In Defense of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has always been a controversial issue, but one that is poorly understood by the public. Let me first say that I firmly believe all Americans deserve equal freedom, and I do believe homosexuals deserve to have civil unions and all the liberties that they entail. This is not an issue of civil liberties. This is an issue of national security. And “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is not a ban on gays from serving in the military, but a restriction of certain behaviors, which is well within the purview of the armed forces.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, or DADT, was passed in 1993 by a Congress that had solid Democratic majorities in both the House of Representatives, 258 Democrats as opposed to 176 Republicans, and the Senate, 57 Democrats opposite 43 Republicans. Bill Clinton had just won his first term as president. This was not an extreme right-wing government that put DADT in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994. The Congress expresses in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 that military service is not a right and that,

Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that–

(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and

(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

The last part is crucial in understanding why DADT was enacted. Military society is not civilian society. The rules that govern it must be different because the military is expected to do things the public isn’t, like fight a war. I went to my friend, teammate, and United States Marine, Eric Yingling, to inquire more into the strictness of military life. He stated:

“During my time on the east coast, we were required to go out shirts tucked in, belt, and slacks/nicer jeans at all times not in uniform. You couldn’t have ear piercings, tattoos visible above the neck or other ‘individualistic’ qualities. This is all for unit cohesion and stomping out the ‘individual.’ The military doesn’t want individuals nor does it really care about what you think– it wants people to get the job done. They have their rules, and everyone– gay, straight, or other– needs to abide by them and conform. There is no preferential treatment because you are straight or gay. There are even rules to how straight couples should act in public, and especially while in uniform. They are there for a reason, and it isn’t to ban gays. They are allowed to join, and serve (for the same selfless reasons anyone would want to serve, right?) but they don’t get a special marking on their dog tags next to blood type that says ‘gay’ or something. Just as I don’t get one that says ‘straight.’”

Eric was also kind enough to point out that the military enters into the sexual lives of all its personal, he pointed out a passage from the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ, that prohibits a certain type of sex.

925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

The military culture is much different then mainstream society. In civil society, a person is not allowed to be restricted from work because they are disabled or have a defect, but in the military they must carefully chose their recruits. I know from personal experience that the United States Military is extremely selective in accepting recruits. I applied to West Point out of high school, earned a Congressional recommendation, but was denied by the Department of Defense Medical Examination Review Board, or DoDMERB, because I had corrective heart surgery. Later, I again tried to serve by earning a full scholarship from Army ROTC, but was again prevented from serving my country by DoDMERB due to a problem I had been born with. Eric had a similar story where the U.S. Army was delaying in allowing him to join because when he was twelve his doctor prescribed him a temporary inhaler (2 weeks use) to deal with bronchitis. Despite never having “any breathing issues or anything at all related in the 6 years following,” the U.S. Army was hesitant to recruit.

One must understand that DADT is not a ban of homosexuals serving in the military, but a rule requiring discretion in certain areas of all military personnel’s life to keep unit morale and cohesion at peak levels. If the military was not concerned with the morale and cohesion of its soldiers, wouldn’t that just be a little, well, queer?

Ross Sevy

Ross Sevy is a history and government dual major at CMC. He loves sports, politics, and America and can often be found wandering aimlessly saying the Pledge of Allegiance or singing the Star Spangled Banner towards every American flag he sees.

Nico

I don’t really buy your argument. You say that it is not a harmful policy yet hundreds of valuable translators have been dismissed because of the program. You go on to state that “military life is not like civilian life,” but this is sort of just dropped in pointlessly since you never offer an evidence that having gays serve in the military is at all detrimental. In fact, the Palm Center at the University of California Santa Barbara just released a report showing that:

“In foreign militaries, openly gay service members did not undermine morale, cause large resignations or mass “comings out.” The report found that “there were no instances of increased harassment” as a result of lifting bans in any of the countries studied.”(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/world/americas/22gays.html)

I also think it is worth noting that the Israeli Army has openly serving homosexuals and that nation’s army is generally considered the most battled-hardened and prepared in the world (since they have basically been in a constant state of conflict since the nation was founded).

And if overwhelming evidence is not sufficient perhaps a quote by Barry Goldwater (http://www.scs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/barry-goldwater.html) will sway you: “Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They’ll still be serving long after we’re all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone. .. You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.”
Nico

I don’t really buy your argument. You say that it is not a harmful policy yet hundreds of valuable translators have been dismissed because of the program. You go on to state that “military life is not like civilian life,” but this is sort of just dropped in pointlessly since you never offer an evidence that having gays serve in the military is at all detrimental. In fact, the Palm Center at the University of California Santa Barbara just released a report showing that:

“In foreign militaries, openly gay service members did not undermine morale, cause large resignations or mass “comings out.” The report found that “there were no instances of increased harassment” as a result of lifting bans in any of the countries studied.”(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/world/americas/22gays.html)

I also think it is worth noting that the Israeli Army has openly serving homosexuals and that nation’s army is generally considered the most battled-hardened and prepared in the world (since they have basically been in a constant state of conflict since the nation was founded).

And if overwhelming evidence is not sufficient perhaps a quote by Barry Goldwater (http://www.scs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/barry-goldwater.html) will sway you: “Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They’ll still be serving long after we’re all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone. .. You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.”
Bill

It is always quite telling when a heterosexual opens an essay extolling the virtues of his belief in equality for all human beings, only to be followed by many, many paragraphs that refute their very own stated belief.

Also, Ross Sevy, assuming you are heterosexual, if you have ever given or received oral sex from your girlfriend, or hell, even a hooker, than you too have engaged in sodomy, dear boy.

And with the CDC reporting the 38% of heterosexuals engage in ANAL sex, it seems clear that butt-sex is, by and large, a HETEROSEXUAL activity.

So what’s your point exactly? Whatever your point is, it most certainly suffers from your lack of knowledge in both basic human sexuality and military service.

If everyone shared YOUR views, you would, apparently, be the only person IN the military.

History will not look kindly at you, Ross Sevy. Nor should it.

Ross Sevy

I was not condemning sodomy, merely using it as an example of how the military tries to control every aspect of people’s lives. Also I would not be the only person in the military because as stated in the article I was born with a heart defect and have had two corrective surgies and I am, ergo, ineligable to serve my country.

Bill

It is always quite telling when a heterosexual opens an essay extolling the virtues of his belief in equality for all human beings, only to be followed by many, many paragraphs that refute their very own stated belief.

Also, Ross Sevy, assuming you are heterosexual, if you have ever given or received oral sex from your girlfriend, or hell, even a hooker, than you too have engaged in sodomy, dear boy.

And with the CDC reporting the 38% of heterosexuals engage in ANAL sex, it seems clear that butt-sex is, by and large, a HETEROSEXUAL activity.

So what’s your point exactly? Whatever your point is, it most certainly suffers from your lack of knowledge in both basic human sexuality and military service.

If everyone shared YOUR views, you would, apparently, be the only person IN the military.

History will not look kindly at you, Ross Sevy. Nor should it.

Ross Sevy

I was not condemning sodomy, merely using it as an example of how the military tries to control every aspect of people’s lives. Also I would not be the only person in the military because as stated in the article I was born with a heart defect and have had two corrective surgies and I am, ergo, ineligable to serve my country.

Curt

Why is it that every person who writes a long lengthy article saying they support DADT never mentions that 29 other countries allow openly gay men and women to serve in their military?
Curt

Why is it that every person who writes a long lengthy article saying they support DADT never mentions that 29 other countries allow openly gay men and women to serve in their military?
General Get Your Facts Str8

Actually, DADT is precisely a ban on homosexuals from serving in the military openly. As it is currently, a person’s sexual orientation in and of itself can be grounds for discharge. Gays are asking for the code of military conduct to be applied evenly and without regard for sexual orientation.

Being ineligible to serve because of sexual orientation as opposed to a physical disability are completely different. Being gay in no way is related to a person’s physical capacity or ability to serve. Gay people serve in our military today, as they have always. And they serve with distinction. You can take David Petraeus and Mike Mullen at their word on that.

Let’s also pretend that nothing had changed in the military since Congress enacted DADT. Let’s pretend that the tide of public opinion had not swung strongly behind lifting the ban, and that Colin Powel, Dick Cheny, Mike Mullen, Robert Gates and John Shalikashvili had not said it was time for a repeal. Let’s pretend most of our NATO allies hadn’t successfully allowed gay people to serve openly. Should we let the policy stand just because the army has a culture of homophobia?

