Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy
 

Gay rights activists in the United States have been pushing for the end of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy for years, but it looks like there's a new push to end it. It seems like a good idea to welcome anyone that would possibly be interested in joining the military, and ending this seemingly anti-gay policy would possibly open the door to a military career for more people. But how would the general culture of the military be altered if homosexuality were openly discussed? I admit I am ignorant about such things, but it seems as though the policy is in place to protect gays from social ridicule.

A few questions to get people started thinking...
What's your take on this policy?
Have you served in the military alongside someone you knew to be gay, how did it impact your work?
How does it differ from the policy on homosexuality in the military of other countries?

Canada has an open policy, and has had one since 1992.

Actually, Canada's first military gay wedding between two men occurred in 2005.

I haven't looked too much into it, but I've seen a study that has found that homosexuals in the service do not undermine Canadian military performance. I'm not sure if other studies have been conducted, but I don't recall there being any newsworthy issues regarding this.

That said, the culture in the U.S. military may easily differ from that of the Canadian military. So not all things are equal here.

In the worst-case scenario, the military culture in the U.S. could be far more conservative than it is in Canada's (even Canada's in the '90s). The issue should be approached with great consideration. If you wish gays to be able to serve openly and without discrimination, there should be laws and protocols set up and enforced. This isn't the first time laws have been made regarding discrimination. Race and gender precede sexual orientation.

Either way, I think it's about time the U.S. armed forces pursue this. It's not the same issue as gay marriage.

It should probably be "don't ask, don't care".

I could care less about this. But if there ever was another draft, I would think a lot more guys would be feeling a little gay if the current policy is in place.

The military would need to implement policies to keep things under control though. You can't have hazing or fraternization being distractions.
Services Fraternization Policies

I don't care about homosexuals in the sense of their sexuality. It's their business, and doesn't affect me directly. I would have an opinion ONLY if it were someone in my own family, and even then my opinion is just that... an opinion. What I think shouldn't affect another person's sex choices with respect to gender. From a position of theoretical enlightened self-interest, I should approve of male homosexuality (takes men out of the contest for available women), and should be against female homosexual (reduces the number of potential women available to me). In practice, the vast majority of women would reject me for their own good reasons other than homosexuality, and the vast majority homosexual men would probably find me unattractive for many reasons. I'm a realist on that point; homosexuality just isn't an issue for me in my life.

BUT I cannot say I think a soldier who is uncomfortable serving beside a homosexual is being unreasonable. I'm comfortable with homosexuals and don't see them as a threat, but not everyone agrees with me, nor should they. If I don't like the situation I'm in, I leave without a second thought.

The military is a big exception to this. You don't have the option of walking away from an uncomfortable situation. The penalty is for doing so is very severe. In that light, in a volunteer army, it strikes me you are imposing an unacceptable condition on your personnel.

I realise a soldier may be ordered into a life-threatening situation, and that might be disconcerting to many people, but it's always a definite possibility within the armed forces. You are trained to be ready for and to deal with it. If having a homosexual beside you and you find that to be a problem, it is a problem to the entire outfit. If it affects your judgement or reactions in any way, it can affect more than just yourself.

On that basis I'm against don't ask, don't tell. It should be ask, tell, and anyone who cannot deal with it should be discharged. Might greatly reduce the size of your military, but at least the problem is dealt with.

You could say that about a great number of characteristics that someone might be 'uncomfortable' serving beside. Why single out homosexuality?

I understand that a great proportion of potential 'military-types' are likely to exhibit this kind of 'discomfort,' so my opinion is, like yours, just flexing my own ideals without regard for reality. But those ideals pretty strongly encompass the concept that discomfort over such a thing shouldn't be patronized - particularly at such a high level of societal organization. It sets a precedent that looks silly and backwards, I think. But then, I'm a dreamer - sometimes I dream that we aren't silly and backward in this country. Then I see something like -- Tiger Woods apologizing to America for his infidelities -- then I remember where I am. :)

If you can shoot straight, have courage and integrity - stand right next to me. We'll fight together.

This same argument was being made about blacks in the military. People will get over it.

yep - my thoughts exactly. ATM it seems to be prejudice - I can't understand how this kind of policy still exists.

Talk to any guy or gal at a local bar who is serving in the military and 99.9% of them will say the same thing: keep it on the down-low. The military is a hyper-conservative institution for all the obvious reasons.

99.9%? That seems a bit high, surely almost 100% of the military isn't that narrow-minded, well I know they aren't, I just like it when people make up percentages to support their positions.

It's safe to say that more than 0.01% of the military is already gay, so I'd say your numbers are a bit off

Well considering that the gay population in the military could be as high as 5 or 10%, then, yeah. But then again, maybe the gays who are serving would say keep it on the down-low in fear of suffering consequences of such an outdated policy as don't ask, don't tell.

