On Wednesday, Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) and others will introduce legislation to the House of Representatives that would lift the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the US military ("Congress Reexamining 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell"). The controversial rule was instituted in 1993 as a compromise when President Bill Clinton failed to garner enough support to implement his campaign promise to allow homosexuals to serve openly. The current rule prevents gays and lesbians from serving if they engage in "homosexual conduct," defined in the Pentagon's Policy Guidelines as "a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender." Military commanders are barred from investigating the sexuality of their subordinates. The Bush administration has maintained this particular rule even as it has loosened standards for education, age, and criminal history of soldiers and sailors in hopes of increasing the size of the military. 11,000 soldiers have been discharged under the rule since it was implemented, and as of a 2004 study, 322 of them possessed critical language skills in Arabic, Korean, or Farsi (widely spoken in Iran).
Do you support the "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexuals in the military? Can you think of any compelling reasons to keep the policy in place? How great a risk is the military taking by barring soldiers because of their sexual orientation, even when they possess skills critical to the War on Terror?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's Topic is a regular publication of the Gather Editorial Team. You can follow it everyday at Gather Daily.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous Today's Topics on Homosexuality:
'Curing' homosexuality? The case of Rev. Haggard
Massachusetts government tangled in 3-way brawl over same-sex marriage
Powerful Evangelical leader resigns over gay sex accusations
New Jersey court's landmark decision on same-sex marriage
Rep. Foley's impact on the Elections
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 17
The problem is similar to having women in the military: what does one do about sexual attraction in combat, and stressful training situations? In peacetime, gays in the military are a political cause, one which I sided with them on, back in my days as a Marine. I still do, to a degree, but I see the downside of it, as well. If the military allows gays, will it give their partners spousal rights, regarding benefits? Will military law go beyond the civil laws of this nation? It is the proverbial slippery slope.
Gays have served in the military since there were militaries in the first nation-states of ancient times. If they can adhere to the rules of the military (currently "don't ask, don't tell), they are not barred from the US military.
It is ironic that "don't ask, don't tell" was one of my first disagreements with Pres. Clinton's policies. I was a radical liberal, who wanted to shove gay rights down the military's throat, which I expected him to do. Since I've become a conservative, I see his policy as "moderate," or "splitting the difference" between two valid viewpoints.
Just a little plug. If you want to know more about me, look up the above posts on Gather or Blogger.
The military cites several reasons for not allowing homosexuals and they all relate to impairing the accomplishment of the military mission.
* The presence of overt homosexuals adversely affects the ability of the armed forces to maintain discipline, good order, and morale;
* to foster mutual trust and confidence among service members;
* to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must live and work in close conditions affording minimal privacy;
* to recruit and retain members of the armed forces;
* to maintain the public acceptability of military service.
The military service is not civilian life, so do not try to compare the cultures. The goal of the military is to build a unit that will fight and die together. The predominate fighting force will be men. Most men in our society, like it or not, is not ready to accept homosexuals as "normal". Heterosexual men are not ready to fight and be forced to live in intimate living conditions along side homosexuals. Homosexuals will be a distraction at best, and decrease morale and increase tension at the worst.
The bottom line: Let society work out their issues with homosexuality before they shove it on the military to deal with.
_________________________________________________________________
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/12/121906military.htm
Three-out-of-four members of the military who are serving in Iraq or recently returned home say they don't care if someone in their unit is gay according to a poll released Tuesday by Zogby International. They also said that if the military allowed gays to server openly it would have had no effect on their decision to enlist.
Zogby polled 545 troops between Oct. 24 and 26 who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. The survey was designed in conjunction with the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.3 percentage points.
The poll also found that nearly one in four U.S. troops say they know for sure that someone in their unit is gay or lesbian, and of those 59% said they learned about the person's sexual orientation directly from the individual. More than half of the troops who know a gay peer said the presence of gays or lesbians in their unit is well known by others despite the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that bars gays from acknowledging publicly that they are gay.
____________________________
Additionally, your points about the adverse effects of gays in the military have been refuted by social scientists and by those that have served in the military. The same arguments were rolled out when minorities were brought into the military and when women were brought into the military.