If it is the case that our armed services can’t operate effectively by the mere presence of gays and lesbians in their ranks, then why are we expecting them to navigate the different religious, ethnic, linguistic and cultural mazes in Iraq and Afghanistan? Effective fighting forces in this century must be adaptable, diverse, and tolerant if they are to succeed. Validating homophobia, and keeping gays out to keep homophobes in the army, is not a recipe to building a force that can achieve victory.

Also, do you have any statements since 1993 in favor of this policy? Currently your article look a little retro.

Ross Sevy

” then why are we expecting them to navigate the different religious, ethnic, linguistic and cultural mazes in Iraq and Afghanistan?”

That is a very good point, I never really looked at it from that perspective

General Get Your Facts Str8

Thanks Ross!

General Get Your Facts Str8

Actually, DADT is precisely a ban on homosexuals from serving in the military openly. As it is currently, a person’s sexual orientation in and of itself can be grounds for discharge. Gays are asking for the code of military conduct to be applied evenly and without regard for sexual orientation.

Being ineligible to serve because of sexual orientation as opposed to a physical disability are completely different. Being gay in no way is related to a person’s physical capacity or ability to serve. Gay people serve in our military today, as they have always. And they serve with distinction. You can take David Petraeus and Mike Mullen at their word on that.

Let’s also pretend that nothing had changed in the military since Congress enacted DADT. Let’s pretend that the tide of public opinion had not swung strongly behind lifting the ban, and that Colin Powel, Dick Cheny, Mike Mullen, Robert Gates and John Shalikashvili had not said it was time for a repeal. Let’s pretend most of our NATO allies hadn’t successfully allowed gay people to serve openly. Should we let the policy stand just because the army has a culture of homophobia?

If it is the case that our armed services can’t operate effectively by the mere presence of gays and lesbians in their ranks, then why are we expecting them to navigate the different religious, ethnic, linguistic and cultural mazes in Iraq and Afghanistan? Effective fighting forces in this century must be adaptable, diverse, and tolerant if they are to succeed. Validating homophobia, and keeping gays out to keep homophobes in the army, is not a recipe to building a force that can achieve victory.

Also, do you have any statements since 1993 in favor of this policy? Currently your article look a little retro.

Ross Sevy

” then why are we expecting them to navigate the different religious, ethnic, linguistic and cultural mazes in Iraq and Afghanistan?”

That is a very good point, I never really looked at it from that perspective

General Get Your Facts Str8

Thanks Ross!

Thank you

“Let me first say that I firmly believe all Americans deserve equal freedom, and I do believe homosexuals deserve to have civil unions and all the liberties that they entail. ”

Thanks for agreeing that gays should be able to decide for themselves who gets to sit at their bed side while they are dying. I’m sure you also have the progressive opinon that gays should be able to get driver’s licenses and own pets, too.
Thank you

“Let me first say that I firmly believe all Americans deserve equal freedom, and I do believe homosexuals deserve to have civil unions and all the liberties that they entail. ”

Thanks for agreeing that gays should be able to decide for themselves who gets to sit at their bed side while they are dying. I’m sure you also have the progressive opinon that gays should be able to get driver’s licenses and own pets, too.
General Get Your Facts Str8

Clarification. The first paragraph was ambiguous. Orientation is not the same as behavior. Homosexual acts is different than homosexual orientation. Homosexual orientation is grounds for discharge as DADT is currently written.
General Get Your Facts Str8

Clarification. The first paragraph was ambiguous. Orientation is not the same as behavior. Homosexual acts is different than homosexual orientation. Homosexual orientation is grounds for discharge as DADT is currently written.
Mullen

I’ve done a thing or two regarding military policy. I think DADT should be lifted.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35197645/
Mullen

I’ve done a thing or two regarding military policy. I think DADT should be lifted.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35197645/
Bill

Heterosexuals apparently believe that if they treat their gay offspring as actual human beings, they are enlightened.

But making a statement like “let me first say that I firmly believe all Americans deserve equal freedom, and I do believe homosexuals deserve to have civil unions and all the liberties that they entail,’ actually makes you look like an asshole who has actually INTERNALLY DEBATED the worth of another human being’s life.

But LGTB citizens thank you very, very, very, very, very much for coming to the conclusion that it is simply immoral to treat a human being as less than a human being.

And never in my life have I been prouder to be a faggot.

Look at the alternative.
Young Soldier

You back up your argument with how the rules are currently in the military and with a couple opinions…things need to change. Myself and countless others I know are tired of serving in shame. We are Americans too who want to serve our country. Who we love or what we do in our private lives is none of your business. I wish you had someone close to you that was gay…I think your opinions would be a lot different.
Bill

Heterosexuals apparently believe that if they treat their gay offspring as actual human beings, they are enlightened.

But making a statement like “let me first say that I firmly believe all Americans deserve equal freedom, and I do believe homosexuals deserve to have civil unions and all the liberties that they entail,’ actually makes you look like an asshole who has actually INTERNALLY DEBATED the worth of another human being’s life.

But LGTB citizens thank you very, very, very, very, very much for coming to the conclusion that it is simply immoral to treat a human being as less than a human being.

And never in my life have I been prouder to be a faggot.

Look at the alternative.
Young Soldier

You back up your argument with how the rules are currently in the military and with a couple opinions…things need to change. Myself and countless others I know are tired of serving in shame. We are Americans too who want to serve our country. Who we love or what we do in our private lives is none of your business. I wish you had someone close to you that was gay…I think your opinions would be a lot different.
thomasAlex

This is the biggest crock I have ever heard! If Gays cannot be open about their Sexual Orientation, then Straights should also be banned from being open about theirs. Like you said “it’s bout unit cohesion”. Unit cohesion applies to everyone in the unit, not just Gays.
Student

Yes, DADT was passed in a democratically held congress, and yes, it was not a right-wing controlled act. What it was, was a step in the right direction. Does that mean we should stop striving for more? Throughout the history of civil rights minority groups have not been satisfied with ‘some’ equality, why should the homosexual community? It is a dissappointing statement to say basically, that the homosexuals should be satisfied with what they got and shut up. The next step is coming, it has to.
thomasAlex

This is the biggest crock I have ever heard! If Gays cannot be open about their Sexual Orientation, then Straights should also be banned from being open about theirs. Like you said “it’s bout unit cohesion”. Unit cohesion applies to everyone in the unit, not just Gays.
Student

Yes, DADT was passed in a democratically held congress, and yes, it was not a right-wing controlled act. What it was, was a step in the right direction. Does that mean we should stop striving for more? Throughout the history of civil rights minority groups have not been satisfied with ‘some’ equality, why should the homosexual community? It is a dissappointing statement to say basically, that the homosexuals should be satisfied with what they got and shut up. The next step is coming, it has to.
thomasAlex

“One must understand that DADT is not a ban of HETEROSEXUALS serving in the military, but a rule requiring discretion in certain areas of all military personnel’s life to keep unit morale and cohesion at peak levels.”

As the policy stands, Straight should be discharged if they do not keep their Sexual Orientation a secret as well, since it is about Unit Cohesion and all.
thomasAlex

“One must understand that DADT is not a ban of HETEROSEXUALS serving in the military, but a rule requiring discretion in certain areas of all military personnel’s life to keep unit morale and cohesion at peak levels.”

As the policy stands, Straight should be discharged if they do not keep their Sexual Orientation a secret as well, since it is about Unit Cohesion and all.
Dan Choi

Watch Lt. Dan Choi’s appearance at the Ath last semester, and then consider your argument about group cohesion.

Scroll down to November 5.

http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/mmca/cur_fall_09.php
Dan Choi

Watch Lt. Dan Choi’s appearance at the Ath last semester, and then consider your argument about group cohesion.

Scroll down to November 5.

http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/mmca/cur_fall_09.php
Matt F

Where is the harm inherent in being gay in the military? The burden of proof is yours to show, and not just because you are making a claim, but because the vast majority of developed nations with substantial military might openly allow gays into the military.

And even if there is a harm, is it large enough to compensate for the direct harm of losing around 5% of applicants and/or from losing employees who come out.

