# 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:** 18\ **Page:** 6
**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 4, 2010, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/101 "2010-02-04T03:20:25Z")
Only tangentially related, but are there open homosexuals in Blackwater? ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2010, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/102 "2010-02-04T03:37:07Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > I didn’t say “more enlightened” countries, and your use of that term is dishonest because it imputes to me an argument i didn’t make. > > I said that, in some areas, policies in the United States are “out of step with just about every major country in the free, democratic world.” That is a fact. It is also a fact that some examples of those policies include gays in the military, and the use of the death penalty. Another area, arguably, would be publicly-funded health care. I apologize if you feel I was putting words into your mouth. I was surmising your intention out of what you said. Still, while I do agree (in general, in principle) with the sentiment of your general statement about the USA being “out of step with just about every major country in the free, democratic world”, I cannot agree with your inclusion of the death penalty in this instance. Deciding by judicial process the fate of egregiously bad and proven killers’ fate as towards death versus life in prison is not the same thing as deciding the fate of gays in your military. Sorry. Gays not being allowed in the military means they have a likelier chance of being alive, even if denied any type of government service. I understand what you are getting at, and I generally agree. But sometimes you have to view askance at how things are, instead of how they should be, and also remind yourself that while change is slow in coming, its in the winds. Bad, cheesy analogy, I know. Now people are going to berate me for humming a Scorpions song. Damn. > [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > We’re definitely more conservative than Israel. Can you elaborate specifically towards the militaries of these two countries, aside from the (apparently) known fact that Israel allows openly gay men to serve? ---
**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 4, 2010, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/103 "2010-02-04T03:52:26Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > Can you elaborate specifically towards the militaries of these two countries, aside from the (apparently) known fact that Israel allows openly gay men to serve? I mean, as a society as a whole, we’re more conservative than Israel, especially on the issue of gay rights. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2010, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/104 "2010-02-04T03:55:17Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > I mean, as a society as a whole, we’re more conservative than Israel, especially on the issue of gay rights. Can you cite that? I hate to ask this age old and often stupidly sarcastic question, but what is the basis for the comparison/disparity in your eyes? Earlier in the thread posts by **Alessan** , someone whom is Jewish and lives in Tel Aviv made out as to seem that it depended on which Jew you asked/were a member of religious group X… Please fight my ignorance. ---
**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 4, 2010, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/105 "2010-02-04T04:33:05Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Well, which is it? The brass, or the grunts? > > Just one page ago the main problem, according to you, seemed to be the soldiers:In that post, your central argument seemed to be that, given the hostility to homosexuals among the regular infantry guys, maybe if we’re going to repeal DADT we also need to set a policy that restricts the extent to which gays can participate in the military. Well, I don’t personally talk to Generals and Chiefs of Staff. I know from reading news reports that many of them are against it. I assume their reasons for being against it are similar to why the people I talk to are against it. I further assume that the same percentage of _them_ could be at least convinced to allow gays to serve in non Combat MOSs. I never said that soldiers wouldn’t be able to handle the change, or wouldn’t be able to do what they’re told. > [@](#): > > Now you’re saying, essentially, “Well, if they set the policy, the soldiers will follow it, but the main problem here is the guys at the top.” You’ll forgive me if i seem confused about where you think the real impediment to a full repeal of DADT lies. Soldiers will always do what they’re told. They handled integration of blacks, even though many of them disagreed with it at the time. Same thing here. Many top officials were against the integration as well. Once America convinced (or forced) them to change, the soldiers followed suit. ---
**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 4, 2010, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/106 "2010-02-04T04:40:15Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > Can you cite that? I hate to ask this age old and often stupidly sarcastic question, but what is the basis for the comparison/disparity in your eyes? Well, [here’s](http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/33967/homosexuality_an_aberration_for_many_israelis) a recent poll from Israel, from August of last year. It asked the following questions: “Is Homosexuality an aberration?” 