# The Military should allow open homosexuals to serve. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 10, 2006, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-military-should-allow-open-homosexuals-to-serve/347870 "2006-03-10T19:27:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-military-should-allow-open-homosexuals-to-serve/347870/21 "2006-03-10T22:21:39Z")
> [@Antinor01](#): > > 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? Not much help, but wikipedia has a list. > **[Sexual orientation and gender identity in military service](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service)** > > General articles > By country > LGB service by country > Trans service by country Most of NATO allows openly gay service members, with Italy and Greece the big exceptions I can see. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-military-should-allow-open-homosexuals-to-serve/347870/22 "2006-03-10T22:29:58Z")
> [@Abbie Normal](#): > > 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_ If you’ve been to high school, you’ve already showered in front of gay people. Greece doesn’t allow gays in the military? They used to. OK, that was 2000 years ago, but still… ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-military-should-allow-open-homosexuals-to-serve/347870/23 "2006-03-10T22:55:52Z")
> [@bup](#): > > Greece doesn’t allow gays in the military? They used to. > > OK, that was 2000 years ago, but still… 😃 > [@AQA](#): > > 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. With anything there are plusses and minuses. I’m sure there would be some problems, especially at first, but the army would increase its recruiting pool, and given the difficulties of late, excluding gays might do more harm than good. The idea that there are significant cultural differences between the US and all the countries that allow gays to serve sounds rather far fetched. If you (and I mean the generic “you”, I don’t expect you to be able to answer this) can’t cite specific differences, then it’s more of a hand waving argument than anything else. We just tasked our military with establishing democracy in a land that has never known democracy in 5,000 years of history. Surely if that is a reasonable task to give the militiary, then the military should be up to the task of integrating gays into its ranks. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-military-should-allow-open-homosexuals-to-serve/347870/24 "2006-03-10T23:12:44Z")
It’ll hurt, but it should be done. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-military-should-allow-open-homosexuals-to-serve/347870/25 "2006-03-10T23:16:48Z")
Canada, Australia, and the UK all have gays serving openly in their militaries, and those are the three cultures most similar to the US in the world. I don’t think that argument will fly. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-military-should-allow-open-homosexuals-to-serve/347870/26 "2006-03-10T23:20:04Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > It’ll hurt, but it should be done. I don’t even want to begin exploring the various meanings that could be attached to that post. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-military-should-allow-open-homosexuals-to-serve/347870/27 "2006-03-10T23:33:04Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > 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. Why? I’m sure there were a hell of a lot of white servicemen who had a problem with black soldiers fighting alongside them. They probably thought unit cohesiveness would be shattered and a whole lot of bullshit if integration was allowed. But they were wrong. It’s stupid for someone to be so uncomfortable around a gay person that they can’t do their job. This attitude shouldn’t be tolerated. It’s the soldier’s job to suck up any psychological discomfort and just do what they’ve been charged to do. They aren’t supposed to question authority, right? They’re supposed to surpress their urges and feelings and be good little warriors. This is the way it’s always been. If a soldier can’t respect the guy standing at attention next to him just because that guy has a different orientation, that guy isn’t a good soldier. Obviously he’s too distractable and sensitive to unimportant things. Why would the military want to coddle someone like that? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-military-should-allow-open-homosexuals-to-serve/347870/28 "2006-03-10T23:37:28Z")
Frankly, claiming that soldiers can’t handle it is almost demeaning. Americans of all ages live and work with gay people all the time without incident, no matter how they feel about it. But apparently, AQA wants us to think that soldiers are some sort of specially unstable group that can’t handle it without going berserk. The only real problem I see is relationships causing serious issues within a unit. But we have the same problem with having women in the service, and the same problem in all sorts of other occupations. It’s a more severe problem in the military certainly, but hardly insurmountable. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-military-should-allow-open-homosexuals-to-serve/347870/29 "2006-03-10T23:38:51Z")