My biggest issue with DADT is not that the military is trying to put rules on a soldier’s sex life while he is in service. It is that it is discriminatory. If a gay individual doesn’t have any “inappropriate” sex during active duty, he or she is still technically breaking DADT while a straight person who doesn’t have any “inappropriate sex” is not breaking DADT. It is inherently discriminatory and until a real study comes out showing the harms of gays in the military, I’ll continue thinking that it is a terrible policy and that people who blindly support it are wildly misinformed.
Matt F

Where is the harm inherent in being gay in the military? The burden of proof is yours to show, and not just because you are making a claim, but because the vast majority of developed nations with substantial military might openly allow gays into the military.

And even if there is a harm, is it large enough to compensate for the direct harm of losing around 5% of applicants and/or from losing employees who come out.

My biggest issue with DADT is not that the military is trying to put rules on a soldier’s sex life while he is in service. It is that it is discriminatory. If a gay individual doesn’t have any “inappropriate” sex during active duty, he or she is still technically breaking DADT while a straight person who doesn’t have any “inappropriate sex” is not breaking DADT. It is inherently discriminatory and until a real study comes out showing the harms of gays in the military, I’ll continue thinking that it is a terrible policy and that people who blindly support it are wildly misinformed.
CMCer

Sevy -

While I am sorry about your heart defect, and inability to serve in the military, I am deeply offended by your equation of homosexuality to a disability. Your rejection from West Point seems valid based on your physical disability. What if you were rejected because you were open with who you were dating, male or female? Every time you look at someone who is gay, do you see them as disabled? That’s not the kind of person I thought you were.

Your argument is full of ignorant claims, and I suggest you get caught up on your current events. You clearly don’t know as much about the military’s views as you claim.

Ross Sevy

I did not intend to make homosexuality seem as though it is a defect, and if it came across as that I apologize. I was, however, stating that the military discriminates in selecting who can and can’t serve.

CMCer

Sevy -

While I am sorry about your heart defect, and inability to serve in the military, I am deeply offended by your equation of homosexuality to a disability. Your rejection from West Point seems valid based on your physical disability. What if you were rejected because you were open with who you were dating, male or female? Every time you look at someone who is gay, do you see them as disabled? That’s not the kind of person I thought you were.

Your argument is full of ignorant claims, and I suggest you get caught up on your current events. You clearly don’t know as much about the military’s views as you claim.

Ross Sevy

I did not intend to make homosexuality seem as though it is a defect, and if it came across as that I apologize. I was, however, stating that the military discriminates in selecting who can and can’t serve.

John C. Holmes

Ross,

How dare you have an opinion that differs from the homosexual agenda? You ought to be burned at the stake for wanting the military to handle this issue on its own.

Sure, everyone that commented here can cite a few big name generals in the public eye who are ok with repealing DADT, but keep in mind that those people are all Washingtonians and don’t want to seem un-pc to the American press and their foreign counterparts.

I’d like to see some of these posters go out and actually interview the rank-and-file of the military and see how those infantry guys feel about DADT. Do they really want another distraction from the mission at hand?

For those of you who don’t understand why it would be a distraction, you probably never played on a football, rugby, etc team. No one on these teams is explicitly banned from expressing their orientation (DADT), but anyone on the team can see why it just doesn’t make sense to express one’s homosexual desires to his teammates. It does nothing to contribute to the task at hand. And more than that, it just doesn’t fit in! Sorry, but that’s the way it is in these environments. I didn’t make it that way, nature did.

*Puts on flak-jacket in anticipation of your responses*

Samuel

I played football during high school. One of my teammates outed himself during his sophomore year (after football season was over). While there were some kids that were a bit uncomfortable about showering around him (discomfort that a small subset of the population will have whenever there are “different” people in an environment), I will swear to you that there was no difference at all in the team’s actions around him on the field. People still blocked for him. The QB still threw him the ball. On field performance did not change.

That’s obviously an anecdotal story, but you made such a blanket statement that “anyone” on a team will understand this. Obviously that blanket, absolute statement is false.

Each of your other points does not hold water. The military does not “handle all issues on its own”-Congress and the President have oversight (and it was them who allowed DADT tell to pass in the first place). You suggest that those disagreeing with Ross should ask those men in uniform what they think, as if they would vindicate your perspective. Do you really think that Americans are so uncomfortable with thought of fighting with a homosexual that they would become “distracted” in the heat of battle? I don’t.

John C. Holmes

Ross,

How dare you have an opinion that differs from the homosexual agenda? You ought to be burned at the stake for wanting the military to handle this issue on its own.

Sure, everyone that commented here can cite a few big name generals in the public eye who are ok with repealing DADT, but keep in mind that those people are all Washingtonians and don’t want to seem un-pc to the American press and their foreign counterparts.

I’d like to see some of these posters go out and actually interview the rank-and-file of the military and see how those infantry guys feel about DADT. Do they really want another distraction from the mission at hand?

For those of you who don’t understand why it would be a distraction, you probably never played on a football, rugby, etc team. No one on these teams is explicitly banned from expressing their orientation (DADT), but anyone on the team can see why it just doesn’t make sense to express one’s homosexual desires to his teammates. It does nothing to contribute to the task at hand. And more than that, it just doesn’t fit in! Sorry, but that’s the way it is in these environments. I didn’t make it that way, nature did.

*Puts on flak-jacket in anticipation of your responses*

Samuel

I played football during high school. One of my teammates outed himself during his sophomore year (after football season was over). While there were some kids that were a bit uncomfortable about showering around him (discomfort that a small subset of the population will have whenever there are “different” people in an environment), I will swear to you that there was no difference at all in the team’s actions around him on the field. People still blocked for him. The QB still threw him the ball. On field performance did not change.

That’s obviously an anecdotal story, but you made such a blanket statement that “anyone” on a team will understand this. Obviously that blanket, absolute statement is false.

Each of your other points does not hold water. The military does not “handle all issues on its own”-Congress and the President have oversight (and it was them who allowed DADT tell to pass in the first place). You suggest that those disagreeing with Ross should ask those men in uniform what they think, as if they would vindicate your perspective. Do you really think that Americans are so uncomfortable with thought of fighting with a homosexual that they would become “distracted” in the heat of battle? I don’t.

Big Zeke

Is it possible that all of the commenters here could refrain from calling Ross ignorant? This is the problem with the whole homosexual issue: if people have honest disagreements, the gays target their opponents with insults. I imagine that this is because the gays (and gay-rights sympathizers) feel offended. I understand this, but they must also understand why people might have a different opinion on the issue. And other people won’t always have your political sensitivities in mind (and they shouldn’t) when stating an opinion.

If you want honest dialogue, and you want straight folks to join your side, don’t resort to name calling or assume that everything is discrimination. Generally, I could care less about the prevailing social issues of the day (gay marriage, DADT), but when I hear how the homosexual movement attacks its detractors, it really turns me against the whole gay rights issue.

STC

Hey Big Zeke,

Ignorance suggests that someone is missing important knowledge. I’ll agree that it has potential negative connotations, but I think that when considering several aspects of Ross’ argument (they’ve been mentioned above), one must acknowledge that his arguments are missing key information and support–therefore the use of the word “ignorance.”

I think that you have a valid point that people are sometimes quick to jump straight to accusations of discrimination–that’s unfortunate, because it can definitely obfuscate instances of clear discrimination–but the key point is that DADT is inherently about discrimination. There is no evidence that it would affect unit cohesion, or other facts that one can point to and say, “See?? Gays hurt the military!” Instead, in lieu of these facts (and therefore compelling arguments, as was the case in Ross’ article), discrimination (overt or covert) is the only rationale that one can have in favor of DADT. I don’t think Ross is discriminatory (he’s a decent guy from what I hear), but I think that his thinking (sans facts, and compelling arguments) has the potential to feed off of people’s predisposition to discriminate against homosexuals.

Big Zeke

Is it possible that all of the commenters here could refrain from calling Ross ignorant? This is the problem with the whole homosexual issue: if people have honest disagreements, the gays target their opponents with insults. I imagine that this is because the gays (and gay-rights sympathizers) feel offended. I understand this, but they must also understand why people might have a different opinion on the issue. And other people won’t always have your political sensitivities in mind (and they shouldn’t) when stating an opinion.

