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.
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:
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!
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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 did:
According to the Executive Summary of this report:
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.
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?
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, where the females patrol territory and fight off intruders while their “harems” of three to five male mates apiece incubate their eggs.)
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.
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?
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.
