Question for Ed, and other who agree with him: Should women also be permitted to serve in all capacities of the military?

Josh-

As long as they can physically handle the duties, I'd say yes. I would not support lowering the physical requirements for jobs that require certain physical attributes. Here again, we can look at the results from other nations, where women are integrated into military units and things work just fine.

As a matter of clarification, let me add: If an individual is qualified to perform a given duty, I do not think that traits unrelated to the performance of that duty should prevent them from being allowed to do so. That would include their skin color, gender, sexual orientation and perhaps other factors; I would also include the potential reaction of other soldiers to those unrelated traits as an unrelated trait in and of itself.

To answer JC's question: I'm in pretty much complete agreement with Ed here.

I don't think "double standard" is really a justifiable accusation. I imagine whenever the nation has gone to war, a number of servicemen have claimed to have flat feet, color blindness, asthma, or whatever they think will get them discharged, and the military's response is obviously "get lost." I don't think this is any different. Any number of cowards could get out of harm's way by claiming to be gay, since there's no realistic way to prove it one way or the other. It's a kind of sensible policy to keep people from taking advantage of the military's benefits and chickening out once battle is joined.

What tends to get lost in these discussions is that the military also restricts fraternization between enlisted and officer personnel, as well as adultery and other forms of interaction. Because of the enlistment, the military has the right to do those things and the enlistees/draftees or officers (whoever) voluntarily waive those rights when they go in.

They have the option of staying out of the military and continuing whatever lifestyle they want to maintain, but when they take that oath, they agree to abide by the military's rules and regulations.

What also tends to get lost is that the military's so-called "contradictory" position as allegedly supported by the document you linked is not just applied to "homosexual conduct" issues but also to those who are slated for retirement, discharge for overweight, etc. It goes to need of the service at the time, rather than endorsement or acceptance of behavior.

And before I get a slew of comments about homosexuality and behavior, heterosexuals are sanctionable in the military for adulterous conduct - that has nothing to do with orientation or "lifestyle" but focuses on behavior.

Wahoofive writes:

Any number of cowards could get out of harm's way by claiming to be gay, since there's no realistic way to prove it one way or the other. It's a kind of sensible policy to keep people from taking advantage of the military's benefits and chickening out once battle is joined.

But the original rationale for the policy is that gays will harm unit cohesion in battle. If this is the case, then getting rid of gays is all the more important during wartime (just as, presumably, it's all the more important to get rid of the asthmatics). Since there are no reliable tests to determine someone's sexual orientation, this dilemma only points up how unworkable the policy really is.

To answer the question about women: I am in complete agreement with Ed here. Do not relax the physical requirements for combat troops at all, and if some women can keep up, then great, let them fight.

She-who-will-not-be-named writes,

before I get a slew of comments about homosexuality and behavior, heterosexuals are sanctionable in the military for adulterous conduct - that has nothing to do with orientation or "lifestyle" but focuses on behavior.

Suppose that I'm a homosexual who isn't committing adultery but merely having sex with another consenting, unmarried adult. If heterosexuals could get expelled for that, then I would say that there is no discrimination. But because heterosexuals can have all the non-adulterous sex they want, while homosexuals get thrown out even for suspicions, clearly there is a double standard here.

(And no, this isn't a personal issue for me. I'm a lifelong asthmatic and have already been refused from the military once because of it.)

wahoofive wrote:

I don't think "double standard" is really a justifiable accusation. I imagine whenever the nation has gone to war, a number of servicemen have claimed to have flat feet, color blindness, asthma, or whatever they think will get them discharged, and the military's response is obviously "get lost." I don't think this is any different. Any number of cowards could get out of harm's way by claiming to be gay, since there's no realistic way to prove it one way or the other. It's a kind of sensible policy to keep people from taking advantage of the military's benefits and chickening out once battle is joined.

I fully agree with you that no one, gay or otherwise, should be able to join the military and then reveal that they're gay to get out of going to active duty. But there are two things you're missing here. First, this is only possible because of the discriminatory policy not to allow gays to serve openly. Second, the policy applies not only to those who volunteer the information but also to those who are "ratted out" or otherwise discovered to be gay by others. So the issue goes well beyond an attempt to stop people from dodging service.

Also important to note is that the policy contradicts the excuse. If in fact the "unit cohesion" argument is true, wartime is the real test and that's when they should be sent packing to avoid those problems. When is unit cohesion more important than during a war? The fact that they won't throw out someone they know is gay - or more importantly, one whose unit knows is gay - during wartime shows that this argument is false.

she who will not be named wrote:

What tends to get lost in these discussions is that the military also restricts fraternization between enlisted and officer personnel, as well as adultery and other forms of interaction. Because of the enlistment, the military has the right to do those things and the enlistees/draftees or officers (whoever) voluntarily waive those rights when they go in.

Not analogous. There is a big difference between fraternization, in any form, and orientation. Fraternization would still be against military rules in the same manner it is now, applied to either heterosexual or homosexual soldiers.

What also tends to get lost is that the military's so-called "contradictory" position as allegedly supported by the document you linked is not just applied to "homosexual conduct" issues but also to those who are slated for retirement, discharge for overweight, etc. It goes to need of the service at the time, rather than endorsement or acceptance of behavior.

