The Military should allow open homosexuals to serve.

[calm_kiwi]

In some countries their is universal military training; Israel or Sweden for example. In those countries people try to opt out of the military. In most Western countries people have to opt in to the military.

Let’s not think about the officer types, they tend to either be carrying on some family tradition or have graduated from university and on a path to junior-General. Let’s think about Joe Shmoe Army Dude.

Mostly, he is a HE. Mostly he is less then well educated. Mostly he joined an armed service because it was the job with the most potential, considering his lack of education. Mostly he is very young. Mostly he has has never been very far away from where he grew up but is suddenely exposed to people who don’t share his geography, religion or opinions. Mostly he is patriotic (no matter if he isn’t because it can be trained into him).

Given that armed forces types are the MOST easily convinced members of our society how could they not accept openly gay people?

Youth today are called slackers and druggies. Surely ANYONE that says they want to enter the crazy world of the military needs their head read!

Given todays climate, how can ANY govt turn away anyone willing to join up? Surely there are plenty of homosexuals who are just as daft as anyone else wanting to join the military.

[Walloon]

@calm kiwi

Mostly, he is a HE. Mostly he is less then well educated.

Not so in the U.S. Army. The typical U.S. Army enlsitee is better educated. Those without a high school diploma (or its equivalent) need not apply. Meanwhile, 15 percent of the general population over the age of 25 did not complete high school.

[calm_kiwi]

@Walloon

Not so in the U.S. Army. The typical U.S. Army enlsitee is better educated. Those without a high school diploma (or its equivalent) need not apply. Meanwhile, 15 percent of the general population over the age of 25 did not complete high school.

So those who were accepted to the university of their choice suddenly decided to join the armed forces?

[calm_kiwi]

Or is the Armed Forces made up of those who were better educated then the high school drop outs?

[Monty]

calm kiwi: Could you provide some citations for your posting above (number #61)? Besides my initial reaction of disagreement to what you’ve asserted about the characteristics of both officer and enlisted personnel, I don’t think Israel really has universal military service (exemptions for the so-called Ultra-Orthodox comes to mind).

[Monty]

@calm kiwi

So those who were accepted to the university of their choice suddenly decided to join the armed forces?

Yes. That could be one reason why there’s this nifty thing called ROTC (mind you, that link is just for the Army ROTC).

[Gala_Matrix_Fire]

Just anecdotal, but I knew at least a dozen enlisted folks in the Army who I can name off the top of my head who joined up after acquiring bachelor’s degrees, and another half dozen off the top of my head who had masters degrees before going enlisted in the Army. Some of us just like serving our country. I know there are a lot of people who can’t understand that.

[JRDelirious]

Actually, calm kiwi’s list of characetristics are the “typical” – or maybe stereo-typical – profile of the enlistee in volunteer or selective militaries. (BTW, Monty, I think the common usage of “universal” conscription is not to mean really universal, but that the default is to serve and exceptions are strictly defined and enforced, to distinguish it from “selective” conscription where a list or lottery or levy of some sort is used to press some segment of the target population cohort into the ranks, but a majority will not serve. Switzerland is a more universal service than Israel but both are usually termed “universal”) In any case, sterotypes or archetypes do arise from observation of common occurences, so that depiction is not completely pulled out of thin air. Militaries across the West do draw a lot from people in the less-privileged socioeconomic sectors, where there will be on the average a lower educational median.

However, as pointed out, this is not universal specially in the USA. As Walloon points out, the sample of enlistees has a higher proportion of people who finish high school than the population at-large. But for many of American enlistees, the service is the way to head for university or at the very least to get out of the hometown neighborhood where opportunities may not be available to live up to their potential. Let’s not overreach ourselves with examples of folks like myself (enlisted as a private in the Reserves after 2 years college), we are not the norm.
So let’s amend that in the USA case to:

Mostly, he is a HE. Mostly he is from a less-privileged socioeconomic/cultural background, though not always. Mostly he is very young. Often he joined an armed service because it was the job with the most potential for his own development, or else for doing something of value for society, considering his lack of experience, and the limited opportunities afforded him otherwise. Mostly he has grown up around pretty much one same social and cultural circle, even if he has moved geographically from where he grew up but is suddenely exposed to people who don’t share his geography, religion or opinions. Mostly he is patriotic.

Still, on this particular issue I get the feeling that a lot of the troops may be more receptive to a “live-and-let-live as long as you don’t bring the ‘baggage’ with you to the battlefield” rule, than the brass hats and politicians give them credit for; yet at the same time, the plain old integration of women into operational units is still causing some headaches (v. the relatively recent AF Academy problems; or how when we started taking female casualties in the current war, there were grumblings in Congress about further tightening by law the types of units where women may serve) so I can understand the brass being less than sanguine about juggling yet another flaming cat. If it weren’t an actual law, a President could just give an order and the JCS would have no choice but salute smartly and say “Yes, Sir” and pass on the order but they’re probably a bit relieved it’s out of their hands.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Walloon

One hundred ten members of Congress now support the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, a Congressional bill that would repeal the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual personnel.

Which has been in committee for the past year.

[Walloon]

U.S. military recruits are not disproportionately poor: Mean household income for recruits in 1999 was $41,141 (in 2000 dollars), compared to the general population median of $41,994. Recruits in 2003 came from households with an average 1999 income of $42,822.