If you want honest dialogue, and you want straight folks to join your side, don’t resort to name calling or assume that everything is discrimination. Generally, I could care less about the prevailing social issues of the day (gay marriage, DADT), but when I hear how the homosexual movement attacks its detractors, it really turns me against the whole gay rights issue.

STC

Hey Big Zeke,

Ignorance suggests that someone is missing important knowledge. I’ll agree that it has potential negative connotations, but I think that when considering several aspects of Ross’ argument (they’ve been mentioned above), one must acknowledge that his arguments are missing key information and support–therefore the use of the word “ignorance.”

I think that you have a valid point that people are sometimes quick to jump straight to accusations of discrimination–that’s unfortunate, because it can definitely obfuscate instances of clear discrimination–but the key point is that DADT is inherently about discrimination. There is no evidence that it would affect unit cohesion, or other facts that one can point to and say, “See?? Gays hurt the military!” Instead, in lieu of these facts (and therefore compelling arguments, as was the case in Ross’ article), discrimination (overt or covert) is the only rationale that one can have in favor of DADT. I don’t think Ross is discriminatory (he’s a decent guy from what I hear), but I think that his thinking (sans facts, and compelling arguments) has the potential to feed off of people’s predisposition to discriminate against homosexuals.

Timmy Ibs

Ross,

I disagree with you on one point.

Gays will not take away from unit cohesion. In fact, they will actually “grease” the wheels of the unit, if you know what I mean

Our “units” will be so frictionless that no amount of riff-raff could un-lube them. Our units will no longer suffer from friction-related splintering.

e

I am interested to know if the people who support Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell could articulate the exact reasons why they see sexuality as a possible disability. In addition, are there any other social identifiers (i.e. Race, Class, etc) that could also be seen as a detrimental to the cohesion of a unit?

Also, if it’s “Don’t Ask (other people if they’re Queer), Don’t Tell (each other if you’re Queer)” wouldn’t “Don’t BE Queer” be more a more appropriate title? Basically, Queer people are still being let into the military as long as they are good enough actors to cover up their whole identity. My question is, where does the real threat in their honesty lie? Are people really worried about the Queer people themselves or about the homophobic people getting distracted by the knowledge?

Sam Seaborn

“In addition, are there any other social identifiers (i.e. Race, Class, etc) that could also be seen as a detrimental to the cohesion of a unit?”

Yeah, absolutely, as seen in this masterful clip from The West Wing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f7js0mLwY4

Timmy Ibs

Ross,

I disagree with you on one point.

Gays will not take away from unit cohesion. In fact, they will actually “grease” the wheels of the unit, if you know what I mean

Our “units” will be so frictionless that no amount of riff-raff could un-lube them. Our units will no longer suffer from friction-related splintering.

e

I am interested to know if the people who support Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell could articulate the exact reasons why they see sexuality as a possible disability. In addition, are there any other social identifiers (i.e. Race, Class, etc) that could also be seen as a detrimental to the cohesion of a unit?

Also, if it’s “Don’t Ask (other people if they’re Queer), Don’t Tell (each other if you’re Queer)” wouldn’t “Don’t BE Queer” be more a more appropriate title? Basically, Queer people are still being let into the military as long as they are good enough actors to cover up their whole identity. My question is, where does the real threat in their honesty lie? Are people really worried about the Queer people themselves or about the homophobic people getting distracted by the knowledge?

Sam Seaborn

“In addition, are there any other social identifiers (i.e. Race, Class, etc) that could also be seen as a detrimental to the cohesion of a unit?”

Yeah, absolutely, as seen in this masterful clip from The West Wing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f7js0mLwY4

Matthew

To Ross: I honestly don’t understand the logic in your article. Gay men and women in the military will have to conform to the exact same code of conduct that straight people do. You seem to be inferring that a change in policy will cause a change in the behavior of gays in the military. If that’s not what you meant, why did you include rules about conduct in your article? Can you find ANYTHING else besides a sodomy guideline (which I would stake my life is not being adhered to by both straight and gay servicemembers) to use as an example?

To John C Holmes: As a gay man who plays a number of team sports (especially football) and has showered and changed with both gay and straight team members, you’re simply wrong. Of course anyone that did would have gotten their butt kicked (I’m a pretty tough guy) by a gay man so perhaps they were just mostly afraid of being ridiculed.

Big Zeke: While I think uninformed might be a better word, the reality is this piece reeks of ignorance. I agree with your general sentiment, but I think it’s just as bad on the other side. For example, after 36 years of being gay, I feel I am something of an expert on whether being gay was a choice for me(hint: it wasn’t). However I have had to constantly refute the claim of IGNORANT people who refuse to believe that fact. Add to it the that a lot of people on the other side of this fence tell me I’m going to burn in hell, that I should die, and that they hate me and I can hardly fault the pro-left commenters that Ross is ignorant. It hardly seems like it’s all that bad considering what I’ve had slung at me and the constant homophobe epiphets hurdled at the other side. But I do agree that a better word might be used.
Matthew

To Ross: I honestly don’t understand the logic in your article. Gay men and women in the military will have to conform to the exact same code of conduct that straight people do. You seem to be inferring that a change in policy will cause a change in the behavior of gays in the military. If that’s not what you meant, why did you include rules about conduct in your article? Can you find ANYTHING else besides a sodomy guideline (which I would stake my life is not being adhered to by both straight and gay servicemembers) to use as an example?

To John C Holmes: As a gay man who plays a number of team sports (especially football) and has showered and changed with both gay and straight team members, you’re simply wrong. Of course anyone that did would have gotten their butt kicked (I’m a pretty tough guy) by a gay man so perhaps they were just mostly afraid of being ridiculed.

Big Zeke: While I think uninformed might be a better word, the reality is this piece reeks of ignorance. I agree with your general sentiment, but I think it’s just as bad on the other side. For example, after 36 years of being gay, I feel I am something of an expert on whether being gay was a choice for me(hint: it wasn’t). However I have had to constantly refute the claim of IGNORANT people who refuse to believe that fact. Add to it the that a lot of people on the other side of this fence tell me I’m going to burn in hell, that I should die, and that they hate me and I can hardly fault the pro-left commenters that Ross is ignorant. It hardly seems like it’s all that bad considering what I’ve had slung at me and the constant homophobe epiphets hurdled at the other side. But I do agree that a better word might be used.
CMCer

John C. Holmes: First of all, you are obviously very clear about your sexuality, and don’t think others should be able to do the same. Should I have my commenter name as Harvey Milk or Dan Choi? Or to match your level, maybe a famous gay pornstar?

“For those of you who don’t understand why it would be a distraction, you probably never played on a football, rugby, etc team.”

First of all, I play rugby, and I am out to my team. Our star players are gay, and everyone gets along, gay or straight. Ross also plays rugby, and I’m sure there are gay members of his team that he wouldn’t torment or want kicked off the team if they came out.

Second, Mr. Holmes. It is not a “homosexual agenda”. The gays are not out to take over the agenda, but there is a progressive movement (better wording you might want to try) that is pushing for an end to discrimination based on sexuality, and it seems that our country (excluding yourself) has finally caught on to the unfair way we treat a minority of our citizens.
CMCer

John C. Holmes: First of all, you are obviously very clear about your sexuality, and don’t think others should be able to do the same. Should I have my commenter name as Harvey Milk or Dan Choi? Or to match your level, maybe a famous gay pornstar?

“For those of you who don’t understand why it would be a distraction, you probably never played on a football, rugby, etc team.”

First of all, I play rugby, and I am out to my team. Our star players are gay, and everyone gets along, gay or straight. Ross also plays rugby, and I’m sure there are gay members of his team that he wouldn’t torment or want kicked off the team if they came out.

Second, Mr. Holmes. It is not a “homosexual agenda”. The gays are not out to take over the agenda, but there is a progressive movement (better wording you might want to try) that is pushing for an end to discrimination based on sexuality, and it seems that our country (excluding yourself) has finally caught on to the unfair way we treat a minority of our citizens.
John C Holmes

@Samuel: You and I grew up in completely different areas. If it’s no big deal to have openly gay guys in the showers with your football team, maybe the men’s and women’s basketball teams can shower together too?

