Ban On Gays In Military - Practical Or Moral Reason?
 

Excerpt from interview with Chairman of Joint Chiefs Peter Pace.

“I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,” he said. “I do not believe the United States is well-served by a policy that says it is O.K. to be immoral in any way.”

The general told The Tribune that he would not want acceptance of gay behavior “to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else’s wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/washington/13cnd-pace.html?hp

Are our military's operational rules determined by a general's personal views on morality and religion, then?

If there is convincing evidence that allowing gays in the military harms combat effectiveness, then I could understand the ban. If it is simply the religious and moral beliefs of the commanders, then I don't see the justification.

The military excluded blacks and women, now we admit them. That doesn't seem to have torpedoed the forces.

I've always heard the argument as it "decreases morale".

I've always looked at it this way: let's say you had the choice between staying in with a really hot chick or fighting in a war and possibly getting killed or maimed. What would you do?

Now let's say you're gay and the "hot chick" is your bunkmate. Does the same answer still apply?

I though this was settled a long time ago :rolleyes:

Must be a slow news day.

I thought in uniform service members were not supposed to voice their personal opinions regarding such matters, in particular where there is a written policy, here regarding homosexuals in the military

But Bush didn't listen to his generals!!!

Oh wait...that line is for another argument...

Who are you paraphrasing there? Buck Turgidson or Jack Ripper?

i dont know who the comedian is but; he jokes that if he is huddled in a foxhole getting shot at, he wants the other dude to be gay, and in love with him. that way the gay guy will protect him.

Judging by the first paragraph, good ol´Peter is obviously a living prejudice fossil. Good grief.

I wouldn't give that much deference to anyone.

For decades, black soldiers were barred, and then segregated, in the Army. It was, as you say, the collective judgment of the commanders that using Negro soldiers in combat, or mixing Negros with whites, would be a liability. Under the pressures of WW2, black soldiers were pressed into combat, and then intermixed with white soldiers. The results proved the commanders were wrong.

Interesting article on the subject. http://www.worldwar2history.info/Army/Jim-Crow.html

I'm not doctrinare about it. If the evidence is that gay soldiers harm fighting effectiveness, then keep them out. But I'm interested in knowing what evidence there is.

Edit: I looked it up - most countries permit homosexuals to serve in the military.

Israel, Great Britain, Australia, pretty much all of Europe, much of South America. Admittedly most of these countries never fight wars, but Israel and the UK have certainly been fighting. I wonder if there is any evidence one way or another from their experience?

The countries that ban homosexuals are: US, North Korea, Syria, Yemen, Cuba, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Venezula, China.

Historically, gays have often been soldiers. Everyone (who's studied much history) knows that the armies of ancient Greece included a lot of gays, especially the Spartans who were much feared soldiers. Of course, society was quite different then.

My point being that there have been gays in the military pretty much since there has been a military... say, several thousand years.

The problem being gays as stereotyped as sissy's... haven't a few NFL players come out? And the idea that they want to "convert" straights... I have worked with gay guys and never got hit on (but maybe I just wasn't their type) :D

I think we should have an all-gay military!

John L., you are a bit off base on your facts.

The countries you list largely ban homosexuality in general. For example, in Saudi Arabia and the other Muslim countries, I am relatively certain it is a death penalty offence to be homosexual...

First I have heard of a moral reason, in the past I have always seen it listed as a morale issue

Re: Ban On Gays In Military - Practical Or Moral Reason?
 

BS, they protect their own.

We keep such great company.:rolleyes:

Then I guess they must really ban homosexuals in their military . . .

I think my list is approximately right. Anyway, I'm more interested in the countries that allow gays in the military. There must be some evidence of whether this has or hasn't hurt combat effectiveness. The Israeli and British militaries have not been sitting home twiddling their thumbs.

First of all, there is no law preventing military members to discuss DoD policy concerning gays in the military. At least I hope so, since I'm about to.

There is not a ban on gays in the military, there is a, "don't ask, don't tell" policy in effect.

The policy has worked in a practical sense...there is very little roil over gays in the military by those serving. To be frank, and I have watched the evolution of gays in the military for all of my 24 years of service, there is generally more issues with heterosexual "misconduct" (marital cheating, affairs between O's and E's, sexual harrassment, etc.) than there are gay issues.

I will say that overt homosexual issues can polarize a military unit more so than heterosexual scandals. It is an observation, not a fact.

Is there tacit acceptance of gays that, "don't tell"? Again, in my experience, yes. Frankly, if you are militant (pun intended) about any societal issues in the military, you'll meet with resistance. For what it is worth, I have seen ten times as many separations for DWI offenses than any other cause.

In my commands I have tried to treat all sexual/behavioral/racial misconduct the same, regardless of the origin. I have zero tolerance...which I brief to all my folks when they check-in so there is no misunderstanding.
Cool thing is, I've never had a problem.

Lastly, serving in the military is not a right...if you are gay and choose to serve, welcome aboard. However, please play by the rules. I don't want to hear any more about your sexuality than you want to hear about mine.

First: Seahawk. thanks for your service. Second: great response.

Gender and race are not a choice and therefore should not be excluded on that basis.

You have no constitutional right to join the military.
Service is a choice.
Much like sexual preference. You may not be able to control your taste, but you can choose what you put in your mouth.

If you want to join, you must obey the rules.
Do I agree with the rules? I don't think so but I'm not qualified to comment on the pro and cons of that issue.

24 years ago, when I was in the USAF, I lived in a two person dorm room on base. My roommate was gay. I only suspected he was until I found a homosexual VHS tape in the community VCR with his name on it. I decided to look the other way and leave him be because he wasn't trying to pick up on me or anything like that. I figured he will keep to himself and sooner or later, he will be shipping out to another base. Two or three weeks later, I caught him in bed with a guy, who he says was his cousin. I ran down to the control room right away and turned him in. He was out very soon thereafter.

As I said, if he didn't bother me, I would've continued to look the other way. But catching him in the act bothered me. Keep it to yourself and we will be OK. Flaunt it and your a$$ is gone.

Frikken great.... An army with weapons of ass destruction........

Actually, there is. By American common law, every able bodied man is considered in the militia from which the active duty military is drawn. All methods used to deny service based on other than the "able bodied" standard are illegal under common law since that's a denial of a right to self defense which includes defense of family, neighbors, and land in addition to self.

The expectation has always been that there would be no standing army, hence no need for most folks to ever do more than learn how to fire a rifle.