Gays in the Military - Dont Ask Dont Tell

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Back Story:
In the gym the other day I struck up a conversation with a guy who happens to be an Army Special Forces member home from Iraq for a few months. Being trained in ethnographic interview skills people find it easy to talk candidly with me. The conversation turned to the Dont ask dont tell policy. I asked about its practical role in the military and its ideological role in the military. He explained that practically in the Army given general acceptance of homosexuality among the troops that dont ask dont tell is an effective protection to the gay military member. Given the homophobia in the army especially in the combat troops it is safer for the gay person to not disclose their sexual preference. He further explained that anything that breeds distrust within a cohesive battle unit gets people killed. He also alluded to some friendly fire incidents as "may not have been as accidental as people think", although he would not admit it outright. This was in regards to exposed gay members of a unit. This was the general practical reason for dont ask dont tell, and its general humanitarian advancement above the previous policy where one signed documents upon entry to the military that they were not gay. Misrepresentation of any aspect including sexual preference under the old policy normally resulted in jail time, and if the document were signed in wartiime it very well could constitute treason.

Further questioning about ideological application of an openly gay military brought the following applicable installation strategy.
He said it may be possible with the current social acceptance level of homosexuals to implement an openly gay policy if;
1) gay barracks were established
2) gay people were not placed in combat units
3) Combat units and non-combat units are segregated when possible
4) the change was implemented in "peace time"

Questions:
Would you implement an openly gay military program?
If so, how would you implement an openly gay military program?
Does the practicality of the current policy outweigh the ideology of human rights?
How would you try to reconcile practicality with ideology?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,430 • Replies: 14

No top replies

@GoshisDead,

going to be difficult to give you much input since my idealology doesnt permit a military...so i have to imagine one. but i like the questions!

maybe i can make the water a bit murkier...

there are men and women both in the army now and their barracks are separated for good reasons. you cant put all the homosexuals together, so how are you going to separate them? do you want an honor system so they will choose to reside where there is no one to attract and distract them? or should they be restricted in their duties away from battle where such disruptions would be less critical?

the more i think about it i see other issues cropping in-probably in my own mind. i dont believe there should be women in the army if there has to be an army-other than duties far away from the front and anyone who is going to go there. that solves the issue for me-no women and no homosexuals. let there be nothing to distract from duty...pretty archaic, right?

now i have thought up a whole lot of issues about the army....

---------- Post added 07-26-2009 at 08:13 AM ----------

how long does he think 'peace time' will be? hasnt been any anywhere in my lifetime....

1 Reply

@salima,

People made the same unit cohesiveness argument against racial integration in the military. Sure, there will be a period of adjustment, but when you put a group of people together, make them rely on one another for life, they are quick to shake off hatred and bigotry. Their lives depend upon it.

Simply by allowing openly homosexual individuals to serve along side everyone else, in combat units, we begin to change the degree of social acceptance of homosexuality for the better.

People hate what is strange to them. What they know and understand, they accept. The current policy isolates homosexuals, creates a barrier between gay and straight people in the service. Remove the barrier, and in short order these supposed practical problems will vanish. Allowing blacks to serve in combat and later integration, were extremely important foundations for building the civil rights movement of the 60's.

2 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

I tend to agree with you Thomas. The friendly fire intimation the fellow made, however, makes me wonder at things like, how many of the newly integrated people died needlessly when it has happened in the past. I think this is the reason he suggested a peace time integration.

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

One also has to wonder about how much of that is real, and how much of that is speculation and gossip. My guess is that soldiers are not likely to kill one of their own for being gay when that gay person may very well save their life.

Combat integration is important. It was service in combat that swayed so many white GIs about blacks after seeing their black peers endure the same dangers with just as much courage as any white GI. Combat helps foster that much needed respect.

I see no practical advantage in the current policy. If anything, the policy sets us back by creating an unnecessary obstacle to greater social acceptance of a minority that has suffered a great deal in this country.

Soldiers are trained (even brainwashed) to obey orders. All you need to do is get the generals to come out and matter of factly declare what's what. The rest of the chain will follow out of instinct.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

I have no reason to assume that the guy was lying about "friendly fire". Combat only units are composed of people who are combat ready.To quote the same fellow " we are real animals, we are trained killers, we are high strung, and itching to kick ass, and most of us can't abide someone who doesn't fit in, they can get us killed."

Other issues I would consider, The percentage of willingly open gay men who join the army is considerably less than minorities. Thus there may be non one in a unit to buddy up with for support.

I agree about the being ordered to accept them to a degree, however 20 years of social integration creating one ideology may not be that easy to change immediately. Thou shalt not kill is automatically suspended when joining the army and has always been. It is already part of the culture, but homosexual acceptance is not yet an integral part of the culture, especially the disenfranchised often poor and uneducated men who join the military.

Maybe in a decade when it the culture at large is less homophobic it will be easier to implement an openly gay policy. The military seems to be a couple decades behind the rest of the nation when it comes to rights.

