Don't Ask....Don't Tell. Good Policy?

[jfrog]

The military not asking and not requiring someone to tell their sexual preference is not a problem. I think we all can at least agree there.

The real question is should the military be allowed to ban openly gay men from being in the military? The answer is yes, iff certain conditions exist that would hinder the military from doing its job if it allowed openly gay men.

Notice that the question isn't whether gay men can serve in the military. There is no doubt that a gay man can serve as evidenced by the don't ask don't tell policy. The military doesn't care if a person is gay. It only cares if the person is openly gay.

So getting back to the question: what problems would having an openly gay man/men create in the current military that might hinder the military from fulfilling its job?

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I wasn't mentioning "protection of homosexual men" as an argument from anyone but me. When I consider the issue, I fear for the lives and wellbeing of homosexual men who might be outed, or for those who might be so idealistic as to think coming out of the closet will have no consequences. I don't see how that's disingenuous in any way; it's just a concern.

Per your reference to civil rights: you're illustrating my point. There were a lot of lives lost in that fight.

Was it worth it? What would the homosexual community think about that?

MB, I sincerely believe it's a concern, but I don't believe it's anyone's chief concern. Call me cynical I guess.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by jfrog

The military not asking and not requiring someone to tell their sexual preference is not a problem. I think we all can at least agree there.

The real question is should the military be allowed to ban openly gay men from being in the military? The answer is yes, iff certain conditions exist that would hinder the military from doing its job if it allowed openly gay men.

Notice that the question isn't whether gay men can serve in the military. There is no doubt that a gay man can serve as evidenced by the don't ask don't tell policy. The military doesn't care if a person is gay. It only cares if the person is openly gay.

So getting back to the question: what problems would having an openly gay man/men create in the current military that might hinder the military from fulfilling its job?

I can follow your argument, and I mostly agree.

To your final question -- I would add that changing procedures isn't necessarily a bad thing. I also think this isn't a question of "is there ANY hindrance" as much of "what overall effect?" Because the fact is, we can't wage ethical wars on the grounds of not wanting to stir things up, can we? Any revolution, change, etc comes with resistance and there's always a price to pay.

[Twisp]

There really isn't a good reason to keep homosexuals out of the military. They can do just as good a job as a heterosexual can and can have all of the qualifications and abilities a heterosexual can. It is just discrimination to not allow them to serve.

Now, to try and answer Prax's point that he always brings up during discussions such as this:

Allowing gay men and straight men to shower together would be a tricky issue. As I see it, they already shower together as it is. I do not think they would have any more "shower" related issues if they were open about their sexual preference than they do now, being closed about their sexual preference.

If straight military men were to raise concerns about it, which they legitimately could, then separate showers could be set up for heterosexual men and homosexual men. That would obviously take care of most concerns.

However, I doubt it would be much of an issue. As has been mentioned on AFF before, there are already homosexual men in the military. They shower with heterosexual men as it is. I doubt a separate shower will be necessary, or even requested.

If there were a large number of incidents warranting a separate shower, then that is obviously the way to resolve most issues.

Everything I said can be applied to homosexual women in the military also.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Twisp

There really isn't a good reason to keep homosexuals out of the military. They can do just as good a job as a heterosexual can and can have all of the qualifications and abilities a heterosexual can. It is just discrimination to not allow them to serve.

Now, to try and answer Prax's point that he always brings up during discussions such as this:

Allowing gay men and straight men to shower together would be a tricky issue. As I see it, they already shower together as it is. I do not think they would have any more "shower" related issues if they were open about their sexual preference than they do now, being closed about their sexual preference.

If straight military men were to raise concerns about it, which they legitimately could, then separate showers could be set up for heterosexual men and homosexual men. That would obviously take care of most concerns.

However, I doubt it would be much of an issue. As has been mentioned on AFF before, there are already homosexual men in the military. They shower with heterosexual men as it is. I doubt a separate shower will be necessary, or even requested.

If there were a large number of incidents warranting a separate shower, then that is obviously the way to resolve most issues.

Everything I said can be applied to homosexual women in the military also.

