"we should treat them and house them exactly as we do straights in the military."

What exactly do you mean by that?

We don't house women and men in the same rooms [different genders] so why would we do the same with gays and straights [again, different genders].

I agree with you - but I recognize that this will be a huge problem for the service to deal with. Everything from tolerance issues to housing to sex.

You solve those problems by indoctrinating the troops the same way they did to us at MCRD with race: 'There are no blacks, no whites. You are one color: green.'

And then the DIs acted like it, and made us act like it. And when you work together for long enough you drop the stereotypes and see the individual.

We don't house women and men in the same rooms [different genders] so why would we do the same with gays and straights

Because you'll create cliques and minorities where none exist and degrade unit cohesion. Want to marginalize the three gays in Company B? House 'em in one room.

How are you going to handle the thousands of male recruits who suddenly discover that they are lesbians, or "women trapped in a man's body"? Are we going to assign housing based on gender, or "sexual orientation," both being, one assumes, equally valid? More pertinently, what does being "openly gay" MEAN? Am I gay because I say so, or believe myself to be so? Is it because I choose behaviors based on that statement or belief? Or is it because I have some underlying genetic defect disabling my ability to engage in sexually reproductive behaviors?

If being gay is a matter of /behavior, and behavior can be chosen, then there is no difference between a gay man and a straight one until he "behaves" differently by saying he is gay. He could as well say that he is straight, in which case nothing would change, since that is presumed. Being openly gay is a world apart from being quietly gay, and it clearly is a matter of chosen behavior in this context. We need not accommodate that behavior in the military any more than we do criticism of the CinC.

If, on the other hand, there is an underlying genetic defect that compels certain behavior, and it is not a choice, then it is unreasonable to expose straight soldiers to this unwanted behavior, just the same as it would be unreasonable and unfair to female soldiers. I should think we would be intolerant of kleptomaniacs, pyromaniacs and others who cannot control their behaviors.

In short, if being gay is a choice, then it is a choice that must be forsworn to serve in the military. If it isn't a choice, then it is a character defect that should preclude one from military service.

Speaking only from personal experience, both in and out of the military, Homosexuality seems to be BOTH a choice, and has a genetic component.

I have known people (both in and out of the military) who claim to have "always" been Homosexual, and others who say that it was simply a matter of preference for them.

My personal reference is to use Homosexual as a general term, and reserve the word "Gay" for those that are flamboyantly, in-your-face homosexual (similarly, Lesbian and Dyke).

In all cases, again - from personal experience - these individuals did their jobs, and I would happily work with them again.

Individuals who insist on flaunting their sexuality are, for the most part, not the type who have the military style mindset, though there are always exceptions.

I think, in the end, that it simply becomes an issue of, as a previous poster said, Character. When one takes the oath of service, part of that must be a personal commitment to personal conduct that does not disrupt the unit, or hinder the ability of the unit to perform it's mission.

I make no distinction between a Homosexual or a Heterosexual who allow their personal sexual impulses to disrupt unit cohesion, or to become a distraction to the ability of the unit to accomplish it's mission.

If you can't control your sexual impulses, you don't belong in the military. Simple as that.

A great many of us try to look at people as strictly individuals. That's not the whole picture, though. People also form (by choice) group identities.

For unit cohesion, the primary group identity must be the unit.

Like Aurelius, I make a distinction between homosexual and gay, with one being a sexual preference and the other being a group identity. Among other things, the "gay" group identity insists on its own primacy.

To demand that a group accept and treat as a member someone who has some other primary group identity seems like deliberately poisoning it.

It is a rejection of the very solution that made racial integration work.

Snochasr and Aurelius gets it.

In most situations it is better if we keep our sexual proclivities to ourselves. This is especially true in a work enviroment.

Homosexuals are serving in the military now. They just don't talk about. So what excatly is the problem with that solution? What would an openly gay military officer do differently? Talk with a lisp? Introduce his boyfriend around the camp? Wear pink undies? All of the things that might happened shouldn't happen anyway.

I guess you could argue about benefits. Fine - allow an individaul to assign benefits to one person other than themsleves. Problem solved.

This "openly gay" thing is just a B.S. stalking horse for the left.

Actually, one more item.

I think a fair portion of the dislike and discomfort many people feel for homosexuals is NOT related to their sexual orientation, but to the affectations they so readily adopt. The telling bit is that the same affectations annoy me whether it is a man or a woman doing them.

The issue of gays in the military is often compared to the integration of blacks into the military in the 40's.

Couple of points.

Would the integration have gone as smoothly had the African Americans been the Black Power/separatist/highly political blacks of the 60's, 70's, as opposed to the integrationist/apolitical blacks of the 40's, 50's?

And being African American is about physical appearance, it says nothing at all as to expected behavior.

In any case, of always had a question about the DADT policy. What exactly is the objection to that policy? Suppose they do allow openly gay service personnel, will inquiries now be made into each service person's sexuality (the don't ask portion)? And why exactly would a service person need to announce their sexuality (don't tell portion)? If there is a need to announce one's sexuality, is that an admission that the issue of one's sexuality is of greater import then any other factor?

"We don't house women and men in the same rooms [different genders] so why would we do the same with gays and straights"

Because you'll create cliques and minorities where none exist and degrade unit cohesion. Want to marginalize the three gays in Company B? House 'em in one room.

Agreed. But without segregation you have a new double standard - gays are housed with men they have a sexual attraction to, while men are not housed with women they have a sexual attraction to.

Fenrisulvan:

What exactly do you mean by that?

I mean it to be something else folks here can argue about.

We don't house women and men in the same rooms [different genders] so why would we do the same with gays and straights [again, different genders].

Yes, that's the argument I expect some to make. So go ahead and tell us why we should house gays in a separate barracks.

Snochasr:

More pertinently, what does being "openly gay" MEAN?

I use the term the same way the military does: A person who tells others he or she is gay and does not later claim to have been lying, or a person whose sexual preference has been revealed by means other than the military launching an investigation to find out (that's the "don't ask" part of the law).

A homosexual who is not "open" means one who has never told anyone in the service his sexual preference and who has not been "outed" by someone else.

Under the law, a gay man can be discharged for slipping up and saying "My boyfriend and I went to a nice restaurant last night," instead of remembering to pretend he dined with his girlfriend. Saying the former makes him openly gay... unless he later says he was just making a joke and gets others to lie for him as well.

Being openly gay is a world apart from being quietly gay, and it clearly is a matter of chosen behavior in this context. We need not accommodate that behavior in the military any more than we do criticism of the CinC.

There's more to it than that, Snochasr. When I'm talking to people, I notice that I never manage to go more than five or six minutes without making reference to my wife. I might say, "Sachi and I watched Ratatouille last night," or "My in-laws are coming to the United States, and we're all going to New York together... I am not looking forward to this!"

But gays in the military must constantly be on their guard not to make any reference to their love interests; or if they do, they must always remember -- upon fear of losing their careers -- to switch the gender. Even if their loved one is named Pat or Chris or Joe/Jo, they must watch every pronoun, all the time, 24/7.

They cannot take their loved ones to any public place where some other servicemember might see them. They must live in constant fear of someone snooping and finding out.

They are subject to blackmail; some gays will be morally strong enough to resign from the service, rather than be blackmailed into giving out classified information; but on the margins -- and there are always such margins when you're talking about tens of thousands of people -- some will succumb to the extortion.

They don't necessarily behave in any way differently from normal heterosexuals... except in the target of their affection. If they behave in a sexually irresponsible way, then fine; discharge them -- so long as you also discharge heterosexuals who behave in similarly irresponsible ways.

This is all a huge extra strain put upon one small class of people in the military... but not upon the vast majority. And it's not because they're simply capricious or irresponsible, but -- and I think we all agree at least on this much -- because they are primarily attracted to members of the same sex.

If a person is truly bisexual, it probably wouldn't be that difficult to behave totally heterosexually, if he wanted to stay in the military. But many of my gay friends (I have quite a few, male and female) are simply not attracted at all to members of the opposite sex. So what you're saying boils down to saying, "Why can't they just remain celebate for their entire careers -- or better yet, just stay out of my military!"

I don't accept that choice as the optimal solution, either for the service itself or the larger culture, society, and nation that contains it. It also runs into the irresistable buzzsaw of reality: That "solution" is simply not going to happen; it never has, and it never will. Gays will be present in the military; the only question is whether they will be there openly -- or secretly.

If, on the other hand, there is an underlying genetic defect that compels certain behavior, and it is not a choice, then it is unreasonable to expose straight soldiers to this unwanted behavior, just the same as it would be unreasonable and unfair to female soldiers.

Snochasr, this is Argument by Insufficient Discrimination... in other words, you are failing to discriminate between two very different things.

I should think we would be intolerant of kleptomaniacs, pyromaniacs and others who cannot control their behaviors.

Yeah. Like that. He's gay! He just can't stop himself from grabbing me if he sees my magnificent body in the shower!

When you say, "Compels certain behavior," what you really mean is, "Compels them to be attracted, in general, to members of the same sex -- but not, of course, to every member of the same sex." But you then proceed as if you mean, "Compels them to attempt to have sex with every same-gendered person they see"... as if a gay guy is going to fondle the butt of every man in the barracks. He can't stop himself! He's like a kleptomaniac, a pyromaniac.

Yeesh.

This is utter nonsense. You are "compelled" to be attracted to women, not men; does that mean that if you were forced by circumstances to take a shower in the presence of a woman, that you would be unable to restrain yourself from grabbing her and trying to have sex by force? Good heavens, I give you far more credit for self-restraint than that.

I used to work at the Renaissance Faire in Southern California -- back in the old days, when there were not separate shower facilities for males and females, and all of us showered together. I have also been hot-tubbing in mixed company, and I have spent a lot of time at nude beaches. Yet I can tell you with absolute sincerity that I never felt "compelled" to sexually assault some beautiful woman just because I saw her naked. Heck, I never even openly stared at the naked women in the hot tub, not even as a teenager.

Nor have I ever engaged in sexual behavior, even with a willing female partner, in other than appropriate circumstances and venues. I've never had sex in a restaurant, an airplane lavatory, or the back of a schoolbus. And if two soldiers do such a thing, it would be perfectly appropriate to discharge them from the service -- whether they are same-sex or mixed-sex.

Please, let's drop the absurd stereotypes. A gay man who goes around trying to grab every man, gay or straight, that he sees is just as mentally disturbed as a lecherous, heterosexual swinger who does the same to women... and both should be discharged not only from military service but from any job they hold -- because that's assault.

