Gays in the military

[Riley259]

Does anyone know the official reasons why gays aren’t publicly and overtly allowed in the military? I’m assuming this would include celibate people with same-sex attraction as well. Is it based on morality or is it a practical reason such as the possibility of unwanted attraction in an all male environment for example? I’d appreciate some insight.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

I think it is goes against the stereotypical “hard, strong solider” when using both the stereotypes of a solider and a same-gender preference person. They appear to be “weaklings” in this case based on those stereotypes.

 

[Riley259]

I think it is goes against the stereotypical “hard, strong solider” when using both the stereotypes of a solider and a same-gender preference person. They appear to be “weaklings” in this case based on those stereotypes.

But women are in the military and lesbian women in particular often fulfill the stereotype of the “tomboy”, a more masculine version of your typical female…how does that fit the weakling model?

 

[mlchance]

Openly homosexual persons are prohibited from serving in the military. Used to be, prior to President Clinton, the “openly” qualifier wasn’t applicable. The reasons were:

1. Homosexual behavior is immoral, and is thus outlawed under the UCMJ just as is adultery, for example.
2. Homosexual behavior bears serious social stigma which makes those who clandestinely engage in such behavior more subject to manipulation by foreign agents.
3. Those who engage in homosexual behavior are subject to much higher rates of various sexually transmitted diseases which endangers battlefield blood supplies.
4. Those who engage in homosexual behavior are subject to much higher rates of depression and drug/alcohol abuse, which are detrimental to military discipline. Similarly, the revulsion with which many people view homosexual behavior could also be detrimental to military discipline.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Benedictus]

Does anyone know the official reasons why gays aren’t publicly and overtly allowed in the military?

Officially, it’s a political issue, decided for us by politicians. So what you’re really asking is why the politicians decided that servicemembers shouldn’t be allowed to be open about a certain sexual orientation. The official reason in the law is that it “would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”

So what we have is a situation where the people who send us to war also want to tell us how to live our lives, even when we’re not being shot at.

 

[TMC]

Openly homosexual persons are prohibited from serving in the military. Used to be, prior to President Clinton, the “openly” qualifier wasn’t applicable. The reasons were:

1. Homosexual behavior is immoral, and is thus outlawed under the UCMJ just as is adultery, for example.
2. Homosexual behavior bears serious social stigma which makes those who clandestinely engage in such behavior more subject to manipulation by foreign agents.
3. Those who engage in homosexual behavior are subject to much higher rates of various sexually transmitted diseases which endangers battlefield blood supplies.
4. Those who engage in homosexual behavior are subject to much higher rates of depression and drug/alcohol abuse, which are detrimental to military discipline. Similarly, the revulsion with which many people view homosexual behavior could also be detrimental to military discipline.

– Mark L. Chance.

I’d say that #1 is the reason generally given. #2 used to be a reason but is not really any more, which is why the ban on gays in the CIA, FBI and so forth has been lifted. #3 I don’t recall hearing before, and isn’t really more of a concern for gays then straights. I do hear both parts of #4, the first part (depression/abuse) isn’t really valid, IMO. The second part (others dislike it) is sometimes true (although less now then in the past) but is not a valid reason.

The only reason that makes any real sense is not listed, which is the privacy concern. The idea is that the gender-based privacy rules are designed to shield you from forced observation by someone that may consider you a sex object. That can be impossible in some military environments. This argument has decreasing traction with both the increase in the numbers of women in the military, and the increasing acceptance of homosexuality amongst young people.

It is certainly a political issue, and the ban is on its way out, I think. A lot of people thought the current President would end it. (He was much more gay-friendly before he became President.) Its something that would be tougher for a Democrat to do for obvious reasons. A couple of the current Republican front runners would likely end the ban.

 

[agangbern]

Military ideal is order. Gays behavior is objectively disodered. The ideal and the fact just don’t fit each other.

 

[Brendan]

Look at it this way.

Let’s say that you have a group of women living in a barracks, sharing a common shower.

