# Allowing Gays to Openly Serve In the US Military, But Not In Combat Arms Positions: Fair? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 2, 2010, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353 "2010-02-02T07:10:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Lanzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/74df32/32.png) [@Lanzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lanzy)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/21 "2010-02-02T13:58:21Z")
It seems the argument depends on Gay men = Women. Ha! I served in the Army and worked and fought next to gay men, some soldiers had a real problem with it and some tried to get them kicked out because of it. But if it was left alone, it all worked out. A good soldier was a good soldier and once the camraderie of a unit gets established, being gay is not a big deal. I’m not saying the platoons I served in were typical, after all they had a real liberal for a platoon sgt. I am for openly gay men serving in all positions in the military. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/22 "2010-02-02T14:03:25Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Quoth **Captain Amazing** :That’s not cultural; it’s biological. Every species except sea-horses is biased against females being put in danger. [spit take] Whaaa…??? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/23 "2010-02-02T14:16:09Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Quoth **Captain Amazing** :That’s not cultural; it’s biological. Every species except sea-horses is biased against females being put in danger. Is that a joke? If not, I’d like to see a cite. I’m trying to imagine a bunch of male spiders circling around the females to protect them… ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/24 "2010-02-02T14:18:29Z")
> [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](#): > > 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 You sound like Dick Cheney, who supports same-sex marriage . . . because he equates marriage with torture. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/25 "2010-02-02T14:20:49Z")
I think that positions in the military should have physical requirements and any person, man or woman, straight or gay, who meets the requirements should be allowed to serve in that position. Nenno, do you ever mention to your buddies that at some point in their military career, they’ve probably served with at least one or two gays? We do look like normal people after all. Argent Towers, this is a quote from some random person on facebook: [QUOTE=random facebook dude] The reason gays have the" dont ask dont tell" rule in the militarey is strictly for thier own protection. Some gays would openly tell of their bieng gay and that would eventually lead to something bad happening to them. I served in the service and was a decorated, respected soldier. But I hate to say it, at that time in my life and in many others I promise you this. Many gays will be hurt and even killed by thier fellow soldiers. [/quote] ---
**Author:** ![Noone\_Special](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/noone_special/32/2863_2.png) [@Noone\_Special](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Noone_Special)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/26 "2010-02-02T14:20:56Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > You sound like Dick Cheney, who supports same-sex marriage . . . **because he equates marriage with torture**. Say what you will about Dick Cheney, but I think few people will claim he is **stupid**! 😛 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/27 "2010-02-02T14:39:03Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > 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. This is exactly what I came here to say. With this caveat addressed, there should be no other exceptions. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/28 "2010-02-02T16:14:45Z")
Other countries allow gays to serve in combat roles and they do just fine. Israel certainly has an active military with at least the same demands as the US, so if they can do it, so can we. Treating gays differently is sooooo 20th century! ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/29 "2010-02-02T16:34:37Z")
And other cultures are different from American culture. What works there might not work here. I’m not saying it _wouldn’t_ work, I just don’t know. I did say that the US military has a culture of machismo and I stand by that. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/30 "2010-02-02T16:39:17Z")
Count me among the number saying that if the integration is to happen, it shouldn’t be restricted to non-combat roles. And I support making this change in general. I do think that keeping the current policy regarding female soldiers is wise - no amount of policy-making can legislate physical differences in strength away. Also, it is obvious that whether a soldier is gay or straight, they have to adhere to uniform and grooming standards - and I cannot envision making that compatible with transgendered soldiers. OTOH, this should not be an issue for civilian employment with the DoD. People looking for full equality here will likely be out of luck - the best that might be achieved is more opportunities for more people. And with the military that is fine - there are numerous physical and social conditions that are disqualifying to military service but not to normal government employment. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/31 "2010-02-02T16:43:37Z")
