If that's the case, then why aren't men and women fully integrated in the military?


The question is whether they should be allowed to be open about their homosexuality. For obvious reasons, this makes a direct analogy to the question of why military men and women are mostly in separate spheres.

I feel the need to espouse a few things I'm thinking on this thread:

1) The homophobes have a litany of specific fears of what the homosexual could introduce to the military. Make no mistake - we're talking about homophobia. Perhaps a specified strand of homophobia but homophobia none-the-less: Fear of homosexuals in the Military. They are fears because none of it is true, case studied or even likely. This is just fears. Homosexuals already work alongside other members of the US Military and if I am not mistaken the US Military is the greatest, fiercest military that has ever been.
2) Blacks are, mostly, self identifiable - it's true. It is diffficult to tell if someone is gay by looking at them or talking to them. Identifing any group in order to watch them is creepy. I understand the Military identifies rank, however this is clearly different and somewhat sinister.
3) Nearly all the fears levied against blacks and women have been proven not only to be false but quite often silly. I suspect this will come to pass soon as well for gays in the military.
4) Military recruitment qualifications have always moved up and down this era is not much diffferent than others.

Now heres where I lose a lot of you:

5) Don't ask, don't tell is a perfectly good policy. It simply doesn't matter what a person's sexuality is in relation to the Military. However, as soon as it is out that you are gay in the Military is is VERY likely you WILL make a negative difference to the morale of military group. Is that fair, should it be? No. The truth is that there are homophobes in the US Military, just as there are in all walks of life. However this isn't an ad agency. This a group of warriors who must have total trust in their team to perform.

True, but the military has spent billions of dollars to accomodate the physical requirements for "decency, modesty and discretion." Billions in new facilities, in design changes, in remodelling and modifications. Would you suggest that the very same accomodations that are made available by the military to prevent women from being ogled at by sexual consumers, not be made to prevent men from being ogled at by sexual consumers?

The only "severe" punishment" is a discharge. I believe the technical term is "See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya". If you have any widespread proof of commanders "ferreting" out gays in today's military, pony it up.

Fine, provide some proof beyond your assertion. Demoralization can be seen in performance and re-enlistment rates.

Nobody doubts that it may be demoralizing, modestly. The prohibition against adultery is demoralizing to adulterer's but you aren't arguing (yet) that military policy be tossed, nor are you recognizing that, by gosh by golly, the existence of the policy is heartening to others. Any standard is "demoralizing" to those who can't or more importantly, won't meet it. Which means the "demoralizing" aspect is a lousy argument.

Israel did it for two reasons, manpower limitations and political pressure. Britain did it solely because of political pressure. The other European countries (Holland is the only one I can think of) that have done it don't really matter much, because their military is, well, not terribly military. Military effectiveness is not a high priority with them.

Again, I challenge you to provide substantive evidence that the policy generally undermines cohesion.

(points #2 & #4 have been deleted out)

BA,

You use the term "homophobia" too loosely and recklessly. While I certainly don't have enough of a problem with it to report to the mods, it is interesting that on another thread everyone has their panties in a bunch over the term "democrat party". Trust me, homophobe is much more derogatory than democrat party ever will be.

Secondly, the concerns expressed by many on this thread are not about "fear of gays in the military" but rather IMO a healthy concern for the consequences to the military putting an individual's homosexuality on par with that of a heterosexual's. That being the case, homophobe is not even the correct term unless one seeks to de-legitimize in a derogatory manner another's argument.

Additionally, the variable in question, "impact from the open-expression of one's sexuality" in the military is not on par with race issues from the past. The color of one's skin has or should not have anything to do with their effectiveness in combat or group cohesion. Though I am sure there were many who passionately argued otherwise does not make it right. Issues about the expression of one's sexuality is germane to the topic at hand. If it were not, then we would have both genders fully integrated in the military. Otherwise, what is the rationale behind the separation of the genders?

Personally, I wish all could be equal in the military. I believe your comment that the policy "don't ask don't tell" is probably the best balance we can hope for.

Please take the time to explain to to me what a healthy concern for the consequences to the military putting an individual's homosexuality on par with that of a heterosexual's means. I am certain it doesn't mean what I am reading it to mean.

What have you been reading as the reason to keep gays out of the US Mil? I have been reading about showers and liasons and made groping. That all reads like fear to me.

I have a penchant for being too wordy.

My concerns about putting all sexual orientations on equal footing is directly related to why we keep women and men in separate quarters. I have to believe that one of the reasons, if not the primary, for keeping men & women separated is due to what the majority of the men may try to get away with when forced to live intimately with those of the opposite sex. It stands to reason that putting gay men together with heterosexual men could lead to similar results thus creating the very dynamic we seek to avoid with the male-female scenario (I don't think I've learned my lesson with being too wordy!). How is this not a healthy concern? NOTE: I understand that gays and straights already live together. If this is working so well then why are the genders separated?

This is not an argument for keeping gays out of the military but rather one that espouses what you yourself suggested in the quote from my earlier post (i.e., "don't ask don't tell"). The only difference between you and I is that you think it should be otherwise and I understand why it must remain as such. Unfortunately, there are many who would be considered homophobic in this context though the concern alone does not always make it so.

Again, fear in the context that you use (i.e., phobia) suggests something that is irrational. How is this concern so irrational?

You're not making this any better! You're basically saying that MEN can't help but RAPE women? I mean... all the important words are banned except for what, the, are, you, talking and about.

That's a just a stereotypical fear. Put 10 men in a room with a woman and they'll rape her? What are you saying?

You said rape not I. You can't imagine any other scenarios that would be inappropriate (i.e., innuendo, undue attention given when showering, liberties taken when consensual, etc.)? If rape were not a legitimate concern then why the separation?

Come on B-Ad, while I might be difficult to follow I'm at least answering the question. You have not yet answered mine.