We're not talking about rapists and other sexual assaulters. We're talking about people who somehow manage not to make a lunge for every naked body they see -- yet actually admit to their friends that they are gay, who don't attempt to live a lie, who don't guard every word they speak (lest they utter a forbidden pronoun), who don't keep their loved one in the house, like a jihadi's wife, lest someone spot them holding hands.

Dafydd

"Yes, that's the argument I expect some to make. So go ahead and tell us why we should house gays in a separate barracks."

Because we house women in seperate barracks [or rooms]. How can you respect the privacy of the women but not the men?

"I used to work at the Renaissance Faire in Southern California -- back in the old days, when there were not separate shower facilities for males and females, and all of us showered together."

I have also worked RenFaire, and am active in the SCA. We both know that culture is more free-spirited than the norm. So why use it as a disclaimer?

"I have also been hot-tubbing in mixed company, and I have spent a lot of time at nude beaches. Yet I can tell you with absolute sincerity that I never felt "compelled" to sexually assault some beautiful woman just because I saw her naked."

Good for you. But what if another young adult with raging hormones tried to hook up with her? What if the consequence of that liason was that everyone in the hot tub would drown? Would you still jump in?

"Heck, I never even openly stared at the naked women in the hot tub, not even as a teenager."

Well then, you're not the norm. Not even a common denominator.

"Please, let's drop the absurd stereotypes"

Of course. I'm a former Marine, NCO, Victor Unit. I have no issue with a gay man's ability to serve effectively along side me. The problem is not theirs, but that of society. Its all about unit cohesion - small battle units function like a wolfpack. When you mix in women or gays, the men stop responding as brothers and start jockeying for position and favor. I'm I on point again because Reed wont send his lover into harms way?

"Yes, that's the argument I expect some to make. So go ahead and tell us why we should house gays in a separate barracks."

Because we house women in seperate barracks [or rooms]. How can you respect the privacy of the women but not the men?

"I used to work at the Renaissance Faire in Southern California -- back in the old days, when there were not separate shower facilities for males and females, and all of us showered together."

I have also worked RenFaire, and am active in the SCA. We both know that culture is more free-spirited than the norm. So why use it as a disclaimer?

"I have also been hot-tubbing in mixed company, and I have spent a lot of time at nude beaches. Yet I can tell you with absolute sincerity that I never felt "compelled" to sexually assault some beautiful woman just because I saw her naked."

Good for you. But what if another young adult with raging hormones tried to hook up with her? What if the consequence of that liason was that everyone in the hot tub would drown? Would you still jump in?

"Heck, I never even openly stared at the naked women in the hot tub, not even as a teenager."

Well then, you're not the norm. Not even a common denominator.

"Please, let's drop the absurd stereotypes"

Of course. I'm a former Marine, NCO, Victor Unit. I have no issue with a gay man's ability to serve effectively along side me. The problem is not theirs, but that of society. Its all about unit cohesion - small battle units function like a wolfpack. When you mix in women or gays, the men stop responding as brothers and start jockeying for position and favor. I'm on point again because Reed wont send his lover into harms way?

Aurelius:

I make no distinction between a Homosexual or a Heterosexual who allow their personal sexual impulses to disrupt unit cohesion, or to become a distraction to the ability of the unit to accomplish it's mission.

If you can't control your sexual impulses, you don't belong in the military. Simple as that.

Yes you do so make a distinction: You don't demand the discharge of every unmarried, heterosexual member of the military who has sex, on the grounds that some other, staunchly religious service member might be offended... even if he says, "I can't serve with this guy -- he goes out and has sex every time we get liberty!"

You're saying that even if a gay soldier never has sex in public, never comes on to any other guy in public, but merely forgets to lie about his partner's gender, that is so disruptive of good order and discipline that he should be discharged... and it's all his fault!

Dishman:

Like Aurelius, I make a distinction between homosexual and gay, with one being a sexual preference and the other being a group identity. Among other things, the "gay" group identity insists on its own primacy.

But current law does not make that distinction. As I said, under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, a gay man whose "group identity" is entirely with the unit will nevertheless be discharged if he ever once forgets to lie about the gender of last night's date in front of the wrong person.

How would you change the law to conform to your position? Given that there will always be oversensitive service members who insist that mere knowledge that a fellow member is gay -- even if he never does anything to call attention to that fact -- prevents the oversensitive member from doing his job (even in combat!)... how do you define inappropriate behavior in a way that would not be exactly the same, in effect, as the current policy of "lie -- or leave?"

Geoman:

Homosexuals are serving in the military now. They just don't talk about. So what excatly is the problem with that solution? What would an openly gay military officer do differently? Talk with a lisp? Introduce his boyfriend around the camp? Wear pink undies? All of the things that might happened shouldn't happen anyway.

As I said to Snochasr, it's more complicated than that: All a service member must do to be discharged under the current law is to be seen in public, even miles away from the base, holding another man's hand. That makes him openly gay, and he will be discharged, if someone rats him out.

In most cases of discharge under DADT, the person has done nothing that would in any way affect his career -- if he did it with a member of the opposite sex. If two guys are caught doing the nasty in the barracks, go ahead and discharge them; but also discharge a male and female soldier caught doing the same. Do you disagree?

But if we don't discharge a female Marine for saying, "My boyfriend and I are going on a hiking trip," why should we discharge a male Marine for saying exactly the same thing?

Mdgiles:

Would the integration have gone as smoothly had the African Americans been the Black Power/separatist/highly political blacks of the 60's, 70's, as opposed to the integrationist/apolitical blacks of the 40's, 50's?

Again, this is comparing apples to apes. If some militant gay activist constantly flaunts his homosexual activities and tries to "recruit" every guy he sees, or sexually bullies others, then discharge him. But at the same time, discharge a heterosexual swinger who grabs every female soldier he sees without regard for consent, or time and place.

If there is a need to announce one's sexuality, is that an admission that the issue of one's sexuality is of greater import then any other factor?

Mdgiles, have you ever once mentioned to anyone that you had a loved one? Have you ever once let slip, in any way, that person's gender?

Congratulations, you're "openly heterosexual." Now we can discharge you from the military.

Dafydd

Aurelius: "I make no distinction between a Homosexual or a Heterosexual who allow their personal sexual impulses to disrupt unit cohesion, or to become a distraction to the ability of the unit to accomplish it's mission.

If you can't control your sexual impulses, you don't belong in the military. Simple as that."

Yes you do so make a distinction: You don't demand the discharge of every unmarried, heterosexual member of the military who has sex, on the grounds that some other, staunchly religious service member might be offended... even if he says, "I can't serve with this guy -- he goes out and has sex every time we get liberty!"

No. He's talking about unit cohesion, ie. within the unit. Your response is a bit of a strawman. And your tone has become more strident, demeaning and almost insulting. I'm beginning to think you are not capable of discussing this by your own rules. Do you have some emotional investment in this?

I do. When you say "the easier to see which way the scales tilt", I see the likelihood of my brothers dying increased by a failure of unit cohesion. You're talking in theory - will a 1% increase in risk "scale". I'm talking in reality - any increase in unacceptable, because those numbers represent the flesh and blood of real people.

Dafydd, as a compromise I suggest:

1) Gays be allowed to serve openly
2) But, like women, not alongside men in Victor Untis.

Cohesion of these front line units is preserved. But it does bring up another problem that women already face - fast track promotion for officers is through Victor Units.

DADT require discharge of a soldier if he's caught holding hands out of uniform, off base, with a member of the opposite sex? Okay, that's seems too extreme. Let's fix that problem. Off-base out of uniform - do what you want within reason (no marching in gay pride parades for example). On base - your sexual preferences are your own business and you'd be wise to shut the hell up about them in the interest of unit cohesion. Simple. Add on a no dating within your unit clause and you have a pretty workable solution.

To those who say that the military shouldn't have homosexuals in it...well they already do. You just don't know who they are. So all the things that people suppose might happen in the shower if gays are let into the military...those things are already happening. Best get used to it.

The only change is whether gays should be allowed to advertise they are gay. When we say "openly gay" what does that actually mean? I ssupect that various posters here have vastly different ideas about what that means.

Anyone know of the experience of other countries?

Mdgiles, have you ever once mentioned to anyone that you had a loved one? Have you ever once let slip, in any way, that person's gender?

Congratulations, you're "openly heterosexual." Now we can discharge you from the military.

Again, another fallacy. For you hypothetical, Mdgiles enlisted [or re-enlisted] under current law, which allows openly heterosexuals. Gays enlisted [or re-enlisted] under DADT. Complaints about being discharged are dishonest - you knew the law when you signed up.

Anyone know of the experience of other countries?

Yes, but they do not apply to American culture.

Fenrisulven:

"So go ahead and tell us why we should house gays in a separate barracks."

Because we house women in seperate barracks [or rooms]. How can you respect the privacy of the women but not the men?

What is the privacy issue? You have seen naked men before, and you have been seen naked by them. You have almost certainly been seen naked by gay men, even if you didn't know it.

Unless the gay guy is actually leering at you in the shower, what's the difference? Why does it bother you so much?

I have also worked RenFaire, and am active in the SCA. We both know that culture is more free-spirited than the norm. So why use it as a disclaimer?

It's not a "disclaimer;" it's an example that a normal heterosexual teenaged boy can nevertheless manage not to assault, fondle, or even ogle naked girls he happens to see. By the same token, the great majority of gays can avoid doing the same to naked men (or women, in the case of lesbians) they happen to see in the shower, in the head, or in the barracks.

And if someone cannot restrain himself, he should be discharged -- homosexual or heterosexual.

"I have also been hot-tubbing in mixed company, and I have spent a lot of time at nude beaches. Yet I can tell you with absolute sincerity that I never felt "compelled" to sexually assault some beautiful woman just because I saw her naked."

Good for you. But what if another young adult with raging hormones tried to hook up with her? What if the consequence of that liason was that everyone in the hot tub would drown? Would you still jump in?

Argument by Risible Hypothetical. You suggest that if two soldiers or Marines happen to be dating, that in the middle of a firefight, they will concentrate on protecting each other, rather than fighting. Have you any evidence that such a thing happens? I sure haven't seen any... though I've heard it asserted for years.

This is a "what if" that substitues for actual argument: What if some American soldier is a Moslem; we send him to Iraq -- and he suddenly undergoes Sudden Jihad Syndrome and turns his weapon on his fellow soldiers? Obviously, we must purge the Army of all Moslems.