Lets say that the military assigns a man to live in that same barracks and share the same shower ( shower with them)

Your average person is going to think that that is objectionable. No one, for example, is going to want their daughter to live in such an environment.

Sure, the authorities will say that the man will make no advances, and if fully capable of controlling himself. And that would most likely be true. But, I think we can all truthfully say that the women in the barracks would have every right to feel uncomforable and object.

In addition, it would hardly help enlistment for women if they are told they might have to shower with a man, or get dressed\undressed in front of one on a regular basis.

Well, the same holds true for a homosexual male living in the barracks. Sure, he would most certainly controll himself, but the other men would have just as much right to feel uncomfortable with the situation as the hypothetical women would.

And it would have an equivelent effect on enlistment. How many men are going to sign up if the know they would have to share shower space with a gay man and could file no objection?

 

[goofyjim]

Look at it this way.

Let’s say that you have a group of women living in a barracks, sharing a common shower.

Lets say that the military assigns a man to live in that same barracks and share the same shower ( shower with them)

Your average person is going to think that that is objectionable. No one, for example, is going to want their daughter to live in such an environment.

Sure, the authorities will say that the man will make no advances, and if fully capable of controlling himself. And that would most likely be true. But, I think we can all truthfully say that the women in the barracks would have every right to feel uncomforable and object.

In addition, it would hardly help enlistment for women if they are told they might have to shower with a man, or get dressed\undressed in front of one on a regular basis.

Well, the same holds true for a homosexual male living in the barracks. Sure, he would most certainly controll himself, but the other men would have just as much right to feel uncomfortable with the situation as the hypothetical women would.

And it would have an equivelent effect on enlistment. How many men are going to sign up if the know they would have to share shower space with a gay man and could file no objection?

Of course we would also have to ban any student with SSA from ever attending college and living at the dorms because he would have to shower with the men.

 

[rlg94086]

Of course we would also have to ban any student with SSA from ever attending college and living at the dorms because he would have to shower with the men.

So, you don’t think that women should be uncomfortable showering with a lesbian sharing the showers? A man shouldn’t be uncomfortable showering with a homosexual man sharing the showers? How is it any different than having mixed sex showers?

Indeed, if I were attending college and I knew that one of the male dormitory residents was attracted to men, I wouldn’t want to share a shower with him.

 

[goofyjim]

So, you don’t think that women should be uncomfortable showering with a lesbian sharing the showers? A man shouldn’t be uncomfortable showering with a homosexual man sharing the showers? How is it any different than having mixed sex showers?

Indeed, if I were attending college and I knew that one of the male dormitory residents was attracted to men, I wouldn’t want to share a shower with him.

That’s my point. You probably don’t know if one is attracted to other men. It can even go back to high school. How far are we going to go before we ban them from public showers altogether? As for openly gay people in the military, it shouldn’t be. But the don’t ask, don’t tell policy is fine. It gives them the challenge that if they can tough it out and not act on it they can serve our country like anyone else.

 

[rlg94086]

That’s my point. You probably don’t know if one is attracted to other men. It can even go back to high school. How far are we going to go before we ban them from public showers altogether? As for openly gay people in the military, it shouldn’t be. But the don’t ask, don’t tell policy is fine. It gives them the challenge that if they can tough it out and not act on it they can serve our country like anyone else.

So, what is with your response to Brendan? He didn’t challenge “don’t ask don’t tell.” He just laid out the reason someone who is known to be gay or SSA should not be allowed to shower with people of the same sex.

 

[goofyjim]

So, what is with your response to Brendan? He didn’t challenge “don’t ask don’t tell.” He just laid out the reason someone who is known to be gay or SSA should not be allowed to shower with people of the same sex.

There is a huge difference between someone with SSA and someone who is gay. The person with SSA, even if it is known, is attempting to keep it under control while the person who is gay is not. The gays should not be in the military but those with SSA should.

