# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/41 "2010-02-02T18:47:27Z")
Women and Men, regardless of orientation not only should be allowed to serve in any role that they are qualified for (based on threshold physical and mental abilities) - they should ALL have to register for Selective Service (aka the Draft) when they turn 18. ---
**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, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/42 "2010-02-02T18:49:24Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > 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? They would be treated as an unmarried individual - in this there would be no difference with the rest of the federal government, which similarly does not recognize same-sex marriage. Whether this will have to be addressed with the pay system is an open question - frankly, I think this is a long-overdue reform. In no other job in our country do you get more money in your paycheck just for being married. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/43 "2010-02-02T19:23:05Z")
I think one thing that continues to be left out of these discussions is **The US armed forces already has openly gay members serving** A DADT discharge is not an instant process in some cases it takes years for them to carry it out. We have Highly decorated officers who have come out publicly and have yet to be discharged. In addition the our own gay soldiers our soldiers have worked hand in hand with gay soldiers in other countries armies. Granted the sample group has been small but among the examples of openly gay soldiers where is the evidence of breakdown in unit cohesion or evidence that gay soldiers are not fit for any given role? The DADT statute has proven to have a negative effect on unit cohesion as it removes trained and able soldiers who have worked with their unit for years. I think there is no legitimate reason for the US to continue or establish new discriminatory rules. Women and gays should be offered the same positions as their straight male counterparts. I also feel both should be registered for selective service. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/44 "2010-02-02T19:23:27Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > 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 reject your premise. There is no uniquely macho culture in the military. The military is largely made up of young people. The people you went to high school with have served their time and gotten out. Now there’s a new “freshman class” in the military. It’s much, much less homophobic than it was when your high school buddies were in. There’s no more testosterone in the military than you’d find at a random poker night or pickup basketball game. > [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Whether this will have to be addressed with the pay system is an open question - frankly, I think this is a long-overdue reform. In no other job in our country do you get more money in your paycheck just for being married. But can you think of another job that makes demands on the wife and kids the same way that the military does? It’s strange to me how the SDMB keeps rallying beind the LGBT community on this and says that the military is bigoted and prejudiced. Yet they fail to realize how bigoted and prejudiced they are towards the military. No, we don’t “hate fags”. No, we don’t rape women all the time. We’re actually decent people that put our lives on the line for you sonsabitches to disparage us like that. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/45 "2010-02-02T19:29:07Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > This is certainly not true; the rates of rape for women in the military are horrific. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/46 "2010-02-02T19:33:22Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Cite? > [@](#): > > Jessica’s story is not unique. One in three female soldiers will experience sexual assault while serving in the military, compared to one in six women in the civilian world. The Pentagon released a disturbing report Tuesday on sexual abuse in the military, saying that more than 2,900 sexual assaults were reported last year, up nearly 9 percent from the year before. Nearly two-thirds of the cases involved rape or aggravated assault. [Sexual Assault Permeates US Armed Forces](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/17/eveningnews/main4872713.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/47 "2010-02-02T20:01:56Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > 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. It’s dumb. Gays aren’t women. Why should they be subject to the same restrictions as women? Having some restrictions on the roles in which women can serve only makes any sense under one rationale- women are, on average, physically smaller and weaker than men.\* If a heavy gunner can’t muscle her gun around effectively, she’s endangering everyone in her squad. If a sniper can’t use her rifle effectively because it’s too large for her, she’s a liability. Gays are not women and are not subject to the same genetic weaknesses, and so shouldn’t be arbitrarily barred from positions because our society feminizes them. \*This is, of course, not a good reason either. While some women are too small or physically weak to be as effective as men in combat, there exist women who are large and strong enough to be as effective as their male counterparts. They should be held to the same standards as men in terms of required physical size and strength for any given role. Establish a series of minimums across the board for physical requirements for combat (based on actual necessity, not a goal of keeping women out of combat) and then don’t discriminate based on gender. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/48 "2010-02-02T20:04:22Z")
> [@appleciders](#): > > It’s dumb. Gays aren’t women. Why should they be subject to the same restrictions as women? And more importantly, why aren’t they immediately allowing lesbians into combat? ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/49 "2010-02-02T20:09:41Z")
> [@Inner Stickler](#): > > 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. Yea, but the response is always the same garbage that brought on DADT. “. . . as long as I don’t know about it…” > [@Skammer](#): > > 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. It shouldn’t matter. The military recognizes any legal marriage from any state or country. So as long as you are legally married in a state which allows it, and your permanent residence is that state (neither you nor your spouse have to live there for it to be your permanent residence), then the military should should recognize that legal marriage and pay out accordingly. Whether or not they see it that way is, of course, anyone’s guess. But that’s the way I’d like to see it applied. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/50 "2010-02-02T20:21:31Z")
> [@appleciders](#): > > It’s dumb. Gays aren’t women. Why should they be subject to the same restrictions as women? Though you seemed to pick up on the point in your last paragraph, I think you are still missing it. It isn’t about comparing gays to women or saying gays are feminine. The idea is that military already discriminates and it is accepted. There is no good reason to prohibit a woman who is stronger, faster, and more athletic than the average male recruit from serving in a combat MOS. Yet, the military _does_ discriminate in such ways and it is generally accepted. When discussing the issue of repealing DADT with conservative, blue collar, soldiers with stereotypical infantry mind sets and religious values, I can sometimes get them to lean as far left as “Well, as long as they are restricted from Combat MOSs the way women are, then fine. . .” And it takes a lot of work to get there! I started this thread to get more imput that might help me convince people to lean a little further. And also to see if maybe we might just have to accept that its as compromising as society will get at this time. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/51 "2010-02-02T20:28:12Z")