But this contradicts their argument for the ban, which is that it will hurt unit cohesion. If having gays around will hurt unit cohesion, that is never more important than IN a war. Their argument is that the need of the service outweighs the right of gays to serve, but then suddenly in wartime this excuse goes right out the window. That suggests the excuse simply isn't true in the first place. If it was true, then it would never be more important than during wartime.

And before I get a slew of comments about homosexuality and behavior, heterosexuals are sanctionable in the military for adulterous conduct - that has nothing to do with orientation or "lifestyle" but focuses on behavior.

Utter nonsense. People are thrown out (during peacetime) merely for being gay, not for doing anything wrong. A gay person is just as capable of celibacy as a straight person. You can't deny gays the right to marry AND accuse them of adultery, for crying out loud, and if your definition of adultery is broad enough to encompass all non-marital sex, then you're gonna have to boot out virtually every straight single person out of the military too.

Jason wrote:

(And no, this isn't a personal issue for me. I'm a lifelong asthmatic and have already been refused from the military once because of it.)

I've never been refused for military service, but I've also never tried. I know myself well enough to know that I would be the world's worst soldier. And I have great admiration for those who serve in the military and am very glad that they exist and can do that job well, simply because I know I couldn't.

Ed writes: "But this contradicts their argument for the ban, which is that it will hurt unit cohesion. If having gays around will hurt unit cohesion, that is never more important than IN a war."

The problem is that their focus has to be on mobilization - the issue is one of timing, not appropriateness of the policy.

And I did apply for military service - got the highest score on the officer candidacy test in the region - and got denied for medical (excessive refractive error). Plus, my sister has been in the Army since 1989 and was in the first Gulf War.

Ed goes on to say:

"Not analogous. There is a big difference between fraternization, in any form, and orientation. Fraternization would still be against military rules in the same manner it is now, applied to either heterosexual or homosexual soldiers."

Having an adulterous relationship would also be against the rules, even if the actual consummation activity of the relationship was conducted during off-duty time. There are two issues at play here: behavior and the character of the relationship.

Those who submit to the military's rules and regulations know that their behavior and right to have certain types of relationships are subject to the military's scrutiny and control, and when they take that oath, they agree to it.

Ed's original post asserted: "On the one hand, they adamantly claim that allowing gays to serve in the military undermines morale and unit cohesion (the same exact arguments they made 60 years ago against allowing blacks to serve in "white" units, incidentally), but on the other hand when wartime comes around they suddenly stop discharging those who admit to being gay. The military has long denied that they have such a double standard, but a 1999 Unit Commander's Handbook has been uncovered that contains explicit instructions that if a unit has received its orders for mobilization, no request for discharge is to be honored."

The document attached says no such thing.

Those who submit to the military's rules and regulations know that their behavior and right to have certain types of relationships are subject to the military's scrutiny and control, and when they take that oath, they agree to it.

Strawman. One might have said precisely the same about agreeing to serve in a racially segregated military, which many soldiers of color did despite the segregation. That they took an oath in no way says anything about the justice of the policy, which in any case often has nothing to do with the soldiers' actual behavior or compliance with the oath.

Finally, let's look at some quotes...

Brayton: "if a unit has received its orders for mobilization, no request for discharge is to be honored."

nameless girl: "The document attached says no such thing."

The document: "If discharge is not requested prior to the unit's receipt of an alert notification, discharge is not authorized. Member will enter [active duty] with the unit (page 34)."

We report, you decide.

she who will not be named wrote:

The problem is that their focus has to be on mobilization - the issue is one of timing, not appropriateness of the policy.

You don't have any basis for claiming that this is "the" issue. Their initial claim is that "the" issue is unit cohesion, that it's imperative that gays not be allowed in the military because it will damage battle readiness by reducing unit cohesion. But if this is true, it is certainly far truer during wartime than during peacetime. It should be even more of a priority at that time, yet it's not only not a high priority, it's done away with at the time when it should be most important. It's simply not logical.

Having an adulterous relationship would also be against the rules, even if the actual consummation activity of the relationship was conducted during off-duty time. There are two issues at play here: behavior and the character of the relationship.

You're still missing the point - there is no "relationship" here to be concerned about. Your claim was that gay soldiers are guilty of adultery, but that is clearly false. They can't get married, so they can't possibly cheat on a spouse. This is simply incoherent. And no one has to be in a gay relationship to be thrown out, they only have to be gay. If they admit to being gay, they get thrown out, regardless of any behavior. An entirely celibate gay man is still thrown out, so clearly it has nothing to do with behavior. If they are found out to be gay through entirely non-behavioral means (say the discovery of a gay magazine in their footlocker, or someone overhearing a conversation), they are still thrown out. It has nothing to do with any act they performed being forbidden, it is the mere fact of being gay, having a homosexual orientation, that is the basis for throwing them out - except, of course, when it allegedly matters most.

The document attached says no such thing.

Look again, it's right there in black and white. Rule 500-3-3 contains a chart of who may be discharged and who may not when a unit has received alert communication (orders to go active). It says, in relation to homosexual conduct:

If discharge is not requested prior to the unit's receipt of alert notification, discharge is not authorized. Member will enter AD with the unit.

Note that it doesn't specify whether a person volunteered the information or not. There have in fact been many instances where a gay soldier did not volunteer that they were gay but was discovered to be gay while on active duty in one way or another and they were not discharged until the war was over. This is entirely contrary to the unit cohesion excuse. It basically says, "We'll let you die for your country, but once we don't need you to risk your life anymore, we'll throw you out on your butt because you are unworthy of serving."