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

We talk about the future, when people are less homophobic: but the military policy supports that homophobia. This is why the racial integration example is so important - the same arguments used against integration are used to support the DADT, even though we know from integration that when you include people in these units that the animosity quickly subsides.

I understand what your mate is saying, that people are not so quick to accept differences. But part of the problem is that it is military policy to reject this particular difference if it becomes apparent. If the policy were changed to "you will accept your gay peers" then suddenly the mentality about homosexuality changes due to these men being trained killers. They do as they are told. He talks about people who do not fit in getting people killed, and he's right. But homosexuals do not fit in because of the policy. This isn't about the preconceived notions of the other soldiers - think back and imagine how most of those white troops felt about serving with blacks? Racism was the norm. But they had their orders, and they followed like any combat ready troop does.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;79566 wrote:

We talk about the future, when people are less homophobic: but the military policy supports that homophobia. This is why the racial integration example is so important - the same arguments used against integration are used to support the DADT, even though we know from integration that when you include people in these units that the animosity quickly subsides.

I understand what your mate is saying, that people are not so quick to accept differences. But part of the problem is that it is military policy to reject this particular difference if it becomes apparent. If the policy were changed to "you will accept your gay peers" then suddenly the mentality about homosexuality changes due to these men being trained killers. They do as they are told. He talks about people who do not fit in getting people killed, and he's right. But homosexuals do not fit in because of the policy. This isn't about the preconceived notions of the other soldiers - think back and imagine how most of those white troops felt about serving with blacks? Racism was the norm. But they had their orders, and they followed like any combat ready troop does.

what makes you think that the people who accepted each other on the battlefield and fought and died together didnt revert back when they returned to civilian life?

i have one real life experience to relate. i know somoeone Very Well who was a very opinionated bigot full of prejudice and never questioned any of the idiotic notions that were stuffed into his head. that was at age 20. he used to tell me stories about guys in the army-"so and so, he was such a good guy"-"some other so and so helped me out"-time and again no matter what story he came up with it happened to be about a black guy. this was during viet nam by the way, 66/67 thereabouts.

but after his discharge when he went back home, his bigotry became worse and worse as time went on. i would even remind him about all the fellas he told me about that were so great in the army. it didnt make any difference. and today, 40 years later, he hasnt at all come any closer to accepting the fact that anyone else is his equal.

i am not saying everyone is like him-but i am saying that if a bigot goes in the army he may come back the same way. one sure did.

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;79526 wrote:

He said it may be possible with the current social acceptance level of homosexuals to implement an openly gay policy if;
1) gay barracks were established
2) gay people were not placed in combat units
3) Combat units and non-combat units are segregated when possible
4) the change was implemented in "peace time"

Questions:
Would you implement an openly gay military program?
If so, how would you implement an openly gay military program?
Does the practicality of the current policy outweigh the ideology of human rights?
How would you try to reconcile practicality with ideology?

In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr: Justice delayed is justice denied.

I refer to this phrase because this is an issue of justice. There are people who are denied the opportunity to serve their nation simply because of politics - that is, the government wishes to not show support for gay activity. By "avoiding the issue," and simply discharging people who are "proven" to be gay, they are in fact discriminating against Americans due to their opinions, beliefs, and preferences.

As a former member of the United States Coast Guard, and having literally lived on a ship for weeks at a time in the middle of the ocean - WITH a gay man on board as well (we all knew it - it just wasn't "official"), I can honestly vouch that it is possible, people can be mean, yes - but people can be peaceful, too.

Most people believe in God - will they not allow atheists in the military? How about satanists? These believers could easily cause as much conflict as those who are gay.

Furthermore, this is not an issue about guys "getting hit on" by other guys. We in the military are adults. We ought to be able to handle every-day interaction with other adults. They don't have to wash each other, and in many cases they don't even have to shower in front of one another, so exposure is not even an issue.

Ultimately, I do not see how an issue of discrimination could possibly be placed on the back-burner until a more convenient time. There will never be a more convenient time.

As a side note: onwards up to fifty or so arabic translators have been discharged for being gay. This may have contributed to why our government wasn't able to translate the warning letter that they received from Al Qaeda just before the attacks of 9/11. If this does not speak wonders about the issue, then I just do not know what more to say (at least in a brief response to your questions).

1 Reply

@klobherr500,

salima;79582 wrote:

what makes you think that the people who accepted each other on the battlefield and fought and died together didnt revert back when they returned to civilian life?

Historically, to a large degree, they did revert back. However, the historical record also seems to indicate that, in spite of the regression into civilian social norms, when it came to time vote that these people were far more sympathetic to their African American peers. More importantly, the record also indicates that the decline in expressed racism, however slight, had a massive impact on the children of that generation, who became even more likely to relate and sympathize with the civil rights movement - and many of those whites joined and marched, risking their lives with their African American peers for the sake of social justice.

salima;79582 wrote:

but after his discharge when he went back home, his bigotry became worse and worse as time went on. i would even remind him about all the fellas he told me about that were so great in the army. it didnt make any difference. and today, 40 years later, he hasnt at all come any closer to accepting the fact that anyone else is his equal.

i am not saying everyone is like him-but i am saying that if a bigot goes in the army he may come back the same way. one sure did.

