The military already discriminates against women serving in the military. Female soldiers are not allowed to serve in the infantry, Special Forces, and other Combat jobs. Assuming this is fair and acceptable, would it also be acceptable to prohibit homosexuals from serving in Combat Arms?
How would you feel about DADT being repealed if the military brass said that gays can openly serve, but they are prohibited from the same positions that ban women. This would certainly get rid of most of the arguments against allowing gays to serve. Somehow these units which are sexually integrated manage to perform without everyone constantly trying to rape each other.
I would like to hear Doper opinions on a new law that allows gays to serve in any position which already allows females. Is this unjust? If you don’t mind, briefly state your opinion on prohibiting women from serving in combat skilled positions as well, since it is relevant.
One might say, prohibiting gays from serving in male-only jobs is wrong. But so is having “male only” jobs.
Or you might be of the opinion that “male only” jobs are necessary in the military, and they should allow all males, including openly gay men.
Or you might not have a problem with discriminating against females and gay men because it is a necessary evil to ensure the success of our military?
Personally, I’d like to see all military positions open to all people regardless of gender or sexuality.
BTW, in the IDF it cuts the other way – women are (mostly*) barred from front-line combat, while openly gay men are not.
There are a few female fighter-pilots (and navigators/weapons operators) in the IAF now, and I’m not sure whether they’re barred from all cross-border operations, or from deep-in-enemy-airspace ops only, or not at all.
The logic behind not allowing women to serve in combat is first that women on average are smaller and weaker than men and can’t be expected to meet the physical standards required of men in combat units, and second, that there’s a cultural bias in American society against seeing women put in danger. Americans would be less likely to tolerate wars in which American women are killed or injured than in which American men are, and male soldiers might be reluctant to put women in a situation where they would be in danger.
None of these things are true of gay men. Gay men are neither smaller or weaker on average than straight men, and American society doesn’t hold gay men’s life or safety at a higher level than straight men, so none of the justifications for keeping women out of combat would apply.
Don’t forget the mixed-sex Karakal Battalion (a light infantry unit that mostly serves on the Israel-Egypt border); I’ve also seen several female MAGAV warriors. Neither of the above are front-line combat units, but they *are *“combat arms”.
Umm… shouldn’t the OP’s question be reversed? I mean, shouldn’t gay men be preferentially placed in higher-risk positions as they are - genetically - more expendable?
ETA: Personally, I have no objection to gay men or women serving in any position.
Firstly, the prohibition on women in combat roles has quite different rationales from the prohibition on gays in the military, as Captain Amazing says. Once DADT is repealed, gay men should be able to serve in any capacity that is open to straight men.
More generally, while i understand why some jobs in the military were made male-only, i think the rules should be changed to allow anyone who meets the aptitude tests (physical and/or intellectual) to perform in any role.
If a woman is strong enough to pass all the physical requirements for combat positions, then she should be able to serve. As long as the standards are maintained, and not lowered in order to artificially allow unqualified people into combat roles, then anyone who meets the standards should be allowed to fight.
You are correct of course, but I’m taking “combat positions” in the OP to mean “intended to be deployed across enemy lines(ETA:, or in direct engagement with enemy forces crossing our lines,) at time of war,” so neither of these (nor any other ground-based positions open to females in the IDF, AFAIK) qualify (by this metric).
WTF? The major benefit of being gay is NOT having to do the things that normal people do their best to avoid: like getting married and serving in combat. Yet they actively PURSUE the right to be subjected to those punishments? I just don’t get it…TRM
Having given my own opinion on the matter, i’d also be interested to hear from the OP. Do you believe that your proposal is necessary and/or reasonable? If so, why?
Here is something I want to know some opinions about, preferably of combat veterans if there are any here. Do you think that openly homosexual men would be a good fit for the uniquely macho, warrior-culture ethos of the contemporary fighting unit in the United States military? I know a hell of a lot of guys from high school who went on to the military, mostly the Marines, and these guys were fag this, fag that, fag the other, especially in sports practices, gym class, and whatnot. You fuck up, and you’re a fuckin’ fag pussy, and anyone who’s offended by that is also a fuckin’ faggot pussy. There is, of course, also the brotherhood that comes from drinking and chasing pussy and fancying yourselves the greatest studs who ever walked the earth. The whole atmosphere of young male testosterone is totally overtly homophobic and it transcends racial issues completely, for those of you who are planning on drawing comparisons to the integration of the military under Truman. So - tell us your honest opinion. Do you think open homosexuality would mesh with this, or would it become a problem?
That’s not cultural; it’s biological. Every species except sea-horses is biased against females being put in danger.
As for the OP’s suggestion, one fairness issue I see right off the bat is that even if it’s acceptable to have different assignments for male-attracted soldiers than for female-attracted ones, there’s no objective way of telling who’s gay. A man who wants to stay off the front lines won’t have much luck with trying to pretend he’s a woman, but he might be able to pull off pretending to be gay.