46% said yes, 42% said no, and 12% weren’t sure “Should homosexuals and lesbians be allowed to serve in the army?” 77% yes, 16% no “Should homosexuals and lesbians be allowed to serve in public positions, like MKs and ministers?” 76% yes, 20% no “Should homosexuals and lesbians be allowed to marry in civil marriages?” 61% yes, 31% no “Should homosexuals and lesbians be allowed to adopt children?” 60% yes, 34% no There’s no civil marriage in Israel, and none of the religious authorities allow gays to marry. However, gay common law civil unions are recognized, and gay marriages conducted elsewhere are recognized. In the US, [56% say that gays should be allowed to serve in the military, and 37% say no.](http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1292) American voters oppose 55 - 38 percent a law in their state allowing same-sex couples to marry, but support 57 - 38 percent allowing same-sex couples to form civil unions. Voters also support 53 - 40 percent allowing same-sex couples to adopt children. ---
**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 4, 2010, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/107 "2010-02-04T04:43:13Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Now you’re saying, essentially, “…the main problem here is the guys at the top.” You’ll forgive me if i seem confused about where you think the real impediment to a full repeal of DADT lies. The real impediment lies in the mentality of the majority of the military. Soldiers are not the problem, however, because soldiers do not set policy. But it is the mentality shared by these many soldiers, the Generals, Conservative Politicians, Policy makes, and a large chunk of the American public. This mentality may prevent a full integration. They have been ordered to repeal DADT, but that doesn’t mandate a full integration. _If_ they come out of their closed door meeting with a half-assed policy as suggested in the OP, would it be fair? That’s the point of the OP. Assuming that it is already deemed fair to discriminate irrationally against a certain set of Americans who can do the job (women), would such a restriction on homosexuals be unfair? ---
**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 4, 2010, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/108 "2010-02-04T04:44:33Z")
… and actually, they haven’t even been “ordered” to repeal it, as far as I’m aware. It was just strongly suggested. Or have they? ---
**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 4, 2010, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/109 "2010-02-04T05:09:06Z")
DADT is a federal law. The President can’t order the military to repeal it. President Obama has announced that he’d like Congress to repeal it, and the military is preparing a study to determine what the effects of repealing it would be and what changes to military policy would be necessary if it were repealed. ---
**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 4, 2010, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/110 "2010-02-04T07:31:25Z")
That’s how I thought it would work. So the top military brass will sit in their closed door meetings and then make a suggestion as to how it might work. Then Congress drafts a new law. Then the majority of them have to agree on it and vote for it. So there is even more chance that some half-assed compromise of a policy will come of it. Got to get all those Congressmen on board. It’s not the soldiers, it’s the shared mentality they possess along with many of those Congressmen and much of those Generals. ---
**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 4, 2010, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/111 "2010-02-04T07:35:03Z")
It’ll probably be stuck as part of a rider on the defense appropriations bill. And, while the military brass doesn’t tend to make their politics known, there’s talk that most of them privately support overturning the policy and letting gays and lesbians openly serve. ---
**Author:** ![alexandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e68b1a/32.png) [@alexandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alexandra)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2010, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/112 "2010-02-05T18:40:11Z")
Completely illogical proposition by the OP. I do think women should be allowed to serve on the same terms as men in the US military, actually, providing they meet the fitness requirements - very few would, I imagine, but still. ---
**Author:** ![wolfstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d6d6ee/32.png) [@wolfstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfstu)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2010, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/113 "2010-02-05T19:34:13Z")
We had a thread related to this a while back. I set out my view on the question in this [post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10467658#post10467658). I said, in part: > [@wolfstu](#): > > And we can’t solve the problem by barring gays from the military, either. We need them, because we are them. They are a part of that society that we serve, that we defend, and who we are simply the regimented, uniformed part of. And plus, the armed forces need competent, qualified people, and we’re always looking for the dedicated, willing staff that can do our work. Turning them away for any arbitrary reason is counterproductive to effectiveness, counterproductive to the the military’s identification