Of course, we can't conduct a witch-hunt of every soldier's religion... so let's just say that if a soldier is a Moslem, he should keep his mouth shut about it. We won't ask him, but he cannot tell anyone. He can always say, "I met my wife at our -- ah -- church, and next year we were married by the im-- I mean, by the priest."

Of course, if he slips up even once and says mosque or imam... then he's out. It's just a matter of good order and discipline; other soldiers might be too uncomfortable, always being worried that the Moslem guy might be a terrorist. Besides, isn't their group identity with Islam? We just can't take that chance.

Do you agree? Should we do our best to purge all Moslems from the military? And what about Jews -- isn't a Jew's group identity really with Israel? I mean, any Jew might be a secret Zionist. Religion isn't genetic; he can convert if he really wants to... so why should we let potential Israeli spies in our military?

Or self-proclaimed Druids -- what if they suddenly decide to sacrifice their squadmates to Cromm Cruaich? No Druids. No Wiccans. No pagans of any kind.

If you think such policies would be disastrous and shouldn't be attempted, then how do you distinguish between these "voluntary behaviors" and the voluntary behavior of homosexuals?

"Heck, I never even openly stared at the naked women in the hot tub, not even as a teenager."

Well then, you're not the norm. Not even a common denominator.

Baloney. Sure, if some teenager is sitting in class in high school, and without warning, the teacher comes in stark naked, of course he'll gape and stare. So would I; it's unexpected, and you have no chance to prepare yourself.

But if he knows he's going to a clothing-optional beach, and he knows women will certainly be naked there... but he also knows this isn't a prelude to an orgy, and they're not inviting him to latch onto their hooters... then I maintain a typical teenage boy can control himself -- at least to the point of not ogling them in gape-mouthed, leering astonishment, like a character in a Tex Avery cartoon. Certainly that was true among my (normal, heterosexual) friends.

Granted, I grew up in a big city. Maybe rural hicks are simply incapable of self-control (yeah, right). But I doubt it; people are people.

Particularly in the instant case, when a gay guy ogling and leering at naked men in the shower can be discharged, even under my proposed policy change (or whupped, even against orders)... just as a straight guy could be kicked out if he's openly leering at female soldiers dressed for PT. Even if the girls accidentally sweat while doing hop-and-pops.

When you mix in women or gays, the men stop responding as brothers and start jockeying for position and favor.

All right, you have made a claim; can you show me some evidence? Something other than the strident assertion of someone opposed to allowing gays to serve openly in the military.

For example, many European and Commonwealth forces have fairly recently allowed gays to serve openly. Granted, their militaries are not as good as ours; we now have the best military forces in the world, bar none -- though I would not have said this back in 2000.

But do you have any evidence that those armies and navies have become demonstrably worse since allowing gays to admit their sexual preference? Do you have some evidence that gay lovers in the Australian and British armies protect each other and let the rest of the squad fend for itself?

In fact, I haven't heard of any problems of the sort you suggest happening in the armed forces of any of these nations. Doesn't that tend to debunk such arguments? Or do you maintain that Dutch, UK, and Israeli soldiers don't experience enough combat to be taken seriously as counterexamples?

Bear in mind, those opposed to racially integrating the troops made equally strident assertions that many white soldiers -- not themselves, of course! -- may other white soldiers would "never take orders from a Negro."

And there were problems, of course; but it was never very many soldiers who had such extreme reactions. Even those opposed to the policy by and large bowed to the inevitable, once President Truman decided that the problems were overbalanced by the more serious problems inherent in making some soldiers inferior to others.

It wasn't long before the racial problems faded to background radiation. There will always be some who just cannot abide taking orders from a black officer or NCO, just as there will always be some who cannot abide being in the same unit with a homosexual. But experience -- within police forces, fire departments, and even within our own military in the case of service members widely assumed to be gay by their fellow service members -- experience indicates such an extreme reaction is confined to a vanishingly small number of members. (In most cases of long-term servicemen or women discharged under DADT, other service members interviewed pretty much knew the guy was gay; but they almost unanimously oppose his discharge.)

The same considerations apply in the instant case. The total number of soldiers who will defy all their training and direct and standing orders and still cause problems -- either gays acting out or gay haters assaulting ordinary gay servicemen -- will be very small... because mere homosexuality (as opposed to gay activism) simply doesn't create the frisson and universal revulsion it used to do.

Take yourself, Fenrisulven. Suppose, while you were in the Marines, you suspected your platoon leader might be gay. You ignore it and continue doing your job; the lieutenant seems pretty good (as far as officers go): He listens to his NCOs, but he makes good decisions in a timely manner, and he has good leadership qualities.

But then, months into your deployment, some other Marine tells you he saw the CO, while on liberty before deploying, walking in a mall holding some man's hand. Are you really telling me that everything you know about the lieutenant goes out the porthole, and you can no longer take orders from him? In fact, you can't even bear the thought of being in the Marine Corps, now that you know for sure your platoon commander is gay? And that the only thing that would assuage your feelings would be if the lieutenant were summarily discharged?

I submit that if your reaction would be that extreme -- then you would be the problem, not the lieutenant. (It's like having the same sort of reaction upon discovering that your platoon leader was a Moslem.) But in fact, I highly doubt that you would be that extreme yourself; you seem far too rational. I suspect you envision other Marines -- not you -- having such a strong reaction.

And that's exactly my point... every argument against the policy boils down to the fear that some heterosexual soldier, Marine, airman, or sailor will experience such intense gay-panic that he will simply be unable to function in the presence of an undisguised homosexual.

That seems rather an insult to the vast majority of heterosexual service members. I believe all but the tiniest fraction are like Boss Mongo: Whatever their personal feelings on the issue, if the orders come down, they will salute, then get on with their job of protecting and defending the United States of America.

(I will be writing another post on women in the military and in combat; let's save that discussion for later.)

Dafydd

And that's exactly my point... every argument against the policy boils down to the fear that some heterosexual soldier, Marine, airman, or sailor will experience such intense gay-panic that he will simply be unable to function in the presence of an undisguised homosexual.

No. The argument has to do with unit cohesion. Makes no diff if it involves gays or women. Your attempt to reduce that to homophobia is dishonest.

I'll respond to your host of other fallacies when I have more time later tonight.

Fenrisulven:

Anyone know of the experience of other countries?

Yes, but they do not apply to American culture.

Well, that's a pretty slick way to rule out all possible battlefield and service experience as evidence!

Your response is a bit of a strawman. And your tone has become more strident, demeaning and almost insulting. I'm beginning to think you are not capable of discussing this by your own rules. Do you have some emotional investment in this?

No, you're simply misinterpreting "tone" in a written medium, hardly a surprise (since you haven't the normal cuing you would have in a face to face conversation, or even over the phone).

In fact, I am the most "Spockian" person you likely know or ever will know. I am trying to answer many points in several comments from several commenters. If I'm feeling anything, it's "pressed for time;" I haven't had time to blog today, because I consider this debate important.

Dafydd

/your italics function seems broken, shows up in preview, loses attrib agter posting, edited:

And that's exactly my point... every argument against the policy boils down to the fear that some heterosexual soldier, Marine, airman, or sailor will experience such intense gay-panic that he will simply be unable to function in the presence of an undisguised homosexual.

No. The argument has to do with unit cohesion. Makes no diff if it involves gays or women. Your attempt to reduce that to homophobia is dishonest.

I'll respond to your host of other fallacies when I have more time later tonight.

[...]

Actually, disregard that. I'll respond when you demonstrate you understand the argument for unit cohesion and stop misrepresenting it. Otherwise, you're just wasting our time.

Fenrisulven:

Actually, disregard that. I'll respond when you demonstrate you understand the argument for unit cohesion and stop misrepresenting it. Otherwise, you're just wasting our time.

Tabling the discussion, Fenrisulven? <g>

I believe the problem is that you confuse "understand the argument" with "agree with the argument."

Dafydd

Assumption: Gays are allowed to serve in the Military, and the only restrictions would be on behavior. These behavior rules would be imposed on every Soldier, Sailor, Marine... gay, straight or ambivalent.

Prediction: Straights would refuse to serve/leave the service not because of the Gays, but because of the new restrictions on their own behavior...

How would you change the law to conform to your position? Given that there will always be oversensitive service members who insist that mere knowledge that a fellow member is gay -- even if he never does anything to call attention to that fact -- prevents the oversensitive member from doing his job (even in combat!)... how do you define inappropriate behavior in a way that would not be exactly the same, in effect, as the current policy of "lie -- or leave?"

I struggled with this for quite a while, in part because I have very little first hand experience with bonding. I'm not really mentally equipped for it. I really only have familiarity and absence of discomfort. That's a big caveat.

What I came up with was adding "don't care (be profsssional)". I think that addresses both the busy-bodies and the ones who are into the whole "gay identity" thing.

To come up with anything better, I'd have to see some analysis on how the DADT discharge process was initiated, with some kind of percentage breakdowns. I suspect that in at least some cases it was deliberate on the part of the discharged soldier. I have no idea how many.

Dishman:

I suspect that in at least some cases it was deliberate on the part of the discharged soldier.

Almost certainly. Somebody might enlist, but then decide after a few months that he really hates military life, so bad he doesn't even want to serve out the remainer of his enlistment.

If we made it possible to leave under a "voluntary discharge," with loss of all benefits but no DD or OTH -- who wants soldiers in an all-volunteer army who don't want to be there? -- that would probably eliminate that particular scam.

As far as new regulations, I think all you might need is for courts-martial, non-judicial punishment boards, officers, and NCOs to be instructed to interpret the general prohibition against sexual harassment to include any behavior that forces others to engage in inappropriate and unwanted sexually oriented conversations or actions.

(A lot of speech or behaviors would be somewhat ambiguous; but that's what we have authority for: To decide whether something crosses the line. Just as they have to decide if some NCO's punishment crosses the line into abuse -- beating teenaged recruits, for example, or making female soldiers stand naked in the middle of the mess hall.)

That would allow in-your-face gay screamers to be disciplined (up to being discharged, if the harassment is egregious enough) -- along with in-your-face heterosexual flaunters... for example, some serviceman who corners a servicewoman at a party and goes on and on about his sexual adventures in the cages of Bombay.

But it would not permit a gay serviceman to be forced out just because he mentioned his boyfriend in a non-sexual context, like saying "we're thinking of going to Massachusetts and getting married."