You misunderstood...I said most who have served will say have a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy not that there are no gays in the military. Very few liberals in the military...I think its something like 3 or 4 percent.

No you said "who is serving" not 'most who have served', and you said 99.9% of those who are serving will say "keep it on the down low", we're saying your numbers are a bit off.

Here's your post again:

Derwood, Silent_Jay and Baraka_Guru,
I interpreted Meathed's words to mean:

most active military will recommend that a gay serviceman/woman keep their sexuality on the down-low.

Perhaps a request for additional clarification is in order.

Isn't it odd that people in the military are trained to withstand stressors of unimaginable proportions, yet their demoralization by being forced to work with gays and lesbians is rationalized by this policy.

having served in the marines, i've known about 20% of the enlisted have issues with people who are gay. the other 80% only care about making sure you got their back in a combat zone.

THANK YOU. My guess would be that the % who would've been against blacks in the military (at the time) would have been far higher.

I understand military culture can be uber-conservative, but that's no reason to keep the policy in place. The whole reason it's coming up is because more and more people are coming to the conclusion that the culture is fucked up and needs to change

I would agree that the policy is probably far behind the times. That is my hopeful guess anyway.

Either that, or Canada's is nearly 20 years ahead of the times.

And that's kind of my issue. Everyone else has made very valid points about getting over it, that the military are trained to handle incredible amounts of stress, that years ago (and quite possibly still today) many whites had the same sort of issue with blacks.

And I don't have any issues with gays. They should have all the rights and responsibilities of any other person. But the military, for better or worse, is a different situation. I do not want my team being torn from the inside. A major part of the basic training is to break down resistance to the team concept and to put the trainees through such an intense indoctrination that there is a mutual sense of overcoming something, an initiation into a fraternity. No matter what your service, you know all your companions endured the same thing. But if you're still worried the next guy might be gay, then a good part of the psychological impact of the basic training is wasted.

Being black (or Hispanic, Asian, or some visually identifiable group) is NOT the same thing as being gay. At least part of the discomfort with homosexuals is their invisibility (sort of like the Commies way back when ;) ).

I think it's a silly, baseless fear that will fade with time. But in the meantime, when I go into battle, I want to know that all my unit is working as a cohesive team, and they will all be worried about protecting our collective backs.

Please note I didn't say that gays should leave the military... I said the ones who couldn't handle them being there should.

They're only "invisible" because revealing themselves would cause immediate discharge from the armed services. I would think the current policy would make for more paranoia than one where the gay servicemen/women could be out in the open about it.

Currently, society and the government views sexuality as a matter of choice (behavior). Because it is a choice, it is currently not a protected class. While it is a fair analogy to equate the treatment of blacks and gays in the military, I think we can all agree that behaviors can be hidden, while skin color/gender cannot. There is a lot of work towards defining homosexuality within the human genome, thus making it a protected class. Until that occurs, I'm afraid it will be difficult to regulate protection against discrimination. Currently, it's the equivalence of "protecting" someone for being a Republican.

One of my best friends did 27 years in the Navy as a gay male. He retired last year from the reserves. He doesn't like the policy (DADT), but only because it constantly put him at risk of losing his job - not because he wanted to listen to Streisand on his shifts.

I think this is a huge part of the problem. How many heterosexuals can honestly say they choose to be heterosexual? It's this whole "don't be gay and you'll be okay" attitude that needs to go.

I can't imagine how difficult it would be to have to hide such a significant part of who you are. How often does one's SO come up in conversation normally? Now imagine either having to eliminate that completely, or turning "Mark" into "Mary." Sheesh.

I just wonder what number of front line troops are gay? I would guess it would be more likely that they would be analysts, translators, logistics, and in other support roles.

Or maybe there should be the current policy in place for combat/front line troops and sailors, yet a different policy for support personnel.

Agreed. Perfect example: The organist at my church was homosexual. He was not a practicing homosexual, he simply liked men. Enter the new pastor: a raging anti-homosexual preacher. Our beloved, and very talented organist left our church within 2 months. It took us 18 months to get rid of the pastor, had to go to the bishop and pay severance and all this stuff. However, we got rid of him, in no small part, for running off one of the most contributory members of our church. Please, please, let's not derail this into an anti-religion conversation. Suffice to say, the congregation kicked out the bigoted pastor as fast as we possibly could. Problem solved, but the damage was done. The point is, even when the person did not engage in the behavior that was "objectionable", the discrimination still occurred. He was gay, but he wasn't "being" gay. That is the crux of DADT. You can be gay, as long as you don't act gay....well,that's just queer.