with the society it serves, and discriminatory to citizens – whose equality before the law is one of the fundamental principles we serve, as oath-bound agents of a democratic government. In short, discrimination in the military (against women, gays, or otherwise) is counterproductive, and has negative effects on the military, the society, and the individuals. In my country, women are fully integrated in all military roles, and have been for years. Likewise with homosexuals. Not simply because the constitution requires citizens to be treated equally, but because this is inherently a good idea. Why erect barriers? Why rob the military of skilled and motivated people? This applies whether these people are barred from all jobs, or only from some, as proposed by the OP (and current policy for women in the US). If the US military has a culture which cannot accommodate gays (or women), then it has a culture which is to its own detriment. For this to be fixed comes, in large part, from leadership. If the leadership (political or military) is too weak, or if bigotry in the US is too pervasive, well, these are internal problems which I encourage the citizens that country to sort out for themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Perciful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b38774/32.png) [@Perciful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Perciful)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2010, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/114 "2010-02-06T15:08:17Z")
We can’t have it both ways. If gays are equal in every sense why shouldn’t they be allowed to serve, marry and adopt? Women should be allowed to die in combat if they choose to. So what if it creates a hardship. We may lose a few soldiers due to PMS issues but war is hell as they say. “Don’t ask don’t tell” seems like such a closet term. It’s Ok as long as nobody knows… Shhhh ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/115 "2010-02-08T12:13:54Z")
Some links for reference: [Admiral Mullen](http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/02/nations_top_off.html), Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has expressed a personal view (i.e. not an official opinion of the Joint Chiefs) that DADT should be repealed: > [@](#): > > “It is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do,” Mullen said. “No matter how I look at this issue I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy that forces men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.” > > He added: “To me personally it comes down to integrity, theirs as individuals and ours as an institution. I also believe that the great young men and women of our military can and would accommodate such a change.” And [here](http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2010/02%20February/Gates%20DADT%2002-02-10.pdf) is the full statement from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on the subject. Both statements are from February 2. ---
**Author:** ![Slypork](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@Slypork](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slypork)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2010, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/116 "2010-02-08T19:43:31Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > DADT is a federal law. The President can’t order the military to repeal it. President Obama has announced that he’d like Congress to repeal it, and the military is preparing a study to determine what the effects of repealing it would be and what changes to military policy would be necessary if it were repealed. Can the president issue an executive order to end DADT? As the Commander in Chief he is ultimately responsible for all orders so shouldn’t he be able to just issue an order to his officers barring them from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation? ---
**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 8, 2010, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/117 "2010-02-08T23:25:24Z")
> [@Slypork](#): > > Can the president issue an executive order to end DADT? As the Commander in Chief he is ultimately responsible for all orders so shouldn’t he be able to just issue an order to his officers barring them from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation? DADT was legislated by Congress, so Congress has to repeal it. I don’t know whether Obama could issue an executive order to stop enforcing it. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/allowing-gays-to-openly-serve-in-the-us-military-but-not-in-combat-arms-positions-fair/527353/118 "2010-02-12T21:01:31Z")
**Details Of Obama Openly Gay Military Released** WASHINGTON (SR) - \*President Barack Obama has directed the Pentagon to replace the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy with one that will allow openly gay men and women to serve in the military. According to sources inside the Pentagon, changes to be implemented include adding choreography to marching regimens, equipping all dorms with double-wide bunks, new fitted uniforms in seasonal color epaulettes, the installation of hot tubs, and more. In a potentially controversial move, the Pentagon will announce the formation of a new all-gay, all male company tentatively named “69th Fighting Sodomites.” Sources credit the creation of the 69th to House member Barney Frank, who has reportedly been working “very, very closely” with gay Pentagon officials. \* [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=5)