Middle income quintile (20%) ZIP code areas provided consistently higher proportions of recruits. Areas in the lowest-income quintile provided disproportionately low numbers of recruits in 1999 and 2003 (18.0 and 14.6 percent, respectively).

Areas in the highest-income quintile provided the greatest positive proportional increase of recruits after 9/11, from 18.6 to 22.0 percent.

(Sources: U.S. Dept. of Defense; U.S. Bureau of the Census.)

[Kimstu]

@Walloon

Mean household income for recruits in 1999 was $41,141 (in 2000 dollars), compared to the general population median of $41,994. Recruits in 2003 came from households with an average 1999 income of $42,822. [emphasis added]

Whoopsie. Are your stats really comparing mean averages with a median there, or was that a typo?

[Walloon]

That should read, “general population mean of $41,994.”

[MMI]

@Bricker

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.

What made Truman’s act possible was not merely that society had moved forward but that he could have (white) soldier after (white) soldier testify that they had fought alongside black soldiers during the second world war and that those same black soldiers fought just fine. Regardless of the opposition of Eisenhower. I think that 1941 would have been just as hopeless as 1915 for the purposes of integrating the military.

Of course there are already reports that in Iraq don’t ask don’t tell is effectively dead. Manpower desperation is what got blacks integrated in the military. Hopefully will work here too.

[Xan]

@MMI

Of course there are already reports that in Iraq don’t ask don’t tell is effectively dead. Manpower desperation is what got blacks integrated in the military. Hopefully will work here too.

That is encouraging news.

[EEMan]

@calm kiwi

So those who were accepted to the university of their choice suddenly decided to join the armed forces?

I joined after going to UC Davis (on a full merit scholoarship) for a year… I know quite a few people who joined instead of going to college (and they COULD have gone, as they were accepted; some even with full rides, such as myself)…

The concept of the military being a place where those who can’t do anything else go… is … well… simply false (there are SOME people who go instead of going into the workforce… as they didn’t/couldn’t go to college… but MOST E4’s and above have SOME college)…

Former Marine here… and I went in around the time of don’t ask don’t tell… and well frankly there was no need for it then (as has been stated)…

In the Corps at least, you do what you are told to do… and frankly I couldn’t give a rats backside if the guy next to me was gay or straight… all I wanted was him to be well trained.

Those who spout off this stuff about gays in the military are about the same percentage that spout it off in civilian world… yes there are some… but it isn’t rampant… and if you are hearing lots of Marines spouting that crap you should report them (it is a violation of at least 4 different regulations, and frankly a bad representation of the Corps as a whole)…

The military does not get to choose what ‘laws’ or even major ‘rules’ they have… that is ALL done by civilian oversite/congress/presidental order…

[Owlett]

Anyone interested in this topic might want to check out the Web sites of the Servicemembers’ Legal Defense Network (www.sldn.org) and the Center for the Study of Sexural Minorities in the Military at UC Santa Barbara (http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/). The latter particularly has done a lot of reports on the issue of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

[Owlett]

@The Flying Dutchman

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?

Not to pile on Dutchman, but I get so tired of straight people asking this sort of question. (“Why is sexual orientation even an issue? I don’t care what people do in their bedroom.”) Sexual orientation gets expressed in myriad ways beyond the purely sexual. And as others have said, the special problem with the military is that, far from announcing one is homosexual, one can’t even be thought to be homosexual without risking disciplinary action.

To grasp the realities of that, imagine that you’re a straight male (maybe you are), and you’re in a situation where no one is allowed to know that you’re straight. That means that you have to avoid doing any of the following around your coworkers or (since the military is an around-the-clock job in some senses) your roommates:

–Making any mention in conversation of your wife or girlfriend (as in “my wife and I went to that new restaurant last weekend; it was great” or “man, I hear you; my girlfriend does that too!”)

–Displaying pictures of, letters from, or mementos of any woman who isn’t obviously your grandmother/mother/sister

–Talking about any woman you’ve ever dated

–Being seen to look at any magazine, TV show, movie, or Web site designed to appeal to straight men (not just outright porn but things like, say, the SI swimsuit issue or the Victoria’s Secret TV specials)

–Commenting on, or being seen to glance appreciately at, any female celebrity or other woman that you find attractive

Could you really monitor yourself that carefully all of the time? It’s like being a secret agent—which is not something that most people are able or willing to do. But that’s effectively what we’re asking of non-straight service members under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. It goes far beyond sex into every corner of daily life as an individual. And frankly, it’s not fair.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Owlett

Not to pile on Dutchman, but I get so tired of straight people asking this sort of question.

Read your entire post, understand it and acknowledge exactly for the first time a full understanding of the issue from the point of view of a gay person. I think. Thankyou.

[EEMan]

And as others have said, the special problem with the military is that, far from announcing one is homosexual, one can’t even be thought to be homosexual without risking disciplinary action.

Actually that is fully untrue… they can think you are homosexual all they like, and can do nothing about it (prior to the don’t ask dont tell rule they could ask you… then if you lied you could be disciplined; or if you answered you were, you could be). That does not make the policy ‘right’, however there is no issue with being ‘thought to be homosexual’.

[Monty]

Well, other than the odd murder of a Servicemember by his shipmates who “though he was homosexual” there isn’t.