is seen in Gaga’s speech. They believe that this policy has nothing supporting it. Gaga said in her speech that the policy is sending home, “gay soldiers, who harbor no hatred, no prejudice, no phobia, [...]” (Gaga).She is saying that the policy claims to be preventing an altercation between comrades, but she believes that it does the opposite. She believes the altercation does not originate with the homosexuals but with the straight soldiers. As American soldiers they are fighting for equality and those primary American beliefs that make America what it is as a country. Lady Gaga and the homosexual activists believe that by a soldier feeling the homophobic feelings and letting such feelings affect their performance, he is not portraying these values. The government claims that DADT is based off of logic, but Gaga claims this argument is more logical, leaving DADT to be more based off of more morality than logic.
Another one of Gaga’s main arguments came after a reference to the murder of Matthew Shepard. Matthew was an openly gay student at the University of Wyoming. On October 6, 1998 after meeting and talking to two men, the men took Matthew and “drove to a secluded location outside Laramie, stole his wallet, tied him to a fence, pistol-whipped him senseless, and left him for dead in freezing weather.” (Matthew Shepard). He was found eighteen hours later and died from his injuries in the hospital. He was soon “made an example of by the Right Reverend Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, who claimed divine retribution had killed Shepard for the sin of being a homosexual.” (Matthew Shepard). “Phelps and his flock picketed Shepard’s funeral on October 17, 1998, holding signs proclaiming ‘GOD HATES FAGS’ and similar slogans,” (Matthew Shepard). In Gaga’s speech she said that since this murder, laws have been passed that say that homophobia no longer can be used for a defense in America’s judicial systems (Gaga). She then says that this is exactly what America’s armed forces are doing. They are using homophobia as a defense in the discharging of homosexual soldiers. She compared the murder of an innocent young man to the discharges of innocent soldiers. If the American government already decided that it is wrong for homophobia to be used as a defense, then they have already decided it is not logical. In this context why would DADT be logical? The supporters of DADT respond to the arguments given by the activists like Gaga by saying that there are several reasons that do indeed prove that DADT is logical, and not based off of morality. One of these reasons is that this law does not actually discriminate in any way, shape or form. The armed forces are something that is a privilege and not a right. Therefore, the people who run these forces have the responsibility to choose soldiers that are best fit for protecting the citizens of America. In other words, “There are all kinds of people—the very young and the very old, the sick or disabled, violent criminals or, in combat roles, women—whom we regard as unfit to be soldiers. The fact that open homosexuals are also excluded cannot by itself be considered an injustice.” (Bowman). Although this does pose some logic, it still does not support DADT enough. The young, the old, the disabled, criminals, and women; these people are considered unfit and are not allowed on the battle field. However, discharged homosexual soldiers have already been chosen to fight for America. They went through the training and were considered “fit” to be a soldier. The armed forces chose these homosexual soldiers because they showed they had the willingness to give up their lives to protect America’s values, and that is why people such as Gaga believe it is an injustice to send them home.
The homosexual activists and Gaga do not phase the beliefs of John McCain with their claim that there is injustice instead of logic behind DADT. John McCain has long been a major leader in the apposition of repealing DADT and has stern beliefs that there is nothing but logic behind DADT. He has claimed that many soldiers will quit and leave the armed forces because of this repeal. He supported this by saying “We send these young people into combat. We think they’re mature enough to fight and die. I think they’re mature enough to make a judgment on who they want to serve with and the impact on their battle effectiveness.” (Flaherty). McCain is saying that Americans put their trust into these soldiers, is it not logical for it to be their decision about whether to repeal or not? At the time McCain was clashing with the pentagon’s top leaders about whether this repeal is “wrong” or not. McCain presented this argument and the Pentagon’s leaders responded by saying “Unit cohesion will not suffer if our units are well led.” (Flaherty). The leaders were saying that the ban on DADT will not cause troops to leave if the units are led to believe there should not be unit cohesion in the first place. They believe that the logical thing to do is ban DADT and make the armed forces see that there should not be unit cohesion. They see that the more logical thing to do is allow these soldiers to serve openly. John McCain and the fellow supporters of DADT give reasons why it is logical and these reasons do seem credible when only these reasons are presented.
It does seem logical to send home the homosexual soldier in order to prevent this unit cohesion. However this appearance of credibility changes when the other side of the argument is given. It is more logical to send home the “soldier who has prejudice in his heart, in this space where the military asks him to hold our core American values, [..]” (Gaga). When the logic is actually on the repealing side, this means that DADT has to be based off of morality. Former President Bill Clinton decided to make a compromise, but Gaga claims he did not make the decision that portrayed what America stands for. She believes he made the decision that had more morality and not more logic, and the reasons she and many others give for this accusation, outweighs the reasons given to say
otherwise.
Works Cited
Barr, Bob, and Charles Moskos. “Should “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Be Scrapped?.” New York Times Upfront (Vol. 140, No. 11). 10 Mar 2008: 22. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web 21 Nov 2011.