Twisp I believe the showers only give one example of everyday sensitivities. That camaraderie enjoyed by soldiers is that of a brotherhood. To start having separate showers and to have to court sexual harassment complaints can certainly change the entire face of the military. For the good? Or for the worse?

To me, the issue would also not be those who are "out" (though that most certainly is an issue -- I'm not a homophobe, but I'd find it inappropriate to undress in front of a man who is attracted to men), but the suspicious environment turning people to major sensitivities. What about foxholes? Sharing bunks? There's much to think about IMO.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by jfrog

So getting back to the question: what problems would having an openly gay man/men create in the current military that might hinder the military from fulfilling its job?

There has not been enough time for the culture of the military to change to allow gays to serve openly. The risk of a lack of civility towards homosexuals serving openly right now makes this decision a disaster waiting to happen-- over and over again.


I am flat against homosexuals serving openly in the military.

Gates has said that he thinks the policy should change, over time.

The President thnks Congress should make the decision, where they will propose a method of change over a period of time.


The danger of letting this judge's ruling stand is the culture shock that will be created when the first notciceably prissy guy decides he wants to be an Infantryman. It would be a very bad day for EVERYONE involved.

I know there are people who look at Israel's military and the success they have with letting gays serve openly in their forces. I know there are people who believe that it's America's time to change.

When these people start making decisions that will affect the nation based off of their personal beliefs, I hope they take responsibility when their idealistic way of looking at the world fails and innocent people are hurt.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Twisp I believe the showers only give one example of everyday sensitivities. That camaraderie enjoyed by soldiers is that of a brotherhood. To start having separate showers and to have to court sexual harassment complaints can certainly change the entire face of the military. For the good? Or for the worse?

To me, the issue would also not be those who are "out" (though that most certainly is an issue -- I'm not a homophobe, but I'd find it inappropriate to undress in front of a man who is attracted to men), but the suspicious environment turning people to major sensitivities. What about foxholes? Sharing bunks? There's much to think about IMO.

I agree with that, camaraderie, foxholes, the whole nine yards.

However, it could be a legitimate concern in the future. It is highly unlikely that it will be, but the possibility it there.

I do not think they need to automatically institute separate showers, but that is a possibility that has to be looked at in response to possible issues.

I WILL SAY...

I have worked with many homosexuals, and in my personal experience, a homosexual man will not come onto a heterosexual man they way a heterosexual man will come onto a woman. They might come onto a homosexual man, but I have never seen any homosexual man come on to a heterosexual man.

As I said, I don't think it will be an issue.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Twisp

I agree with that, camaraderie, foxholes, the whole nine yards.

However, it could be a legitimate concern in the future. It is highly unlikely that it will be, but the possibility it there.

I do not think they need to automatically institute separate showers, but that is a possibility that has to be looked at in response to possible issues.

I WILL SAY...

I have worked with many homosexuals, and in my personal experience, a homosexual man will not come onto a heterosexual man they way a heterosexual man will come onto a woman. They might come onto a homosexual man, but I have never seen any homosexual man come on to a heterosexual man.

As I said, I don't think it will be an issue.

Very true. My gay friends tell me they know each other very well. I'd be interested to hear the input, here, of a person who is gay. Of course, in the past, they've not lasted very long on this forum, unfortunately.

[notofworks]

Hey, I couldn't get the forum to work for a few minutes. Did someone say something bad about Lee Stoneking?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by notofworks

There is a swirl of activity in the courts recently concerning the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

But in general, what do you think of gays in the military? Should they be allowed in? If not, why? What is the basis for prohibiting them? I would especially be interested in hearing from military or ex-military people.

The issue is not about identity, it is about "conduct".

We already know that studies show that men having sex with men have a 50% higher chance than heterosexual men of HIV infection.

It creates financial problems which the taxpayers will be paying for through military and veterans programs for the rest of the infected person's life.

It creates a readiness problem as you cannot deploy nor discharge a person with HIV.

It creates a health risk problem to other service members who may need to receive blood transfusions on the battlefield.

It's incompatible with military service - period.