> [@appleciders](#): > > Having some restrictions on the roles in which women can serve only makes any sense under one rationale- women are, on average, physically smaller and weaker than men.\* But it doesn’t even make sense under _that_ rationale. Why prohibit ALL women simply because half of them are weaker than the top 50% of men? ---
**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, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/52 "2010-02-02T20:33:26Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > It isn’t about comparing gays to women or saying gays are feminine. But that’s what it does even if that isn’t what it’s “about.” > [@](#): > > The idea is that military already discriminates and it is accepted. There is no good reason to prohibit a woman who is stronger, faster, and more athletic than the average male recruit from serving in a combat MOS. Yet, the military _does_ discriminate in such ways and it is generally accepted. Most people have said in this thread that it’s a bad idea. You’re proposing to extend it. What sense does that make? ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/53 "2010-02-02T20:52:37Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > Though you seemed to pick up on the point in your last paragraph, I think you are still missing it. > It isn’t about comparing gays to women or saying gays are feminine. > The idea is that military already discriminates and it is accepted. There is no good reason to prohibit a woman who is stronger, faster, and more athletic than the average male recruit from serving in a combat MOS. Yet, the military _does_ discriminate in such ways and it is generally accepted. > > When discussing the issue of repealing DADT with conservative, blue collar, soldiers with stereotypical infantry mind sets and religious values, I can sometimes get them to lean as far left as “Well, as long as they are restricted from Combat MOSs the way women are, then fine. . .” > And it takes a lot of work to get there! > I started this thread to get more imput that might help me convince people to lean a little further. And also to see if maybe we might just have to accept that its as compromising as society will get at this time. > [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > But it doesn’t even make sense under _that_ rationale. Why prohibit ALL women simply because half of them are weaker than the top 50% of men? I wasn’t being clear. My first paragraph was to point out that gays don’t fit the rationale under which the military doesn’t allow women into combat. My second paragraph is my reasoning for why we should allow women who are physically on par with the men they serve with to be in combat roles. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/54 "2010-02-02T21:13:56Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Most people have said in this thread that it’s a bad idea. You’re proposing to extend it. What sense does that make? Um. I have said that it is a bad idea as well. I am not proposing to extend anything. I am just trying to approach the debate from the premise that 1. It is acceptable in modern American society and military culture to discriminate against women–prohibiting them from doing jobs that they otherwise would be fully capable of doing simple because they are female. 2. This discrimination is based on irrational and outdated views of women and gender roles in society. 3. This discrimination is reinforced in the behavior and sexist attitudes of soldiers at all levels (male and female). 4. Most infantrymen do not accept that women can effectively work along side them, and they don’t want them around ruining everything. If 1-4 is currently fine and acceptable… and it _is_ even if it _shouldn’t be_, then is it not also acceptable to irrationally discriminate against homosexuals for similar predujices (based on homophobia rather than mysogony). We pretty much all agree that the 1-4 is not right and should not be acceptable, so then it leaves little to debate with respect to homosexuals. But if we accept that it _is_ currently policy to prohibit people from doing a job they are capable of doing because of irrational perceptions and prejudices, then would it be more wrong to continue this if it actually meant giving more rights to a class of people. Yes, it is wrong, but it would allow gays to service openly in 90% of the military–which is a lot more than the 0 percent currently. ---
**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, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/55 "2010-02-02T21:20:23Z")
About 15 years ago, it was progress to let them serve as long as they didn’t tell anybody they were gay. That policy was probably a failure in the end (the policy was supposed to be Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, _Don’t Pursue_) but it got us to this point. There’s no reason to introduce another half measure. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/56 "2010-02-02T21:21:14Z")
The OP would keep able-bodied men from serving in combat due to “effeminacy”? I suppose some other fan of Hellenistic culture will point out why this is bizarre. As a step toward normalization, I suppose it’s acceptable. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/57 "2010-02-02T21:21:35Z")
> [@appleciders](#): > > My second paragraph is my reasoning for why we should allow women who are physically on par with the men they serve with to be in combat roles. We should. But we don’t. And society seems to be okay with this. So shouldn’t it be “equally” okay to prohibit homosexuals from certain jobs in the military. They are certainly capable of doing the job, but too many people have the perception that they will just run around trying to fuck them instead of pulling security. It’s a perception that they wouldn’t be able to function cohesively and effectively. The same wrongful perception we have against women. Is it really more okay to discriminate against women than homosexuals? Shouldn’t it be equally wrong either way? ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/58 "2010-02-02T21:25:35Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > The OP would keep able-bodied men from serving in combat due to “effeminacy”? Again, the idea is not that gay=girly. The idea is that: female=irrational prejudice and mysogony gay=irrational prejudice and homophobia Both are viewed as incapable of functioning in a modern infantry unit. Both views are wrong. So, if it is wrong but acceptable to discriminate against women, why can’t it be acceptable to wrongly discriminate against homosexuals. That’s what I’m getting at. I’m not the one who needs convincing. I just need help convincing others… ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/59 "2010-02-02T21:29:24Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > There’s no reason to introduce another half measure. Even if a full measure would not pass? ---
**Author:** ![tacoloco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tacoloco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tacoloco)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2010, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/60 "2010-02-02T21:37:55Z")
Anyone who is qualified for a particular role in the military should be allowed to, without caveat or restriction. It wouldn’t be easy, especially on the gay soldiers, but as time goes by, the prejudices will fade. Eventually, sexual orientation won’t even be any sort of consideration. [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=2) [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=4)