Gays in the Military

[Morgan_Freeman]

I'm surprised there hasn't been a thread on this yet. What's everyone's take on it?

My concerns with it are mainly practical, but theses issues aren't exclusive just to the military.

For instance, if someone in the military is openly gay, how do you billet them? Do you still put them in a room with another man? With a woman? In a room by themself? Men and women in the military often take showers in open shower rooms, like in pool locker rooms. If someone is openly gay, would that make other men uncomfortable?

The issue brings to mind the group shower scene in Starship Troopers, where Verhoven (brilliantly, I think) passes off male and female soldiers taking a shower together as routine.
Unfortunately, that would never happen in the US military as it exists now, and the addition of homosexuals makes the situation even stickier.

After all, women aren't allowed in combat units. This is mainly for cohesion purposes -- wouldn't want there to be any sexual tension around. Well, having guys there who are openly gay certainly complicates the issue.

That said, the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy appears to be having a detrimental effect on the force, rather than a beneficial one:

Quote by: Associated Press More than 9,400 troops have been discharged since the policy was implemented. Discharges peaked at 1,227 in 2001, and declined to 653 last year, a drop which critics attribute to reluctance by war-zone commanders to deprive their units of experienced gay and lesbian personnel during difficult missions. "The services are far less likely to discharge gays and lesbians serving on the front lines," Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said in its report, released Monday.

[Jack]

There are already gays in the military and have been for years. The fact that it hasn't become a distraction or problem is mostly due to the self-control of the gays. They know the showers are not cruising rooms, they know better than to express affection for a fellow soldier who is straight. Gays know when to be gay and when to just do what they have to, sexuality not being a part of it.
Gays have existed among straights in similar contexts for hundreds of years without detection partly because straights don't expect to see them, thus they don't, and partly because gays do know how to be circumspect when necessary. Gays are policemen, ministers, politicians, teachers; they exist in all strata of society. If their sexuality doesn't have anything to do with their job, it's never mentioned and rarely suspected.

[Morgan_Freeman]

I'm on the same page with you, Isherwood. I had several gay friends when I was in the military. As long as they kept it to themselves and did their job, no one had any reason to care.

I don't like the DoD-wide rule. But it seems to me that unit commanders should have some discretion over who they allow in their units. For instance, to be on the Marine Corps Burial Detail at Arlington Cemetary, you have to be an exact height, something like 6 foot 2 inches, and have a powerful build. In Iraq, only female Marines are allowed to do searches of female Iraqis, so these female Marines are all members of one unit -- they're called the "Lionesses".

[Jack]

It wasn't in place when I served, but from what I've read and been told, Don't Ask-Don't Tell-Don't Work.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Isherwood It wasn't in place when I served, but from what I've read and been told, Don't Ask-Don't Tell-Don't Work.

Can you expound on that?

[Jack]

Before "DADT", there wasn't much thought given to the fact that there were gays in uniform. DADT was like an awakening for many commanders. All of a sudden DoD was saying, in effect, "we know they're there, but we don't really want to know, or have to do anything about it". Commanders and leaders began taking a closer look at some of their troops, suspicions turned into accusations, and hard working and decent gay service people were outed and booted out.
DADT has never worked as intended. Instead, it's become a reason to inquire into the activities of military personnel while off duty and out of uniform. Overt homosexual behavior has always been grounds for discharge. DADT turned that into a witch hunt.
(note: these are my own opinions based on what I've read and been told. I'm not claiming anything more than personal perception.)

[SteveA]

I think gays should be treated like anyone else and allowed to serve but that doesn't change the fact that not all conduct while on the job is appropriate. If someone's being groped against their desire, it doesn't matter who's doing the groping, people don't have an inherent right to react on all their sexual desires without the other persons consent.

It does seem that more tension would arise with a mixed group of hetero and homosexual individuals but as long as any such relationships remained private and voluntary, and there was a general respect for privacy it seems like we should be able to expect soldiers to be mature enough to deal with a mixed group of people.

If it's a real issue for some people, it might be good to allow soldiers to elect being in a unit with views they feel more comfortable with.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Isherwood Before "DADT", there wasn't much thought given to the fact that there were gays in uniform. DADT was like an awakening for many commanders. All of a sudden DoD was saying, in effect, "we know they're there, but we don't really want to know, or have to do anything about it". Commanders and leaders began taking a closer look at some of their troops, suspicions turned into accusations, and hard working and decent gay service people were outed and booted out. DADT has never worked as intended. Instead, it's become a reason to inquire into the activities of military personnel while off duty and out of uniform. Overt homosexual behavior has always been grounds for discharge. DADT turned that into a witch hunt.

This doesn't make any sense. Before DADT, commanders could ask their troops straight up, "are you gay?" and discharge them because of it. Now they can't. I don't see how DADT could have initiated a "witch hunt" by giving commanders less power to discharge gays.

[Jack]

Before they could, that's true. Yet it was seldom done. I can't say for sure why that was, but I do have a theory.