Bowman, James. “Don’t Change ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’.” Weekly Standard Vol. 15, No. 4 12 Oct. 2009: 25. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 21 Nov 2011
"Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) — To Repeal or Not to Repeal « LeftFace — The Other MilSpouse Blog." LeftFace — The Other MilSpouse Blog. Web. 06 Dec. 2011. .
Flaherty, Anne. "John McCain: 'Don 't Ask, Don 't Tell ' Repeal Study Flawed." Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. Web. 06 Dec. 2011. .
Lady Gaga 's 'Don 't Ask, Don 't Tell ' Speech: The Full Transcript - Music, Celebrity, Artist News | MTV." New Music Videos, Reality TV Shows, Celebrity News, Top Stories | MTV. Web. 06 Dec. 2011. .
Matthew Shepard." NNDB: Tracking the Entire World. Web. 06 Dec. 2011. .
Owens, Mackubin Thomas. “The Case Against Gays in the Military.” Wall Street Journal. 03 Feb 2010: A. 17. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 18 Nov 2011.
Morality versus Logic Throughout history Americans have seen many pushes for equality that have changed what America is today, including the Civil Rights Movement and Women’s Suffrage. However, today Americans are faced with a new movement; the homosexual movement. Homosexuals have been discriminated against for hundreds of years. A recent controversy that activists are fighting for is homosexuals being able to fight in the armed forces openly. The policy of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, or DADT, has allowed homosexuals to serve, but in secrecy. Many people believe this is the “fair” thing to do. However people such as, pop icon, Lady Gaga say “fundamentally it’s against all that we stand for as Americans.” (Gaga). Gaga said this on September 19, 2011 during a gay pride rally. Rallies like this show that this has been a major topic that has been discussed recently. Under the signature of President Obama and influence of people such as Lady Gaga, DADT has actually been repealed and no longer considered legitimate.
Gaga …show more content…
became a pop sensation in 2008 and ever since she gained this power she has used her music to stand up for what she believes in. Gaga is known for supporting the gay community so it is easy to see that she would be appalled and motivated to speak out against something like DADT. In the town of Portland, Maine, she gave a speech that did indeed attack the validity of DADT. She was making a plea to Maine Republicans, Olympia Snow and Susan Collins to join the Democrats and override John McCain and the controversial policy (Gaga). She believed that after this speech the two republicans would join the Democrats and vote to repeal the DADT policy. Gaga was obviously on the side of repealing DADT, but many do not agree with her. Many people say that she has no idea what she is talking about and that DADT should remain as a law. This argument can be turned into one short question; is DADT based off of morality or logic? The repealing side would say that it is based off of morality and stands no ground in the present values that Americans stand for. The non-repealing side would say that it is based off of cold, hard fact and it has every reason to stay where it is. Through extensive research, and all biases aside, the side that has more validity is the side of repealing DADT. By examining both sides of this argument it becomes clear that DADT is based off of morality. Many people do not actually understand the origins and reasons behind the DADT policy, so in order to fully understand this argument; the history of DADT must be presented. DADT is a policy and not a law. The actual law is called USC Section 654, Title 10, (Bowman). This law created in 1993 states, “The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.” (Bowman). This is saying that any acts of homosexuality within the armed forces would create a sense of what the famous Prussian war theorist Carl von Clausewitz called “friction” and the “fog of uncertainty”, and that could cause the performances of the other men to be altered (Owens). This altercation is one that could not be risked. DADT is the order that Bill Clinton made that implemented and circumvented this law. Bill Clinton was faced with the problem of what to do to make both sides happy. On one hand, the high standards of morale, good order, discipline, and unit cohesion could be affected and this could affect the performances of the people who need to be at their best for they are fighting for not only theirs, but the lives of every person in America. On the other, homosexuals were perfectly capable of fighting and they could even be some of the best soldiers out there. He decided that the law that lets homosexuals fight as long as it was in secrecy would be best. It was a compromise; both sides got what they wanted (Owens). However, the homosexuals were actually not getting what they wanted. Ever since this law came into place, homosexual soldiers have fought for it to be repealed and others have fought for it to remain as a law, thus the basis of this argument. As presented there are two specific sides to this argument, but one stands out more than the other. This side has claimed that they have been discriminated against and had their constitutional rights taken from them by DADT. They believe that DADT is based off of morality and this belief is supported by their arguments. These people have voiced their opinions and this is seen in Gaga’s speech. They believe that this policy has nothing supporting it. Gaga said in her speech that the policy is sending home, “gay soldiers, who harbor no hatred, no prejudice, no phobia, [...]” (Gaga).She is saying that the policy claims to be preventing an altercation between comrades, but she believes that it does the opposite. She believes the altercation does not originate with the homosexuals but with the straight soldiers. As American soldiers they are fighting for equality and those primary American beliefs that make America what it is as a country. Lady Gaga and the homosexual activists believe that by a soldier feeling the homophobic feelings and letting such feelings affect their performance, he is not portraying these values. The government claims that DADT is based off of logic, but Gaga claims this argument is more logical, leaving DADT to be more based off of more morality than logic.