That may annoy some people, but it's certainly not a "sexually oriented conversation" -- unless he starts giving a blow-by-blow of the expected wedding night. (It would annoy me, but no more than I'm annoyed when somebody goes on and on about the glories of government-run health care.)

That also puts the focus on the behavior of each individual and how inappropriate behavior can affect unit morale and cohesion. I don't want to listen to the lecherous ramblings of Barney Frank, any more than I want to listen to the lecherous ramblings of Larry Flynt.

Dafydd

"... every argument against the policy boils down to the fear that some heterosexual soldier, Marine, airman, or sailor will experience such intense gay-panic that he will simply be unable to function in the presence of an undisguised homosexual."

When I worked at University, we had a sexual harassment policy that included the "high crime" of "elevator eyes." That is, you were not allowed to look people up and down as you met them, even though they were clothed. It didn't matter whether you had any interest in them at all, it constituted sexual harassment and could get you into trouble. So how can it be that those whose sexual preference includes those of the same gender be permitted naked access to others without committing some degree of sexual harassment? Now so long as that sexual preference isn't obvious, such transgressions aren't readily noticeable. Let them be suspected, and people may be more circumspect, but generally without the repercussions. Let them be "open" and you have a problem. In my experience, for example, male professors who took notice of another male professor's nice suit were ignored. Notice a female professor's tight skirt and you were in trouble.

The old racial integration of the Armed Services analogy doesn't apply. That segregation was based on an outwardly visible and immutable characteristic-- skin color. Once a sufficient depth of experience demonstrated that they were just like "everybody else," the problem largely disappeared. The current question is about behavior, with no outward telltale characteristic except behavior. The essential and inescapable difference, therefore, is between openly gay and quietly gay. I'm sorry if gay soldiers can't speak freely about their relationships, but if they can't realize that such conversations aren't well-suited to them, they need to quickly acquire such discipline, and just go quietly about their duties. The military doesn't exist to be a social club or a social experiment.

One more thing. We keep talking about housing people with their "gender." That make sense if you are concerned about separating the genders, but why? Since you say we only are concerned about inappropriate behavior, and will oust people from the service for such, why bother to separate the genders at all? Or, you could consider that there are behaviors beyond the most obvious and egregious that requires such separation, in which case you have to consider that we need to segregate sexual orientation, as well as gender, and that's not a reasonable thing to do, just based on the logistics, especially for the small number of people who want to serve openly.

Snochasr:

You use Argument by Prior Overreaching and Argument by Practicalities -- which are certainly better arguments than some of the others adduced here.

The first argues that in the past, we have carried sexual harassment policies relating to male-female relations to a ludicrous extent; therefore, we must perpetuate the practice anent same-sex relations.

I respond that we shouldn't have done it with the first group, women; and having done so certainly does not oblige us to do it with yet another group, gays. There should be a distinction between mere "elevator eyes" and slobbering and leering in a patently offensive manner over some woman, humiliating her and diminishing her in the eyes of her coworkers.

This is as silly an overreach as the "zero tolerance" drug rules in schools, in which a girl can be expelled for bringing Mydol to school when she's having her menstrual period. Your extension of the elevator-eyes rule to cover gay men is like saying that since Carbon Dioxide is now a "pollutant," we must extend zero-tolerance to ban all carbonated beverages, even no-calorie, caffeine-free Coke or Dr. Pepper.

Instead of perpetuating a foolishly overwrought response, let's back up and have more rational harassment rules for all relationships, mixed sex or same sex.

In the second argument, you maintain that, "The current question is about behavior, with no outward telltale characteristic except behavior."

But this isn't quite true, is it? Gays can be involuntarily discharged from military service even if they have never engaged in homosexual relations in their entire lives. Mere acknowledgement of same-sex attraction -- even if unacted upon -- is sufficient.

In fact, it needn't even be the gay serviceman himself who acknowledges it; somebody else can "out" him, and that can be enough (provided it wasn't the military that instigated the outing).

That is, they can be separated from service for who they are -- not just what they do. In that respect, the policy is even more restrictive than the old anti-sodomy laws that the Supreme Court struck down in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003): At least those laws were confined to actual homosexual or other sexual acts -- not mere temptation!

You ask a good question about why I agree we segregate by gender, but should not segregate by sexual preference. I have actually pondered this deeply some time ago... and there is an answer that is clear when explained, if not obvious from first impression.

Sex segregation for privacy's sake is a multi-millennium tradition in Western culture. "Privacy" for both men and women always included sex segregation, even back in the days when male homosexuality was a capital offense and lesbianism didn't even exist (at least not recognized by law).

Once homosexuality began to be decriminalized, still nobody ever implemented a privacy-based policy of separating gays from straights; but we continue to segregate by gender even today -- e.g., in gym locker rooms, public showers, prisons, many social clubs, many schools, Orthodox Jewish synogogues, and so forth.

Clearly, "privacy" has never meant "segregation by sexual preference," except in hellish tyrannies we certainly do not want to emulate (Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR, etc.) There never was any policy of protecting privacy by sending straights over here and gays over there.

Thus you point to a tradition, sex segregation, that has persisted since the days of the ancient Greeks, Hebrews, and everybody else -- and try to extend that to a class of people, homosexuals, who have never before been subject to segregation for privacy's sake -- even back when they were subject to execution. (Even the Nazis didn't segregate gays for the sake of privacy; they segregated them, along with Jews and Gypsies, for the sake of extermination.)

I believe the root cause is recognition that men are fundamentally different from women... but gay men are not fundamentally different from straight men. (Nor are lesbians fundamentally different from heterosexual women.)

You and a typical gay man have tremendously more in common than you and a typical woman, whether gay or straight. For this same reason, I have no objection to a gay man marrying a lesbian, and I would not even discriminate against them in adoption proceedings; but I am totally opposed to adopting children out to a same-sex couple (except as a last resort), even if they are not sexually attracted to each other (say, two sisters living together for companionship and economic reasons).

Privacy, as a human characteristic, is a recognition of differences extreme enough to require folks on opposite sides of the divide needing to take a break away from each other. Thus men and women, adults and children, enlisted and commissioned officer.

Racial segregation was a travesty and a tragedy for precisely the reason you enunciated:

[Racial] segregation was based on an outwardly visible and immutable characteristic-- skin color. Once a sufficient depth of experience demonstrated that they were just like "everybody else," the problem largely disappeared.

Western civilization finally came to the conclusion -- painfully and violently -- that there is no essential difference between black and white, brown, red, and yellow. Thus there is no need for segregation, for "apartness" (Apartheid), no need to "take a break" from people based upon skin color.

(By contrast, different cultures are fundamentally different; and we may very well need to take a break from those whose culture is too disparate from our own. But it's not the skin color that does it... it's the culture that sometimes-but-not-always goes along with it.)

Because there is no difference between gay and straight that is remotely as profound as the difference between the genders, segregation is unnecessary. However, there may very well be a severe enough difference between a traditional conservative (gay or straight) and a gay-rights activist (gay or straight) that a long, long break may be vital to avoid killing each other <g>.

That is why we segregate men from women but should not segregate gay from straight.

Dafydd

There are two primary attributes that Dafydd brings to his blog that compel me to read it: his amazing facility with the language and his rationality. The reasoned arguments of the readers here demonstrate these same two strengths.
But humans aren't rational, especially when it comes to sexuality.
Dafydd could smite me in a mercilessly in a debate, crushing me with plausible reasoned argument after plausible reasoned argument. But at the end of the day, I have to say that, for reasons that make sense to the larger population or not, after ~20 years serving in the combat arms, I do not think that homosexuals openly serving in the military would be good for the military or good for its mission.

I'm in the military and there are gays in the military. It has never been a problem at my units. They just have to keep their political/religious views to themselve like all the rest of us. I'm under no obligation to accept or tolerate someone embracing the gay lifestyle, out they go.

Serve: No problem

Advocate: Problem

Disrupting: Brig

In the second argument, you maintain that, "The current question is about behavior, with no outward telltale characteristic except behavior."

But this isn't quite true, is it? Gays can be involuntarily discharged from military service even if they have never engaged in homosexual relations in their entire lives. Mere acknowledgement of same-sex attraction -- even if unacted upon -- is sufficient.

You misread my meaning. When I say "behavior" I do not think of sodomy. I think of all behaviors, and most specifically the simple but all-altering statement "I am gay." If in fact there is some inability to desire opposite-sex relationships built into a human's psychic inheritance (which seems impossible but for the sake of argument) then it is still a major step from there to the self-recognition that one prefers same-sex relationships over, say, celibacy. There is another step, and that is to announce to the world that one is attracted to others of the same sex-- a simple statement-- and to then accept that others may treat you, as they are entitled to do by freedom of thought, differently than they had before. In fact, I have always thought that there is absolutely no reason to make such an open statement unless you intend to take a still further step and engage in homosexual acts. No purpose is served, no benefit is derived otherwise.

Let us consider another possibility. Let us consider that opposite-sex aversion is NOT inborn or determined at birth, but that it is a byproduct of some psychological pressure in life. It is still a step from there to an attraction to the same sex, another big step to the public proclamation of it, and yet a third step to actually acting upon it. At each subsequent step, there is an active behavioral choice being made. Why can we not declare those choices of behavior inappropriate and contrary to good order and discipline, as we do other chosen behaviors?

You continue to speak of homosexuality as if it were an inborn and immutable characteristic, when there is ample anecdotal, at least, evidence that like all behaviors, homosexual behavior is chosen, and in fact a series of choices. For example, we might, at some point, declare the barracks off-limits to smokers. Regardless of one's past choices and current addictions, someone choosing to light up would and should be held accountable for that behavior. Just saying "I am a smoker" or "Man, I could sure use a cigarette" wouldn't be punishable, but being a smoker does (not yet) carry the societal opprobrium that open homosexuality does. We may some day get to that point (on either issue). We aren't there now, and the military ought to be one of the last places we try to force it, if we force it at all.

Aurelius:

I make no distinction between a Homosexual or a Heterosexual who allow their personal sexual impulses to disrupt unit cohesion, or to become a distraction to the ability of the unit to accomplish it's mission.

If you can't control your sexual impulses, you don't belong in the military. Simple as that.

Yes you do so make a distinction: You don't demand the discharge of every unmarried, heterosexual member of the military who has sex, on the grounds that some other, staunchly religious service member might be offended... even if he says, "I can't serve with this guy -- he goes out and has sex every time we get liberty!"

You're saying that even if a gay soldier never has sex in public, never comes on to any other guy in public, but merely forgets to lie about his partner's gender, that is so disruptive of good order and discipline that he should be discharged... and it's all his fault!