Look if that's all you got then fine.

Gay men and straight women bunk together. Straight men and gay women bunk together. There. Solved.

LOL , I've tried to figure this whole thing out myself and this was the only conclusion I could come up with also. Are you serious in suggesting this? It seems too convoluted though and I don't know if that is the answer. What about the bi-sexuals?

I think it is amusing the way you put my stand though (i.e., "Look if that's all you got then fine"). I seem to be in good company if those are the reasons why women have been separated from men for so many years!
The problem is wouldn't this mean you were "fem-phobic" or something like that (you know, insisting that hetero men & women be separated)? (joking only )

The fact of the matter remains that men & women have been separated for time immemorial due to the needless distractions that would result otherwise. This is at least part of the problem with gays being in the military. I'll admit that trying to resolve some of these inconsistences makes my head spin but questioning the wisdom of combining sexual orientations where both are openly recognized does not make me a homophobe.

Vladimir


Can you not see the obvious mistake in your findings. You ASSUME is representive of general population. You can't say Gay are 3 % of the general population so let's take 3 % of the military population and call them gay.

Has it ever occurred to you that many Gays may not want to be somewhere where they are not welcomed???

So I'm not disputing your facts,, but the way you are introducing those facts in this debate is incorrect. The U.S. Population is 50% women, therefore can we assume the U.S. military is 50 % women.



Well no one has taken up the challenge?!?!? Should women be forced to bunk with, tent with, shower with, fight with men in our armed forces.

This is one of those thing where art imitates life. Think back to any movie with the deem of someone of the oppossite sex pretends to be the other sex. Eventually it comeout that they aren't the same sex and the other side feel violated.

The gays in now are "out" there is no fear of being watch, sexually appreciated. But now you say... "I'm gay" That means you are attracted to men/women. And my naked body, may or may not be turning you on. So what the difference in forcing heterosexual men from going through with this and forcing women to have men watching them naked??

No that wasn't serious.

I respect the turmoil you experience between Men & Women bunking and Gay Men & Straight Men - I don't share it though.

Honestly, I'm in favor of gays being allowed in the military full-stop, but I do think that the analogy to having women shower with men is valid. It's not about "can men control themselves", it's about appropriate boundaries to ensure no one's body is inappropriately appreciated (to be honest, I'd be very uncomfortable showering in front of a woman I didn't know VERY well and in a romantic fashion, and there is very little fear of a woman losing her control in my presence...her lunch, perhaps, but not her control). OTOH, the point that there are already homosexuals serving in the military is well taken. Clearly, the fact of differing sexual orientation is not, in and of itself, antithetical to a successfully functioning military. I guess I'd call for one of two compromises:

1) Extend "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" to encompass any expression of sexuality at all. That is, acting, admitting or behaving "straight" should be as equally inappropriate as acting, admitting or behaving "gay". This makes the military "sexually neutral" which seems both fair and reasonable (the military really shouldn't be in the business of determining which orientation is preferred). Now, obviously, there are tons of logistical issues (married on-base housing, etc) but, if you're really committed to it, this compromise would, in theory, work.

2) Allow gays to serve under circumstances where personal privacy is possible. I understand that circumstance means that the guy in the rear echelon may be called into combat, the pilot shot down, but as those circumstances don't prevent women from serving, why should they inhibit homosexuals?


Neither of these are perfect solutions, but they may be the best possible (at least for now).

Nobody has taken up the challenge because the challenge is irrelevant. Straight men and gay men are ALREADY forced to bunk together in the military; every day and night, in barracks or in the field, in the US or Okinawa or Iraq. gays and straights bunk together, shower together and work together every single day.

This is the single largest reason why 80% of the arguments against allowing open gays in the military aresimply silly: arguments like "Won't the gays try and snuggle up with their straight counterparts", or "Wont gay men form uncontrollable emotional attachments with straight men" and the like are (abary from being based on awful assumptions0 ALREADY DISPROVEN. The fact is there are gays in the military now, and this is NOT happening. I cannot think of a better counter to all these arguments than reality disagrees with you. It is a simple fact that gays can control themselves and can avoid forming deep uncontrolled emotional bonds with squadmates in the military. proof? The ALREADY are there, and this is NOT happening.

Furthermore, as people who have actually served in the military have already told us in this thread, in many cases the sexual orientation of some of these men is an open secret, people know but nobody cares, and of course it is not spoken or confirmed aloud to get around Army policy.


There are NO ARGUMENTS OF ANY VALIDITY regarding reduction of the effectiveness of the military if you allow gays, because there are already gays and the military seems fine. I don't care if the number is 10% or 7% or 3% or 1%. Approximately 1.4 million personnel are currently on active duty in the military with an additional 1,259,000 personnel in the seven reserve components, which means even if it is just 1%, thats about 30,000 gays in the military curently, at an extremely conservative estimate.


As for this whole 'watching in the shower business', its absurd on the face of it. There are already gays in the military showering with straights, and it seems to cause no problem; meaning the problem is NOT the gays at all. So if the only issue with open gays is that some straight men might be AFRIAD they are being checked out, then how is this any different from white men being afraid of being around black soldiers?


If anyone wants to continue this argument, trying to equate gay men and straight men together being 'the same as bunking men and women together', then please demonstrate to us all evidence that the Status quo (gays and straights bunking and showering together) is NOT working: otherwise ythis argument is instantly dead.


But if all that is not enough, then please consider the following evidence:

One:

A Zogby poll of soldiers actively serving in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2006 demonstrated the following:
"WASHINGTON, DC -- A new poll from Zogby International and the Michael D. Palm Center reveals that U.S. military personnel are increasingly comfortable serving with openly gay colleagues. The poll, released today, reveals that 73 percent of military members are comfortable with lesbians and gays. Nearly one in four (23 percent) service members report knowing for sure that someone in their unit is lesbian or gay, including 21 percent of those in combat units."