Straights don't expect to see gays in everyday life. They presume that all the males and females they know and come in contact with are straight. There might be that one guy everyone suspects, but most straights just don't think about interacting with gays. So if a gay guy isn't nelly, looks and acts straight, he'll usually be perceived that way. But if someone starts a rumor that there's a gay person in your office, you immediate start noticing things you missed before. You even think you notice things, suspicious things, that aren't what you think. The net result? Where before we could pass unnoticed now the least little thing will get you noticed. Being in the spotlight is not a good place to be for a soldier.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Are you sure it was seldom done? Do you have statistics?

[Jack]

No, I seldom keep stats on my own opinions based on admittedly limited knowledge. I'm only speaking from what I personally know. Officially I could be dead wrong overall, but in the particular cases I know of it would have been better had no one asked so one didn't have to tell, or even explain.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Isherwood in the particular cases I know of it would have been better had no one asked so one didn't have to tell, or even explain.

... this statement seems to support DADT.

[belverron]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman This doesn't make any sense. Before DADT, commanders could ask their troops straight up, "are you gay?" and discharge them because of it. Now they can't. I don't see how DADT could have initiated a "witch hunt" by giving commanders less power to discharge gays.

Speaking from personal experience, I, like Isherwood, would assume that it was less of an issue before DADT. Straight guys don't see gay ones unless they're flaming, and even then they may only suspect.

[Morgan_Freeman]

If it was less of an issue before DADT, it's because it was easier to kick gays out. So no one was worried about gays being around.

[RickSp]

Given how desperate the military is for cannon fodder I am amzed that they don't shelve DADT entirely. Gay folks have fought in every army throughout history. American's puritanical biases are foolish at best.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman For instance, if someone in the military is openly gay, how do you billet them? Do you still put them in a room with another man? With a woman? In a room by themself?

Interesting, isn't it... this is the exact same arguement being made when it was proposed to integrate 'negroes' into the ranks back in 1947. How do you billet them? You gonna bunk "niggers" next to the white boys? You gotta be kidding~ Share foxholes? Share showers with negroes? By gawd, it'll destroy unit cohesion... whites won't put up with it, guy's gotta depend on his buddy, etc., etc., etc.

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Men and women in the military often take showers in open shower rooms, like in pool locker rooms.

Has it ever occurred to you that gays have been showering with other men (or other women) all through junior high school, high school, college and in various public and private gyms, all without anyone ever knowing and without getting raging erections at the mere sight of wet, naked men. They're quite used to it, Morgan.

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman If someone is openly gay, would that make other men uncomfortable?

When I was a boy, about 10 or so back in 1959, I took a trip with my grandparents and we made a stop at Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico. I met another kid my age and naturally we struck up an acquaintance... briefly. Turns out he was from the South and right away he began regaling me with the travails of his older brother who was serving in the U.S. Navy... and had to bunk next to some "damn nigger!!" This was the same older brother who liked to go down to "Coontown" and shoot "nigger's dawgs"

Now of course you're saying, this is different, or that was years ago, attitudes have changed. Yes, they changed because we made them change. Same with gays... they have the exact same rights to participate in their own society and to serve their own country as anyone else. Gays aren't the problem, it's the folks that are afraid of them that are the problem. Get over it!

Once heteros start serving with gays, they'll discover exactly what I discovered long ago... that gays are really no different than anyone else, except for that one little thing, make fine friends and are no threat to anyone.

.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Whoah, calm down, Sonart. I was just bringing some points up. And as I said, the issues aren't exclusive to the military.

The comparison with blacks is apt, but think about this: Blacks were gradually integrated into the force, first serving in all-black units and specific capacities only. Just food for thought.
Also, I think the comparison with gender integration is a better one than race integration.
I definitely agree that the ultimate problem is people's foolish sensitivities and biases. But that's the same reason we have gender segregation. I'm not totally convinced it's wise to ignore those" foolish sensibilities" when ensuring the effectiveness of the force. After all, that's the point of the military -- to fight and win wars, not ensure social justice.

That said, the evidence I presented in my first post definitely makes the case against the ban.
All I'm suggesting is that individual unit commanders be able to make the decision for themselves. If we do that, I'm willing to bet it won't be long before gays are serving openly and proudly along with everyone else.

[RickSp]

Sonart, your analogy is apt in all respects, save one. There was no question about whether or not blacks were in a unit, excluding those who "passed." Right now there are gay folk scattered all over the military and being told to "pass" for straight.

There is also no question that gays serve effectively in the military. They do not disrupt the units, weaken fighting spirit and all that. They shower and bunk with straight soldiers. They do everything straight soldiers do except be able to be themselves. Dont Ask, Don't Tell is the worst form of hypocrisy, a form of instutional insanity.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: RickSp Dont Ask, Don't Tell is the worst form of hypocrisy, a form of instutional insanity.

I think you'll find there's a lot of "insanity" in the military...

[RickSp]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman All I'm suggesting is that individual unit commanders be able to make the decision for themselves. If we do that, I'm willing to bet it won't be long before gays are serving openly and proudly along with everyone else.

Do you recommend that individual unit commanders also be given similar decision making power for weapons and tactics, for example? How about uniform choice? In general, (or would that be in lieutentant?) unit commanders follow Army policy, which should be to accept gay soldiers as what the already are - full fledged members of the military.