Perhaps I was not clear, as I did not emphatically state my point: I do NOT support DADT. I do not believe that Sexual Orientation is any more relevant, in and of itself, than race, religion, or national/state origin.

I don't believe that what someone does on leave, or off base/off duty (when not in a combat zone) is germane, so long as when they are in uniform, on duty, on base/post, they conduct themselves in (what we used to call) a Military Manner.

After all, Homosexuality was common in the Spartan culture, but I don't believe that a case can be made that it negatively affected their combat ability and unit cohesion.

As far as I am concerned, the whole issue of DADT is simply a distraction. The military would be far better off enforcing standards of conduct, regardless of sexual orientation, evan as they no longer consider race, sex, or religion.

"I believe the root cause is recognition that men are fundamentally different from women... but gay men are not fundamentally different from straight men. (Nor are lesbians fundamentally different from heterosexual women.)"

I think you are arguing from facts not in evidence. For example, imagine that we take a normal red-blooded male and plop him down in a barracks full of female soldiers [sounds like a movie plot, doesn't it?]. He would want to have sex with every one of them. Almost every interaction would be colored by this desire, and sooner or later, one believes, it would manifest itself in some prohibited behavior. Yet we are supposed to believe that a gay man in a barracks full of prime male specimens would be completely circumspect and should be held above all suspicion? If that is true, then gay men and straight men are NOT more alike than are men and women, because gender-separated barracks do not have the problems that the aforementioned movie would treat (most likely with humor).

There is only one difference between the two scenarios. In the case of the male in the female barracks, he would almost immediately be found out and, if not ejected or ostracized, certainly watched with great suspicion for any untoward behaviors. In the case of the gay male in the male barracks, however, the ONLY way this would happen is if the gay male publicly announced his "difference" with the group. That single behavioral choice (NOT his inner "status") would subsequently color every interaction, and he would then be, properly, subject to the same ejection, ostracism or suspicion of other behavioral improprieties. At least under current rules.

I accept your explanation for gender segregation based on the tradition of privacy (interestingly enough, the "right of privacy" is the basis for finding a right to an abortion). But there is more to privacy than not having someone watch you shower. It is not having to be concerned about the person in the next bunk watching you bend over to tie your shoes, or what that person may be thinking about you as you sleep, or what that person might do if you decide to change clothes without going to a private area. Those simple concerns are not helpful to the mission, and in fact are disruptive of it, regardless of how small you might wish them to be. We want our soldiers guarding the front, not guarding their rear. (Sorry, couldn't resist. :-)

Aurelius:

Perhaps I was not clear, as I did not emphatically state my point: I do NOT support DADT. I do not believe that Sexual Orientation is any more relevant, in and of itself, than race, religion, or national/state origin.

I don't believe that what someone does on leave, or off base/off duty (when not in a combat zone) is germane, so long as when they are in uniform, on duty, on base/post, they conduct themselves in (what we used to call) a Military Manner.

I did indeed misunderstand you, Aurelius; my apologies!

Snowchasr:

I believe the root cause is recognition that men are fundamentally different from women... but gay men are not fundamentally different from straight men. (Nor are lesbians fundamentally different from heterosexual women.)

I think you are arguing from facts not in evidence. For example, imagine that we take a normal red-blooded male and plop him down in a barracks full of female soldiers [sounds like a movie plot, doesn't it?]. He would want to have sex with every one of them. Almost every interaction would be colored by this desire, and sooner or later, one believes, it would manifest itself in some prohibited behavior. Yet we are supposed to believe that a gay man in a barracks full of prime male specimens would be completely circumspect and should be held above all suspicion? If that is true, then gay men and straight men are NOT more alike than are men and women, because gender-separated barracks do not have the problems that the aforementioned movie would treat (most likely with humor).

I don't buy the premise of your argument: I don't believe that even a "normal red-blooded [heterosexual] male" would be so sexually obsessed with the women living around him that he would cease to think of anything else but boffing them, or even would be so altered by the thought of sex that his personality would change.

I agree it would change -- but it has almost nothing to do with sex; and the proof, which even you will acknowledge, is this: He would undergo the same personality change were he living in a barracks of elderly nuns.

His speech would become more circumspect; he would be more solicitous, more on his guard about manners, deferential to the nuns; he would dress differently, censor many things he would say in front of other men, spend his time differently. He would be unlikely to flip the television to a football game or a boxing match. He would take great care to keep his eyes on the nuns' faces, lest he be misunderstood.

In fact, when he was able to get away from the barracks to a "guys night out," he would feel a great and profound relief -- at not having constantly to be on his guard.

Of course he would change his entire demeanor; but that is because he is surrounded the the other subspecies of homo sapiens sapiens -- women.

The proof that the corollary is not true, that homosexuals are not "profoundly different" from heterosexuals, is that it's so easy for them to blend right in and escape detection, unless somebody happens to see them with a same-sex date, or they tell someone.

Even when a man is very, very well "made up" in drag and has a high voice, ten minutes interaction will out him as a male. The same is true for women trying to pass as men. Except in extraordinary cases, men and women simply cannot pass as the other sex in a situation where normal social interaction is allowed.

(On stage it's different, because there is no social interaction; anything that looks like social interaction is actually scripted.)

But the vast majority of gays cannot be distinguished from straights under normal social circumstances; they act just like other, heterosexual members of their gender.

Some gay men attempt to act like women. It's invariably painful to watch, because they just can't get it: At best, they act like some weird, male fantasy of how women might act... but they don't fool anyone.

The differences between men and women is more profound than any other group-difference except one -- the difference between the good/decent and the evil/indecent.

I accept your explanation for gender segregation based on the tradition of privacy (interestingly enough, the "right of privacy" is the basis for finding a right to an abortion).

Again, because a Court has foolishly expanded an obvious right to an inobvious -- and risible -- decision doesn't mean the original right doesn't exist.

Roe v. Wade was wrongly reasoned; it cited the right of privacy the Court previously found in Griswold v. Connecticutt -- a case over whether a married couple could be legally denied contraceptives.

In fact, Griswold was also wrongly reasoned... but still, we clearly have a right to privacy in a constitutional republic, which is why not even those who want to overturn Roe deny that there is not some zone of privacy surrounding free people (they argue about its precise boundaries, of course; but that's a different question).

Where Griswold went wrong is to enunciate a right of privacy without finding the proper and logical way to extend that to the essentially public act of buying something in a store. I think nearly every American agrees that the government has no business sticking its nose into the sexual practices of a married couple; and almost (but not quite) the same percent would extend that to the sexual practices of any group of consenting adults acting in private... that is, away from others not involved.

But wait! Isn't buying a condom a non-private act? You have to interact with at least one person, the store clerk, who is (presumably) not involved in your nocturnal adventures. This is where Griswold goes off the rails. It's true that buying a condom is not a private act; but for any right protected by the Constitution -- either directly (such as the right to keep and bear arms) or indirectly, through emanations of the penumbra of the rest of the document, such as the right of privacy -- there must also be a corresponding "transactional right"... the right to obtain any materials needed to exercise the right.

The Second Amendment says you, as an individual, have the right to keep and bear arms; but nowhere in the text does is say you have the right to obtain arms, to buy a gun or buy ammunition.

Yet you and I both would rightly argue that the right to obtain arms is the transactional right inherent in the right to keep arms... because if you are forbidden to obtain a gun, you are thus also forbidden to posses one (you can't possess what you cannot obtain).

Had the Court made this obvious (to me) distinction in Griswold, then it could not have been applied later in Roe... because while the right of privacy certainly extends to the right to decide not to have children, an abortion is not a corollary transactional right to not having children -- because there are other ways to do so without getting an abortion: contraceptives, for example, and of course abstenance.

Certainly states can prohibit some forms of transactions by which you can get what is needed to exercise your rights; for example, one way to obtain arms is to steal them -- but we prohibit that; this doesn't violate your Second Amendment rights because there are other ways of obtaining arms... through purchase (of a non-stolen gun), for example, or by being given the gun by somebody else who legally owns it.

Thus, a state should be able to prohibit one form of transaction that can help a family avoid having a child -- abortion -- so long as other forms, such as contraceptives, are still available to family planners.

But none of this abrogates the general right of privacy from government intrusion into one's most personal affairs that a nearly universal consensus of Americans accepts.

Finally, our right of privacy cannot extend so far that it interferes with somebody else's right of privacy; thus, a person has no right to prohibit a homosexual from being near him merely because the very thought of it would make him nervous. If he did have such a right, then why wouldn't he also have the right to prohibit somebody he merely suspects of being gay from being near him? That might make him just as nervous!

If you and I have a private right for government not to punish us for being heterosexual, gays have the corresponding right. So the question about gays serving openly in the military is not one of the "right of privacy" of heterosexual soldiers, because the same "right of privacy" would also apply to gay soldiers. The policy must be decided upon other grounds -- the "good order and discipline" question, the practicalities question, and the military expediency question... each of which in some ways supports gays serving openly and in other ways opposes it.

It must be a democratic (small-d) balancing act; it should not be decided by, e.g., the Supreme Court.

Dafydd

If we were to restrict the discussion to those who have actually been in the military, the conclusion
seems clear.
Why is it that people who have never served feel so qualified to change the lives of those who have?
Would all the armchair generals who don't actually know what the hell they are talking about please
leave the room? Why not go have a beer and then
tell the JCS how to run the next war, or something
else you don't know sh*t from Shinola about?
(Probably don't even know what Shinola is!)

Since a number of you have never, and never will have, served why do you even want to mess with
something so very important to the Country's security? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I claim the case has not been made that it's broken.

After all, Homosexuality was common in the Spartan culture, but I don't believe that a case can be made that it negatively affected their combat ability and unit cohesion.

Good point, are you making the case that Homosexuality would not affect combat ability and unit cohesion in Cultures where it is common?

One might assume then it would do so in Cultures where it is not common.

And ours is?

Dan Kauffman:

One might assume then it would do so in Cultures where it is not common.

And ours is?

It's a lot more common in our culture than it was even just twenty short years ago. I believe that within the next eighteen months, the policy will be changed to allow gays to serve openly, instead of secretly, in the military... the pressure by the gay lobby on the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress will become irresistable.

Readers in general:

Subsidiary question for those who oppose the change: Assuming the policy is changed, and gays can serve openly, what series of outcomes would prompt you to say, "I was wrong; gays can serve openly without disrupting good order and discipline, unit cohesion, and morale" -- ?