So much for disruption to the military.

Two:

Militaries in Countries such as Britain, Canada, Germany, Sweden, Australia, Belgium, The Netherlands, France Portugal, Spain, ROK, Japan and Israel seem to be getting along just fine, despite allowing openly gay soldiers to serve. Israel has one of the most efficient militaries in the world, Canada one of the most effective special forces (routinely beating US special forces in war games), France the most powerful military in Europe... Study after study in these countries following the adoption of openly gay troops has found NO disruption of military effectiveness.

"Further, there is no evidence that the long-standing inclusion of homosexuals in the IDF has harmed operational effectiveness, combat readiness, unit cohesion, or morale in the Israeli military. In a highly security-conscious nation, this is simply no longer a concern among military personnel or the public more generally."
(The Sword and the Olive: A Critical History of the Israeli Defense Force, by Martin Van Creveld, 1998)


A 1993 the United States general Accounting Office (GAO): National Security and International Affairs Division performed a detailed study examining the reality of gays serving openly in four countries: Canada, germany, Israel and Sweden, and found the following:

"Military officials from each country said that, on the basis of their
experience, the inclusion of homosexuals in their militaries has not
adversely affected unit readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, or morale. For
example, Israeli officials said that homosexuals have performed as well as
heterosexuals and have served successfully in all branches of the military
since 1948. In Canada, where problems in these areas were predicted,
military officials said none had materialized since the revocation of the
policy banning homosexuals."


According to US House representative Martin Meehan:

"Fifty percent of all junior enlisted troops support lifting the ban; 63 percent of the American public support lifting the ban. Gay soldiers have proudly served in every American war, including Iraq and Afghanistan. There is estimated today to be 65,000 gay service members in the military. (...) According to the GAO, the military has spent more than $200 million since 1993 to recruit and train replacements for the 10,000 soldiers discharged under "don't ask, don't tell." Among them were hundreds who had language expertise, including Arabic, critical to the fight against terrorism. "

Vermillion


No the question is relevant. I completely agree that homosexuals are in the military now, but how can you seriously say there is not a psycholical difference on a person suspecting someone is a homosexual and somebody knowing that person is homosexual while showering with them. That idea goes beyond ridiculous. There are men... many of us, that will feel uncomfortable having to tent, shower, crap, next to homosexuals... because homosexuals are sexually attracted to men... not just other homosexuals... but MEN, in general.

To be clear, i'm not for a second suggesting that homosexuals are attracted to every man/woman they see. I'm sure they have preferences, just like every other human in the world.

Just like many men are sexually attracted to women. Just like men want to partner with women, just like many men and women would feel uncomfortable have to shower with each other so to would men feel uncomfortable with a known homosexual in the shower.

Knowing doesn't change everything, but it changes alot. You skim over this without addressing it, because you have no answer. What is the difference between making a man shower with open homosexual, and making a women shower with a man. Because now I know this man finds men attractive, and not just "he a good looking man" , but "he's a good lookiing man who I'd love to have sex with" now I know he may be having fantasies of be as he lies next to me in the tent. And I may feel uncomfortable. Why do you feel it is right to force men into this uncomfortable situation, dealing with sexuality.

Do you know why we broke through race barriers before homosexuality barriers. Because sexual issues a are a far greater deal, then the superficial item of skin color.

To be clear, we are a nation of homophobes... we all know it. How many of us truly don't see being called A "fag" or "Gay" as an insult. We're raised this way in America. I'm not sure about Canada or Israel's social acceptance of homosexuality. But if they are more forward thinking in this regards, more power to them. It was their time to intergrate.

Also, while I do see many similarities between discrimination based on race, and discrimination based on sexual orientation., Again we come to the same impasse. You races is obvious 99% of cases, your sexuality ...is not. Thus, homosexuals are completely free to serve. They are not being banned. They are not asked if they are homosexual.

However, they are being removed if they come out. It's... unfortunate. But I do understand both sides of the argument. So I am merely trying to lay out the other point of view here. And people are ducking and dodging calling very relevant arguments irrelevant for the sake of not having no answer.

TheCook

I think all compromises will fall short, because what Homosexuals want is to be able to openly admit their sexuality, which I can empathize with. But I think you first compromise is impractical... but good. And so two is your second.

The best way to make the military sexless is to inundate it with sex. Imagine watching the same women shower everyday, or women watching the same men. In a short amount of time you wouldn't care. because you see it everyday.

The second one is also a good compromise, but many homosexuals are able to serve successful careers now. It's not like people get followed home. And if they were to call their boyfreind, a roommate, well they'd just become a statistic that Vermillion produced of s ome one people call Gay who they serve the military with.

But I think, again, every compromise will fall short of not being able to openly be gay.

I agree that all compromises fall short of the ideal state, I guess that's why they're compromises .

I think the inundation approach is also a valid one (eventually, you desensitize to that which is not an inherently sexual situation) but does fail to accord with what some might call "prevailing moral standards". That is, I'm not sure how you suddenly enact a rule change telling women and men they must shower together but I agree that the approach would, over time, work. It would also have nearly the same level of implementation complexity as other compromises.

The reason I proposed compromise #1 (universal DADT) is because it removes one of the major objections many people (myself included) have with DADT, why should one group of people be forced to remain more circumspect and private than others? If you make both orientations covered, at least the rules are the same for everyone; it's not better, just more fair. Everyone is closeted. To be honest, it might even be workable on some level (soldier dependents are taken care of without presumption of relationship, officially sponsored socializing would either be open to any guest(s) the soldier would care to take w/out presumption of relationships or curtailed to include only soldiers, private/non-official socializing is a matter for the individuals so long as no activity violates the UCMJ, fraternization continues to be illegal, etc) but it would be awkward, difficult and annoying; which may increase support for simply allowing everyone to serve.

