~*~*~*~*~
Although not really the topic, yesterday's post elicited much discussion on the validity and necessity of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. Most of you feel it is an unfair practice and one that should be made obsolete. I'm not quite there ...
Let's start this with a few presumptions:
1. I am anything but homophobic. Anyone who has read my blog for any period of time knows that my sexual orientation is best summed up as "none." Although my relationship preference is monogamy, I honestly have no gender preference in relationships. I am attracted to the person, not their gender.
2. The military is not a job, it'san adventure a lifestyle. It is not realistic to say that sexual orientation plays no role in your 9-5 job, therefor it plays no role in the military. The only correlation between a 9-5 job and enlistment in the military is that they both generated a paycheck.
3. Sexual orientation has no impact on the ability to serve one's country.
Let me say that again. Sexual orientation has no impact on the ability to serve one's country. It's not the individual's ability to serve - their ability to perform military tasks - that is impacted by sexual orientation. No ... sexual orientation can, and does, disrupt unit cohesiveness.
Should it? No, it really shouldn't. As a society, we should be beyond that. We shouldn't be living in fear of things we don't understand. We shouldn't find fault in sexual orientation any more than we do with the color of one's hair or eyes. We shouldn't, but we do.
Unit cohesiveness is probably the most critical element required for the military to operate efficiently. Although many (most?) of you who read this blog are in the 30+ age range, the military is loaded with the under 25 crowd. These are people who come from all backgrounds. College educated. Home schooled. Big cities. Suburban communities. Po-dunk in the middle of no where. The military is a microcosm of society and being that it is much smaller than the general population, differences between people are magnified. There isn't a sense of safety in numbers. Communities of "like" people are much smaller ... and much more judgmental.
Imagine for a moment that an openly gay soldier is serving in a combat unit. The majority of that unit will likely have a heterosexual orientation. A few of those military members feel threatened by the sexual orientation of their comrade. They have access to weapons. It becomes either a "friendly fire" incident, a "fragging" incident or worse yet, apathy. An injured soldier is allowed to die because of his/her sexual orientation rather than being given the same treatment of his/her heterosexual counterpart.
Sure, if the acts are intentional the military members will be prosecuted - assuming it can be proven that they were intentional. In the mean time, we've lost a human life and we've impacted the performance of a military that fights daily to protect your freedoms and, ironically, the freedoms of all people without regard to sexual orientation.
Do I think it's fair that gays/lesbians/bisexuals (yes, they fall under DADT too!) have to "hide" their sexual orientation in the military? No, but I did that very thing for five years. Do I know, without a doubt, that sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with one's dedication to, and ability to, serve their country? Yes I do! Do I believe that serving with openly gay/lesbian/bisexual military members will negatively impact unit cohesiveness. Absolutely! Like it or not (and I don't like it), DADT works for the military.
Although not really the topic, yesterday's post elicited much discussion on the validity and necessity of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. Most of you feel it is an unfair practice and one that should be made obsolete. I'm not quite there ...Let's start this with a few presumptions:
1. I am anything but homophobic. Anyone who has read my blog for any period of time knows that my sexual orientation is best summed up as "none." Although my relationship preference is monogamy, I honestly have no gender preference in relationships. I am attracted to the person, not their gender.
2. The military is not a job, it's
3. Sexual orientation has no impact on the ability to serve one's country.
Let me say that again. Sexual orientation has no impact on the ability to serve one's country. It's not the individual's ability to serve - their ability to perform military tasks - that is impacted by sexual orientation. No ... sexual orientation can, and does, disrupt unit cohesiveness.
Should it? No, it really shouldn't. As a society, we should be beyond that. We shouldn't be living in fear of things we don't understand. We shouldn't find fault in sexual orientation any more than we do with the color of one's hair or eyes. We shouldn't, but we do.
Unit cohesiveness is probably the most critical element required for the military to operate efficiently. Although many (most?) of you who read this blog are in the 30+ age range, the military is loaded with the under 25 crowd. These are people who come from all backgrounds. College educated. Home schooled. Big cities. Suburban communities. Po-dunk in the middle of no where. The military is a microcosm of society and being that it is much smaller than the general population, differences between people are magnified. There isn't a sense of safety in numbers. Communities of "like" people are much smaller ... and much more judgmental.
