I picked this research topic because I was fresh out of the military, and I personally had 4 friends along my course in the military service who were homosexual.   I got to see first hand how the DADT policy effected their lives and how it made them feel.  
     I knew that it effected the homosexual's lives in a negative way but as I began to really research this topic many other issues came up to the surface that I hadn't really thought about such as the amount of money it takes to discharge and replace service members.  
     I realized that the repeal of this policy wasn't going to be a black and white situation but that it was more complicated.   I realized it was going to take time to make the big change in the military and learned about all the concerns that went along with it.
    After all the research I have done on this topic and all the new things I learned I still stand that the repeal of this policy will have a positive effect on the military. 

     What happens when the U.S military throw out troops who are homosexual and either by their choice or a number of unfortunate events that caused them to be found out?   The government must provide the funding to discharge them.   Not many people understand the amount of work and money it takes to discharge somebody, this process can take months.   Not only does the government have to provide funding to discharge the service members, but they must also provide funding in order to recruit and train new people to replace them. 
     Someone else in the class is doing their research paper on Americas Debt, and I think that this ties into it.    The DADT isn't to blame for all of America's debt, of course, but it is sucking some of the money out from our nation's budget.   We could save millions over the years by the repeal of this policy.

The cause is the "Don't ask Don't tell" policy, and its effects are hurting our nation by using unnecessary government funding.
You could also look at it this way:

The cause of the repeal of the "Don't ask, Don't Tell" will effect our nations debt, and contribute to the solution to our nations debt problem. 

     There isn't a specific group or type of people that oppose the repeal of this policy.   There are high ranking officials that agree with it, then there are other high ranking officials that oppose it.   The same goes for experts, service members and the general public.   
     The claims that they use for the opposition are that it will harm unit effectiveness and cohesiveness.  Many believe that front-line men and women shouldn't have to worry about this, and the military isn't a place for a social experiment, especially in a time of war.
    A retired colonel believes that the military is much more conservative and attached to traditional values then general society and that the repeal would eventually lead to allowing same-sex couples to have benefits, such as allowing them to live in family housing on base, and it would disrupt the good dynamic it has. 
     Many go as far and dramatic as claiming that this repeal will ultimately disrupt and destroy our military.

     Originally my research topic was going to be about how the repeal of the DADT will have a positive effect on today's military, and it hasn't swayed from my original stance.  However, the more I research the more I can understand where the other side is coming from, and the concerns and issues they have with it being repealed.  With that being said, it still amazes me how many people are still so "homo-phobic" at this day in age.   You may not agree with it, but I think people should be tolerable of it, just like other issues, such as religion. 
     It was interesting to find out that other countries such as Australia, Canada, and Germany allow homosexual individuals to serve openly in their military without having a negative consequence so why can't we?
     Some difficulties I have been having when researching this topic, is finding a concrete set of statistics letting us know exactly how current military members feel about it.
     I am looking forward in seeing how it all turns out, and how the military deals and handles any issues that do come up.


    

     Defining technical terms or terms that the common reader may not fully understand or be familiar with is important to your argument.   It assures that the reader fully comprehends what the writer is trying to portray.    While these terms may be common or general knowledge to those who are or once was military,  I'm not sure that the general public fully understand these terms.   I know if I hadn't been in the military, I wouldn't have been able to fully grasp them.  
  
     I choose DADT,  unit morale,  readiness, cohesion and discharge.  While these are generally common knowledge, I believe it has a little bit different meaning to the military.    For example, yes every work place has morale and it needs to be high but at 5pm you punch out and thats that.  You go home to your own lives and leave work and your coworkers behind until the next morning. 
    
     Morale for the military is a little bit different,  its extremely important that this morale is high esspeically in deployed locations.  You don't get to punch out and forget about work til the next morning.  You don't get a break. When your deployed your living with the same people you work with everday.  In a sense for the military morale has a completely different meaning.
  


   

                   

This political cartoon depicts an image of 3 coffins of deceased military members, we know this by the American flags draped across them.  There are no other characters or any other objects in the scene and no words are spoken.  However there is a caption that asks the question "Which is the gay one?"  This cartoon is targeted at everyday people who read the newspaper, and see this cartoon.  I think the point the illustrator is trying to get across is that, it doesn't matter if soldiers are gay, they take the same oath, make the same sacrifices and are just as willing to die for our country as any straight soldier.

     This image is important to my argument because so many people focus on soldiers sexual orientation that they forget that they are just like every other soldier. They work just as hard, they take the same oath, and they die for our country.   To give up your life is the ultimate sacrifice. Why should it matter what gender they prefer? and why should they have to keep that secret?    


Lowe, Chan. Cartoon. Religious Tolerance. Religioustolerance.org, 15 Apr. 2009. Web.
    11 Feb. 2011. <http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mili1.htm>.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2010/sep/24/ed-dadt24-ar-522173/

     This article is by Aaron Belkin in the Richmond Times Dispatch, written on 9/24/2010. Belkin writes in an deduction form. His claim or major premise is that “the law (“Don't Ask, Don't Tell”) undermines unit cohesion, wastes money, and leads to a loss of critical military talent. It is also patently unfair and... unconstitutional.” Belkin supports his claims by debunking a number of myths surrounding the repeal, and why it was created in the first place.

     Belkin lists a number of myths such as: DADT was created to promote unit cohesion and military readiness, repealing DADT will be complicated, and the troops oppose repealing the DADT. The fact that Belkin counter argued these myths with facts and surveys done adds to the credibility and effectiveness of the article.

     The thesis statement for this article could be, This policy is overall a negative thing for the military and it will not be as difficult to abolish as some are saying. Some opposing questions readers may ask, could be along the lines, of how exactly would be the best way to ensure a smooth transition? Or how do they play to ensure unit cohesion is improved?