I am particulary stuck on the 2nd point. Gays can serve in the military under the current law. What they cannot do is talk about it or be out. Doesn't the need to hide their sexuality, not their sexuality itself, degrade trust? The forth point, as well, is problematic: the military dismisses about 1,000 men and women a year for being gay. And it is estimated that an additional 41,000 additional men and women would enlist if don't ask, don't tell were repealed.
Also, there are several militaries around the world in which gay men and women serve without a problem. Most of the points are based on false stereotypes of gay men as predatory and sex obsessed. It's frankly untrue.
In regards to the article, I'm not surprised that Rep Meehan has introduced this legislation. Here's a Democrat that promised he would only serve for 3 terms and then get out. Of course that was 6 terms ago. He also is invested in the defeat of the US military. Why else would he want to put forth a bill that would, at the very least, distract and, most likely, discredit the US military in its mission.
Also realize that we are fighting in very conservative Muslim countries. They do not condone homosexuality. For us to have a military that embraces it and flaunts it only flares the radical Muslim anger against us. It will be another rallying point for the Muslim clerics and leaders to say:
"Look at America! We told you they were decedant and in league with the Devil. See, now they want homosexuals to come into your towns and homes! We must kill all these infidels!"
Of course, Meehen and the other Dems who support this realize this fact and it is just another way for them to "stick it" to the military (who they say they support) and to Bush.
The poll here is very appropriate because it directly addresses Army Man's contention that soldiers could not deal with gay servicemen.
Conservative Muslims also have very restricted roles for women; these do not include military service. Should we ban women from the military too? They certainly don't like Jews, should they be banned as well? It doesn't seem to make sense to let another country's or a religion's opinions define what we do here in the US. In fact it seems like it would lead to more chaos than listening to the opinions of the men and women actually affected by the decision.
The current law does not disallow gay recruits. There are currently many gay men and women in the armed services. They just can't disclose that fact or be open with who they are. This opens them up to more risks for being blackmailed and does more to erode trust among team members than homosexuality itself would.
Gay men and women have also been serving in the military for years; I see no flaw. We do not ask them not to mention the fact that they are women. We do not ask Jews to not mention the fact that they are Jewish.
I have not served in the military, but to make that statement I do not need to. The first three sentences of the paragraph are objective facts. That is the law of don't ask, don't tell (don't pursue) and the results of polls like the one that I quoted, which involved members of the military. The last sentence contains two parts, both of which are supported by an understanding of how groups function and by logic:
#1: If a person has a secret that could get them kicked out of the military and they do not want to be kicked out of the military, they are prone to be blackmailed in order to keep that secret hidden.
#2: Trust is an important part of the cohesion in any group. If a person has to lie to hide a part of themselves from the group in order to remain a member of that group, it erodes the level of trust, and therefore the cohesion, of that group.
To imply that one needs to have served in the military to have an opinion on it would mean that many members of the current administration's war advisors should not be allowed at the table either. You make statements about how homosexuals would act in the military, are you gay?
"There are currently many gay men and women in the armed services. They just can't disclose that fact or be open with who they are. This opens them up to more risks for being blackmailed and does more to erode trust among team members than homosexuality itself would."
It seems, from this, that you have first hand knowledge of the military. Therefore, I simply asked the question about your uniformed service to our country. I implied nothing else.
In regards to your flaw in logic - you still don't see it. We have had women serving in our armed forces for decades. This is not new. Therefore, the conservative Muslim nations we are in are not surprised by this. They may not like it (indeed, many of the female soldiers have to cover themselves in certain areas), but this isn't "new". Thus, to liken it to allowing open homosexuality in the military and overtly flaunting those in the military who are homosexual is not the same thing at all and would hurt our position in that part of the world tremendously.
To answer your last question, I'll just turn the answer you gave to me around: I am not gay, but to make that statement I do not need to [be].
My quote above is strictly based on the law of don't ask, don't tell.
I'm curious what you think that gay men and women would be doing that would "overtly flaunting" their sexuality.
My last question was primarily facitious.