Imagine for a moment that an openly gay soldier is serving in a combat unit. The majority of that unit will likely have a heterosexual orientation. A few of those military members feel threatened by the sexual orientation of their comrade. They have access to weapons. It becomes either a "friendly fire" incident, a "fragging" incident or worse yet, apathy. An injured soldier is allowed to die because of his/her sexual orientation rather than being given the same treatment of his/her heterosexual counterpart.
Sure, if the acts are intentional the military members will be prosecuted - assuming it can be proven that they were intentional. In the mean time, we've lost a human life and we've impacted the performance of a military that fights daily to protect your freedoms and, ironically, the freedoms of all people without regard to sexual orientation.
Do I think it's fair that gays/lesbians/bisexuals (yes, they fall under DADT too!) have to "hide" their sexual orientation in the military? No, but I did that very thing for five years. Do I know, without a doubt, that sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with one's dedication to, and ability to, serve their country? Yes I do! Do I believe that serving with openly gay/lesbian/bisexual military members will negatively impact unit cohesiveness. Absolutely! Like it or not (and I don't like it), DADT works for the military.
~*~*~*~*~
21 comments:
In my 8+ yrs of active duty service, I've known several gay soldiers in my unit. I've never once observed any disruption of unit cohesion because of them.
Do you have any experience in a combat unit? Being a female, you'd barred from any combat MOS, so I doubt that you did. Your speculation that an openly gay soldier might be killed by his or her fellow soldiers, frankly, is asinine.
I've got an idea. Why don't we kick out the blacks too? After all, just as there are homophobes who would rather see homosexuals die (as you contend), there are racists who feel the same way about blacks.
I agree with some points here Dana, but I have to say that being an ex-military myself, I had no problems with those who were "gender challenged" as my CO liked to phrase the term.
There have been the arguments that because of their willingness to lie about their sexual orientation that they'd be willing to lie about other things, making them a serious security risk for sensitive military matters.
There have been the arguments about because of their sexual orientation, they might not be able to control themselves, and jump all over one of their platoon mates while on gurad duty, because they just can't hold back anymore.
To it all I have to say this:
Grow up.
Sexual orientation DOESN'T affect how one can serve in the military.
The mindset of said person does.
If they are a bit of a deviate, then I'd have to say that you need to curtail these folks.
That being said, the worst part about gays in the military are the hetero reactions to gays in the military.
Just because you aren't gay doesn't make you a more qualified person for the job.
What it makes you is a bigot, and a fairly small-minded individual.
If you are there to fight for the rights and freedoms of others, then you're fighting for ALL Americans, not just the hetero folks.
I mean, during the Civil War it was mostly fought by whites. Yet there were those companies of blacks who really made a difference in the war effort, and were duly noticed, even if they were shuffled into a back corner for so many years.
Give these folks a chance. If they're willing to fight and die to keep our country safe, then that's their right, their priviledge, and ultimately their choice...
Who are we to judge, and say who is and isn't fit to serve if they're willing and able?
I understand your argument about unit cohesion and "for their own safety", but it IS basically the same argument that was made by people who didn't want to integrate blacks into the military. And then by people who didn't want to integrate women.
Also, my brother in law is a Lt. Col in the air force so I know a lot of air force people. While most of them ... how should I put this ... they aren't necessarily homophobic, they just prefer not to be around gays and many have religious "problems" with gays ... but they are also insulted by people's accusations that they and the military aren't professional enough to integrate gays if congress orders them to do so.
Also, the "under 25 crowd" is actually the most accepting of gays. We know this because every time gay marriage is on the ballot, the under 25 crowd votes overwhelmingly in favor of it. It's people our age and up that tend to be opposed to it. ;-)
And, as I said yesterday, gays serve openly in both the British and Israeli militaries (and Canada, Germany, France and Italy and 25+ more) and they have not had any morale or cohesion problems.
This will probably be unpopular also, but here it goes...