Another one of Gaga’s main arguments came after a reference to the murder of Matthew Shepard. Matthew was an openly gay student at the University of Wyoming. On October 6, 1998 after meeting and talking to two men, the men took Matthew and “drove to a secluded location outside Laramie, stole his wallet, tied him to a fence, pistol-whipped him senseless, and left him for dead in freezing weather.” (Matthew Shepard). He was found eighteen hours later and died from his injuries in the hospital. He was soon “made an example of by the Right Reverend Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, who claimed divine retribution had killed Shepard for the sin of being a homosexual.” (Matthew Shepard). “Phelps and his flock picketed Shepard’s funeral on October 17, 1998, holding signs proclaiming ‘GOD HATES FAGS’ and similar slogans,” (Matthew Shepard). In Gaga’s speech she said that since this murder, laws have been passed that say that homophobia no longer can be used for a defense in America’s judicial systems (Gaga). She then says that this is exactly what America’s armed forces are doing. They are using homophobia as a defense in the discharging of homosexual soldiers. She compared the murder of an innocent young man to the discharges of innocent soldiers. If the American government already decided that it is wrong for homophobia to be used as a defense, then they have already decided it is not logical. In this context why would DADT be logical? The supporters of DADT respond to the arguments given by the activists like Gaga by saying that there are several reasons that do indeed prove that DADT is logical, and not based off of morality. One of these reasons is that this law does not actually discriminate in any way, shape or form. The armed forces are something that is a privilege and not a right. Therefore, the people who run these forces have the responsibility to choose soldiers that are best fit for protecting the citizens of America. In other words, “There are all kinds of people—the very young and the very old, the sick or disabled, violent criminals or, in combat roles, women—whom we regard as unfit to be soldiers. The fact that open homosexuals are also excluded cannot by itself be considered an injustice.” (Bowman). Although this does pose some logic, it still does not support DADT enough. The young, the old, the disabled, criminals, and women; these people are considered unfit and are not allowed on the battle field. However, discharged homosexual soldiers have already been chosen to fight for America. They went through the training and were considered “fit” to be a soldier. The armed forces chose these homosexual soldiers because they showed they had the willingness to give up their lives to protect America’s values, and that is why people such as Gaga believe it is an injustice to send them home.
The homosexual activists and Gaga do not phase the beliefs of John McCain with their claim that there is injustice instead of logic behind DADT. John McCain has long been a major leader in the apposition of repealing DADT and has stern beliefs that there is nothing but logic behind DADT. He has claimed that many soldiers will quit and leave the armed forces because of this repeal. He supported this by saying “We send these young people into combat. We think they’re mature enough to fight and die. I think they’re mature enough to make a judgment on who they want to serve with and the impact on their battle effectiveness.” (Flaherty). McCain is saying that Americans put their trust into these soldiers, is it not logical for it to be their decision about whether to repeal or not? At the time McCain was clashing with the pentagon’s top leaders about whether this repeal is “wrong” or not. McCain presented this argument and the Pentagon’s leaders responded by saying “Unit cohesion will not suffer if our units are well led.” (Flaherty). The leaders were saying that the ban on DADT will not cause troops to leave if the units are led to believe there should not be unit cohesion in the first place. They believe that the logical thing to do is ban DADT and make the armed forces see that there should not be unit cohesion. They see that the more logical thing to do is allow these soldiers to serve openly. John McCain and the fellow supporters of DADT give reasons why it is logical and these reasons do seem credible when only these reasons are presented.
It does seem logical to send home the homosexual soldier in order to prevent this unit cohesion. However this appearance of credibility changes when the other side of the argument is given. It is more logical to send home the “soldier who has prejudice in his heart, in this space where the military asks him to hold our core American values, [..]” (Gaga). When the logic is actually on the repealing side, this means that DADT has to be based off of morality. Former President Bill Clinton decided to make a compromise, but Gaga claims he did not make the decision that portrayed what America stands for. She believes he made the decision that had more morality and not more logic, and the reasons she and many others give for this accusation, outweighs the reasons given to say
otherwise.
Works Cited
Barr, Bob, and Charles Moskos. “Should “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Be Scrapped?.” New York Times Upfront (Vol. 140, No. 11). 10 Mar 2008: 22. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web 21 Nov 2011.
Bowman, James. “Don’t Change ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’.” Weekly Standard Vol. 15, No. 4 12 Oct. 2009: 25. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 21 Nov 2011
"Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) — To Repeal or Not to Repeal « LeftFace — The Other MilSpouse Blog." LeftFace — The Other MilSpouse Blog. Web. 06 Dec. 2011. .
Flaherty, Anne. "John McCain: 'Don 't Ask, Don 't Tell ' Repeal Study Flawed." Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. Web. 06 Dec. 2011. .
Lady Gaga 's 'Don 't Ask, Don 't Tell ' Speech: The Full Transcript - Music, Celebrity, Artist News | MTV." New Music Videos, Reality TV Shows, Celebrity News, Top Stories | MTV. Web. 06 Dec. 2011. .
Matthew Shepard." NNDB: Tracking the Entire World. Web. 06 Dec. 2011. .
Owens, Mackubin Thomas. “The Case Against Gays in the Military.” Wall Street Journal. 03 Feb 2010: A. 17. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 18 Nov 2011.