@Matthew: As a matter of clarification, would you be kicking their butt prison-style or straight man style? Besides, if they lost to you in a fight, they were probably gay to begin with.

Alum

John C. Holmes: It’s despicable that you would make the insinuation that gay athlete equals prison rapist, even as a joke.

John C Holmes

@Samuel: You and I grew up in completely different areas. If it’s no big deal to have openly gay guys in the showers with your football team, maybe the men’s and women’s basketball teams can shower together too?

@Matthew: As a matter of clarification, would you be kicking their butt prison-style or straight man style? Besides, if they lost to you in a fight, they were probably gay to begin with.

Alum

John C. Holmes: It’s despicable that you would make the insinuation that gay athlete equals prison rapist, even as a joke.

John C Holmes

@ CMCer:

Thank you for noticing the historical reference contained in my name It’s clear that you are a female – and thus, lesbian – and the whole being gay on a team thing doesn’t apply to women’s sports. Lesbians in sports are generally of the masculine form so they have the dominant personality on the team anyway. Did you ever consider how the straight minority on the Rugby team might feel about your sexuality? At least, to my knowledge, the rugby teams don’t have a locker room with showers.

And no one said that gay members would be tormented or kicked off, especially if they were good. I just said that it doesn’t fit in with the culture in men’s sports. This much is obvious.

look at the troll

clearly people should stop responding to Johnny Holmes. he’s a troll

John C Holmes

@ CMCer:

Thank you for noticing the historical reference contained in my name It’s clear that you are a female – and thus, lesbian – and the whole being gay on a team thing doesn’t apply to women’s sports. Lesbians in sports are generally of the masculine form so they have the dominant personality on the team anyway. Did you ever consider how the straight minority on the Rugby team might feel about your sexuality? At least, to my knowledge, the rugby teams don’t have a locker room with showers.

And no one said that gay members would be tormented or kicked off, especially if they were good. I just said that it doesn’t fit in with the culture in men’s sports. This much is obvious.

look at the troll

clearly people should stop responding to Johnny Holmes. he’s a troll

Big Zeke

Hey Matthew:

I understand your analogy about the right-wing bigots, but Ross said none of those things to you. So really, all of the comments attacking him are misplaced.
Big Zeke

Hey Matthew:

I understand your analogy about the right-wing bigots, but Ross said none of those things to you. So really, all of the comments attacking him are misplaced.
Student

Wow Holmes, I suggest you keep those posts anonymous because you have said a lot about your character today that cannot be taken back. Grow up.
Student

Wow Holmes, I suggest you keep those posts anonymous because you have said a lot about your character today that cannot be taken back. Grow up.
Ryan Pedersen

I don’t think that Ross is saying that queer soldiers can’t serve with distinction. The problem comes with the fact that you are in an entirely different situation when you are at war. The policy should not be changed if it would make people uncomfortable serving next to people who are attracted to them (oh that is ignorant to say…how do you know what their type is? Odds are that this could be a large possibility. Yeah, but they won’t act on it. Oh but it still would make people uncomfortable thinking about it) Is this really worth forcing when soldiers being uncomfortable could cause them to be unprepared and cost them their lives? It is great that there are lieutenants and officers that are for having homosexuals in the military, but wouldn’t this policy actually be proposed with the enlisted soldiers in mind as well?
Also, open homosexuals serving in the military in other countries is great, but those are different countries with different cultures.
I also don’t understand if people are just blindly calling Ross a bigot or actually making points about his article (that is not directed towards every comment).

It’s not about YOU

The thing that this comment misses — and that the article and some of the above comments about sports miss — is that everyone seems to assume that gay people are going to find you attractive in the shower/in the barracks/on the battlefield SIMPLY because you are a member of the same sex. Er…that is just not true! Why would you worry about someone of your same sex “checking you out” any more than you would worry about someone of the opposite sex doing it? It’s not all about “you,” and the idea that people who are gay are automatically into “you” is simplistic at best.
General Get Your Facts Str8

Once again: sexual orientation is different from sexual conduct. If the gay solider sexually harasses the people he/she is serving with, that person is violating the code of conduct and would be removed. If that person is not violating the code, then there is not a problem except some people’s homophobia. Should we force gays and lesbians to lie on a daily basis in the name of maintaining unit cohesion? Should we accommodate homophobic individuals instead of building a diverse and tolerant fighting force? I think not.

One other general note. Freedom of speech entitles Ross to state his opinion. It also entitles me to have a reaction. “Tolerance” should not mean that one person gets to state his opinion and no one is allowed to react honestly to it. That is the bastardized interpretation of freedom of speech that gives us the Dixie Chicks incident at the beginning of the Iraq War and Carrie Prejean’s anti-gay marriage response at the Ms. USA pageant. It’s unfair demand that people who are being labeled as destructive to unit cohesion should not be permitted to speak up for themselves and state their view.

Also, let’s be clear: this homophobic opinion, enshrined in law, directly impacts gays and lesbians. People lose their ability to serve their country, and have to lie on a daily basis. The opinion that Ross is wrong for supporting DADT doesn’t directly harm Ross or lead to anyone lying or losing a job. It’s kind of apples and oranges.

General Get Your Facts Str8

P.S.
“Also, open homosexuals serving in the military in other countries is great, but those are different countries with different cultures.”

Canada, Ryan? The United Kingdom, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Ryan?

Regardless of these examples, your line misses the point. Across cultures, and in many different types of nations, different countries have been able to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly.

Ryan Pedersen

I don’t think that Ross is saying that queer soldiers can’t serve with distinction. The problem comes with the fact that you are in an entirely different situation when you are at war. The policy should not be changed if it would make people uncomfortable serving next to people who are attracted to them (oh that is ignorant to say…how do you know what their type is? Odds are that this could be a large possibility. Yeah, but they won’t act on it. Oh but it still would make people uncomfortable thinking about it) Is this really worth forcing when soldiers being uncomfortable could cause them to be unprepared and cost them their lives? It is great that there are lieutenants and officers that are for having homosexuals in the military, but wouldn’t this policy actually be proposed with the enlisted soldiers in mind as well?
Also, open homosexuals serving in the military in other countries is great, but those are different countries with different cultures.
I also don’t understand if people are just blindly calling Ross a bigot or actually making points about his article (that is not directed towards every comment).

It’s not about YOU

The thing that this comment misses — and that the article and some of the above comments about sports miss — is that everyone seems to assume that gay people are going to find you attractive in the shower/in the barracks/on the battlefield SIMPLY because you are a member of the same sex. Er…that is just not true! Why would you worry about someone of your same sex “checking you out” any more than you would worry about someone of the opposite sex doing it? It’s not all about “you,” and the idea that people who are gay are automatically into “you” is simplistic at best.
General Get Your Facts Str8

Once again: sexual orientation is different from sexual conduct. If the gay solider sexually harasses the people he/she is serving with, that person is violating the code of conduct and would be removed. If that person is not violating the code, then there is not a problem except some people’s homophobia. Should we force gays and lesbians to lie on a daily basis in the name of maintaining unit cohesion? Should we accommodate homophobic individuals instead of building a diverse and tolerant fighting force? I think not.

One other general note. Freedom of speech entitles Ross to state his opinion. It also entitles me to have a reaction. “Tolerance” should not mean that one person gets to state his opinion and no one is allowed to react honestly to it. That is the bastardized interpretation of freedom of speech that gives us the Dixie Chicks incident at the beginning of the Iraq War and Carrie Prejean’s anti-gay marriage response at the Ms. USA pageant. It’s unfair demand that people who are being labeled as destructive to unit cohesion should not be permitted to speak up for themselves and state their view.

Also, let’s be clear: this homophobic opinion, enshrined in law, directly impacts gays and lesbians. People lose their ability to serve their country, and have to lie on a daily basis. The opinion that Ross is wrong for supporting DADT doesn’t directly harm Ross or lead to anyone lying or losing a job. It’s kind of apples and oranges.

General Get Your Facts Str8

P.S.
“Also, open homosexuals serving in the military in other countries is great, but those are different countries with different cultures.”

Canada, Ryan? The United Kingdom, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Ryan?

Regardless of these examples, your line misses the point. Across cultures, and in many different types of nations, different countries have been able to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly.