If _anybody_ has machismo it ought to be the Spanish army, and I think they allow openly gay soldiers. (Portugal doesn’t.) Are there any militaries that don’t have a macho culture? That seems like part and parcel of the whole deal. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/32 "2010-02-02T16:44:17Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > And other cultures are different from American culture. What works there might not work here. I’m not saying it _wouldn’t_ work, I just don’t know. I did say that the US military has a culture of machismo and I stand by that. It also had a culture of racism before integration. Too bad for the culture. The military has whatever culture it’s fucking ordered to have. Israel has just as much homophobia as the US does, by the way, if not more. The culture is not different in that regard, especially among the Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox communities. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/33 "2010-02-02T16:58:06Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Israel has just as much homophobia as the US does, by the way, if not more. The culture is not different in that regard, especially among the Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox communities. The issue with this statement is that the more Orthodox an individual is, the less likely they are to serve in the IDF. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/34 "2010-02-02T16:58:29Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > 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?_ There are plenty of hyper-macho, obnoxiously testosterone filled gay men out there. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/35 "2010-02-02T17:12:17Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > If _anybody_ has machismo it ought to be the Spanish army, and I think they allow openly gay soldiers. (Portugal doesn’t.) > > Are there any militaries that don’t have a macho culture? That seems like part and parcel of the whole deal. That was my thought, too. I’ve known people who were in the Australian army, and they seemed, on the whole, no more or less macho than the military guys i play softball with here in San Diego. I realize that’s a pretty small sample size, but still. I’m not disputing **Bear Nenno** ’s account of his own experience, and i’m sure he meets more military folk in a week than i do in a year, but if he’s right about the level of bigotry and hostility, then we need to ask what this says about the American military in particular. It seems to me that there are two main possibilities: 1. The American military is pretty much the same as most other militaries, and despite the apparent prejudice and the bigoted rhetoric, they will deal just fine once homosexuals are allowed to serve openly. 2. American soldiers are, on the whole, much more bigoted and prejudiced and stupid than their overseas counterparts, and full integration of gays simply won’t work in the United States. I’ve always been resistant to explanation (2), because it smacks of an exceptionalism that i’m not comfortable with. While i realize that the United States is unique in many ways, after living here for almost a decade i really think that, for the most part, there’s just as much good and bad, just as much smart and dumb, and just as much fair and unfair among the people here as there is in most other similar Western countries. With a few areas of exception, Americans as a whole don’t strike me as any more ignorant or prejudiced or sexist or whatever than, say, Australians or Brits or Canadians. So maybe we should just try scenario (1) and see how it goes. Let’s just try what [Australia](http://www.palmcenter.org/publications/dadt/the_effects_of_including_gay_and_lesbian_soldiers_in_the_australian_defence_forces_appraising_the_evidence) did: > [@](#): > > In place of the previous military regulation banning gays and lesbians from service, the government issued a more general instruction on “sexual misconduct policy.” Among other provisions, the new instruction referred to unacceptable conduct without making a distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Rather than define what was unacceptable based upon sexual orientation, in other words, the new instruction prohibited any sexual behavior that negatively impacted group cohesion or command relationships, took advantage of subordinates, or discredited the ADF (Smith, 1995, 545). Thus, for example, “homosexual advances” were not illegitimate; threatening sexual behavior was. And the policy provided commanders with some latitude to judge whether a certain behavior was acceptable or not in a certain context. According to a report prepared by the British Defence Ministry, the Australian policy “recognises that sexual relations are a part of adult life and are predominately a private matter for each individual. Nevertheless, the ADF is concerned with the sexual behavior of its members where it is inconsistent with the inherent requirements of the ADF, or where it is unlawful. …The term ‘Unacceptable Sexual Behaviour’ is not defined and thus left to a wide variety of command interpretation. This lack of prescriptive definition of unacceptable behavior is in line with the Australian Sex Discrimination Act’s emphasis on what is reasonable in the circumstances and the recipient’s response to such behaviour” (UK Defence Ministry 1996, H1-3). According to the Executive Summary of this report: > [@](#): > > Based on the results of prior studies, eighteen in-depth interviews with informed military and non-military observers, and other data, this study finds that the full lifting of the ban on gay service has not led to any identifiable negative effects on troop morale, combat effectiveness, recruitment and retention, or other measures of military performance. Furthermore, available evidence suggests that policy changes associated with the lifting of the ban may have contributed to improvements in productivity and working environments for service members. Key findings include: > > · Senior officials, commanders, and military scholars within the ADF consistently appraise the lifting of the ban as a successful policy change that has contributed to greater equity and effective working relationships within the ranks. > > · Prior to the lifting of the ban, ADF service chief argued that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would jeopardize recruitment, troop cohesion, and combat effectiveness while also spreading AIDS and encouraging predatory behavior > > · Senior officials, commanders and scholars report that there has been no overall pattern of disruption to the military. However, some individual units have reported disruptions that were resolved successfully through normal management procedures. > > · While the lifting of the ban was not immediately followed by large numbers of personnel declaring their sexual-orientation, by the late 1990s significant numbers of officers and enlisted personnel had successfully and largely uneventfully come out to their peers. > > · Recruitment and retention rates have not suffered as a result of the policy change. As Commodore R. W. Gates of the Royal Australian Navy states in the