The Illogic Of DADT
Since it has been in the news of late, I have been pondering the issue of the illogic of the current Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy with regard to our Armed Forces.As I understand it, the theory is that having openly gay men and women serving in the military would cause disruptions to morale because people would be uncomfortable having a gay person living and working with them.
Now setting aside the fact that most military people I know have said this is a bunch of hogwash, I have to wonder how stupid or unobservant that we think our servicepeople are ?
Most of us know people in our lives who we are all but certain are gay. We don’t know this for sure because they have not officially said so, but we can observe their lives and often have enough intelligence to figure it out. Indeed I have had some gay friends tell me they pretty much have a DADT policy with people they know. Everyone knows they are gay but they just don’t talk about it.
Given that our servicemen are trained observers, I have to assume that they are able to figure this out too. Indeed often when you see someone tossed from the service for being openly gay you will hear comments from those who served with them saying that pretty much everyone knew.
Furthermore, when many of the people being discharged are in very important roles (such as the Arabic translators) it would seem that it’s more important to do the job of defending the country than to promote a social agenda in either direction. If I have to choose between a gay man translating a message that tells us someone is planning to blow up the Golden Gate Bridge and the potential discomfort of a guy serving next to him, I’ll pick security every time.
So if we assume that in most cases people already know that their fellow soldier is probably gay, that sort of kills the argument that people in the military cannot serve with gay people. And even if we accept that some people might be uncomfortable the issue of national security and safety would seem to trump that discomfort.
Remember that the same fraternization rules that apply to men and women also would apply to gay servicepeople, so it’s merely a matter of being honest about the reality. Indeed, since part of the Code of Conduct deals with being honest and forthright, it seems to make more sense to be open about what everyone knows.
11 Responses to “The Illogic Of DADT”
You should ask those same servicemen who many heterosexuals claimed to be homosexual so that they could get out of the military. I suspect that many of the Arab linguist where really heterosexual and used it as an excuse to get out of the service with language training and a top secret clearance instead of spending years as a low paid translator/intelligence analyst before getting out.
You should also remember that people in the military are married at a higher rate than the general population of the same age and education. I laugh everytime someone claims that 10% of the women in the military are lesbians when they failed to understand that a higher percentage of the women in the military are actually married.
I don't necessarily disagree that DADT should be done away, but I have a few problems with your argument:
I think your view that most people can tell if someone else is gay is missing the mark. Just because you have experience where you were able to figure out someone was gay does not mean you can pin-point most gays that you know. That is a logical fallacy. I can't speak for gay activists, but I imagine most of them would object to the gay stereotype that you are perpetuating. Also, I've known people that act “gay” but claimed to be straight, so the signs you are associating with gayness could actually be misleading you.
Secondly, you said this:
“Furthermore, when many of the people being discharged are in very important roles (such as the Arabic translators) it would seem that it’s more important to do the job of defending the country than to promote a social agenda in either direction.”
That's exactly the argument those who support DADT use. Their view is that we should do what is most beneficial to the military, regardless of its social implications. You appear to agree with that, but disagree on what is best for the military. An it's a straw man to suggest that DADT supporters are just suggesting people would be “uncomfortable” with gay people. The argument is that people won't sign up at all, and so they won't be there. Let's not forget the close quarters in which military people live. I understand women are not allowed on submarines for this reason. I do think this argument is overblown (we ought to have more respect for our military and understand that they are there to serve their country and won't be so easily scared away), but I think it a real concern and not one of just comfort level.
The concern or comfort issue is entirely perceptual. Every argument I've heard from people supporting outright refusal to allow gays into the military has revolved around the “we don't let women onto submarines” point, generally coupled with “we would have to make a third classification of bathroom now!”
However the fact remains gays have served in the U.S. military since each branch was established. As of yet I've never heard of a homosexual man raping a heterosexual man while being stationed together on a submarine. Ditto for British troops, who have been serving openly for years.
Opposition is based on myth, perpetuated by homophobes generally, and perhaps a few well-meaning, but ignorant individuals who believe perception is reality.
I spent six years in the military, and I can tell you with no problem that the issue isn't whether or not to allow gay persons to serve – it's whether or not to let them be as open as everyone else about who they love and/or have sex with. That's it. A married man can put up a naked picture of his wife and tell everyone about how freaky she gets when he gets home. No problem. A gay man cannot put up a naked picture of any man and say how freaky he'd like to get with that person. How crazy is this? Actual freaky sex is okay, but potential or fantasy freaky sex is not.
The only way that discipline breaks down is if the command structure allows targeting of gays by straights (or vice versa – but I've never seen it happen) or if gay servicemen and -women engage in sex during deployment. The thing is, even heterosexual activity is banned between servicemembers during deployment. So, how about just having everyone live by the same rules?
“setting aside the fact that most military people I know have said this is a bunch of hogwash”
Umm how many 18 yo privates have you asked? It's like a giant Frat and yes many would have a big problem bunking with someone who is gay. Now could they get over it? Yes I think so. but the idea that most in the military wouldn't care? I think thats absurd.
The issue with the millitary is that the living quarters in times of stress are same-gendered. Now a man, living with other men might put up pictures of his wife and tell how freaky she gets to the other guys. But I highly doubt he would do that if he was in close quarters with female enlisted or officers. All would agree it would be inappropriate and bordering on sexual harassment.
With gays, the implication is “the same gender is the opposite gender” when it comes to appropriateness since the same gender is the “target-sexual” group and not a benign group “on the same team” [looking outward at "the other team".. Get it?
For a gay man or gay woman to "come out" to the same gender, it's the same as a "come on". An advertisement. And open sexual relationships, in their infancy [flirting stage] or progressing, I believe, are forbidden in any orientation in combat situations.
Ergo, the military doesn't want gays acting inappropriately [coming out] in the presence of the gender they are simultaneously house with and attracted to sexually..
I don't care if soldiers are homosexual. “Just shoot straight,” and if we were at serious enough risk they should be drafted just like the rest of us. I do wish y'all would calm down and grow up about this, though. There's no “need” to end the current state of affairs, especially when (or even, specifically because) more pressing concerns like our economy obviously come first. (And even less pressing concerns like health care are being promoted rapidly and prematurely by the Obama camp rather than the more narrow-interest issue of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.) This isn't like being stripped systematically of many legal and civil rights, and agitation (especially once Obama has indicated it has less priority than other things) is not only fruitless but resembles the gross activist misconduct in the 1980s about AIDS. Can't you be patient? (This isn't the new Civil Rights Act or even a resurrection of the Equal Rights Amendment.)
I think it's insulting to “The Troops” to say they couldn't handle serving with an openly gay or lesbian person. Isn't the implication that they're all bigoted jerks?
@EEllis “Umm how many 18 yo privates have you asked?”
Umm, I'm sure they also are uncomfortable with all the push-ups for the first month too. Let's just get rid of everything unpleasant about the military so the 18yo privates can be totally “comfortable”.
Also: Sil, you're still disgusting. Same obsession with gay people and the sex they have, same faux “knowledge” about how gay people “are”, just as offensive as every one of your comments touching on gay issues. Too bad — in non-gay related threads, you seem like you know things.
Too bad — in non-gay related threads, you seem like you know things.
I think it's a split personality issue, myself.
roro said “Let's just get rid of everything unpleasant about the military so the 18yo privates can be totally “comfortable”. “
Are you trying to misrepresent my comment, or did you really not understand it?