Matt Pautler

Why are all of you guys hating on sevy so much? If you are so confident that everyone in favor of don’t ask don’t tell are just a bunch of ignorant bigots then shouldn’t this be exactly what you want? You have someone bringing this discussion into the open air for you to discuss and bring your opinions to in a fair and relatively well read enviornment (as far as cmc students). Props to sevy for expressing his opinion despite not having the politically correct viewpoint
Matt Pautler

Why are all of you guys hating on sevy so much? If you are so confident that everyone in favor of don’t ask don’t tell are just a bunch of ignorant bigots then shouldn’t this be exactly what you want? You have someone bringing this discussion into the open air for you to discuss and bring your opinions to in a fair and relatively well read enviornment (as far as cmc students). Props to sevy for expressing his opinion despite not having the politically correct viewpoint
I’m gay

Firstly, shame on everyone who has resorted to simply calling people that disagree with them intolerant bigots. If everyone raged as many of you have and dismissed their points outright rather than consider what the opposition has to say this would not be a point of contention in society, there would be no societal desire to repeal the act.

I also would like to thank Ryan for pointing out that the continuation or repeal of the act could potentially have a significant impact on HUMAN BEINGS who we should all respect for the potential hardship they agreed to by joining the armed forces along with the fact that they are human.

While many try to trivialize discomfort, we need to recognize that it could have major impacts on the lives of our soldiers. Even if you contend that some soldiers discomfort is not justified, does that justify ignoring that and putting them and anyone else serving with them at increased risk?

Not looking at/performing studies to ascertain the affect of allowing homosexuals to serve openly is equally inappropriate. I just want to ask everyone to try to consider all the consequences of our actions before we make conclusions. And even after that has been done, share your research and reasoning rather than resorting to insulting individuals and stifling debate.
I’m gay

Firstly, shame on everyone who has resorted to simply calling people that disagree with them intolerant bigots. If everyone raged as many of you have and dismissed their points outright rather than consider what the opposition has to say this would not be a point of contention in society, there would be no societal desire to repeal the act.

I also would like to thank Ryan for pointing out that the continuation or repeal of the act could potentially have a significant impact on HUMAN BEINGS who we should all respect for the potential hardship they agreed to by joining the armed forces along with the fact that they are human.

While many try to trivialize discomfort, we need to recognize that it could have major impacts on the lives of our soldiers. Even if you contend that some soldiers discomfort is not justified, does that justify ignoring that and putting them and anyone else serving with them at increased risk?

Not looking at/performing studies to ascertain the affect of allowing homosexuals to serve openly is equally inappropriate. I just want to ask everyone to try to consider all the consequences of our actions before we make conclusions. And even after that has been done, share your research and reasoning rather than resorting to insulting individuals and stifling debate.
Ridiculous Pseudonym

Whereas Mr. Sevy and I disagree on some very fundamental issues, I find it hard to get severely worked up about an issue such as this one.
First of all, this seems to be an issue which simply places more stress on the military men and women serving our country (as others have stated before). Why engage in a needless political discussion among civilians on an issue that few of us can actually contextualize accurately? Why should we attempt to engage in policy which could distract our men and women in the field?
According to my understanding it is permissible to be gay while in the military just not open about it. Now we have a volunteer army, if you are not comfortable with the armies policies don’t join. It’s very simple to me. Of course if you want to serve the country in the military and be openly homosexual, you have an issue, but it quite simply comes down to a decision on your part. Some may argue that is unfair, but there are many ways to serve your country outside the military and in all of them it is permissible to be openly homosexual.
I don’t consider this to be bigoted, just practical. There is no reason to add needless distractions to the lives of military men and women, simply because we want to appear more just and open as a society.
Ridiculous Pseudonym

Whereas Mr. Sevy and I disagree on some very fundamental issues, I find it hard to get severely worked up about an issue such as this one.
First of all, this seems to be an issue which simply places more stress on the military men and women serving our country (as others have stated before). Why engage in a needless political discussion among civilians on an issue that few of us can actually contextualize accurately? Why should we attempt to engage in policy which could distract our men and women in the field?
According to my understanding it is permissible to be gay while in the military just not open about it. Now we have a volunteer army, if you are not comfortable with the armies policies don’t join. It’s very simple to me. Of course if you want to serve the country in the military and be openly homosexual, you have an issue, but it quite simply comes down to a decision on your part. Some may argue that is unfair, but there are many ways to serve your country outside the military and in all of them it is permissible to be openly homosexual.
I don’t consider this to be bigoted, just practical. There is no reason to add needless distractions to the lives of military men and women, simply because we want to appear more just and open as a society.
The Stash

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if everyone felt comfortable around gay people? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if everyone believed the same things and thought the same way? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all of these issues would just disappear?

Unfortunately that just isn’t the case. Not everyone feels comfortable around gay people. I know a few people where that is the case. Think about our population. There are large pockets of the population who truly feel uncomfortable around gay people. I, for one, have gay friends who are open about it, and at first I was uncomfortable about it. It takes time to get used to. So for those out there that believe that if you have gay friends you have to agree with their political beliefs you are wrong.

I am currently training to be an officer in the military. I, myself, am in favor of DADT. I don’t think some of you understand. Some of you think this is a policy that is banning those who are homosexual from serving in the various branches of the military. On the contrary, this was an act of congress that allowed them to serve in the military. Prior to this, being gay was actually a disqualification to serving in the military.

There are three times and places where all of your rights are not guaranteed: as a child, as a prisoner, and as a soldier serving the United States of America. Soldiers do not have the right to say whatever they want to say whenever they want to say it. There are restrictions on what we can say, for example, in opposition to the President. As a citizen, this right is guaranteed, but as a soldier, it is not. You are not allowed to say whatever you want to someone who outranks you or someone who serves as a subordinate. If an order is legal and moral you must follow it, that is the law.

Let’s say that there are two people fighting side by side. Soldier A is just your average joe from your average city in your average state. Soldier B came out of the closet a week ago to his platoon. Now Soldiers A and B are on a mission to raid a known terrorist weapons cache but Soldier A can’t help but think about Soldier B coming out of the closet. In that split second, when he isn’t thinking about the mission, he fails to react to a militant who jumps out from behind a wall and is shot. Soldier A is now dead.

For those of you who think this is not realistic, think about this: You go home for Thanksgiving Dinner. Your cousin at the table gathers everyone’s attention and finally, after years of hiding in the closet, comes out to you and your family. Are you not shocked? Are you not surprised? Are you now thinking about this for quite some time? Whether you like it or not, coming out of the closet is a big deal. And you’re going to be thinking about it for a while. That’s the way society operates.

Alright, I’ve probably said enough regarding this topic. I’ve got plenty more I could say, but you can only beat a dead horse so much. Allow me to say one last thing in conclusion. Whether you’re gay, straight, black, white, tall, short, smart, or dumb, in the military we’re all labeled with the same name: “Maggot.”

Sounds like

“Let’s say that there are two people fighting side by side. Soldier A is just your average joe from your average city in your average state. Soldier B announced last week that his mother back home just passed away. Now Soldiers A and B are on a mission to raid a known terrorist weapons cache but Soldier A can’t help but think about Soldier B and his mother, and worrying about his own family back home. In that split second, when he isn’t thinking about the mission, he fails to react to a militant who jumps out from behind a wall and is shot. Soldier A is now dead.”

I’m not trying to compare being gay to having your mother die, of course, but ANYTHING traumatic and emotional has the potential to distract a soldier. Traumatic and emotional things are common in war. Is coming out traumatic and emotional, for all parties involved? Often, yes. Does that mean it should be prohibited? Nonsense. If anything, it should be encouraged earlier, when units are still training, so as not to come as too big of a shock later, when they really do have to concentrate.
museum of tolerance

“Wouldn’t it be wonderful if everyone felt comfortable around gay people? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if everyone believed the same things and thought the same way? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all of these issues would just disappear?”

So is the correct response to this conundrum to be intolerant of a minority so a few bigoted people won’t feel uncomfortable or to tolerate the minority and say to hell with the intolerant? Thats a pretty easy question to answer in my opinion. Tolerating intolerance by enforcing intolerant policy is just as bad as being intolerant in the first place.

The Stash

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if everyone felt comfortable around gay people? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if everyone believed the same things and thought the same way? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all of these issues would just disappear?