In the end, as I said, I don't have a problem with gays in the military and believe sexual orientation is not relevant to one's effectiveness as a soldier. However, if there is truly too much controversy to make that possible, it is at least attendant on our society to create a true compromise, one where everyone must give a bit, not simply treat one group as less equal than the others and call it meeting in the middle.

Of course, all of this is purely academic so.....

Gay Ex-Officers Say 'Don't Ask' Doesn't Work

By JOHN FILES
Published: NY Times, December 10, 2003

Three retired military officers, two generals and an admiral who have been among the most senior uniformed officers to criticize the ''don't ask, don't tell'' policy for homosexuals in the military, disclosed on Tuesday that they are gay.
The three, Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr and Brig. Gen. Virgil A. Richard, both of the Army, and Rear Adm. Alan M. Steinman of the Coast Guard, said the policy had been ineffective and undermined the military's core values: truth, honor, dignity, respect and integrity.

They said they had been forced to lie to their friends, family and colleagues to serve their country. In doing so, they said, they had to evade and deceive others about a natural part of their identity.

The officers said that they were the first generals and admiral to come out publicly and that they hoped that others would follow.

They are the highest-ranking military officers to acknowledge that they are gay. Col. Margarethe Cammermeyer was discharged from the Washington State National Guard in 1992 for being a lesbian. She was later reinstated.

Ten years after the Clinton administration instituted the policy of ''don't ask, don't tell,'' it remains contentious and has fallen far short of President Bill Clinton's vow to allow gays to serve openly. The officers hope to spur a dialogue, in Washington and in the military, about changing the policy.

Nearly 10,000 service members have been discharged for being gay under the policy, which was signed into law by Mr. Clinton on Nov. 30, 1993, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a gay rights group that monitors military justice. The group made the officers available to The New York Times as part of a campaign to mark the anniversary of the policy's official inception.

''Don't ask, don't tell'' was a compromise to permit gay men and lesbians to serve without fear of harassment or expulsion as long as they kept their sexual orientation to themselves. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said the Bush administration will not revisit the policy.

Senior military leaders have argued that openly gay service members would disrupt unit cohesion and morale. ''We remain committed to treating all service members with dignity and respect, while fairly enforcing those provisions of the law that mandate the separation of those who choose to violate the policy,'' the Pentagon said on Tuesday.

When the policy was created, military officials argued that most Americans -- and, thus, most soldiers -- did not approve of or tolerate homosexuality. And while gay service members are believed to make up only a small fraction of a military of more than one million men and women, commanders have said they are concerned that forcing heterosexual members to live, and fight, side by side with gays will undermine the military's mission to win the nation's wars.

''Because gays and lesbians are required to serve in silence and in celibacy,'' Admiral Steinman said, ''the policy is almost impossible to follow. It has been effectively a ban.'' The Coast Guard is not under the authority of the Pentagon, but follows the ''don't ask, don't tell'' policy.

The officers were reluctant to discuss their personal relationships, in part, they said, for fear of the consequences to themselves and loved ones. ''I was denied the opportunity to share my life with a loved one, to have a family, to do all the things that heterosexual Americans take for granted,'' Admiral Steinman said. ''That's the sacrifice I made to serve my country.''

He added, ''I didn't even tell my family I was gay until after I retired from the military.''
General Richard, who retired from the Army in 1991 after 32 years of service, including assignments in Vietnam and at the Pentagon, said, ''No one knew I was gay when I was in the military.''

''I suppressed my desires, and didn't allow myself to be who I am because there was too much at stake,'' he said.
Admiral Steinman, who was the surgeon general of the Coast Guard before he retired in 1997, recalled that earlier in his career, when he was a flight surgeon, a young air crewman came to see him with a health problem.

''I had to stop him, when it became clear that he was going to tell me he was gay,'' Admiral Steinman said. ''I would have been required to report him to command for discharge.''
General Kerr, who retired from the California State Military Reserves in 1995 after 31 years in the Army and the Reserves, primarily with intelligence groups, said it had taken a long time for him to decide to come out. ''The culture of the military is that you go along and conform,'' he said. ''And you keep your private life to yourself.''

The officers said that the Defense Department and White House had not adequately addressed the problem of harassment.
''It is important that they engage the harassment issue,'' Admiral Steinman, who lives in Dupont, Wash., said. ''It needs to be tackled more forcefully. And the president could set the tone.''

General Kerr agreed. ''The president seems reluctant to emphasize the antiharassment part of the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy,'' he said in an interview from his home in Santa Rosa, Calif. ''He just doesn't feel this is a serious issue.''
General Richard said he thought the policy had damaged military readiness and recruitment and retention of soldiers. ''There are gays and lesbians who want to serve honorably and with integrity, but have been forced to compromise,'' he said in an interview from his home in Austin, Tex. ''It is a matter of honor and integrity.''

Oh boy, you're going in circles here. If you don't share as you put it "the turmoil" in allowing men and women to bunk then this is indeed what you are suggesting? I thought you said you weren't serious? Look, you seem unable to concede any ground on this issue - that's fine. You have not yet seriously responded to my question about combining the genders and until this happens (if it ever does) I must assume you are in a quandary yourself (though unable to admit it!). You would do well however to rethink your characterization that all who do see potential problems are by definition homophobic - it detracts from any legitimacy you seek on the issue. Your cue.




The Cook only begins to touch on the issue of combining the genders and sexual orientations under one roof. His appeal to boundaries is exactly what I see as the issue. If homosexuals are allowed to "step out" then almost by definition there would be more license for this type of inappropriateness.

Any disagreement with this will have to tackle the question why the genders are separated. Thus far, I have seen none.