Have you read the thread to which I linked? Granted it’s British soldiers, but it shows that they’ll rip anyone or anything any way which comes to mind at the time.
I believe it might be a necessary first step to integration. So many fellow infrantrymen I talk to are totally convinced that they will have to be looking over their shoulders constantly to stay safe from the faggots trying to ass rape them. It’s fucking ridiculous.
Any conversation that lasts long enough always ends with the compromise of “Well, as long as they’re only allowed in Combat Support and Combat Service Support roles, I don’t care. But I don’t want to have to worry about that shit while I’m out on patrol.”
All I have to do is start talking about special skills and other job sets that require talented individuals who might happen to be gay. Then I bring up the translators and stuff who were fired and how pointless that is. That’s when it ends with “well they can do those jobs, then. But I don’t want them next to me”. ::sigh::
Units with integrated females already successfully tackle the issues of seperate barracks and housing facilities and other issues associated with preventing sexual assault and drama issues associated with relationships, sex, fraternization, etc. So they will be more readily able to handle such a change. Other units would take more time.
Personally, I would have absolutely no issue with a rule coming out tomorrow that says, “Homosexuals may serve openly. No other special considerations or discriminations will be made to accomodate this integration. If the gay soldier is legally married, he gets all the benefits and pay associated with that status. If not, he (they) will live among other males without respect to sexual preference. Soldiers will be given tolerance classes and anti-discrimation classes to help reduce their backwards-ass prejudiced views.”
Unfortunately, I haven’t met a single infantryman who shares this opinion. Or even comes close.
As for the other part of the question, I neither have a problem with prohibiting women from serving in the infantry, nor would I freak out if that rule were changed. Provided they are held to the same standards.
Similarly, I don’t have an issue with homosexuals being restricted to non-combat positions (because it’s a good first step, at least), nor would I have an issue with them being allowed to serve in any capacity.
Personally I would love to see a military that was mature enough to handle full integration of sexes and sexual orientations. But the present day culture in America, and the total lack of maturity in most of today’s privates will prevent this. It’s bad enough there are rapes and sexual assaults in the Army already–even with all the safegaurds in place. No way could we handle having females and males living on the same floor or the same rooms. Its ridiculous, but it must be accepted as fact. To ignore this would be disasterous. Females and males must be housed seperately. For similar reasons, homosexuals and heterosexuals may have to be housed seperately. That presents a challenge that some units are better equiped to tackle than others. I’d rather people just deal with it and accept that not even gay man wants to rape them in their sleep!
I see no reason to believe that. The opposition is driven by irrational prejudice and hatred; no accommodation you make will reduce the opposition of people who simply hate homosexuals for being homosexual.
No, it’s just another form of segregation. Like racial segregation, it wouldn’t be a “step towards” anything. It would just be homophobia encoded into law, just as racial segregation was racial bigotry encoded into law. Another barrier, not a stepping stone.
Accommodating the bigots simply does not lead to progress. It doesn’t make them nicer, and it simply hands them an advantage by letting them turn their hatred into a legally enforced system.
I suspect you would have gotten a response with the same tone if you had sounded out white soldiers about serving with black ones during segregation. Decades of segregation didn’t soften that prejudice; only biting the bullet and forcing the issue did. I think that you’ll see real progress on the tolerance of gays in the military when and if the military command simply issues a directive like you outline in the quoted passage, and tells any homophobes who complain “shut up and soldier, soldier”. And not before. And when and if they do, after a period of wailing and gnashing of teeth the world will fail to come to an end and eventually, the homophobes will become marginalized just as racists have.
And frankly if anyone - man, woman, black, white, gay, straight, etc - is willing to fight for their country and can physically and mentally do it, we’d be stupid to say no. We’re asking people to kill and die here - there’s no need to be so fucking precious about it.
This may be acceptable in general but I don’t know how fair some of the individual details are.
No, and it’s a solution to a nonexistent problem that would not satisfy people on either side. And as a more minor objection it encourages some stereotyping of gays.
No it wouldn’t. The bottom line is this: gays can’t serve openly because a lot of people are uncomfortable with gays, and see them as immoral and potential rapists, seducers and child molesters. When people talk about ‘unit cohension,’ they mean straight guys won’t get raped, harrassed or picked up by predatory gays. There might be some more minor concerns about discomfort, but mostly this is about placating an irrational fear of gays. And people in non-combat positions can be just as prejudiced. However well intentioned, your proposal doesn’t address the fact that this discrimination is ridiculous and irrational. If the military survived openly black soldiers in combat positions it can do the same with gays.
This is certainly not true; the rates of rape for women in the military are horrific.
(This is not an argument against women in the military, but largely an argument against the circumstances which have led to America’s worst men serving in the military.)