Unfortunately that just isn’t the case. Not everyone feels comfortable around gay people. I know a few people where that is the case. Think about our population. There are large pockets of the population who truly feel uncomfortable around gay people. I, for one, have gay friends who are open about it, and at first I was uncomfortable about it. It takes time to get used to. So for those out there that believe that if you have gay friends you have to agree with their political beliefs you are wrong.

I am currently training to be an officer in the military. I, myself, am in favor of DADT. I don’t think some of you understand. Some of you think this is a policy that is banning those who are homosexual from serving in the various branches of the military. On the contrary, this was an act of congress that allowed them to serve in the military. Prior to this, being gay was actually a disqualification to serving in the military.

There are three times and places where all of your rights are not guaranteed: as a child, as a prisoner, and as a soldier serving the United States of America. Soldiers do not have the right to say whatever they want to say whenever they want to say it. There are restrictions on what we can say, for example, in opposition to the President. As a citizen, this right is guaranteed, but as a soldier, it is not. You are not allowed to say whatever you want to someone who outranks you or someone who serves as a subordinate. If an order is legal and moral you must follow it, that is the law.

Let’s say that there are two people fighting side by side. Soldier A is just your average joe from your average city in your average state. Soldier B came out of the closet a week ago to his platoon. Now Soldiers A and B are on a mission to raid a known terrorist weapons cache but Soldier A can’t help but think about Soldier B coming out of the closet. In that split second, when he isn’t thinking about the mission, he fails to react to a militant who jumps out from behind a wall and is shot. Soldier A is now dead.

For those of you who think this is not realistic, think about this: You go home for Thanksgiving Dinner. Your cousin at the table gathers everyone’s attention and finally, after years of hiding in the closet, comes out to you and your family. Are you not shocked? Are you not surprised? Are you now thinking about this for quite some time? Whether you like it or not, coming out of the closet is a big deal. And you’re going to be thinking about it for a while. That’s the way society operates.

Alright, I’ve probably said enough regarding this topic. I’ve got plenty more I could say, but you can only beat a dead horse so much. Allow me to say one last thing in conclusion. Whether you’re gay, straight, black, white, tall, short, smart, or dumb, in the military we’re all labeled with the same name: “Maggot.”

Sounds like

“Let’s say that there are two people fighting side by side. Soldier A is just your average joe from your average city in your average state. Soldier B announced last week that his mother back home just passed away. Now Soldiers A and B are on a mission to raid a known terrorist weapons cache but Soldier A can’t help but think about Soldier B and his mother, and worrying about his own family back home. In that split second, when he isn’t thinking about the mission, he fails to react to a militant who jumps out from behind a wall and is shot. Soldier A is now dead.”

I’m not trying to compare being gay to having your mother die, of course, but ANYTHING traumatic and emotional has the potential to distract a soldier. Traumatic and emotional things are common in war. Is coming out traumatic and emotional, for all parties involved? Often, yes. Does that mean it should be prohibited? Nonsense. If anything, it should be encouraged earlier, when units are still training, so as not to come as too big of a shock later, when they really do have to concentrate.
museum of tolerance

“Wouldn’t it be wonderful if everyone felt comfortable around gay people? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if everyone believed the same things and thought the same way? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all of these issues would just disappear?”

So is the correct response to this conundrum to be intolerant of a minority so a few bigoted people won’t feel uncomfortable or to tolerate the minority and say to hell with the intolerant? Thats a pretty easy question to answer in my opinion. Tolerating intolerance by enforcing intolerant policy is just as bad as being intolerant in the first place.

Thank you

Soldier A is about to get shot at but Soldier B, becasue he’s gay, can’t aim the gun. Soldier A yells, “help me, oh wait, he’s gay, I’m doomed!” Soldier B just can’t concentrate… he’s too gay. He’s making everyone else uncomfortable. If only he didn’t come out and kept his homosexuality to himself Soldier A would have survived, unlike the turkey at Thanksgiving dinner.
Thank you

Soldier A is about to get shot at but Soldier B, becasue he’s gay, can’t aim the gun. Soldier A yells, “help me, oh wait, he’s gay, I’m doomed!” Soldier B just can’t concentrate… he’s too gay. He’s making everyone else uncomfortable. If only he didn’t come out and kept his homosexuality to himself Soldier A would have survived, unlike the turkey at Thanksgiving dinner.
I’m gay

@ museum of tolerance

While I do not believe that your conclusion is invalid, I want you to remember that lives might be at stake which why we should cite studies, thank you Nico, along with philosophical reasoning.

Frankly even if your are right on philosophical grounds (which btw you ignored the potential impairment of safety/life of the perhaps inappropriately intolerant soldiers in your analysis) that does not smoothly translate into real results. Given this the question includes both: is the policy just, as well as, will changing it result in more just practical results.

museum of tolerance

Fair point, but neither the OP nor anyone in this thread has cited any studies showing that gays in the military = more lives lost. All we have are a few anecdotes on one side, and the fact that a lot of modern armies do allow gays and are not significantly worse for wear. In a debate between empiricism and anecdote, especially anecdote from intolerant people, I think empiricism wins out.

Unless there are real studies showing gays in the military = soldiers are worse off, anyone who accepts the statement that DADT is good is at best gullible and at worst intolerant. At a school where we relish in our critical thinking abilities, its shameful that not a one of the commenters who defends DADT, nor the OP, has posted any evidence apart from anecdote.

That being said, here is a report that was released yesterday which analyzes the long term and short term effects of gays in foreign armies.

“‘Other key conclusions of the new study are that preliminary findings that open gays do not disrupt military effectiveness hold over time, including in Britain, whose policy of non-discrimination marked its ten-year anniversary last month; that successful transitions did not involve creating separate facilities or distinct rules for gays or straights; and that the U.S. has a long tradition of turning to foreign armed forces as relevant sources of information about effective military policy.”

The link is here. http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/palm_releases_major_study_gays_foreign_militaries

or here

http://www.palmcenter.org/files/GaysinForeignMilitaries2010.pdf

Now if anybody wants to argue evidence and anecdote, I’ll check back.

I’m gay

@ museum of tolerance

While I do not believe that your conclusion is invalid, I want you to remember that lives might be at stake which why we should cite studies, thank you Nico, along with philosophical reasoning.

Frankly even if your are right on philosophical grounds (which btw you ignored the potential impairment of safety/life of the perhaps inappropriately intolerant soldiers in your analysis) that does not smoothly translate into real results. Given this the question includes both: is the policy just, as well as, will changing it result in more just practical results.

museum of tolerance

Fair point, but neither the OP nor anyone in this thread has cited any studies showing that gays in the military = more lives lost. All we have are a few anecdotes on one side, and the fact that a lot of modern armies do allow gays and are not significantly worse for wear. In a debate between empiricism and anecdote, especially anecdote from intolerant people, I think empiricism wins out.

Unless there are real studies showing gays in the military = soldiers are worse off, anyone who accepts the statement that DADT is good is at best gullible and at worst intolerant. At a school where we relish in our critical thinking abilities, its shameful that not a one of the commenters who defends DADT, nor the OP, has posted any evidence apart from anecdote.

That being said, here is a report that was released yesterday which analyzes the long term and short term effects of gays in foreign armies.

“‘Other key conclusions of the new study are that preliminary findings that open gays do not disrupt military effectiveness hold over time, including in Britain, whose policy of non-discrimination marked its ten-year anniversary last month; that successful transitions did not involve creating separate facilities or distinct rules for gays or straights; and that the U.S. has a long tradition of turning to foreign armed forces as relevant sources of information about effective military policy.”

The link is here. http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/palm_releases_major_study_gays_foreign_militaries

or here

http://www.palmcenter.org/files/GaysinForeignMilitaries2010.pdf

Now if anybody wants to argue evidence and anecdote, I’ll check back.

kmck

Why is everyone so afraid of gay people?
kmck

Why is everyone so afraid of gay people?
kmck

Correction: Why would anyone be afraid of a gay person?
kmck

Correction: Why would anyone be afraid of a gay person?
Ugh

Ross:
Please learn to write.
Sincerely,
Everyone
Ugh

Ross:
Please learn to write.
Sincerely,
Everyone
Nico

The discussion of discomfort seems silly for a few reasons. People are gay, get over it. Some of them are nice people and some of them are creeps. The same goes for any other way you want to parse people up (straight, black, catholic, etc.). You, as a human being, will interact with other gay people at some point in your life; this goes for soldier and civilian alike. Think back (well to your textbooks at least) to when the military was being forcible integrated, lots of white folks were uncomfortable. Too effing bad.

