Deist, you may be interested in an independent report written on the impact of the decision to allow gay men and women to serve in Australia’s military. The study was conducted eight years after ban was lifted and found:
It is perhaps arguable that Australia tends to be more tolerant towards sexual minorities than the United States, but the fact that Australia has a federal ban on same-sex marriage and a federal ban on overseas adoption by gay couples tends to show that there is still widespread homophobia in this country. Nonetheless, the Australian military has not suffered any adverse effects on morale or effectivness since gay men and women are allowed to (openly) serve.
You may be “uncomfortable serving with them”, but I’d suggest you’d probably get used to it, just like military personnel have in other nations.
Perhaps in time…what I mean by that is the fact that at this moment in time it simply wouldn’t work to allow open service by gays. In time there would be change as people become more comfortable and accepting of minorities. Perhaps ten years, twenty, or five years, who knows? I simply think that pushing to lift the ban on open service would not work right now.
Suppose the ban is lifted today, Deist. Would it change anything for you? Would you punch out if someone in your unit came out? Would you harass him or beat him? If not, why do you think you’re so much better disciplined than your peers?
Sounds like an excuse not to do anything. I suppose if there wasn’t an unpopular war on now, the luxury of selective recruiting and arbitrary dismissal could be clung to, but as long at the U.S. military want to impose arbitrary limits on itself, it doesn’t really deserve sympathy for low numbers.
I’m also in the service and have to say I agree with your point that there would be a great deal of resistance within the ranks. Likewise, I agree that many would be uncomfortable serving with openly homosexual peers.
That said, I disagree with your conclusion. Yes, many would be uncomfortable but the way to get over that would be to allow homosexuals to serve openly. My thinking is that the best way to ‘get over’ the issues with homosexuals in the military is to allow them to serve and then to wait the bumpy process out.
Racism was alive and well, both in the military and in American society at large when blacks were first allowed to serve in the military. At first it was in segregated units, then in menial positions in mixed units and finally in the service at large. Likewise, I’m sure the open service of homosexuals in the military will be a rocky path but it is my contention that as these openly gay members prove themselves in combat, their compatriots will ‘get over it.’ And, as these veterans make their way back into the civilian world they will take that tolerance with them.
The military is a very unique place in that it forces a degree of integration. In a way it’s like the idea version of the “American Dream’s Melting Pot” …except without all the freedom.
That would reopen the whole question of whether women should be allowed to serve in combat roles. I.e., is a transsexual a “woman” for that rule’s purposes or not?
My thinking is, we should allow gays to serve openly provided they serve in appropriate assignments. E.g., guarding the POWs.
GENERAL HOMINYGRITS: Awright, Colonel Gaylord, we are putting you and the Fighting Pink Panthers in charge of thishear POW camp. 10,000 prisoners, more arriving every day, most of them lean, hard, muscular, swarthy young sons of the desert. They have been brought up to respect authority, but only when it applies discipline with a firm hand. And they are accustomed to getting down on their hands and knees five times a day. Think you can handle this assignment, Colonel?
COLONEL GAYLORD: Oh, YES, General! Take it from me, there will be no escapes from THIS camp!
And there won’t be, either! 'Cos the prisoners know what’s gonna happen if they try!
COLONEL GAYLORD: Lieutenant Hassan! Lieutenant HASsan! WON’T you come into the Commandant’s office for a moment, Lieutenant? We know what you naughty boys in Barracks 4 have been up to! One way or another, Lieutenant, you are going to show the Commandant your escape tunnel!
(BTW – who was the girl, Klink or Schultz? Schultz was bigger, but Klink had the higher rank . . .)
Desegregation of the military occurred at a time when many people’s opinions were changing for the better. This and the fact that white’s had decades to get used to the fact that blacks were serving made the transition much easier than our current situation with gays would allow. Even then there was widespread resentment for mixing the races. If we were to all of the sudden allow gays to serve openly without some type of transition period or waiting for people opinions to change, there would be much resentment in the military. I am not saying there would be widespread gay bashing, assaults, harrassment etc. There would be a lack of trust and a lack of comfort among the troops. I would much rather have a military that works well together than to have one that didn’t but had a few more soldiers.
Homebrew, I would never hit someone based soley on their sexual orientation/race/relgion/etc.
You seem to fail to appreciate the significant obstacles that were overcome with integration of the military. In 1945 the Gillem Board opposed full integration on the basis that it “would have been a radical step, out of keeping with the climate of opinion in the country and in the Army itself.” Yet Truman went ahead with Executive Order 9981 in 1948. Dire predictions that morale would suffer, that there would be widespread dissastification and resentment in the troops, that “unit cohesion” would suffer were made in the 40s.
A 1948 Gallup poll showed 63% of Americans opposed integration of the military. Those fears have proved unfounded.
Contrast that poll with a 2003 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll which showed that 79% of Americans thought gays should be allowed to openly serve. Society seems far more ready to accept gays in the military than it was racial integration.
Your arguement that troops are so homophobic that their professionalism would suffer really casts a poor light on them. I give them more credit for being willing to take orders and do their job.
Deist is quite right when stating that the majority of the US Armed Forces are more conservative than the population they defend. But I don’t think that allowing openly gay soldiers to serve would cause an outward problem for their peers - they’re soldiers, after all, they’ll do as ordered (and I say that with honor and respect, not as a slight). Inwardly, yes, those who are more conservative will struggle. As will the openly gay soldiers that will be allowed to serve. I’d love to see it pass.
It won’t, however. Not in this administration. Imagine the backlash! “We’re good enough to fight for you, but not good enough to enjoy the same rights you do.” Never happen. Our military needs aren’t that great.
As a military guy in the Pentagon, I whole heartedly concur with those who say there will never be a draft in this country, short of a war for of U.S. survival. No one, the politicos, the people, or the military leadership wants the draft.
In terms of the thread, gays in the military, you’d be surprised how little traction (or maybe you wouldn’t) letting gays in the military gets. And the 1,500 people a year separated for homosexuality isn’t going to keep gays in, no matter what manpower problems we may have. Keep in mind, there are 2.2 million people in the military. 1,500 separated for being gay doesn’t amount to much.