Vermillion, it is good to hear that much of the military has no problem with gays serving along side them. I do disagree that as you put it "this argument is instantly dead (a little too much omniscience, you know?). Recognizing both orientations equally however is not something the military currently does. Do you see any potential problems if that were to be the case? Does the dynamic in "orientation relations" change if the homosexual orientation is recognized much like that of the heterosexual? Why do we keep the genders separate? Why is this an irrelevant question?

Your information on other militaries in the world is the most compelling thus far. If indeed this is the case, we (the US) will have to rethink our own approach toward gays.

What about showers? What about forward outposts? What if straight women don't want to sleep with gay men? What if people pretend to be gay just to shower and sleep with women? Does this sound absurd? Of course. It's just like the argument of why it would be beneficial for gays to be in our fighting forces.

The issue isn't that we don't believe that there are and could be wonderful open homosexuals as soldiers, but that the logistics would be very difficult.

In my honest opinion, the best way to solve this is to relegate homosexuals to their own entire battalions or units as an experiment. Find 1000 or so gays that want to be in the military, and find a function for them as a whole. You'd have your own whole set of issues potentially, but then it would be that unit's problem and not that of the entire military.

It's just REALLY hard to see 100% integration. How do you seperate sexuality in this fashion? It's just not a cut/dry question of prejudice or lack of understanding. There are some sincere privacy and social issues that interfere with this process.

I think I've laid my "platform" out pretty well. I think you bristle at the suggestion that if you have an issue with Gays in the Military I think you are homophobic. I have explained very clearly that I think this because I think your fears are unfounded. I don't know how you'd like me to express this better. I think men and women could bunk together if they had to.

Unfounded or not, you continue to use a description that is considered to be perjorative by those you are describing, a perspective that has been made crystal clear to you. That you continue indicates a complete and utter unwillingness to consider other points of view and an absolute lack of rhetorical civility.

"IF they had to." And I would agree with that, when the situation demands it, they will. And as soon as the situation no longer demands it, the women will head back to their own barracks and everybody will enjoy their privacy. Unisex activists demanding it wouldn't meet the standards of "need" as far as most women I know are concerned. The recruitment, retention and morale problems would be huge.

Many defend known homosexuality and dismiss the modesty and privacy concerns of straights on the basis of "well, you're already showering with gays." How far will that line of argument get you if you were trying to put a camera into a women's shower, they objected, and you revealed that you've already had a camera in there for the last while? Simple fact, people act differently when they know they're being watched, and they act differently depending on who is watching.

Perhaps you're tempted to say "get over it" to the straights who value their privacy and modesty. Right to privacy only exists for women and gays?

Basically, there are four options for handling gays in the military.

1. Aggressively, actively and deliberately keep them out and kick them out.
2. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
3. Segregate them, i.e. separate but equal
4. Complete and total integration

From the gay perspective, what's wrong with Option 3?

Why should we favor their objections to Option 3 over straights' objections to Option 4?

What else would you call the fear of having gays in the Military? If you have a name for it I'll switch to it. I mean, come on BD, there is a fear of what if there are gays in the military. That's a phobia, of homosexuals.

You will remember I'm in the Don't Ask, Don't Tell camp but to directly answer your question I don't have a huge problem with number three and I think we're far away from a day when number four is feasible. I know there needs to be compromises made in this situation.

They share the showers and the forward outposts now. How many times do I have to say that? The question is not, "What if homosexuals were allowed to serve?" The do serve, and in large numbers. The question is, how shall they be treated?

Nobody with a brain is talking about rearranging the living quarters, because the living quarters work fine now. That's right, gay and lesbian troops live right among straight troops now, creating scant disturbance. The mere question is, shall these entirely worthy military members be able to enjoy the personal, private lives they desire and not be persecuted on account of the mechanics of their sexual preferences, or risk losing their military careers?

uh, how about "fear of having gays in the military." I don't endorse that, but at least its not conflation of categories. Or perhaps you can refer to those who have that "fear", as "The Opposition", or even, if you're charitable and feeling a bit of frisky anglicism coming on, "The Loyal Opposition." You can simply stop attributing opposition to fear, because again, you're fundamentally accusing those who disagree with you of being irrational, and that's a technique of denigrating and dismissing your interlocutor.

Aside from what I offered above, can't help you. Give it a whack, invent a new word. After all, that's what some quack did in the early '70s to give us "homophobe", and by quack, I do mean in the analytical sense.

You are confusing categories. "effect of Gays in the military" is not the same as "gays."


I spent 4 months out in the Arabian desert in a mixed company, and not once did we share showers with the females. In fact, we didn't even bunk together, not even when we were stuffing 1/2 again the "rated" capacity into the male's tents and the female tent was half empty.

How many times are you going to avoid the matter of knowing who's showering next to you?

They work fine right now because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Ignorance, even when its feigned, is bliss.

And the simple answer is, no. The military officially does not allow "entirely worthy military members" enjoy the personal, private mechanics of indulging their sexual preferences for adultery, and will bring the hammer down on GI Joe if he's created a problem. You can rest assured that the only hope the other two NASA astronauts in the l'affaire Nowak have is if their detachment to NASA somehow insulates them from the UCMJ, or if Nowak is completely delusional. If an officer were caught in his offtime visiting a dominatrix, his career will be over, and there's a good chance he'd be tossed from the service. You can be sure that none of his troops will ever respect him., unless she was a really good looking Mistress, and even then... There are legions of fetishes and "alternative" sexual behaviors that, while perfectly legal in the civilian world, can get one tossed out of the military if discovered.