A related question that might be easier to answer: What possible outcomes would prompt you to say, "See? I was right all along! Openly gay men and women don't belong in the military."

To answer the first question myself (flipped, because I'm on the pro side, not the con), if gays serving openly in the military begin demanding special privileges, or if there is an increasing number of "attempted gay recruiting" incidents, or if there is any significant "rush for the door" among heterosexual members (especially career servicemen who are not yet at retirement tenure... indicating they are so unhappy they're willing to forgo full retirement benefits just to get out), then I will say, "I was wrong; the policy has weakened our military."

(At least temporarily; if the bad consequences fade and we return to the readiness and ability of today, then I will retract my retraction <g>.)

Please keep your answers realistic. (I'm searching for the boundary between the willingness to be persuaded and the eagerness to claim vindication...)

Dafydd

Dan Kauffman:

Good point, are you making the case that Homosexuality would not affect combat ability and unit cohesion in Cultures where it is common?

One might assume then it would do so in Cultures where it is not common.

Well, I would not argue that homosexuality is more common in our culture today, but it certainly is more open, to the point that several states allow same sex marriages.

I believe that 20 years from now, sexual orientation will no longer be an issue, in the same manner that race and religion are no longer issues.

Cultures change, and they can change fast. My parents were born in 1939 in rural Kentucky. Many of the things that I hear coming out of my fathers mouth are horrendous, concerning race and religion - but he has a Korean daughter in law that he adores (since my brother is on Caucasian wife #3) and two half Korean grand children. Some of his tight circle of friends are black, or catholic. I often wonder if he realizes the disconnect between his life and some of his hard wired attitudes and opinions.

I mean no disrespect to my father in this, but think it is a snapshot of just how quickly culture can evolve.

One observation that I have heard, and seems demonstrably true, is that we have less in common with our Grand Parents, than they have in common with all generations who lived before them... And the current generation will have less in common with us, than we have with our grandparents.

When waves of Irish came to this country in the 19th century, the were treated little better than blacks. Now they are one of the cores of the nation, in some areas represented in the Fire and Police services far out of proportion to their population. And we have a (half) Black President - something utterly unthinkable less than 50 years ago. In fact, blacks were not fully integrated in the military until 1948.

Of course, like Dafydd, I am willing to admit I was wrong, if dropping DADT does have large scale negative, and lasting effects. But right now, we are losing (or dissuading from joining) a pool of talented individuals, at a time that the pool of available, fit, willing citizens is becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of the population.

Dafydd wrote:

if gays serving openly in the military begin demanding special privileges

What if it's not gays in the military, but ones outside of it who demand special privileges for gay service members, and they are successful? Where does that fall on your scale?

Aurelius wrote:

But right now, we are losing (or dissuading from joining) a pool of talented individuals, at a time that the pool of available, fit, willing citizens is becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of the population.

I don't think the facts support your statement; the US Army had a year-end recruiting shortfall only one year of the last ten, and the Marine Corps had such a recruiting surplus that they expanded by 20,000 people (a 10% increase in end-strength) in only three years, instead of the five that were planned. To say nothing of the fact that even when the Army lowered its percentage of high school graduates in new recruits, the reduced percentage was still considerably above the national average for recruit age groups, and none of the other services have significantly changed their entrance requirements since 2001. In FY 2008, most military branches are receiving so many reenlistments that they're reducing or eliminating most reenlistment bonuses.

2009 Recruiting (through May)
2008 Recruiting
2007 Recruiting
2006 Recruiting
2005 Recruiting (PDF, scroll down to tables at the end)
2004 Recruiting
2003 Recruiting (partial)

"Would the integration have gone as smoothly had the African Americans been the Black Power/separatist/highly political blacks of the 60's, 70's, as opposed to the integrationist/apolitical blacks of the 40's, 50's?"

"Again, this is comparing apples to apes. If some militant gay activist constantly flaunts his homosexual activities and tries to "recruit" every guy he sees, or sexually bullies others, then discharge him. But at the same time, discharge a heterosexual swinger who grabs every female soldier he sees without regard for consent, or time and place.

Not comparing apples to apes. As I understand it, your heterosexual swinger would be discharged, for sexual harassment, or for example adultery, among other things. And the experience black integration into the military versus gay integration is a subject that is constantly being brought up by gays and their supporters. Oh, and it wasn't an issue of "fairness", it was an issue on manpower.

If there is a need to announce one's sexuality, is that an admission that the issue of one's sexuality is of greater import then any other factor?

Mdgiles, have you ever once mentioned to anyone that you had a loved one? Have you ever once let slip, in any way, that person's gender?

Congratulations, you're "openly heterosexual." Now we can discharge you from the military.

Dafydd

Yes, but then again I don't first and foremost, describe myself, by my sexual preference. That fact alone, should raise the question of how central that fact is to someone's identity and/or their expected behavior. Just as it would, were someone to describe themselves by a particular religious group. Would the fact that someone described themselves as Muslim, before anything else, raise a red flag. Yes, it's "unfair" that someone can be discharged for letting slip that their significant other is of the "wrong" sex. But the military doesn't have zilch point squat to do with "fairness". It's all about whether a certain policy decision, does or does not serve the primary duty of the armed services, which is the protection of this country. If the argument is going to be made about gays in the military, it should be made on the basis of how it affects the military. Period. Not on how "fair" or "unfair" it is.

BTW, do you or do you not believe that there are activists - probably on both sides of the issue - who won't attempt to use this as a "wedge" issue?

A point before I go on to the rest of my favorite blogs.

In the military I used to be in, if the soldier was good and the unit was tight - especially if they had been in a few firefights together - everyone would have suffered hearing loss when the gay soldier made his "slip" about the sex of his significant other. I can't imagine a CO getting rid of a good man/woman unless that man/woman made an issue of it. OTOH, were that man/woman a complete sh*tbird, the CO would use almost any reason to offload them.

Binder:

What if it's not gays in the military, but ones outside of it who demand special privileges for gay service members, and they are successful? Where does that fall on your scale?

It doesn't reach the issue at all, because it's an externality; by the same token, were Obama to institute racial-preference "affirmative action" within the military, that would not mean that it was a mistake for Truman to integrate the troops.

Mdgiles:

Yes, but then again I don't first and foremost, describe myself, by my sexual preference. That fact alone, should raise the question of how central that fact is to someone's identity and/or their expected behavior.

MD, I'm not talking about gays who walk up and introduce themselves by saying, "Hi, I'm Ralph, and I'm gay!" My concern is for a gay serviceman who doesn't make a point of announcing his sexual preference... but who forgets one day to say "my girlfriend and I," and accidentally let's slip "my boyfriend and I." That cannot be described as "first and foremost, describ[ing oneself], by [one's] sexual preference."

I mean soldiers, sailors, etc. who don't see their sexuality as pertinent to their ability to fight for their country, who keep their sex life private -- but who are involuntarily discharged from the military for reasons other than flamboyant or activist gay identity.

I cannot understand why a sailor who talks incessantly about the ten or fifteen Subic Bay whores he "satisfied" last time he was on shore leave cannot be discharged for that... but a sailor who is seen off base, not in uniform, at a private party kissing his boyfriend can be and will be discharged.

The only explanation is the belief that homosexual feelings themselves are evil and deviant and must be stamped out, no matter who is hurt -- not just the serviceman himself but the service as well: In many cases, we discharge valuable, long-term, extremely competent, loyal and loyalty-inspiring members, even highly respected COs whose troops may even be aware he is gay -- and they don't care.

And for what? Because now that it's in the open, some overly sensitive plant in the first week of his first deployment is afraid that Major Jones might be, like, you know, checking him out?

Ye flipping gods. On top of everything else, this is such an adolescent policy. It's like some easily embarassed, middle-school kid in gym class worrying that somebody might be looking at his pinky-sized weenie in the shower.

But the military doesn't have zilch point squat to do with "fairness".

That's simply not true; fundamental fairness and justice is integral to a functioning military in a free country.

Imagine this: The platoon has a couple of sadistic gang bangers in it; they keep jumping other platoon members, ordering the victims to do the thugs'work for them, and beating them if they don't obey.

Then the sergeant -- a pal from the same hood as the bangers -- comes along, sees the beaten victim lying on the ground... and sends him to NJP for sleeping on duty.

A patently unfair situation. Do you think that might in some way affect the good order, discipline, and morale of that platoon?

Basic fairness most certainly does play a very big role in the military; that's why we have a JAG corps.

Back during the dark days of Vietnam, our military fell into terrible disrepute among the American population; and even within the service, drug use was rampant, and in many cases (My Lai, for example) we most assuredly did not have good order, discipline, professionalism, or high morale.

I believe one major reason for this was the perception -- right or wrong, but in many cases absolutely right -- that we were not treating the indiginous civilians fairly, that we saw them as animals whose deaths may be moderately regrettable, but were ultimately of no account. Another was the fundamental unfairness of drafting unwilling civilians to fight in what was perceived (wrongly) as a war of colonial aggression.

It nearly broke our military; and in the end, it gave a leftist, anti-military Congress the cover it needed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, turning military success (after we dramatically changed tactics) into colossal political failure. The Left has dined out on Vietnam (and all the "evil" that still represents in the minds of a majority of Americans) ever since; only our performance in Desert Storm, and especially in Iraq and Afghanistan has started to rehabilitate the reputation of the military among civilians... many of whom have loved ones or friends who have served and who can testify to the decency, fairness, and good-heartedness of the latter two wars.

Fairness always matters within the American military for two very big reasons:

• Even our professional soldiers see themselves as part of the fabric of our society; they truly believe they are fighting on God's side, fighting for truth, justice, and the American way. If you break that bond, if they cease to believe in the fundamental decency, goodness, and fairness (justice) of the American military, the quality of enlistees will plummet. We'll go from the world's greatest all-volunteer military -- to a vicious band of mercs, as in Russia and the Arab states, or career civil servants, as in most of Western Europe.
• Our military is completely, utterly under the control and command of our civilian government; if that government perceives the military as breaking that bond -- even if the servicemen themselves don't agree -- then the government is going to take drastic action to "rein in" the military... and that can lead, as in Vietnam, to catastrophe.

We must at all times maintain the highest levels of conduct and decency. When we do something that seems awful (like bombing a mosque full of "human shields" in order to get some truly dangerous terrorists), we must be able to enunciate a clear and convincing reason why it was necessary, and we must also be able to draw upon a reservoir of good will among the American people, because they believe we're not like the Russians in Chechnya or the Belgians in the Congo; we're not just inhumane killing machines.