(1) The military itself doesn’t have such a policy. It requires a congressional act to repeal a law. (2) I think it’s the rankest sort of hokum that the policy is in effect. After all, the last thing anyone should be thinking about while under fire is “Gee, maybe the dude next to me is lusting after my butt.” That’s insane, not to mention just simply prejudiced. (3) The military has already proven it knows how to handle a forced integration and it handled it well. This would be no different, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Xan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/ac8455/32.png) [@Xan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xan)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-military-should-allow-open-homosexuals-to-serve/347870/30 "2006-03-10T23:47:46Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > (1) The military itself doesn’t have such a policy. It requires a congressional act to repeal a law. Wow, I didn’t know it was a law and not a military policy. Thanks for the info! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2006, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-military-should-allow-open-homosexuals-to-serve/347870/31 "2006-03-10T23:48:43Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > (1) The military itself doesn’t have such a policy. It requires a congressional act to repeal a law. Interesting point, although one would assume that Congress gives considerable deference to the opinions of the Joint Chiefs on such matters. And unless there is some groundswell among the voters, what’s the chance of Congress taking any action on its own? Probably slim to none. The Republicans would have a field day with this one! > [@](#): > > (3) The military has already proven it knows how to handle a forced integration and it handled it well. This would be no different, IMHO. Was integration forced on the military by Congress or the President, or did the top brass make the decision on its own and take the lead on that issue? I’ve never been quite clear on that. ---
**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:** [March 11, 2006, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-military-should-allow-open-homosexuals-to-serve/347870/32 "2006-03-11T00:06:49Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Was integration forced on the military by Congress or the President, or did the top brass make the decision on its own and take the lead on that issue? I’ve never been quite clear on that. Truman did it by executive order in 1948. The military sort of danced around for a year, and finally a committee was set up (the Fahy Committee) to do it. The Army and the Marines dragged their feet, but the Navy and Airforce were enthusiastic. The Secretary of the Army commented that the Army “was not an instrument for social evolution” Basically, the Army stalled until the white Army units took so many casualties in Korea that the Army was desperate to put more men in there to fill up the holes. Here’s a timeline… [http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study\_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology](http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology) ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2006, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-military-should-allow-open-homosexuals-to-serve/347870/33 "2006-03-11T00:15:40Z")
> [@me](#): > > Frankly, I’m inclined to give more credence to the opinions of servicemen and women than folks like me who’ve never served. > [@monstro](#): > > Why? Because it’s a question that military service members know more about than non-military members, namely, how military members feel about an issue. You don’t poll the French to figure out how Americans feel about an issue, do you? And yet there are lots of folks here suggesting that despite what the soldiers seem to think, they won’t be bothered by the integration of open homosexuals. So if you say that it’s illogical or silly for soldiers to care about the sexual orientation of their squadmates, I’ll probably agree with you. But if you say it won’t bother them, or they’ll be fine, then I’ll have to disagree. And you’re going to have to present some pretty strong evidence to counteract the fact that the military members themselves say they’d be bothered by it. > [@monstro](#): > > It’s the soldier’s job to suck up any psychological discomfort and just do what they’ve been charged to do. They aren’t supposed to question authority, right? They’re supposed to surpress their urges and feelings and be good little warriors. This isn’t an argument in favor of integration. It’s a suggestion that we ignore any harm it will cause. I’m not in favor of that. > [@monstro](#): > > If a soldier can’t respect the guy standing at attention next to him just because that guy has a different orientation, that guy isn’t a good soldier. “Respect for different sexual orientations” may make you an impressively progressive citizen, but it’s got nothing to do with your proficiency on the battlefield. Heck, some of the best soldiers I’ve ever met were … uh, probably not invited to many tea parties. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2006, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-military-should-allow-open-homosexuals-to-serve/347870/34 "2006-03-11T00:17:11Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > But apparently, AQA wants us to think that soldiers are some sort of specially unstable group that can’t handle it without going berserk. Do you always draw that little frowny face on your strawmen? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2006, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-military-should-allow-open-homosexuals-to-serve/347870/35 "2006-03-11T00:36:46Z")