And, to your point, I don't know any gay person who chooses it either. Universally, they all think it pretty much sucks to be gay in this world. Of course, all of the gay people I know are over 40, so it is arguably a different generation. I speculate that it is easier for today's young adults, but that is ignorant speculation. I have nothing to back it, just a feeling.

Whoa, whoa, whoa... say what? What's a "non-practicing homosexual," again?

I can only imagine it's like a non-practicing heterosexual, but instead of refraining from sex with and feelings of love for the opposite sex, it's the refraining from sex with and feelings of love for the same sex.

Oh, okay... stupid PC nomenclature.

*hand jerking motion*

Say, does it break down like this?

Human, Male, Heterosexual, Practicing
Human, Male, Homosexual, Practicing
Human, Male, Heterosexual, Lives-With-Mother
Human, Male, Homosexual, Non-Practicing (Christian Guilt / Denial)
Human, Male, Confused, Twilight Fan

...

Practicing sounds like it involves masturbation, not intercourse.

Judges would have also accepted: "self-loathing gay" or "afraid of being gay-bashed."

I'm not sure I like what you're implying here

Yeah, all gays = prissy queens? Hardly.

ASU2003's suggesting is ridiculous.

...

Hell, I worked with a bunch of heterosexual pussies during my deployments.

I would have rather had a level-headed gay guy on the machine gun.

hey, ASU2003

Guess which of these people are gay:

http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-...39193_5095.jpg

http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/i...-05-01/sto.jpg

http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/g...MY_MATHENY.jpg

http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos..._2909444_n.jpg

http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-...62879_1477.jpg

I don't care. They should be able to serve just like in any other European or Canadian foreign military member in any role.

But I worry about the chances of another 1994 election cycle happening in November. If this is all Obama was able to pass is this from his campaign promises... well it won't be good. And I remember the criticisms of Clinton having never served and passing the don't ask, don't tell policy in 1993. I'm sure it won't be any better this time around. Should it be repealed, sure, but at what political cost? There are people who won't like it and they will be voting in large numbers in November.

If you have most of the military and former military members campaigning for the other guy, it doesn't bode well usually.

Let me preamble this by saying I'm active duty military.

I wouldn't mind sharing a fighting hole with a gay guy, or showering in the same room even, as long as he could keep it professional. That being said, how many could? I know if I was put in a shower full of women, I probably wouldn't be able to keep my eyes even with theirs.

Psh. Come on, it's not that hard. Non-practicing = celibate.

Agreed... I work in a military setting, and this sentiment is not uncommon in conversations relating to battle competencies, situational awareness, commitment to mission, loyalty, etc. Sure there are plenty of jokes and non-PC comments, but when the shit hits the fan.... among experienced warriors, you usually know who you can count on. And there are plenty of posers in the hetero-community.

A little historical side-note regarding the fierceness of the ancient Spartan and/or Theben warriors who were bi or homosexuals. The city-state organized groups of "idealized" (official term of the day) lovers, which made them extremely fierce and dedicated warriors. The bad-news... eventually the army was completely decimated by King Philip II (WTF), but was later honored by his son Alexander the Great. Crazy stuff...
This is another valid point... the military is not always in the throws of battle. Important mission-critical work has to be accomplished... outside of ass-kicking and survival scenarios, is it not prudent for the military to mitigate all known potential for the kinds of distractions described by FelixP? Cohesion and efficiencies are always casualties outside of the culture of discipline and self control... just look at our federal government.

We're all fatally human. Where can we afford to be more or less accommodating? Depending on the stakes, and if we intend to succeed in our commitments, sometimes hard lines must be drawn. We just need to be clear on our commitments and intentions. We can start by keeping politics out of the decision process.

It was minorities and then it was women and now it is homosexuals in the military. I think we are on a progression (not necessarily a steady one) of getting past these social hang-ups. There's certainly no harm in thinking ahead of the game.

Think about it. "Non-practicing" implies choices based on fundamental values, such as religion. "Celibate" simply means refraining from sexual relationships.

How often do you hear about non-practicing heterosexuals?

I don't think the terms are equal, though the use above may have been misapplied or unintended.

Is it like the distinction for "ethnic Jew"? Maybe we should call non-practicing homosexuals "oriented gay." You know, he might be gay, but he's not practicing.

Wow, guys. Let's just blow it all out of proportion with speculation.

All I can say, is that I didn't know he was gay until after he left. He had been at our church for 12 to 15 years. He never brought a guy to church or talked about guys. I saw him in the community ALL the time, and he was always alone. After he left, a member or the choir and close friend confided in my why he left. She told me that he was a "non-practicing homosexual". I can not expound. I don't know what it meant to her or to him. I don't know if those were her words or his. I am simply quoting her. Recommence speculation...