BA -

Please, we are no longer discussing the issue at hand but rather how you insist on labeling a homophobe anyone who has concerns about granting homosexuals full recognition and parity with those of the heterosexual orientation - all the while insisting that both orientations continue bunking together. In order to pull this off you must first make the case that every concern, as posited by several posters thus far, is irrational. IMO, you have done nothing of the sort but instead parse your words in order to squeak by with some semblance of a legitimate argument. Our conversation and disagreement would be much more productive if you didn't keep "your dog in every fight".

Furthermore, how far do we have to go back in the posts to find a legitimate example of someone revealing their homophobia? I don't recall anyone recently stating that gays should not be in the military but rather if full integration is allowed (and perhaps it should be) how will this impact the day-in-day-out functioning of the soldier? You yourself just said "I know there needs to be compromises in this situation". If these concerns are simply of a result of homophobia then why the compromise?



I have a bit of a problem with #1, #3, and #4. The gay population needs to serve just like anyone else. Kicking them out is unacceptable. Furthermore, I don't believe any group should bunk together who is naturally attracted to the others in the group. Isn't that why we have always separated the men from the women? The gender separation is premised on keeping our natural inclinations at bay, isn't it? Keeping the homosexuals segregated would not resolve this but would only introduce a dynamic that we have long sought to avoid. Maybe full integration is the only solution though I cannot practically fathom this.

It seems to me the best of several bad options would be to keep the men together insisting that any sexual reference be kept private. The men would have to be treated almost as asexual for the purpose of keeping the group cohesion. Heterosexuals would no longer assume "liberties" in conversation they have long enjoyed and homosexuals would likewise keep their natural proclivities to themselves.





I know the military is already mixed in this regard. I don't believe anyone is thinking otherwise. You (though not alone) continue misunderstanding the point - does the dynamic change in any significant way once the homosexual orientation receives full/on par recognition? Read Biker Dad's most recent post. He believes there would be a difference in transitioning from "don't ask, don't tell" to full recognition. You don't believe this would have an impact? Aren't there similarities when reviewing why we keep the men from the women (it seems this question has become almost cliche though no one to my knowledge has proffered a satisfactory response)?

I'm sorry vanguard and BD but you're just not making a compelling case against the term homophobe and here's why in a simple case you present:

Straight men should not have to shower with gay men who (we fear) could be checking them out. It is important to know who you're bunking with because (we fear) that the gays could be checking you out.

No one is saying gay men WILL check you out in the shower. No one is saying gay men WILL check you out in a bunk. Right? I mean you won't go as far as saying that this WILL happen. You simply FEAR it will happen. That's homophobic.

I stand by my statement: I personally believe the issue of gays in the military is one that homophobes must address amongst themselves. Gays do not pose any inherent danger to themselves or anyone else greater than a heterosexual.

The only problem with gays in the military is straight men worried about them.

Bikerdad, this also answers your closely related points.

By social convention we segregate men and women's bathrooms and showers when we can. By social convention, we do not have separate facilities for persons of given sex, but of different sexual orientation.

This applies universally in the civilian world, right? Right now, we have gay and straight people going to the health clubs and changing clothes and showering together, right? And we have gay and straight people in the schools and workplaces using the restrooms and the exercise facilities together, right? And gay and straight people sharing college dormatories? And what kind of problems does this create? Essentially none, right? In spite of there being absolutely nothing illegal about anyone's being openly gay.

Why is that? It's because 99 and 44 one-hundredths percent of people are decent, modest and discrete about sexual matters. Yes, between certain people of given interest there undoubtably is some sexual tension, but it's something that exists not only in locker rooms, bathrooms and dormatories, and all of us know how to deal with it.

So why would it be any different if we made it so there were no legal prohibitions on military people being openly gay? Military locker rooms would become exactly the same as -- oh horror! -- the locker rooms in our high schools, colleges and local heath clubs! And military bathrooms would become -- ye gods! -- like the bathrooms in your nearest office tower! And -- just think of the disgrace! -- military dormatories would become just like college dormatories! Which is to say, really, that military locker rooms, bathrooms and dormatories would be no different than they are today.

This notion of perhaps having to construct alternative sets of bathrooms, showers and quarters for people of different sexual stripe is an absurdity, and really I think it is a red herring tossed out here to avoid having to talk about the civil rights issue. People who serve in the military should be able to live their private, personal lives without fear of being thrown out of the service because their particular mode of intimate contact is disapproved of by some people.

Now if someone's problem is, I can't take a shower in a stall next to someone who's openly gay, I'm sorry, but I think the nation has a right to expect a more tolerant attitude from its service people. Particularly since, if you ever use a locker room, nothing in civilian life ensures that someone who lusts after your bare body might actually get a chance to take a look at it.



Yes, well, I can assure you that if your mixed company had had to defend a perimeter for very long with the enemy close at hand and supply and reinforcement not very close at hand, these niceties would most likely have been sacrificed to the exigencies of the situation with nil effect on the fighting qualities of your unit. We preserve these niceties when we can; when we can't, we do without them.

Plenty of people reading this have been on remote camping trips with unrelated persons of the opposite sex, or with known homosexuals of the same sex, and made do perfectly well. That's what people do about this kind of thing, they make do. One thing that certainly does not happen, not as a general rule anyway, is rape or sexual mayhem. Because as I have said, by and large, people are decent, modest and discrete. And no one is saying that sexual aggression should not be an offense.

You mentioned knowing the sexual orientation of someone else being a problem. Oh dear, dear me, what a horror to have to take a crap in a stall next to an admitted homosexual. We really shall have to forget about letting gays in the military have the liberty of their own private lives, due that dominating consideration! But come to think of it, don't civilians have to do that today? The answer must be, make all homosexuality illegal!

Sometimes you just realize you were wrong....

This debate has stuck with me a bit as, on the one hand, I didn't have a particular problem with gays serving openly and, on the other, I could see some validity in the men/woman analogy and felt that the best compromise (if needed) was one that treated everyone equally (the "asexual military" option).