For a long time, nobody gave a rip that blacks in the military were treated as an inferior race; that's because that same view was widespread within America itself (and every other country in the world, including in Africa). But as that position shifted radically in the wake of World War II -- the revelation of the Nazi death camps made racism somewhat unfashionable in polite society -- we absolutely had to integrate the troops, or we risked having the civilian populace hate and despise its own military.

Today, the belief that gays should not be discriminated against is probably 50-50 among the civilian populace, and the trajectory is upward. (That's why I'm worried that they may mistake same-sex marriage for "fairness," rather than the destruction of the foundational virtue of marriage itself.) Pressure is mounting to stop the discharges, and not just from gay activists and assorted liberal granola.

If we ignore this issue of "fundamental fairness," if we, in essence, laugh in the faces of the American people and tell them, "It's a military thing -- you wouldn't understand," then we risk alienating the very people we rely upon to fill the ranks, to support the troops, and to defend the institution from a government that is often hostile to the very idea of "militarism" (as we have right this very minute).

BTW, do you or do you not believe that there are activists - probably on both sides of the issue - who won't attempt to use this as a "wedge" issue?

They will, and they already do.

In the military I used to be in, if the soldier was good and the unit was tight - especially if they had been in a few firefights together - everyone would have suffered hearing loss when the gay soldier made his "slip" about the sex of his significant other. I can't imagine a CO getting rid of a good man/woman unless that man/woman made an issue of it. OTOH, were that man/woman a complete sh*tbird, the CO would use almost any reason to offload them.

So it is today as well... but, what if one guy in the unit, even a complete "sh*tbird" himself, has a grudge (even an imaginary one) against the gay soldier. Sadly, under the current law, that's all it takes -- unless the gay soldier is willing to lie under oath and say he's straight.

That is a ghastly position to put him in, as is the initial oath of enlistment, which forces him to choose between either being dishonest or not being in the military. It's as if you had to sign an oath in order to enlist stating that you did not believe in Islam. Do you think that would have no consequences on the smooth functioning of our military, or on its continued support by the citizens of America?

Could we sustain such a policy -- even if we say it's for the sake of "good order and discipline?"

Dafydd

All of youse:

By the way, let me expand and clarify upon earlier remarks. When I said homosexuality was more "common" today than before, I did not mean that a larger percent of the population was gay. I meant that gayness itself is more accepted... it's not generally considered the freakish aberration it once was.

Throughout wide swaths of American culture, the revelation that Fred or Linda is gay elicits a raised eyebrow but nothing more; whereas it used to elicit hushed whispers, clandestine neighborhood meetings, outright shunning, and often hooded beatings.

I mean it's more commonplace, not more frequent.

Dafydd

He would undergo the same personality change were he living in a barracks of elderly nuns.

His speech would become more circumspect; he would be more solicitous, more on his guard about manners, deferential to the nuns; he would dress differently, ...

The proof that the corollary is not true, that homosexuals are not "profoundly different" from heterosexuals, is that it's so easy for them to blend right in and escape detection, unless somebody happens to see them with a same-sex date, or they tell someone.

Even when a man is very, very well "made up" in drag and has a high voice, ten minutes interaction will out him as a male.

I believe you have made my point precisely. One cannot pose as the opposite gender easily or at all. The resulting conflict would border on intolerable, which is precisely why we have gender separation. But sexual orientation is "invisible," almost by definition, unless it becomes OPEN, at which point many of the same conflicts-- privacy issues, "comfort" issues-- start to occur.

I disagree with you about the nuns, by the way. Though the male in this case would, by your own admission, quickly be discovered, it would be the NUNS who were discomfited by his presence. Your sympathies seem to be with the male and about his discomfort and difficulty in attempting to avoid discovery, when he (assumed in this case) put himself into the situation. Your argument suggests we should go back to excluding gays entirely, since they would have to "change their ways" to fit in. To suggest they serve openly is to put the onus on the majority to accommodate the minority. The question is what advantage there would be to this disruptive situation.

My guess is that if the policy changes, you won't notice the difference, because Obama seems determined not to use the military to defend the country, anyway. There is a possibility that, by the time a new President DOES have the desire and necessity of doing so, gays will have become sufficiently well-accepted in the general society (though not necessarily in the ranks of the military) to perform within some reasonable degree of what we would expect of them. The effects will be small: More soldiers killed, taking longer to win a battle or war, more civilian deaths, nothing to be concerned about, so long as we are "fair" to a group that chooses their own group identity above the good of the unit. THAT is what you are suggesting. Now, if you want to change the rule to say "Don't Ask, don't make a point of it" or some such, where a small slip of the lip wouldn't be a major issue, it might be all right. "Openly" gay covers a wide range of behaviors, ranging from a slip of the lip to flaming faggotry. Where would you draw the line, if you draw one at all?

Snochasr:

I don't think you're reading what I'm saying with sufficient attentiveness.

My analogy of the man in the barracks surrounded by nuns has nothing to do with him trying to hide himself among them, to "pose as the opposite gender," or any fear that he will be "discovered;" you have conflated two disparate points.

My only point with the nuns is that the behavioral changes he undergoes are due to being surrounded by women -- any women -- not merely being surrounded by people (male or female) who might conceivably be physically attracted to him.

My point is precisely that it's not the possibility of sexual attraction that creates the tension -- it's the presence of the other sex, even when sexual attraction is no issue at all.

Consequently, when you write, "I believe you have made my point precisely," it's only because you have mistaken my point.

Next, the idea that gays are inherently incapable of performing up to standard as soldiers is odd, to say the least. Finally, so is your assumption that every homosexual is gay first and everything else second; that sure doesn't match my experience with gay friends.

Dafydd

My only point with the nuns is that the behavioral changes he undergoes are due to being surrounded by women -- any women -- not merely being surrounded by people (male or female) who might conceivably be physically attracted to him.

Point taken, but I still disagree. First, because nuns aren't supposed to by physically attracted to him, for purposes of this discussion (and, one would hope, because of better self-control), but the reason his presence would be objectionable is because of the suspicion he would be physically attracted to them. "He's a man, isn't he?" Again, the only difference between this and what you propose is because the homosexual is of the same gender and CAN avoid detection, so long as he adapts his behavior to the norm. Why would you NOT want this adaptation to take place? It's what "unit cohesion" IS, isn't it? Let one person be openly different, and you have one person openly different, regardless of how.

Next, the idea that gays are inherently incapable of performing up to standard as soldiers is odd, to say the least.

I can only believe you have misread my point. It was not that an individual gay soldier was below par at performing the mission, but that the individual soldier's impact on the unit as a whole would be harmful to the mission. I would expect such impact to range from sizable down to almost negligible, depending on the unit, and depending upon the degree of "gayness" of the individual. "Don't tell," as I said, covers a wide range of potential behaviors.

Finally, so is your assumption that every homosexual is gay first and everything else second; that sure doesn't match my experience with gay friends.

But I did not say that every homosexual was gay first, and neither would you. What you said is that we should have a universal, one-size-fits-all policy of allowing "openly gay" soldiers to serve. I would wager that at least some of your gay friends would not want to be as "openly gay" as some others might be under this policy. If you are going to allow something, you have to establish what the limits of it are before you can say it has no deleterious effect. For example, would a male recruit who stepped out of the head in a red sequined cocktail dress, blonde wig and heels for a night on the town (off post, off duty) be considered out of line?

MD, I'm not talking about gays who walk up and introduce themselves by saying, "Hi, I'm Ralph, and I'm gay!"

And their are absolutely no gays, who make a point of the fact that they are gay?

My concern is for a gay serviceman who doesn't make a point of announcing his sexual preference... but who forgets one day to say "my girlfriend and I," and accidentally let's slip "my boyfriend and I." That cannot be described as "first and foremost, [describing oneself], by [one's] sexual preference."

I mean soldiers, sailors, etc. who don't see their sexuality as pertinent to their ability to fight for their country, who keep their sex life private -- but who are involuntarily discharged from the military for reasons other than flamboyant or activist gay identity.

I cannot understand why a sailor who talks incessantly about the ten or fifteen Subic Bay whores he "satisfied" last time he was on shore leave cannot be discharged for that... but a sailor who is seen off base, not in uniform, at a private party kissing his boyfriend can be and will be discharged.

I would venture to guess that you have never been in the service. Because you keep coming at the question from a "civilian" angle. It's not right and/or fair that everyone not be allowed to serve their country. However the military makes that type of decision constantly. Is it "unfair" that a seven footer can't enter the service, and if somehow he does enter, won't be assigned to pilot training? Is that a reflection of some failure on the part of the seven footer? Should the military buy special planes to fit out sized members? With the exception of certain acts (war crimes for example) everything else in the military boils down to the mission. Above I noted the difference between blacks in the 40's/50's and blacks in the 60's and 70's. Had the military been integrated with the later group, and this lead to major disruption in the military the military probably would have - and more importantly, should have - been re-segregated. Being black, I would have hated that outcome. But having been in the military, I understand that a military more interested in fighting each other, rather than the enemy, is useless.

That's simply not true; fundamental fairness and justice is integral to a functioning military in a free country.

You confuse "fairness" with discipline and good order. The military is only "fair" so far as it serves their purposes. It may not be fair to continually send the same people to perform a certain task, but if you are the best people for the job, you will be sent. The idea that it's "somebody else's turn" won't even occur to whoever is sending you. Haven't worn the uniform in 30 years, but I do remember that complaining that it was the "other squad's turn" to take out the night patrol didn't get to far.

Couple of things. First, I don't think the military is the place to conduct social experiments. Second, I believe that much of the support for, lack of a better phrase, "gay rights" in the general population is shallow. It's predicated not only on the "different strokes, for different folks" belief system, but on the "whatever you do out in San Francisco is just fine - in San Francisco"idea. Life in the military doesn't allow for that attitudinal nor geographic separation. Which may be a problem.

For a long time, nobody gave a rip that blacks in the military were treated as an inferior race; that's because that same view was widespread within America itself (and every other country in the world, including in Africa). But as that position shifted radically in the wake of World War II -- the revelation of the Nazi death camps made racism somewhat unfashionable in polite society -- we absolutely had to integrate the troops, or we risked having the civilian populace hate and despise its own military.

