A recently released poll of active duty military personnel shows that opposition to gays serving in the military has fallen from 63% to 51% and acceptance has grown from 24% to 30%. This change in attitude, while still opposed by a majority, is trending closer to the views of the general public which overwhelmingly supports allowing homosexuals in the military.
There are strong arguments in favor opening the doors of military service to homosexuals. It is seen as a matter of civil rights and non-discrimination. If anyone who is able to serve wants to serve, they ought to be allowed to serve. There are antidotal stories of the military losing critical skills, like translators, due to the prohibition of openly gay soldiers. Most of the world's armed forces are open to homosexuals so what could be the harm if the U.S. did the same? Others compare it to President Truman's order to end racial segregation of the military.
On the other hand, what happens when a group of soldiers living in the confines of a barracks - bunk beds, communal showers and all - find out that some members of the group are sexually attracted to their own sex? I think of when I was a newly minted Navy Ensign assigned to an aircraft carrier. All the Ensigns were berthed in the Junior Officer's Bunk Room, which consisted of several four man, two-bunk bed cubicles crammed into a small space under the steam catapults. Always warm, it was tropical hot in the summer and we all slept in our Navy issue boxer shorts. I suppose there may have been a homosexual or two in the group, I just don't know but if there were openly gay men, I am sure the rest of us would not have liked it. It would be similar to a few men living in an open barracks of women. The men may enjoy it but the women would be uncomfortable to say the least. The reason separate sleeping quarters are provided for men and women is obvious. Similarly, housing gays or lesbians in separate quarters with members of their own sex or with heterosexuals seems problematic at best. Regardless of these concerns, the pressure for a change is obvious.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, and the Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama, have expressed support for lifting the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy and allow homosexuals, in or out of the closet, to join the military. But we should proceed with caution. The purpose of the military is to train for and fight wars. Any change in policy that may interfere with readiness needs to be carefully considered and the practical results well publicized so revisions can be made if the data shows a need. Maybe any problems can be managed as was done when women joined support and combat units in greater numbers or racial segregation ended. Hopefully so but the effectiveness of our fighting forces must be paramount.
Posted by warrenpeterson at February 09, 2010 08:20 PM | Email Thiswould you consider north korea to have a strong military because they don't allow gays to serve?
when you are being shot at, the last thing you are thinking is:
gee - i hope pfc pyle isn't thinking about showering with me...
maybe one day the bigots and homophobes will all be voted out or at least realize that their erroneous views hamper the might of our fighting forces. as long as hypocrites like mccain, et al keep moving the goal posts, it's not going to happen quickly and effectively.
Posted by: mike on February 9, 2010 09:23 PMNo way should the government "ease" into this by studying it and going with the toe in the water approach. They just need to issue the order and let gays serve. The straight men will get over it, just like they got over integration. Besides, gays have every right to die for the country the same as straight people.
Posted by: School Marm on February 9, 2010 10:25 PMSoldiers have to live a higher moral standard because of the environment they are in. We don't want our soldiers raping and pillaging on the battlefield. Nor do we want them to use force inappropriately or take pleasure in killing. In order to get this kind of order, you have to keep the soldiers in line with a higher moral code.
If you're a homosexual male, but you can keep it in your pants, then I'm totally fine with you in the military representing my country on the battlefield.
If you're the type of person, hetero- or homosexual, who can't control his bodily urges and emotions, then I don't want you fighting on the frontlines or anywhere near the frontlines. There's just too big of a risk in the heat of battle or in the chaos that follows, that you'll do disgraceful acts that will affect how people look at us for hundreds of years to come.
In fact, it's better just to keep you far away, so that your lack of control doesn't spread through the troops.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on February 9, 2010 11:02 PMIt's a tiny insignificant percentage of the population who are gay. It's not like a gay guy is going to rape a heterosexual man in a bunk room full of other heterosexual males. He'd get his ass kicked. Let them serve openly.
Let's move on and get back to talking about important matters like how Progressives are running our economy in to the ground.
Posted by: JeffB. on February 10, 2010 12:34 AMJust because a middle-aged single guy really digs little girls doesn't mean he should be allowed to be a brownie troop leader.
Just because you live under military discipline does not mean you want to worry, among all the other things you worry about, whether the bleeding homosexual guy next to you while under fire has Hepatitis or HIV. Just because you live under military discipline does not mean you want to endure leers from dykes in a group shower.
Once we start granting protected military status to people based on sexuality we risk opening a pandoras box.
@Attila If we suddenly have 30% less enrollment in the military because of this, it's an issue in that America socially is more messed up than anyone suspected, if hatred and religion are more important to some soldiers than duty and patriotism.
Posted by: Joe Szilagyi on February 10, 2010 07:41 AMI could give a rip about your bleating and the leftist and libertarian lunacy of several above commenters. I do care about the safety and security of our country and the living conditions our service men and women must endure while protecting us. My bet is the average small town/rural, midwestern or southern recruit does care about moral values and whether the person next to them in the shower is leering at them. I worked directly with Navy personnel for 33 years and got to know many quite well, and believe me, most would rather homosexuals stayed out of the military. Allowing homosexuals to serve "openly" will without a doubt negatively affect recruiting.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 10, 2010 08:25 AMThey don't give a damn about national security. Our military does not exist to protect the homeland. It exists as a test tube in which to force feed liberal social engineering. Soldiers (and cops and fire fighters, etc.) all exist to protect liberal's worthless hides, exotic musicial instruments, CD collections, electric clown cars, giant puppets, etc. The men and women in uniform don't deserve consideration for their personal safety or preferences. The marxist cob will simply declare his/ her moral superiority, that the folks are knuckle draggers for not accepting the liberal vision, and smugly return to his/ her bong.