> [@bup](#): > > If you’ve been to high school, you’ve already showered in front of gay people. Openly gay people? I don’t understand the problem with the don’t ask don’t tell rule. Given my understanding that intimate fraternization is verboten in the military, is there any need to announce one’s sexual orientation? Furthermore, given the presence of American troops in Iraq Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, I understand that homosexuality is against the law in these muslim countries, so knowingly sending homosexuals might be a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2006, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-military-should-allow-open-homosexuals-to-serve/347870/36 "2006-03-11T00:42:25Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > And if something negatively effects the military, it will endanger lives (civilian and military). I think that endangering lives is enough to oppose it. But allowing anti-gay bigotry to fester _also_ gets people hurt and killed; specifically, gays who get beaten or killed by the homophobes that you’re so worried about offending. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2006, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-military-should-allow-open-homosexuals-to-serve/347870/37 "2006-03-11T00:42:44Z")
> [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > Openly gay people? > > I don’t understand the problem with the don’t ask don’t tell rule. Given my understanding that intimate fraternization is verboten in the military, is there any need to announce one’s sexual orientation? Furthermore, given the presence of American troops in Iraq Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, I understand that homosexuality is against the law in these muslim countries, so knowingly sending homosexuals might be a problem. We send female military personel there. As for “don’t announce it”, so Soldier A gets to have pictures of his wife in his bunk, but Soldier B can’t have pictures of his boyfriend? Not all homosexuals reveal their orientation because they want in your pants. ---
**Author:** ![Xan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/ac8455/32.png) [@Xan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xan)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2006, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-military-should-allow-open-homosexuals-to-serve/347870/38 "2006-03-11T00:42:52Z")
> [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > Openly gay people? > > I don’t understand the problem with the don’t ask don’t tell rule. Given my understanding that intimate fraternization is verboten in the military, is there any need to announce one’s sexual orientation? Furthermore, given the presence of American troops in Iraq Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, I understand that homosexuality is against the law in these muslim countries, so knowingly sending homosexuals might be a problem. The problem is if you are found out you get kicked out of the military. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2006, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-military-should-allow-open-homosexuals-to-serve/347870/39 "2006-03-11T00:48:32Z")
> [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > Openly gay people? > > I don’t understand the problem with the don’t ask don’t tell rule. Given my understanding that intimate fraternization is verboten in the military, is there any need to announce one’s sexual orientation? Kind of hard not to, when everyone else is talking about their girlfriends. Besides, IIRC even being known as gay by non-military people is enough. Not to mention, it’s bigoted and shouldn’t be tolerated… > [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > Furthermore, given the presence of American troops in Iraq Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, I understand that homosexuality is against the law in these muslim countries, so knowingly sending homosexuals might be a problem. So is being a female military officer, and they’re not too fond of non-Muslims either. What makes you think caving in to religious bigotry will make anything better ? ---
**Author:** ![Love\_Rhombus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/love_rhombus/32/10694_2.png) [@Love\_Rhombus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Love_Rhombus)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2006, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-military-should-allow-open-homosexuals-to-serve/347870/40 "2006-03-11T03:36:58Z")
So what benefit do the armed forces gain from NOT allowing openly gay men and women to join? Besides allowing conservatives to use it as a “sacred ground” for ads and rhetoric? They lose the respect of liberals and paint themselves as being less modern than the rest of the world. Or in other words…do you think the military will ever [recruit at a gay pride festival?](http://www.rense.com/general67/oeo.htm) If not, why not? Will this be a permanent state of affairs? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-military-should-allow-open-homosexuals-to-serve/347870.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-military-should-allow-open-homosexuals-to-serve/347870.md?page=3)