report, “There was no great peak…where people walked out, and there was no great dip in recruiting. It really was a non-event.” > > · Self-identified gay soldiers, officers, and commanders describe good working relationships in an environment that emphasizes capable and competent job performance under uniform rules of conduct for all personnel. Gay soldiers and commanders have successfully served in recent active deployments in East Timor. > > · Complaints regarding sexual orientation issues comprise less than 5% of the total complaints received by the ADF of incidents of sexual harassment, bullying, and other forms of sexual misconduct. > > · Of 1,400 calls received by an anonymous “Advice Line” maintained by the ADF to help personnel and commanders manage potential misconduct issues since this service was initiated in August 1998, 17 (1.21 percent) have related to sexual orientation issues. > > · Current debates in Australia related to the policy change are now focused on extending equal benefits to the partners of gay servicemembers, rather than on the policy itself. To the degree that harassment issues continue to exist in the Australian Forces, most observers believe that problems faced by women soldiers are more serious than those faced by gay personnel. The last sentence there is interesting. In the Australian military, it seems, sexual harassment and hostility seems to be directed much more at women soldiers than at gay soldiers. Not sure if that’s peculiar to Australia. Leaving aside highly-publicized incidents like Tailhook 1991, i wonder how prevalent this stuff is in the everyday operations of the American military. One thing that i think will be crucial to a repeal of DADT is that, when it passes, the top brass get behind it quickly, forcefully, and unequivocally. We’re always told by military types in the US how professional the military is, how orders are obeyed whether you like them or not. Well, with DADT, it will be time for them to put their words into action in a very obvious and specific way. We’ll then find out if they’re as professional as they always insist they are, or if the American military is really just a collection of rednecks who will only really follow orders when those orders comport with their own prejudices. One final thing i want to post is something i’ve posted before. ```auto Group A Group B Australia China United Kingdom Cuba Spain Egypt Germany Iran New Zealand North Korea Canada Singapore Israel Syria France Turkey Netherlands Venezuela Norway Yemen ``` Group A allows gays to serve openly in the military; Group B bans homosexuals from serving. In terms of values, personal freedom and an open society, which group of countries do you think America should be part of? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/36 "2010-02-02T17:25:30Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > > [@Chronos](#): > > > > That’s not cultural; it’s biological. Every species except sea-horses is biased against females being put in danger. > > Is that a joke? If not, I’d like to see a cite. > > I’m trying to imagine a bunch of male spiders circling around the females to protect them… I think **Chronos** was trying to note a parallel with certain social species of mammals like cows, horses, apes, etc., where the males in a social group intervene to fight off threats to humans and young, and was stricken with a severe attack of hyperbole that caused him to overlook not only spiders and many other invertebrates but also many mammalian predators and many birds. (There are even several bird species, like the [jacanas](http://www.jstor.org/stable/1311690), where the females patrol territory and fight off intruders while their “harems” of three to five male mates apiece incubate their eggs.) ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/37 "2010-02-02T18:00:07Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > The issue with this statement is that the more Orthodox an individual is, the less likely they are to serve in the IDF. Not exactly - the more religious a (male) individual is, the \*more \*likely he is to serve in a combat arms position… up to a certain point, from which he won’t serve at all. That’s because there are two major Orthodox groups in Israel - the “Religious-Zionists” and the “Haredim” (Ultra-Orthodox). The first group has close analogies in the U.S. military; the second doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Dioptre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/278dde/32.png) [@Dioptre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dioptre)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/38 "2010-02-02T18:05:14Z")
The idea that women might be prevented from some “combat” positions due to physical factors is a furfy. Which role in the military is most likely to need to physically haul a comrade out of the line of fire? A medic. Which role has traditionally been _most_ open to women? Medics, _including_ combat area care. I know the above sounds like a slight hijack, but it illustrates the problem that almost all discrimination in the military is just that - discrimination. Rationalise it however you like, including “protecting the minority against our dreadful soldiers who we can’t control” (what, you don’t teach them to follow orders in your armed forces?) it is pure prejudiced discrimination. Maybe we should let gays in the military, but only allow them to ride at the back of the troop-carrier? ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/39 "2010-02-02T18:38:21Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > 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. Here’s a question. The Federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage (see DOMA). Would the Armed Forces recognize such a marriage? Or would the gay soldier be treated as any other unmarried individual? BTW I agree they should be allowed to serve openly. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/40 "2010-02-02T18:43:21Z")
Holy hell, did I really type this and not notice?? > [@Kimstu](#): > > I think Chronos was trying to note a parallel with certain social species of mammals like cows, horses, apes, etc., where the males in a social group intervene to fight off threats to humans and young Um, that should be “ **females** and young”, obviously. :o [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353.md?page=3)