Homosexuality in the military

[Achilles]

I thought about specifying "U.S. military" in the subject, but I think this could be a topic for international discussion.

 

Anyways...linky

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday he considers homosexuality to be immoral and the military should not condone it by allowing gay personnel to serve openly, the Chicago Tribune reported.

Is there a valid argument for stating that homosexuals cannot or should not be allowed to serve their country via military service?

[SilentScope001]

Is there a valid argument for stating that homosexuals cannot or should not be allowed to serve their country via military service?

 

Yes.

 

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday he considers homosexuality to be immoral and the military should not condone it by allowing gay personnel to serve openly, the Chicago Tribune reported.

 

To break it down:

 

We should not allow gay personnel to serve openly.

 

Why? Because homosexuality is immoral, and if gay personnel are to serve openly, we would encourge it.

 

It's an argument, and it's valid. Valid as in...if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.

 

If homsexuality is immoral, and letting gay personell serve openly in the military would encourge it, and we don't want to encourge immoral stuff...then we should not gay personell serve openly.

 

Do you agree with the argument? Of course not! Attack the premises: If homosexuality is NOT immoral, or if Homosexuality will not be encourged if they are allowed to serve openly, then surely we can allow gay personell to serve openly.

 

I am for letting homosexual people serve in the military...it is a secular military after all, not supposed to aid any religion.

[TK-8252]

Heh... how ironic. Supposedly, homosexuality is evil and immoral... but the U.S. military is perfectly moral and right.

 

Bigotry at its worst.

[Ambrose]

While I do agree with you to a certain extend SilentScope, immorality is, unfortunately, relative here in the United States.

 

But in a practical sense, no I don't think gays should be able to practice openly in the military. Let's face it: the vast, vast majority of military servicemen are straight. In the service, a certain type of brotherhood is formed which I think would be severely impaired by open homosexuals. I know that I personally would find it very uncomfortable and would, out of reflex, treat an open homosexual differently from the rest of my troops, and given that, statistically, the majority of servicemen practice a religion that shuns homosexuality, I would say that its open presence in our ranks would severely impair that sense of brotherhood, and thus our combat effectiveness (the link between the brotherhood and combat effectiveness is a factor. Don't believe me? Read Flags of Our Fathers.)

[TK-8252]

But in a practical sense, no I don't think gays should be able to practice openly in the military. Let's face it: the vast, vast majority of military servicemen are straight. In the service, a certain type of brotherhood is formed which I think would be severely impaired by open homosexuals. I know that I personally would find it very uncomfortable and would, out of reflex, treat an open homosexual differently from the rest of my troops, and given that, statistically, the majority of servicemen practice a religion that shuns homosexuality, I would say that its open presence in our ranks would severely impair that sense of brotherhood, and thus our combat effectiveness (the link between the brotherhood and combat effectiveness is a factor. Don't believe me? Read Flags of Our Fathers.)

 

So you'd rather have no brother at all as opposed to an openly gay brother who will protect your life like his own.

 

Maybe if you were in the military, you'd realize that it'd be better to have a slightly uncomfortable relationship with a fellow serviceman than to be lying dead or wounded on the battlefield, because someone couldn't be there to look out for you.

 

A lot of the gays discharged, by the way, were Arabic translators. Translators who are essential to the war effort, and are also in short supply.

 

Oh and, the first U.S. soldier wounded in the Iraq War is a gay guy.

[Ambrose]

So you'd rather have no brother at all as opposed to an openly gay brother who will protect your life like his own.

 

Maybe if you were in the military, you'd realize that it'd be better to have a slightly uncomfortable relationship with a fellow serviceman than to be lying dead or wounded on the battlefield, because someone couldn't be there to look out for you.

 

Are you in the military?

 

And I wasn't talking from a personal perspective, I was talking from a practical perspective. If you expect a gay guy to join the Marines and be just another normal Marine, you are quite naive.

 

Maybe if you were in the military, you'd realize that it'd be better to have a slightly uncomfortable relationship with a fellow serviceman than to be lying dead or wounded on the battlefield, because someone couldn't be there to look out for you.

 

You make it sound like half of our military is composed of gay guys.

[TK-8252]

Are you in the military?