Absolutely. There will always be racism, and there will always be cases like the one you mention. But what I am looking for is larger social change. If we can implement a policy that will do far more good than it will harm, then the policy is pragmatic. Especially if, in the long run, the policy will help to bring about the sort of complete social overhaul so desperately needed for the sake of homosexual members of society. Kids are still being dragged to death behind pick-up trucks for being gay.

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

I'm not sure whether the military is a venue for implementing purely social policies. In the arena of your run-of-the-mill liberal democracy, it's fine and dandy to push for equal standings in society; however, it must be accepted that the military is contextually different. Society does not consist primarily of (I'm generalising for ease) straight, disciplined males with guns - armies do.

1 Reply

@gentryman,

For all those with an emotional appeal, or maybe anyone who sees peace as a goal.
_____________________________________
"Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?"~Ernest Gaines

When I was in the military they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one. ~Epitaph of Leonard P. Matlovich, 1988 (Thanks, Marlene)

If gay and lesbian people are given civil rights, then everyone will want them! ~Author unknown, as seen on a button at evolvefish.com
______________________________________________

I'm not homosexual, nor am I bi. I'm completely straight, however, I can't believe the people who don't have tolerance for gay people. The army needs people who can kill other people. In the army, it doesn't matter which gender you show affection for. Or atleast, in an effective army, it shouldn't. Almost every race have been surpressed. A lot that have been the surpressors, have used the bible and religion as justification for their actions. Black people, at a time, were believed to be descended from Cain, thus all of them were demons. Or that Jesus was white, so whiteness was the ideal human being.

There is no ideal human being.

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

As a young guy with a queer streak a mile wide, I've been asked for my opinion on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy more times than I can remember. I've shifted through many of the opnions voiced here, and finally setteled on a thought of my own. The army just needs to stop caring. If the administration stops discriminating against both closeted and openly queer people, the troops will sort themselves out one way or another. A cold water wake up call is what I think the army needs most. The Don't Ask, Don't tell policy was designed to keep gays safe, despite all the negetive attention it gets from the GLBTQ community. The problem is, this saftey comes at a price that most gays find impossible to pay. If the policy is replaced with non-descrimination by the administration and some individual soldier takes it upon himself to injure or kill a gay officer out of fear or whatever reason, that's the price our community will have to pay for acceptance. I have faith in the general public, and believe that the queer community will be just as accepted as the minority groups that came before us are today.

As for your friends list of provisions for implementing queer people into the armed forces, namely that
1) gay barracks were established
2) gay people were not placed in combat units
3) Combat units and non-combat units are segregated when possible
4) the change was implemented in "peace time"

Numbers 1 and 3 are outright discrimination and segregation, not unlike that which was faced by African American soldiers throughout history, which we find shameful today. The queer movement is undeniably different from the African American movement, but the general principles are the same.

Number 2 doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. No one I know, straight or queer, would take the time in the middle of a combat situation to come on to a comrad. The furthest thing from a fighting soldier's mind should be if the guy next to him hopes to go home to his girlfriend or his boyfriend.

As for number 4, and with all due respect to your friend, we need soldiers during wartime, not peacetime. And I'm not particulary thrilled that somebody who hasn't even got that much military knowladge is protecting my country.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

GoshisDead;79526 wrote:

Given the homophobia in the army especially in the combat troops it is safer for the gay person to not disclose their sexual preference.

I think keeping "don't ask" is a good idea.

Goshisdead wrote:

Does the practicality of the current policy outweigh the ideology of human rights?
How would you try to reconcile practicality with ideology?

Didymos Thomas wrote:

People made the same unit cohesiveness argument against racial integration in the military. Sure, there will be a period of adjustment, but when you put a group of people together, make them rely on one another for life, they are quick to shake off hatred and bigotry. Their lives depend upon it.

Simply by allowing openly homosexual individuals to serve along side everyone else, in combat units, we begin to change the degree of social acceptance of homosexuality for the better.

I think the practicality vs ideology is the big question left. I have heard similar arguments for women not being frontline combat troops equaling discrimination. But it seems to me that the military is not a tool to create social equality. It is a tool for fighting, and the primary concern should be that it does it's job well. I have no idea what effect openly gay members have on average in combat units though. So I can't answer the question.

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

The military seems more to REFLECT current social conditions rather than be an instrument to CREATE them. In the case of Blacks and in the case of Women, as both groups became accepted (as such) by society, their equality began to be reflected in the military establishment; this was a gradual process, and naturally not without its human cost to the members of both groups.

The question seems to be whether American society in general accepts gays as genuine equals to the extent that the interim "don't ask, don't tell" policy can be supplanted as it has been in many military establishments in the rest of the world with one in which gay men and women may openly serve their country in uniform.

0 Replies

Gays in the Military - Dont Ask Dont Tell

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know