Since we have seen evidence that openly serving homosexuals have no detrimental impact on militaries around the world, it seems relevant to now inject the human side for anti-DADT proponents. Here is a letter from a gay service member that was entered into congressional record by congressman Jim Moran of Virginia and I would implore everyone considering this topic to read it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35571422/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show.
Nico

The discussion of discomfort seems silly for a few reasons. People are gay, get over it. Some of them are nice people and some of them are creeps. The same goes for any other way you want to parse people up (straight, black, catholic, etc.). You, as a human being, will interact with other gay people at some point in your life; this goes for soldier and civilian alike. Think back (well to your textbooks at least) to when the military was being forcible integrated, lots of white folks were uncomfortable. Too effing bad.

Since we have seen evidence that openly serving homosexuals have no detrimental impact on militaries around the world, it seems relevant to now inject the human side for anti-DADT proponents. Here is a letter from a gay service member that was entered into congressional record by congressman Jim Moran of Virginia and I would implore everyone considering this topic to read it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35571422/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show.
thomasAlex

How many Heterosexuals engage in “oral sex”, which is against a code of conduct in the Military.
thomasAlex

How many Heterosexuals engage in “oral sex”, which is against a code of conduct in the Military.
David Asher

Ok lets get this straight (pun intended?):

The argument for preventing gay people from serving in the military is as follows:

There are homophobic people in the military. Gay people would interfere with their ability to serve. Keep gay people out of the military.

Hmmm. It seems having women in the military could also be distracting for many reasons. An earlier commenter compared the military to a football or rugby team. Seems like a woman on a football team would be pretty distracting (though I am not a football player, my best friend in high school and now my best friend in college are football players and I am pretty sure that their teammates say as much sexist shit as homophobic shit). Yet we have women serving in the military. Does it create problems? Yes some. But we are dealing with those problems and I don’t hear anyone making the argument to kick women out of the military.

Having gay people serve is not the same as having women serve. True. But the argument for keeping gays out, if a valid argument, should also be a good argument for kicking women out.

Also, I’d like to point out that no scientific study has been presented to show the negative effects of gays serving openly. Yet, we know form our allies that having gays serve openly doesn’t destroy unit cohesion. Which is more distracting for soldier A: wondering if soldier B is gay or knowing upfront that solder B is gay and having time to deal with whatever homophobic issues he/she has and get over it before live combat?

Reason for repealing DADT: Let us pretend that there is a premed student with great grades, who has already been accepted to (though turned down) early admittance to an ivy league medical school. He has got potential to make a great neurologist and has interest in the Army Health Professions Scholarship Program. Yet he is openly gay.

What is it worth to keep open gays out of the military? Do you really want to limit your talent pool? Would you take a mediocre straight army doc over a really good gay doc?

I would like to give props to Ross for having the courage for making an unpopular argument. But I’d also like to give props to the gay students at CMC. Being open at CMC is definitely a bigger challenge than Wesleyan, Vassar, or Brown and our gay students could have gone somewhere else, but they came here for the love of CMC. Although, CMC isn’t as homophobic as the other 5Cs seem to think, we aren’t exactly homophilic either.
David Asher

Ok lets get this straight (pun intended?):

The argument for preventing gay people from serving in the military is as follows:

There are homophobic people in the military. Gay people would interfere with their ability to serve. Keep gay people out of the military.

Hmmm. It seems having women in the military could also be distracting for many reasons. An earlier commenter compared the military to a football or rugby team. Seems like a woman on a football team would be pretty distracting (though I am not a football player, my best friend in high school and now my best friend in college are football players and I am pretty sure that their teammates say as much sexist shit as homophobic shit). Yet we have women serving in the military. Does it create problems? Yes some. But we are dealing with those problems and I don’t hear anyone making the argument to kick women out of the military.

Having gay people serve is not the same as having women serve. True. But the argument for keeping gays out, if a valid argument, should also be a good argument for kicking women out.

Also, I’d like to point out that no scientific study has been presented to show the negative effects of gays serving openly. Yet, we know form our allies that having gays serve openly doesn’t destroy unit cohesion. Which is more distracting for soldier A: wondering if soldier B is gay or knowing upfront that solder B is gay and having time to deal with whatever homophobic issues he/she has and get over it before live combat?

Reason for repealing DADT: Let us pretend that there is a premed student with great grades, who has already been accepted to (though turned down) early admittance to an ivy league medical school. He has got potential to make a great neurologist and has interest in the Army Health Professions Scholarship Program. Yet he is openly gay.

What is it worth to keep open gays out of the military? Do you really want to limit your talent pool? Would you take a mediocre straight army doc over a really good gay doc?

I would like to give props to Ross for having the courage for making an unpopular argument. But I’d also like to give props to the gay students at CMC. Being open at CMC is definitely a bigger challenge than Wesleyan, Vassar, or Brown and our gay students could have gone somewhere else, but they came here for the love of CMC. Although, CMC isn’t as homophobic as the other 5Cs seem to think, we aren’t exactly homophilic either.
ror

DADT does not prevent homosexuals from serving in the military. It prevents sexuality from being an issue and a distraction in military service. Sexuality from a military viewpoint is completely irrelevant and there is no place for it. I think this is the essence of Ross’s argument.
ror

DADT does not prevent homosexuals from serving in the military. It prevents sexuality from being an issue and a distraction in military service. Sexuality from a military viewpoint is completely irrelevant and there is no place for it. I think this is the essence of Ross’s argument.
David Asher

But sexuality is very much a part of the military. DADT just makes sure that heterosexuality is assumed because those that aren’t are forced to keep quiet.

There isn’t that much of a difference between banning gays from the military and banning gays from serving openly in the military. If someone had been open in college, went back into the closet to serve, there would be a record (facebook, old friends, etc) – a record which could be used against them if they pissed someone off or were competing for advancement within the military.
David Asher

But sexuality is very much a part of the military. DADT just makes sure that heterosexuality is assumed because those that aren’t are forced to keep quiet.

There isn’t that much of a difference between banning gays from the military and banning gays from serving openly in the military. If someone had been open in college, went back into the closet to serve, there would be a record (facebook, old friends, etc) – a record which could be used against them if they pissed someone off or were competing for advancement within the military.
Karthik Reddy

I am in full agreement with Ross Sevy. “Y’all” are making his article seem prejudiced. The only thing that conservatives like Ross Sevy are trying to do is to protect homosexuals from those duties from which heterosexuals suffer, such as military service, donating blood, and marriage. No one likes to be drafted, no one likes to donate blood, and, due to the invention of “no-fault divorce,” no one likes to get married (divorce lawyers are expensive!). Straight people suffer from a moral imperative to do these things. Homosexuals should be thankful that they need not be subject to such obligations. To all you gays out there: I, like Ross Sevy, love you, but for your own sake, please don’t ask for these “rights,” for you might soon regret it when you are drafted and sent to Afghanistan, are forced by your partner to deal with in-laws on Thanksgiving, and are harassed by the Red Cross to give blood thirteen times every year.
Karthik Reddy

I am in full agreement with Ross Sevy. “Y’all” are making his article seem prejudiced. The only thing that conservatives like Ross Sevy are trying to do is to protect homosexuals from those duties from which heterosexuals suffer, such as military service, donating blood, and marriage. No one likes to be drafted, no one likes to donate blood, and, due to the invention of “no-fault divorce,” no one likes to get married (divorce lawyers are expensive!). Straight people suffer from a moral imperative to do these things. Homosexuals should be thankful that they need not be subject to such obligations. To all you gays out there: I, like Ross Sevy, love you, but for your own sake, please don’t ask for these “rights,” for you might soon regret it when you are drafted and sent to Afghanistan, are forced by your partner to deal with in-laws on Thanksgiving, and are harassed by the Red Cross to give blood thirteen times every year.

Photos
Videos
Activity
Tweets

Follow @cmcforum

In Defense of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

More posts by Ross Sevy »

Ross Sevy