 

And I wasn't talking from a personal perspective, I was talking from a practical perspective. If you expect a gay guy to join the Marines and be just another normal Marine, you are quite naive.

 

I'm not, but I don't think that it is at all fair the way you tried to justify discriminating against gays on the grounds that YOU might feel uncomfortable. To use that as a justification is selfish to say the least.

 

Maybe YOU would prefer to be dead or disfigured because you don't want to have to tolerate a homosexual... but I'm certain that not ALL soldiers feel that way.

 

You make it sound like half of our military is composed of gay guys.

 

Not nearly half, but I'm sure they make up their fair share of the ranks. I'd say the best way to honor their service isn't to call them evil and immoral... it's to tolerate them, the same way the military learned to tolerate blacks in the service.

[Ambrose]

I'm not, but I don't think that it is at all fair the way you tried to justify discriminating against gays on the grounds that YOU might feel uncomfortable. To use that as a justification is selfish to say the least.

 

Maybe YOU would prefer to be dead or disfigured because you don't want to have to tolerate a homosexual... but I'm certain that not ALL soldiers feel that way.

 

I'd venture a guess that most do. I'm currently applying for the Naval Academy, and the numbers I've been shown indicate that the majority of officers graduating into the Navy and Marines are Christian, and thus would certainly feel uncomfortable.

 

Not nearly half, but I'm sure they make up their fair share of the ranks. I'd say the best way to honor their service isn't to call them evil and immoral... it's to tolerate them, the same way the military learned to tolerate blacks in the service.

 

I didn't call them evil. The issue of blacks in the service was a gradual thing. They fought in separate regiments up until post-WWII, I believe- and I think that was a wise move. Why? During and immediately after the Civil War, most white soldiers would not be comfortable with fighting side-by-side with blacks. Fact. Of. Life, idealism aside. Abraham Lincoln certainly understood this. And I think that if we're smart, we'll tread softly on this subject for some time.

[Jae Onasi]

Well, all I can tell you is that when these guys are going through basic training, the last thing on their minds is sex--they're too darn tired from running, PT, learning rules and regs, running, doing KP and dorm maintenance, marching, running, learning to handle a machine gun, running and/or marching, and so forth. They're asleep before their heads hit the pillows. Not a very conducive setting to doing the Wild Thang.

[Ambrose]

Well, all I can tell you is that when these guys are going through basic training, the last thing on their minds is sex--they're too darn tired from running, PT, learning rules and regs, running, doing KP and dorm maintenance, marching, running, learning to handle a machine gun, running and/or marching, and so forth. They're asleep before their heads hit the pillows. Not a very conducive setting to doing the Wild Thang.

 

You can't expect an openly gay guy not to get hazed, during or after basic training. More likely after.

 

And unless I'm mistaken, you're not with the guys you went through basic training with after basic training anyways.

[TK-8252]

I'd venture a guess that most do. I'm currently applying for the Naval Academy, and the numbers I've been shown indicate that the majority of officers graduating into the Navy and Marines are Christian, and thus would certainly feel uncomfortable.

 

A soldier's religion is entirely irrelevant. There are Christians who are gay. There are Christians who accept homosexuality since they think it distracts from Jesus's message. There are atheists who hate gays. On top of that, our military's policies aren't based on religious principles to begin with.

 

I didn't call them evil.

 

I know you didn't, but it sure sounds like that's what General Pace is saying.

 

The issue of blacks in the service was a gradual thing. They fought in separate regiments up until post-WWII, I believe- and I think that was a wise move. Why? During and immediately after the Civil War, most white soldiers would not be comfortable with fighting side-by-side with blacks. Fact. Of. Life, idealism aside. Abraham Lincoln certainly understood this.

 

Gays in the military has been gradual as well. Originally, they were banned from service. Now, it's "don't ask, don't tell." But when is the next step going to come along, which is to drop the discriminatory policy? Maybe now that we're allowing convicted criminals into the military (wait, felons are more moral than gays?) to make up for the lack of recruits, gays will be allowed to service openly. But maybe not.