The military is an boy's club. It is more like a fraternity than job. That is not to say that it is all party, but there is brotherhood and loyalty based on a connection of being the same. Young men - especially young men who enlist - are not known as being particularly sensative to issues of sexual orientation. It may not be right, but it the relaity. I think it is silly not to acknowledge that fact. (And I know I have not acknowledge our women in the miltary in this blurb, but I think they are encompassed in my over all thought.)
What is wrong with keeping one's private life private? DADT is not a secret. If you can't live within the confines of the rule - don't enlist. Maybe my thinking is really off, but I don't see anything wrong with the rule. It is a good compromise to protect everyone's interest. Sure, it might be nice to go into the service waving your gay pride flag, but we don't live in Utopia.
My brother was in the military and also gay, he never once mentioned having a major problem with anyone about his orientation.
In fact, he also made the comment "helluva a lot better than high school".
So, no, I don't think their would be a huge uproar with gays being open in the military.
Hubman, you've known several gay soldiers in your unit who have served under DADT and you've never once observed any disruption of unit cohesion because of them. And let me be clear, I don't believe this is because of them but because of the NOT thems!
I don't have any experience in a combat unit because of the same reasons I believe DADT has a place in the military. Studies have shown - again and again - that men have a different biological response to seeing a female in harms way. It is best for the military that women NOT be in a combat environment.
And your reference to race in this issue? A bit over the top and not as similar as you'd like to believe.
Jormengrund, quite frankly, I think it's MORE likely that heterosexuals can't control themselves, and will jump all over one of their platoon mates while on guard duty *grin*
My argument is NOT that sexual orientation affects how one serves in the military - in fact, I was very clear in making that point.
And DADT doesn't preclude anyone from serving in the military - I am a prime example of that.
Jay, I have no doubt that the majority of military members will play nice if DADT is repealed. I don't believe that sexual orientation is much of an issue for most people - military or not.
The irony of this - for me - is that I have tons of gay friends. Never once has any one of them "hit on" a straight man. My thoughts are if a person (of any gender or sexual orientation) is willing to do the job, let them.
I would really have to see some sort of statistics regarding 'friendly-fire' incidents since the inception of DADT.
Maybe in the 50's if someone was outed these things might have happened, but- as Jay pointed out, it is the under 30 crowd who is more accepting of alternative lifestyles than the over 40 crowd.
I'm sure that racially intergrating the armed forces caused problems initially as well, but once you do it, it becomes a non-issue over time.
To not allow openly gay men and women serve is a vast waste of resources. The true professional soldier which I am sure is the rule rather than the exception will still serve with honor if he or she is fighting along side a gay person or not.
If a soldier does act out hatred toward a fellow dedicated soldier because of his or her orientation, do we really need that type of person in the military?
Lastly...You said, "fragging". Hee Hee. That sounds dirty. Cheers Dana!!
The main issue is not that DADT is working or not. It is that there is still some disconcern or that sexual orientation is still an issue in the military. Like the same concern with women in combat roles, sexual orientation is tolerated to some point. It souldn't be an issue but it is.
The point is that there seems to be some amount of confusion over the differences between racism and sexism. They are two totally seperate buckets. Civil rights were being violated and are still being violated on both accounts.
Yes, I do have combat experience, Ex-Navy SEAL. I could careless what someone's sexual orientation was as long as they where trained for the job. The same with what sex they where.
What my beef is with those who would abuse the law and use it as a crutch or excuse to get out of a situation they were not willing to participate in. Military service is the one of the most highest forms of citizenship. It's like marriage, it is a deep and binding commitment. Those who are not willing to honor the commitment should not take that step. On the same hand, those who are should not be so shallow as to think that all people are or should be hetro orientation.
Just as joining the military is a choice, so is sexual orientation and they should not have to hide the fact that they have made a choice. Maybe I'm a lot more open about certain issues than most people, maybe not. The negeative impact is because we have made a third choice, some level of closed mindedness. We need to stop the judgemental behaviours, stop the hate.
DADT doesn't work for the military- thousands of patriotic Americans have been discharged for being nothing more than who they are.
I'm just glad you're no longer in the military with an attitude like yours.