The same cobs who HATE our soldiers, claim they are war criminals (a la the likes of John Kerry and the Code Pink jerks) ad nauseum suddenly claim to appreciate our men and women in uniform when it comes to imposing sweeping leftist social engineering visions on the USA. The last time I looked, being a native american or black does not indicate particular behavioral traits. Being native american or black does not mean you are engaging in bizarre behaviors. Forcing our soldiers to accept an "open" follower of NAMBLA (because its just another choice) is wrong.
Everytime one of these "people" opens his/ her pie hole its like listening to finger nails scraping across a chalk board (or reading a book by Noam Chomsky).
Posted by: Attila on February 10, 2010 09:05 AMHomosexual behavior is putrid to most people. They had to change the name to "gay" to get people to forget about the putrid things they do.
Posted by: Brer Fox on February 10, 2010 09:51 AMI welcome your advocacy of voting President Obama out of office in 2012, mike, as he is opposed to both gay marriage and gays serving openly in the military; 2 views you champion. He's the commander in chief (albeit being completely ignorant of how to spell 'corps' correctly) and with the stroke of a pen, could end "don't ask, don't tell" at any time. Apparently that would also make him a 'bigot' and 'homophobe' by your own criterion set forth.
...as long as hypocrites like [Obama], et al keep moving the goal posts, it's not going to happen quickly and effectively.
Fixed that for you, mike. Hypocrite!
As for me, military cohesion is paramount in putting forth an effective fighting force/unit- there should be no further barriers to arriving at this goal-. If you're gay and want to serve, serve. Shut the hell up about your sexual orientation and serve without calling attention to your particular proclivities as they are not germane to your duty as a soldier, airman, marine, sailor and are therefore, irrelevent.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 10, 2010 10:26 AMAnd seriously, not meaning to be disrespectful to the retired Sergeant Major, but for someone of that specific rank to refer to themselves as an enlisted general is just 1) ridiculously laughable 2) a contradiction in terms and 3) exactly how every asshole SGM views themselves.
A sergeant major makes less than a captain, just sayin.
And, I would like to encourage the homophobes like Attila and Brer Fox to continue their contributions. It's interesting to read the odd views of a modern American homophobe. It's like a visit to the natural history museum and looking at the diorama of australopithecus. Most people don't even know you funny kids still existed!
Atilla, you might be surprised to learn that soldiers do not have to worry about contracting HIV on the battlefield because HIV positive soldiers are nondeployable. It's so funny, ignorant and totally ridiculous that you bring that up, though. Do you think only gay people get HIV or hepatitis? I'm gay, but when it comes to logic, you all are the queers. :)
Posted by: AD on February 10, 2010 02:52 PMAre you serious? I think you guys are just liberal gays masquerading as ignorant conservatives on the internet, using faulty logic and trite outmoded stereotypes for the sole purpose of ridiculing the ignorant homophobes who we're led to believe still remain in our society.
On the off chance you are real, I'd advise brushing up on your pennsylvania dutch and getting your horse and buggy ready for the trip east. I hear there are a few isolated communities (rural PA and VA) that have chosen to not reconcile themselves with modernity.
Posted by: AD on February 10, 2010 04:31 PMIf it's an unspoken fear of sexual harassment/assault/rape that some people are using as a reason for not wanting gays to openly serve, then maybe addressing and correcting how the military currently deals with such crimes would get rid of that as an even remotely viable excuse.
Regarding how such would effect recruitment/retention, without knowing what portion of the civilian population that can be recruited thinks about it, I don't think anyone could come up with a reliable figure. As for retention, I'm sure some would leave once their enlistments/commissions were up, but I would bet that most that would use it as an excuse were probably going to be leaving anyway, but just want a convenient excuse. Having some kind, any kind of an excuse to not re-enlist always seemed more favorable (for saving face) than simply saying 'I'm not interested in doing this anymore' once the obligation was up.
Posted by: Brian on February 10, 2010 05:58 PMIt is a simple matter of equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals. They both pay taxes, they both benefit from the efforts of our armed services, they are both American citizens. Why should one group be able to serve and not the other?
What is the problem with gays and straights showering together? They do so in other public accommodations -- gyms, swimming pools, dormitories, etc. If average citizens can deal with gays showering with them, why can't highly trained military people? What threat is there if some dude likes what he sees in the shower? Aren't the enemies supposed to be the insurgents, the terrorists and Al-Qaeda? What does it say about our military forces that they are more afraid of a gay guy seeing their peen in the shower than they are afraid of our mortal enemies?
And just how many gays are expected to enlist anyway? Not many.
Posted by: Mr. Reeves on February 12, 2010 02:50 AMWhen the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking military officer in our armed forces, and a number of other key military figures jointly address congress, and say that its time to repeal don't ask, don't tell, McCain went back on his word. The republican chickenhawk faction (ie: Republicans who have never served, but talk a big game)also decided to go against the recommendations of our military leadership. Apparently they have a better understanding of force cohesion and troop morale (NOT!).
HYPOCRACY. Its the new word for Republican.
Posted by: Proteus on February 15, 2010 11:48 PM