But I've been talking to more folks about this and really thinking about it. I talked to my SO, who played sports at university and is now playing on a pro team in the town in which we live. I talked to friends who played at college. None of them really had a problem with it. The SO played with some openly gay teammates (I suspect it's easier to be "out" in womens sports for some reason) and it was never an issue with anyone. Other friends never played with an openly gay teammate but didn't really think about it. Thought about my friends both gay and straight. I just couldn't get my hands around it.

Then I read this .

Granted, it's one person on one team but it tends to make me think that while the asexual military is the only compromise that's fair to everyone, there shouldn't be a compromise needed here. There is really no compelling reason to prevent anyone who is able from openly serving in the military. As others have pointed out, any objectionable behavior between two soldiers (no matter race, sexual orientation, gender, religion, whatever) be it violence, sexuality, whatever, is covered under the UCMJ.

I don't know that it's fair to say those who object are homophobes, but I do know that I think they're overly concerned about some issues.

Sorry to make such a confessional post, it's just rare that a debate really helps me focus my thinking or changes my mind.

IF gays are told "dont ask, don't tell"- then we should require that from the straights as well. You are not allowed to be married in the military, seen openly kissing someone from the opposite sex, certainly NOT allowed to have children in the military, or co-habitate with a member of the opposite sex in any manner, or ever say you have atractions to the members of the opposite sex.

Okay with you Bikerdad? As long as you are willing to treat the homosexuals in this manner- what is so wrong with treating heterosexuals like this BD?

Everyone in the military should be chemically castrated, so sex is never an issue- or, do you only support doing that to those filthy gays>

Yep, BA nailed it- YOU are afraid- that makes you homo- phobic (that would be scairt of gays) -

comes through pretty loud and clear.

fortunately- Niether you (or anyone else) has been able to prove any type of degradation of the military due to homosexuals serving, openly or otherwise-

so the only arguments left are

1) I am a bigot and don't like gays
2) I am a homophobe and am afraid of gays

there is no third option BD.

CR

Actually think about it for a second and there is a third... and even more likely option CR.

3) I am afraid of association with homosexuals, due to such association may be interpreted as me also being homosexual.

Look, it isn't right. but this is the world we live in. I work with homosexuals, I interact with them everyday. I laugh a joke with them just like any other co-worker. But ask me if I've ever extended an invitation to go out drinking with them. Or "hey, let's hit the club" Maybe, that makes me a homophobe, but I am not afraid of the homosexual, I'm afraid of people thinking... I'm homosexual.

See this is the part that makes such a difference between issues of sexuality and issues of race. Look I don't want to hang with someone white... it's not like someone is going to mistake me for a white guy, and vice versa. Race is superficial.

Sexuality is not. People may think I am a homosexual, because sexuality has NO outward appearance.

I think if we are being honest, most people who fear Gays openly being in the military fear this most of all.

They don't think gays are going to rape or take advantage of them, because the stereotype of most Gays are they can't fight that well. Plus the Gays are extremely outnumbered. So let's put this fear aside


I don't think many heterosexuals think gays are less than capable, because we all have said, we already know or should I say suspect very capable men and women already in the military who are homosexual.

So while I agree it is a fear, it is a fear of the image of self. It is also a fear of being appealing to another man. "What is it about my actions that caused them to think I was Gay"

So now we've established it is a fear... my question becomes "So what??"

Why do you think we have different restrooms for men and women....
FEAR!!

Why don't women share sleeping tents with men now....
FEAR!!

So I guess the question is the fear reasonable

Is it reasonable to fear that a Homosexual man will look at my naked body in a sexual way?? Yes or No??

I mean he is Gay. He is attracted to men. He prefers sex with men. I am a man.

Now there is no difference in the way this will make a homophobic(if that's what we choose to call them) man feel and what the average women would feel like if I came into the women locker room in a gym and jumped in the shower.

I'm not hurting them, I'm not touching them, I'm just taking a shower and looking at the surroundings. So does that make these women... "heterophobics" if they cause an alarm, yelling and screaming for me to get out. Or are there lines of privacy that should be observed??

Again, I understand my fears, and in a way i am ashamed, but then in a way I am not. It is all fear... all of our social divisions including that which divides men and women are based on fear.

We ll watch discovery channel where some South American tribe of people have there women and men walking around with only loin clothes. But that is not our society. We are raised with these fears, and in America more so that other western nations we are inundated with these fears of sexuality.

Another fear I want to clarify, at least from my point of view, is... The military doesn't become less effective or efficient, because of homosexuals... it becomes less effective because of homophobes. So when we bring in other militaries around the world, we must ensure are we asking the right questions.

Were these other nations as Anti-homosexual as the society of the U.S.. Britain, Canada... france.... Israel.. may not have.


Also note....

Some of you don't understand what fraternization is....

It is not just people in the military getting together, it deals mostly with "rank", and position, not sex. Two Sergeants that are not in charge of the other, would not be charged with fraternization because they decide to become a couple.

Lord...

I'll take Droop's argument one step further.

This is just not true. The fact is that if you go to the mall, the doctor, to the office (or wherever), bathrooms for men and women are seperate. The theory is that nudity and sexuality is inherently seperate in western society.

There ARE homosexual men/women doing well in the US Military, and in my opinion that's peachy. The issue becomes 100% integration. It's not that most people are afraid of homosexuals or care one way/the other. The issue is nudity and lack of sexuality is perfectly acceptable in the locker room of high school football teams, college teams, etc. However- how would most HS football teams treat an openly gay linebacker at shower time? We know the answer.

Why should the military be different? Why should anyone be in a situation where sexual attraction would be present? This includes the homosexuals. I'll tell you that on long deployments it's VERY HARD to resist the temptation of fellow women officers. It's hard to avoid locals, etc. How would a homosexual man cope with being literally surrounded by hard-bodied men? It's like putting me (I love and have a very pretty wife!) in the middle of the shower facility of the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders after being away from home for 6 months. I don't care how professional I am, I'm going to gawk. It's human nature.