Karen, well, it's popular with me, just not with everyone else!
I agree with much of what you said. It *is* a fraternity - something much different than a job. I have no issue with the military requiring personal life to not interfere with military life. Oh wait! They already do that! I don't know ... as I said when I started this I have conflicting emotions. I understand the desire to be who you are while you are being all you can be, yet I also understand there is a balance in that.
Kim, again, he was serving under DADT, correct? And if he was openly gay under DADT, then maybe there really isn't a need to repeal it?
Evil Twin's Wife, that's not really the argument here. It's not that I believe gays/lesbians will hit on straight folks, but rather I think straight folks are paranoid that gays/lesbians might challenge their own sexuality.
Bond, you'll never see that kind of statistic out of the military, but I agree it is COMPLETELY hypothetical. I have to wonder though, have you experienced the mentality of the "typical" 18-20 year old male (or female) for that matter who enlists in the military (not an officer, but a grunt)? Seriously, I'm not sure who y'all are meeting in that age range, but my experience was that these were not the nations most understanding, open minded folks.
Matt-Man, I'm so happy to see you back I'm just going to say "You were so very missed!!!"
Shiny Rod, thank you! This isn't about gays/lesbians being capable of serving their country - that's a given (as they do it EVERY day and have for decades). And you are right, it shouldn't be an issue, but it is.
ShinyRod, I did want to address one more thing in your comment. Yes, gay/lesbians have a choice whether they join the military knowing the current policy constraints, however I don't believe their sexual orientation is a choice. Although I do chose who I am with, I don't chose which gender I find attractive - I choose which PERSON I find attractive. Trust me, with society the way it is, no one in their right mind would choose to be gay/lesbian.
Hubman, do you actually read my posts or do you just respond to the first thing that makes you angry? Seriously, thousands of PEOPLE are discharged from the military every year for being who they are, and it's not because of DADT, but some other "silly" regulation like weight standards, refusal of a military school, failure to report for orders to [FILL IN THE BLANK]
And what is this terrible attitude I have? That I believe gays/lesbians do a wonderful job in the military serving our country each and every day? That I think sexual orientation has nothing to do with one's ability to serve their country? Or is it that one little part where I say I think it's a shame that there is still a need for DADT? Because THOSE were ALL my points.
And it was also your point that gays deserve to be discriminated against. THAT is your terrible attitude and you know full well that's what I was referring to.
Arguing with you is as frustrating as it is with Southern Sage. Maybe you're related...
Hubman, I can't see where I said they deserved to be discriminated against - in fact, I said, "Do I think it's fair that gays/lesbians/bisexuals (yes, they fall under DADT too!) have to "hide" their sexual orientation in the military? No, but I did that very thing for five years. Do I know, without a doubt, that sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with one's dedication to, and ability to, serve their country? Yes I do!"
And maybe your frustration has more to do with the fact that Sage and I aren't agreeing with your somewhat narrow minded perspective. I'm willing to consider the other side of this argument but you refuse to acknowledge that another side even exists.
You're like a wind-up toy- all someone has to do is make a comment that you disagree with and watch you bounce all over the place.
It's really rather amusing.
And I think you're the first person to EVER call me narrow-minded.
Hubman, I especially like it when people run out of logical arguments and resort to personal attacks. Now that puts a hitch in my get-a-long *wink*
I know several people who served in the Navy that were gay. I think they caused less problems than the heterosexuals that couldn't seem to draw the line. Dating among the heteros caused more damanage to unit cohesiveness that I ever saw from gays. granted I was not active duty, I was a dependent but I think over 20 years observing gives me some credibility on this.
Dana, my point was, no one had a problem with it, it didn't "negatively impact unit cohesiveness".
Thus, I don't think it's necessary.
Our world is changing and I think these archaic rules should be gone and done away with.
Shame on me but I didn't read the post but the thought of the topic makes me want to shout LEAVE GAY PEOPLE ALONE UNLESS YOU WANT TO INCLUDE THEM, GIVE THEM A HUG YOU KNOW BE A HUMAN BEING TOWARDS THEM!
OK I'm done now.
Post a Comment