 

[rlg94086]

There is a huge difference between someone with SSA and someone who is gay. The person with SSA, even if it is known, is attempting to keep it under control while the person who is gay is not. The gays should not be in the military but those with SSA should.

This is not true. If a man with SSA is trying to keep it under control, he should not be showering with a bunch of men. It would be the exact same as a heterosexual man, attempting to remain chaste, showering with a bunch of women.

Again, we have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. If someone with SSA identifies themself as having SSA when they apply, they will be denied. If they are doing their best to remain chaste and have no intention of engaging in a homosexual relationship, why would they identify themselves as SSA when applying?

 

[BlestOne]

As a veteran, I have to say Mark’s answer is the closest to being on the mark. First off, military members are held to higher standards of morality than the general population… there are fraternization laws, codes of conduct and various regulations that prohibit immoral or lewd acts.

From first hand experience, I can tell you… I served with some homosexual people. There was never a problem unless they sought out company with other military members… but I never served in a battle zone or anywhere that required such tight living quarters.

On the base I was stationed at, there was an incident once. A male got drunk and climbed into bed with his roommate. Apparently some actions were made that got this person arrested. What I remember most is this guy being escorted into the mess hall for meals surrounded by base police… to protect him from the guys that wanted to hurt this guy… not exactly a good morale around the base at that time!

Being perfectly honest, I would rather not be forced into close quarters with someone I wonder about them having AIDS… would I be the first one to bind their wounds or clean up their blood? Most likely not, but it could happen and I would be rather upset if my children were orphaned because of someones sexual practices.

 

[Benedictus]

Being perfectly honest, I would rather not be forced into close quarters with someone I wonder about them having AIDS… would I be the first one to bind their wounds or clean up their blood?

For one, we’re tested for HIV every year, and there are plenty of straight men who are infected too. HIV/AIDS is not a gay disease.

 

[rayne89]

From first hand experience, I can tell you… I served with some homosexual people. There was never a problem unless they sought out company with other military members… but I never served in a battle zone or anywhere that required such tight living quarters.

On the base I was stationed at, there was an incident once. A male got drunk and climbed into bed with his roommate. Apparently some actions were made that got this person arrested. What I remember most is this guy being escorted into the mess hall for meals surrounded by base police… to protect him from the guys that wanted to hurt this guy… not exactly a good morale around the base at that time!

A similar incident happened when my husband served in the military. A homosexual individual tried to take advantage of a intoxicated heterosexual shipmate. There were also two lesbian individuals caught in a sexual act on the ship.

That being said…while I absolutely think women should be able to serve in the military there were many more immoral incidents happening with the women and men (as in married -to other people) on my husband’s ship that issues with homosexual/bi-sexual individuals.

 

[BlestOne]

For one, we’re tested for HIV every year, and there are plenty of straight men who are infected too. HIV/AIDS is not a gay disease.

Yes… don’t get me started on that topic… I was scheduled for 2 AIDS tests a week a part… and I had to fight to keep my blood… while pregnant no less!

 

[KathleenElsie]

I was also in the service. My theory was I did not want to be in close contact with someone that was looking at me like a piece of meat, male or female. Living quarters are not spacious or private and the issue of personal space becomes even more precious in close quarters.

Now (ok I’m old) I do not think that men and women should be forced into small spaces for extended periods of time. I also do not think that women should be in combat positions for the safety of all involved. If one man tries to protect another soldier because that soldier is a woman it puts everyone into danger. A soldier has the right to know that* they* are protected by their fellow soldiers just because they are a soldier and related to sex (gender).

 

[ritthichai]

The UK military had the same kind of rule until recent years. It was of course based on homophobic prejudice against gays and lesbians.

The rule was removed, and now we see gay and lesbian people marching openly in uniform in gay pride marches - along with firemen, police, etc.

The US moral code seems to be derived mainly from evangelical prudes and we have an opportunity as Catholics to avoid such discrimination against our fellow human beings. Let’s not fall into the trap of being religious bigots - that is what Jesus rescues us from. Let’s not be the Taliban of the Christian world.