Integration of the military had more to do with manpower, then any feelings about righting social wrongs. Or did the March on Washington, Selma, Birmingham, et al, happen in the forties. And the only thing they would "hate and despise" about the military is that their little white Johnny got drafted, and our little black Jackie didn't. They didn't suddenly start to love blacks, they simply decided that we could stop a bullet as well as the next guy.

Today, the belief that gays should not be discriminated against is probably 50-50 among the civilian populace, and the trajectory is upward. (That's why I'm worried that they may mistake same-sex marriage for "fairness," rather than the destruction of the foundational virtue of marriage itself.) Pressure is mounting to stop the discharges, and not just from gay activists and assorted liberal granola.

The military routinely discriminates on any number of different grounds. Age, height, weight, vision, etc. etc.. You keep referring to this as if it were a question of gays not being allowed to eat at a lunch counter. You need to get the idea of "fair" out of your head. It isn't about fair, it's about what best serves the needs of the military, in accomplishing their mission - our protection. And we are talking about a situation where if the military gets it wrong, people - and perhaps even our country - may die. No back to the drawing board, No oops.

Question. How would you feel about a situation where gays are allowed to serve openly, and the enlistment and retention rates dropped through the floor? Would you be in favor of reversing the policy?

Snochasr:

My only point with the nuns is that the behavioral changes he undergoes are due to being surrounded by women -- any women -- not merely being surrounded by people (male or female) who might conceivably be physically attracted to him.

Point taken, but I still disagree. First, because nuns aren't supposed to by physically attracted to him, for purposes of this discussion (and, one would hope, because of better self-control), but the reason his presence would be objectionable is because of the suspicion he would be physically attracted to them.

Snochasr, you still don't understand the analogy, and I think I know why: You believe I am saying "one gay among a bunch of straights is like one man among a bunch of women." That may be the analogy you want to make, but that is not what I am saying.

My point is that the differences between straight men and gay men are insignificant compared to the differences between men of any sexual preference and women -- in all cases speaking as a class.

(The differences among individual members of each class are even more striking, of course; and I have no objection to individuals of any class being discharged if they personally degrade unit functioning by their personal actions.)

Let's call the class of all gay men G, the class of all straight men S, the class of all men of any kind M, and the class of all women W. My point is that the differences between G and S are miniscule compared to the differences between M and W. I was demonstrating the inappropriateness of the analogy that says, because we segregate W from M, that means we must segregate G from S.

The claim was that we segregate W from M precisely because most members of W are sexually attracted to members of M and vice versa. Not so, I argue; we segregate W from M because of inherent differences between them so great that they transcend sexual attraction, forcing major behavior changes even when sex is not an issue.

That was the point of my analogy.

For example, even when m, a member of M, is surrounded by members of W who are not attracted to m (and m knows that), and m is not attracted to those particular members of W, nevertheless, m still experiences major behavioral changes due to the presence of W.

Therefore, in addition to any issues of sexual attraction, there is a deeper underlying distinction between M and W in general. But that deeper underlying distinction does not exist between G and S... because the only difference is whether they are attracted to men or to women (in general).

You may argue that's still enough of a difference to warrant segregation, but that's not inherently obvious. And in any event, it cannot be proven by pointing to the segregation of W from M.

[Snochasr's point] was not that an individual gay soldier was below par at performing the mission, but that the individual soldier's impact on the unit as a whole would be harmful to the mission.

This is an assertion, Snochasr; but we have a wealth of evidence in other countries that recently allowed gays to serve openly in their military, including such very strong militaries as the United Kingdom's and Israel's. Can you not find even a single example among all these countries where degredation of military effectiveness occurred as a result of allowing gays, previously serving covertly, to serve openly instead?

I suppose not -- because the only argument advanced against these examples is that, because they're "foreign," we're not allowed to bring them up. After all, what can events in a foreign country possibly tell us about America?

Of course, the same people make precisely the opposite argument anent government-run health care: They point to its failure in Britain, Canada, Japan, and many other foreign countries as strong evidence -- which it is! -- that it would fail here as well.

I insist upon consistency: If the manifest failure of socialized, government-run health care in other countries tells us that it will almost certainly fail here as well -- then the seeming success of allowing gays to serve openly in the military in other countries would at least be significant evidence in favor of the proposition here.

In other words, you actually must deal with the evidence, not rule it out of order: Show me some example of a foreign country that allowed gays to serve openly -- and subsequently (and causally) saw a drop in its military capability.

Argument by Repeated Assertion is not very convincing.

I would wager that at least some of your gay friends would not want to be as "openly gay" as some others might be under this policy.

Absolutely.

If you are going to allow something, you have to establish what the limits of it are before you can say it has no deleterious effect.

Absolutely.

For example, would a male recruit who stepped out of the head in a red sequined cocktail dress, blonde wig and heels for a night on the town (off post, off duty) be considered out of line?

Absolutely... as would a heterosexual recruit who brought a couple of chippies back to the barracks to continue his carnal carnival.

Here is your misapprehension:

What you said is that we should have a universal, one-size-fits-all policy of allowing "openly gay" soldiers to serve.

Absolutely not: I said we should not have a universal, one-size-fits-all policy of forbidding openly gay soldiers from serving; the onus should always be on the individual serviceman to comport himself in a military manner. I said that whether a serviceman is allowed to serve should depend upon the particular behavior of that serviceman -- not upon the behavior of other servicemen who can be considered members of the same "category" as the first:

• I don't believe that Adbul should be discharged because Mahmoud turned out to be a terrorist, merely because both are also Moslems.
• I don't believe that Jack should be discharged because he is black, just like Theodore... who is in addition a black activist agitator who brings the entire training program to a halt by his incessant complaints.
• And I don't believe that Pete -- who is openly gay but not in the least flamboyent, simply does his job, and doesn't shove his sexuality into other people's faces, though he will not lie about it if directly asked -- should be discharged because Ralph, another openly gay serviceman, is a screamer who disrupts the entire unit by his antics.

I have no obection to Mahmoud, Theodore, and Ralph being discharged.

Dafydd

Mdgiles:

[Y]ou keep coming at the question from a "civilian" angle. It's not right and/or fair that everyone not be allowed to serve their country. However the military makes that type of decision constantly. Is it "unfair" that a seven footer can't enter the service, and if somehow he does enter, won't be assigned to pilot training? Is that a reflection of some failure on the part of the seven footer? Should the military buy special planes to fit out sized members?

This is a false analogy and a straw man. Too-Tall Paul is denied pilot training because he is physically incapable of doing so (can't fit into the cockpit)... just as would a normal-sized person whose vision was only 20-21.

But imagine he had all the same physical qualifications as other aviators... but he is denied pilot training because he graduated from UCLA -- and one of the aviation training brass at CNET is from USC, and has always believed people from UCLA are inferior and make bad aviators. Would you defend that decision as well?

More to the point, is it best for the military that people in charge makes decisions on that basis? Suppose we discover that the best and most successful combat pilot in a squad is actually gay... but he has been so circumspect that nobody realized it until now.

Is it really in the best interests of the military that he be discharged, even if that leads to more deaths on the ground or in the air due to the lack of such a good pilot?

It may not be fair to continually send the same people to perform a certain task, but if you are the best people for the job, you will be sent. The idea that it's "somebody else's turn" won't even occur to whoever is sending you.

Suppose that is demonstrably not the reason. Suppose, for example, that for the most dangerous missions, the colonel always sends out a squad composed entirely of Jews, leading to a wildly disproportionate casualty rate among Jews compared to Christians. Suppose no outsider reviewing these decisions can find any reason why it's always Jews -- other than the obvious one.

(It needn't even betoken malice; suppose his racial prejudice causes him to believe that Jews make better soldiers than gentiles.)

If the Jews in the regiment complain that they're being systematically killed off or wounded out of the unit -- is this reason to punish them for disrupting the "good order and discipline" of the regiment and "making trouble?"

First, I don't think the military is the place to conduct social experiments.

But we are conducting precisely such a "social experiment" right now -- whether a normally invisible group of people can be effectively banned from service -- and it's failing miserably: Rather than disappearing from service, they are serving covertly... leaving them open to discharge, no matter how successful and useful to the service they have been and no matter how many years they have served... as well as making them vulnerable to blackmail.

I suggest that we call off this failed attempt at purging our military of supposed sexual deviants whose only underlying crime is being attracted to the wrong sex. I suggest we stop the increasingly draconian attempts to command the tides; even King Canute knew better.

Integration of the military had more to do with manpower, then any feelings about righting social wrongs.

Either you misunderstand Truman's integration or I do; but I'm quite certain that we already had black troops in the military going back at least as far as the Civil War. The problem was not that blacks were disallowed enlistment; it's that the units were segregated by race: That is, black soldiers fought in all-black units, while white soldiers fought in all-white units.

What President Truman did was to integrate those units, so that blacks and whites fought side by side.

They didn't suddenly start to love blacks, they simply decided that we could stop a bullet as well as the next guy.

Oh believe me, the racists always knew that. They typically sent the "buffalo soldiers" in first, which is why they suffered disproportionate casualties compared to white units.

How would you feel about a situation where gays are allowed to serve openly, and the enlistment and retention rates dropped through the floor? Would you be in favor of reversing the policy?

Asked and answered. I said yes, I would.

Dafydd

Can you not find even a single example among all these countries where degredation of military effectiveness occurred as a result of allowing gays, previously serving covertly, to serve openly instead?

How would anyone know? We do not have an Olympic competition for war-fighting ability, and the fog of war is such that a 10% reduction, say, in unit efficiency would easily be lost. Not only do we need to understand beforehand how any proposed change might reasonably effect this efficiency, but it is imperative that we do so because, if we don't, too many good people die and not enough bad people do. Even if it is just one.

This is entirely consistent with the "conservative" position on health care, because we can predict what would happen if the government ran it, and all the foreign experience does is to confirm it. That there may be some "good things" about it does not change the desirability of it overall, and does not oblige us to conduct a test to see if we can do it better because, even if we do, good people will die. The price of the experiment is not acceptable when there is a reasonable belief that the huge downsides outweigh the small benefits.

I'm still puzzled why you are so concerned for those who have to "change their behavior" when you say there is such a small difference in their behavior-- between G and S on average-- that it doesn't matter and they can "fit in" so easily. If they are not interested in "pushing the issue" of their sexuality, again which you say is common and I would agree, they no doubt prefer not to reveal it, and their squad-mates prefer they not reveal it, so why should we "permit" them to reveal it? What exactly is gained, beyond the possibility that "the line" will be more difficult to define, leading to inevitable side effects that we fail to prevent while we "experiment."

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)