Furthermore, what if homosexual men were in close quarters? It's not that fraternization of officers and officers or NCO's and NCO's doesn't happen, but frankly it rarely ends well. What if two gay men were bunked together? How do those emotions affect the mission? It's the basic reason that women aren't allowed in direct combat roles, particularly in infantry units. These gay men would be showering, sleeping, and spending very long periods of time alone. It's just not practical at this juncture.

In my opinion, if we could allow homosexuals to be pilots, for instance, that would be practical. Putting them on ships or in forward ground deployments would be very difficult and in my opinion the cost would outweigh the benefit.

Couldn't agree more. All of the 'what if' questions have really already been answered, as gays are serving currently. The question then simply become whether or not they should be persecuted, and our country's principles and laws are fairly clear on that, aren't they?



So what? I fail to see what this has to do with anything. So what if you are showering next to a gay. This strikes me as simple homophobia. If you're in the shower, and the revelation that you're showering next to someone who is gay...so what?! Do you spontaneously combust? My guess is here's what happens...a loud, resounding....NOTHING! Unless of course you consider the homophobic angle. Which I think is exactly what the army is concerned about. They know that a great many of their recruits are probably homophobic, and they just don't want to have to deal with the hassle. Given their mission, this is a practical concern...anything that detracts from our troops ability to function detracts from their ability to provide our security. Whether or not this justifies such actions is another question. For me, I've never understood the concern. If I were in the field, and found out the person in the foxhole with me were gay, I'd be far far far more concerned about his ability to do his job than I would his sexual orientation. So, either I'm in the minority, or the military has a greatly exagerrated perception of the problem.....or far too many in the military command really are homophobic themselves. I'm not sure which is the case. I do know that all of the stories I have heard about gays who were in the military indicated that their service was exemplary. This is probably a biased sample, although I suspect only those who were really dedicated to serving would join in the first place and endure the hassles. So, the question reallly is--why should we exclude exemplary soldiers from serving? Wouldn't it make more sense to encourage them?

Going from statistics I would have to say that homosexuals should be allowed in the military before females. Just look at the amount of rapes that occur yearly in the united states, then compare those in the forms of hetero rape or homosexual rape. I think it would also prove that homosexuals are no where near as prone to rape as there heterosexual counterparts actually

Don’t ask don’t tell requires a gay person to live a secret life, so take it how you want it. Personally I view lots of problems around homosexuality as a product of having to live in the closet. A homosexual out in the open is not as much as a threat to me as I know what they are up to, and they can know your sexual orientation, which I think would imply respect, save for dastardly rapists and sexual abusers, but hey statistics again people.

IT really comes down to people holding bias against them or really there sexual orientation. It in its own fashions does not prevent a person from living life or doing anything else a hetero does, it simply comes down to not liking the lifestyle and then the desire to basically segregate and hate on for lack of better words. Such I think is rooted overall in the psyche of our culture, looking at many famous serial killers that is. AN utter rejection of self or severe personality problems because society makes it that way, one could probably feed this behavior into any group of people that are treated traumatically overall, or are abused by a position of power for whatever reasons.

I mean pouring over the pages in this debate alone the only this posed by the anti homosexual side is that they are sexual predators, in simple words though with nothing to back it up. Telling that to them is wrong though for some reason I am still working on that bit of illogic right now.

Hobbes,

War isn't like a John Wayne or Bruce Willis movie. It's hours upon hours of monotony coupled with often brief and overwhelming violence. I'm not talking about the time that someone is charged with covering your left flank. The issues arise when you're spending day upon day holding a bridge, showering with water bags hung from the barrels of a 50 cal atop a humvee. The sleeping in tents small enough for literally two grown men side by side (gear outside usually or on your feet).

No Discovery Channel special shows the truth about being overseas or in the field. It can't depict the hours on end of non-violent action (or no action at all).

You are 100% accurate that once the shooting starts, you don't care if someone is a Democrat, if someone is gay, or if he's got a purple dot on his head. Who cares? You want him to shoot back and to drag you out of the fight if you're hit. Battle changes a man permanently and decidedly. It builds bonds that may never be broken (my Dad just went to a reunion of vietnam vets he served with in Da Nang in '05 and had a blast). If you spent 100% of your time as a soldier shooting at and being shot at, it would be SOOOO different I'm sure.

However- consider that it takes 3-5 support troops to keep one Marine in the fight. Sometimes more depending on the situation. If you're the supply guy that drives a truck from the fuel depot a forward unit, how much would you really rely on the gay to shoot at the enemy for you? What if you're the cook, the quartermaster, the corpsman (or medic), etc, etc? ? ? Then you have to consider the modern battlefield and the nature of current conflict. As a general rule, there's no "front line" today. We don't take front line # 1, then move to #2, incurring conflict all the while.

It's not homophobia, but moreover the issue with human nature. No one would scoff at a woman soldier saying that she didn't want to disrobe and shower with young Marines. Seriously. That would sound absurd, wouldn't it?

Hobbes


Aevans


So what's the difference Hobbes. Should I be able to jump in a females field shower, or in the field shower in operating hours designated for women....

I mean "what going to happen??' "Are they going to spontaneously combust" It's all in our head's right? Not you or anyone else in this debate has successfully tackled this issue. Vermillion simply calls it irrelevant.

Does a man have the same right to have sexual boundaries as a women. Does a man have the right to not feel like he's being gawked at. That someone isn't looking at his bare butt, thinking lustful thoughts??

You see being the liberal that I am, I don't think homosexuality is just some bizarre choice, but rather something that either happens at birth, or at puberty.