I think the military should repeal it’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and allow open homosexuals to serve in the military. I’m not exactly sure why this policy is in place in the first place but I can’t see any real logical reasoning for it. Gays and lesbians aren’t going to try and screw anything of the same sex that walks. Other soliders won’t catch “the gay” by being around open homosexuals.
I have no objection. Provided they are assigned appropriate duties. Like guarding POWs.
COLONEL GAYLORD: Colonel Hassan! Colonel Hasaaan! Won’t you come into the Commandant’s office for a moment? We know what you naughty boys in Barracks 4 have been up to! One way or another, Colonel Hassan, you are going to show the Commandant your escape tunnel!
I believe a stronger argument can be made for excluding women from service than for excluding gays from service.
Twenty years ago, I think the military’s fear about unit cohesiveness was valid. I believe that society has caught up enough that it’s now worthwhile to simply stifle the dissenters, as Truman did when he racially integrated the military.
Yes. It’s time to end “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” and remove any legal or policy restrictions for gays in the armed forces.
Here’s the reasoning, whether logical or not.
The military reserves the right to ban anything “prejudicial to good order and discipline” Which is not, as applied to homosexuality, implying that gays are inherently undisciplined. The line I was given was that given the current makeup of the armed forces, the reaction to a forced integration with outed gays would break down good order. It’s obviously hideously unfair to blame gays for the Neandrathalism of others, but it’s not an arguement entirely out of left field.
On the anecdotal side, every marine on my base seems to spend 75% of their speech cursing “fags” and calling anything they slightly dislike gay. And these are the linguist marines! Given that women still have to work hard for respect, I would imagine gays would be in actual physical danger.
Then the Marines who beat up other Marines should be punished to the full extent of Military Law. Beatings won’t happen once soliders realize beating up “fags” (or anyone else) won’t be tolerated and they won’t just get a slap on the wrist.
Good point. From what I’ve read, the military has been more effective than any other sector of society in suppressing racism within its ranks – simply by making clear that open expressions of racism will not be tolerated. A regime of strict discipline has its advantages.
Racial integration of the armed forces in 1915 would have been a disaster. Rightness or wrongess aside, the practices of society as a whole were not ready for this step, and it would have been foolish to do it.
By Truman’s time, while there was still resistance, it was down below the flash point, and Truman’s order was the wise AND the right thing to do.
So, too, do we now face this integration. Twenty years ago, the military’s resistance was based on very real concerns, and forcibly changing the rules would have been disastrous. Today, we’re down below the flash point. There will undoubtedly be tension, and ugly incidents, but on the whole, we’ve reached the time in which we may do the wise and the right thing with respect to gays in the armed forces.
One of the arguments I heard while I served in the Army was that if they have different showering area’s for men/women it would be no different for a homosexual to shower with the other men, than men showering with the women. grain of salt
On a tank I can vouch for lots of male nudity occuring in the field taking turret showers. And no, I wouldn’t of minded because it just doesn’t matter to me when anyone looks at me anyway, it’s just eyeballs.
I think you’re missing the point. The point is that the military is not there as a mechanism for social justice. They’re there to defend us. Their job is too important to let less important concerns (like social integration) effect their primary job (fighting for our country).
I would much prefer to have a sexually integrated military. My cousin is gay, and he served with distinction, so sexuality does not have anything to do with competence. But the consequences of lowered moral in the military are different than lowered moral in the civilian world. If you harm moral in a civilian company, productivity drops and the company loses money. But if you harm moral in the military, there’s an increased risk that people will die.
One other argument that I’ve heard – and which would seem to apply equally or greater to prohibiting women in the military – is that most of the military is made up of 18-25 year olds. At that age, they’re pretty much walking hormones looking for someone to screw. It’s just too difficult to keep them focused on their jobs and not on having sex with each other. (Note – I’m not saying that gay teenagers will screw anyone. I’m saying that all teenagers are really, really, really interested in sex. The problem is exacerbated when two individuals who are attracted to each other start bunking right next to each other.)
I agree with others here that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly. The military already has rules about Sexual Harassment and inappropriate relationships, and I would think both of these rules would be very appropriate for dealing with issues that would arise.
Eventaully, it might go a long way towards convincing many that homosexuals are not going to rape them the first moment they let their guard down, and that they aren’t the stereotypical sissies either.
I agree. If the Israelis can make it work, I thnk we can, too. Talk about a country that can’t afford a military misstep! I’m just not buying the unit cohesiveness crap. There was a time when there just weren’t enough openly gay people to register on the radar. But that’s all changed. Set a date somewhere in the near future (maybe two years hence) and go for it. I’m OK with giving the military some time to prepare, but there is no reason not to start doing that right now.
But one could argue that the current policy does affect their primary job.
I don’t think it really helps the military to be drumming out trained arabic translator, which we apparently need every one we can get, just because their gay. That’s effectivly hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted on each one that is forced out, because now a new one must be trained.
Hell, isn’t the Army having a recruiting problem right now? I keep hearing about the intellgience and weight standreds being loosening to allow more soldiers to be recruited.
So apparently those who were previously too dumb or too fat to join are now welcome, but being gay is still a no-no.
I haven’t seen much about it, but is there a huge morale problem in the other militaries of the world that don’t discriminate against gays?
Who was it who said he wants the guy guarding his ass to think it looks good? George Carlin?
I mentioned Israel, above, but the Brits or OK with gays, too. Does anyone know if the EU has a policy that they all have to follow? I would suspect there is.
I have no idea. I don’t even know what other nations’ policies are on the issue. But I can pretty much guarantee that our military would trounce their militaries. So does that mean that our method is better? 
The issue is one of culture. Israeli culture is different than American culture. What works for them won’t necessarily work for us. Maybe they’re more socially progressive; maybe they’re more culturally advanced. But just because they’re fine with it doesn’t mean our soldiers will be.
And while I have never served, the overwhelming (but not nearly unanimous) opinion in the military appears to be that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would be detrimental to their job performance. Frankly, I’m inclined to give more credence to the opinions of servicemen and women than folks like me who’ve never served.
The top brass thinks so, yes, but I wouldn’t expect the lower ranks to be able to discuss that freely. Besides, are you suggesting that gays might cause us to lose a war?
I can understand not wanting to make significant policy changes like this while our troops are engage in active combat in Iraq, so I’ll modify my position a bit. Once we have the majority of our troops withdrawn from there, we should institute the change
I saw that after I posted, yours wasn’t there when I started writing mine. Thanks for the info. but do you know of any cites or studies on the issue?
That’s a fair point, and one I hadn’t thought of.
I don’t know. But that shouldn’t be the standard. I do believe (based solely on the expressed opinion of those more knowledgable than me) it will have a detrimental effect on their ability to fight. And if something negatively effects the military, it will endanger lives (civilian and military). I think that endangering lives is enough to oppose it.
I very much doubt it. The right to operate one’s own military, without outside interference, is something most EU member states have constantly insisted on retaining.