Not much help, but wikipedia has a list.
Most of NATO allows openly gay service members, with Italy and Greece the big exceptions I can see.
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…
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.
It’ll hurt, but it should be done.
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.
I don’t even want to begin exploring the various meanings that could be attached to that post. 
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?
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.
(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.
Wow, I didn’t know it was a law and not a military policy. Thanks for the info!
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!
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…
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.
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.
“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.
Do you always draw that little frowny face on your strawmen?
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.
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.
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.
The problem is if you are found out you get kicked out of the military.
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…
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 ?
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?
If not, why not? Will this be a permanent state of affairs?