[Achilles]

I'm reminded of Martin Luther King Jr's commentaries on the continual calls to "slow up" because "we're changing too fast". He was quick to point out that while the gentry were having their sensibilities "assaulted", real people with real lives were being repressed and treated like sub-human, 2nd-class citizens.

 

In the spirit of Rawls' veil of ignorance, I wonder if you would feel the same if you were a member of the group being persecuted. In other words, how do you think it would feel to live in an alternate universe where gays were the minority and heterosexuals were being discriminated against.

 

Full disclosure: I'm a heterosexual and I was disqualified from joining the armed services because of a childhood surgery.

[Ambrose]

A soldier's religion is entirely irrelevant. There are Christians who are gay. There are Christians who accept homosexuality since they think it distracts from Jesus's message. There are atheists who hate gays. On top of that, our military's policies aren't based on religious principles to begin with.

 

The majority of the troops are Christian. The majority of Christians are quite uncomfortable about the idea of homosexuality. That means that the majority of the troops would be uncomfortable with it.

 

Just use your comparison to the integration of black troops into the military as an example.

 

The majority of the members of the Union Army (contrary to popular belief) were not fervent abolitionists. In fact, most of them believe that they as whites were superior to the blacks. The majority was clearly not comfortable with black fighting men being in their unit. As such, blacks were separated from whites in the military to prevent this major problem UNTIL the issue had settled (enough) for a fighting force to remain effective.

 

Gays in the military has been gradual as well. Originally, they were banned from service. Now, it's "don't ask, don't tell." But when is the next step going to come along, which is to drop the discriminatory policy? Maybe now that we're allowing convicted criminals into the military (wait, felons are more moral than gays?) to make up for the lack of recruits, gays will be allowed to service openly. But maybe not.

 

It took about 85 years for blacks to be allowed in the service. It took an additional 80-100 or so for them to be allowed to serve in the same regiments as whites.

 

Basically, the change will be as gradual as is necessary for public hostility toward gays to dissipate to the point where it won't be so much of a distraction. Because maybe it's not for YOU, but for me and many other prospective military men, it certainly would be.

 

Full disclosure: I'm a heterosexual and I was disqualified from joining the armed services because of a childhood surgery.

 

Much the same, you weren't allowed into the military because physical issues would impair your effectiveness as a fighting man. There's nothing WRONG with that, but for practical reasons you're just not allowed. Is that discrimination against people with past physical issues? Yup. But that's the military, and that's the reality of how it has to be.

 

Please, everyone, hang in there with the calm discussion that is happening for the most part. Homosexuality is a hot topic (no pun intended) and can create some very polarized feelings. Please don't post harassing or pejorative remarks. Thanks, Jae

[SithRevan]

I have to ask a question, and I have noticed this has come up already. Who decideds whether or not something or someone is immoral or moral? How does homosexuallity make that peron immoral? Are they immoral becuase they happen to like the same sex? Also what if you had a family member who was a homosexual would you have the same views?

 

I mean really does it matter if you are gay? We all bleed the same color. Also about homosexuals being in the US military, personally I don't care who you are if you are watching my back on the streets of Baghdad your cool with me and even if you weren't I would still be cool with you because I don't see a reason to not be.

 

Well anyway I really don't know how to end this post so I am just going to say this. Homosexuals should be able to serve openly witout being slandered on thier prefrences.

[Achilles]

Much the same, you weren't allowed into the military because physical issues would impair your effectiveness as a fighting man. There's nothing WRONG with that, but for practical reasons you're just not allowed. Is that discrimination against people with past physical issues? Yup. But that's the military, and that's the reality of how it has to be.

Actually not at all. I was disqualified because of a blanket policy regarding that type of procedure (a small plastic piece was inserted into my esophagus to correct a problem with hiatal hernia). I would have most likely performed just fine as a soldier.

 

I think we might be getting off on a little bit of a red herring with the discussion regarding race in the military. Unlike race, homosexuality does not have a distinguishing physical characteristic. The way the current policy is written 50% of the active armed forces could be gay and no one would know. But if records were leaked tomorrow, there would be a scandal. So today = fine. Tomorrow = not fine. What changed?

[CountVerilucus]

If the homosexuals are qualified for the job and follow orders then I am all for it.

[Darth InSidious]

Um...I don't see the problem. They're still people.

 

If you have a problem with someone else based on sexuality, how are you any different from a person who has a problem with someone else based on race?

 

I don't agree with or think homosexuality is moral, but who am I to say that someone can't? I fail to see the harm in it for consenting adults, aware of the risks, to engage in such a relationship.

[Achilles]

I fail to see the harm in it for consenting adults <snip> to engage in such a relationship.

QFT/E

[MetalMark]

Why would somebody feel uncomfortable if somebody else is gay???

 

I have 2 gay friends and they are in my group of best friends, I went swimming with, on holidays with them and they know I'm straight and I know they are gay. Than what's the problem?

 

I know I'm not in the military or something like that, but the situation is the same.

 

And then 1 of those gay friends of mine doesn't look gay or anything. If he doesn't tell you he is gay you wouldn't even know and that's the same for alot of other gay people. The stereo-type gay (overly female behaviour) is not the way all gays are most gays actually aren't.

[Nancy Allen``]

I've worked with people who are homosexual, both those who are open about it and keep it to themselves. Both were open to ridicule but where as one it was mostly harmless stuff with the exception of one thug the open gay did make people uncomfortable and at times you don't know how to act around them. With the military, as with any occupation in my view, open homosexuals open themselves to being targeted, and the same would apply to those who are openly religious, openly Atheist, openly Democratic, Republican, ect. I don't like to say they should keep it in a box but while, in this case the military, people should be disciplined enough to serve with you despite that there is every chance that they'll turn on you because of it, especially if there is some thug who will use it against you.

[Jae Onasi]

I don't think 'gays will get beat up by straights so we should exclude them' is a good reason at all.

 

Attacking a fellow soldier/sailor is assault and battery, regardless of the reason why the attack is committed, and that is completely wrong.

[SilentScope001]

Do remember that gays ARE allowed to serve in the military, thanks to Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Military don't ask if you are Gay, and in return, you don't say that you are Gay. If you say you are Gay, you get kicked out of the services. But as long as you don't say you are Gay, you are a-okay. This general is in full support of the policy, but don't want people serving openly, for fear that it would promote homosexuality.

 

Gradual change is necessary. It is pratical, because it allows for people to change the idea of "morality" from "I hate Gays" to "Gays are okay, but not tolerated" to "Who cares about sexual orientaon? I don't. I'm marriage-blind." It's slow, but that's how social change goes.

[JediMaster12]

You can't expect an openly gay guy not to get hazed, during or after basic training. More likely after.

And I am sure that they don't haze the straight ones as well

As Jae mentioned, any attack that brings physical harm is assault and battery with the degree differing on the severity of the assault and id a weapon was used or not.

 

While I do have this thing that homosexuality is wrong, I don't condem people for being what they are. I actually have a few gay friends that I hang with. As for the military, what right do they have to say that gays shouldn't be allowed to serve? It is my understanding that what is important is that the person can do the job and do it well a good show of professionalism. No I am not referring going all Zorro the Gayblade on me but I would like to think that skill and ability would matter, not what you are. Unfortunately it appears that society doesn't think that way.

[Allronix]

On the topic of morality, and who should and should not be able to serve...

 

Bob Barr, a Republican Representative from Georgia, was shocked to find a thriving Wiccan community on US Military bases. Well, he got a burr under his saddle, gathered a bunch of like-minded "morality cops" and asked US citizens not to enlist or re-enlist in the U.S. Army until the Army terminated the on-base freedoms of religion, speech and assembly for all Wiccan soldiers. Now, no less than the commander in-(thief/chief), George W. Bush, has gone on record saying "I don't think witchcraft is a religion. I would hope the military officials would take a second look at the decision they made".

 

So, you kick gays out of the military on the basis of "morality." Do you kick out Wiccans? How about Muslims (after all, they follow the same faith as the enemy)? What about women, since females around straight men will "inevitably" lead to the dissention in the ranks and hanky-panky that folks argue will result from gays serving?

 

If someone wants to go into the military, and is going in of their free will, let them.

[Nancy Allen``]

Let's face it, anyone who doesn't have the discipline to not persecute homosexuals, witches, Muslims or anyone else has no right to wear the uniform.