Help & Advice - Guides for Commanders, Colleagues and Families

This selection of frequently asked questions is aimed towards straight service personnel; the answers to common questions may prove useful to all engaged in discussion of the issues surrounding military life.

There can't be more than a handful of gay men and women in the military - I have never met one."

Unlike most ethnic and religious minorities, gay, bisexual or transgender personnel are not necessarily going to be obvious to you purely on the basis of looks. If the diversity climate in your unit or section is hostile to gays, then many people will be unlikely to make themselves known because they do not wish to become a target for negative comments and potential victimisation.

Furthermore, for policy-making purposes the Ministry of Defence assumes that the proportion of gay and lesbian personnel serving in the Armed Forces is broadly similar to that which UK Government actuaries assume for UK society as whole (i.e. 6%) (source).

“As a heterosexual man, I should not have to expose my body to a gay man in the shower.”

Heterosexuals are already exposing their bodies to gays in the shower. A 2002 study of 368 officers and enlisted personnel in the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps found that 20.1% personally know a homosexual service member; another 22.3% are unsure as to whether they know a homosexual service member. If these figures are extrapolated to the entire US armed forces, then approximately 301,500 service members personally know a homosexual peer, and approximately 334,500 service members are unsure as to whether they personally know a homosexual peer. Other studies show the same thing. Finally, nothing will change in the shower after the lifting of the ban. Even though service members are already showering next to peers whom they know to be gay, the experiences of foreign militaries as well as domestic police and fire departments show that very few additional homosexuals will reveal their sexual orientation after the lifting of the ban. Hence, nothing will change in the shower after the lifting of the ban.

“If heterosexual soldiers are constantly worried about being looked at in the shower by gay soldiers, they will either quit the armed forces or retaliate against gay soldiers.”

Canada and Britain wrongly predicted that service members would quit after the lifting of gay bans. In a 1985 survey of 6,500 male soldiers, the Canadian Department of National Defence found that 62% of male service members would refuse to share showers, undress or sleep in the same room as a gay soldier, and that 45% would refuse to work with gays. A 1996 survey of 13,500 British service members reported that two-thirds of male respondents would not willingly serve in the military if gays and lesbians were allowed to serve. Yet when Canada and Britain lifted their gay bans, no more than a handful of people retired.

“What happens if openly gay soldiers come onto a straight soldier in the showers? What happens if gay soldiers hit on each other?”

This has not been a problem in foreign militaries that lifted their gay bans. Foreign militaries have found that by holding all service members to the same standards, inappropriate conduct is very rare, and that when it happens, it can be disciplined in an even-handed way. Inappropriate displays of affection by all personnel are covered in the Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct.

“Anyone who has served in combat knows that battlefield conditions are not conducive for heterosexual soldiers serving alongside openly gay soldiers. Soldiers sometimes share body heat - those necessities couldn’t happen if a soldier believed someone was sexually aroused by such contact.”

The British and Canadian militaries predicted that cohesion would deteriorate if gays and lesbians were allowed to serve openly, but even senior experts and officials who had predicted such deterioration are now unable to point to any problems whatsoever. In the Israeli military, a recent survey found that approximately 20% of combat soldiers know a gay peer in their unit.

We can’t risk introducing romantic liaisons of any kind in war. What would happen if a gay soldier saw his lover injured on the battlefield?”

The 24 foreign military forces that have lifted their bans, as well as the FBI, NSA, CIA, Secret Service, as well as police and fire departments that have lifted their bans, have found that gay and lesbian soldiers are just as loyal as everyone else, and that romantic liaisons are not a major problem.

“What about [incident X] in Iraq, in which a gay British soldier compromised unit cohesion?

And yet anecdotes about disciplinary problems concerning members of other groups do not mean that an entire group of people must be fired. If a Korean-American soldier undermined his unit’s cohesion, the military would not fire all Korean American service members. Isolated problems are nothing new, and the question is not whether the lifting of a gay ban might lead to a few, isolated problems. The point, rather, is whether the lifting of a gay ban has an overall impact on unit cohesion. And the evidence from 24 foreign militaries is that the lifting of a gay ban is a non-event that has no impact on performance. For a concrete example of this, read Out Sailors Recount Iraq War Experiences Alongside US Troops

“Do you have any evidence from the foreign militaries that openly gay soldiers actually do serve in openly integrated units with straight soldiers? Isn’t it true with these other countries that gays stay in the closet anyway?”

In the case of Israel, for example, Professor Charles Moskos, one of the principle architects of “Don’t-Ask, Don’t Tell”, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1993 that known gay soldiers were not assigned to elite combat units, did not work for intelligence units, and did not hold command positions in any branch of the Israel Defense Forces. In later work, Moskos reaffirmed that “gays are excluded from elite combat units, and most sleep at their own homes rather than in barracks”. During two appearances on National Public Radio, Moskos said that there are no gay soldiers in combat or intelligence units of the IDF who are out of the closet.

To test whether Moskos’s claims were accurate, the University of California administered a survey in 2000 to soldiers in 17 the Israel Defense Forces that included the question: “Do you know (or have known in the past) a homosexual or lesbian soldier in your unit”? Of the 194 combat soldiers who responded, 42 (21.6%) responded that they know a homosexual peer in their combat unit, and 38 (19.6%) responded that they might know a homosexual peer in their combat unit. The percentages were almost equivalent for non-combat troops. To the extent that these results can be extrapolated, then roughly 28,000 of Israel’s 130,000 active duty land forces know a gay peer in their unit. Even in combat and intelligence units with known gay soldiers, however, a recent, comprehensive study published in the prestigious journal Armed Forces and Society found no evidence of a deterioration in cohesion, performance, readiness or morale. Generals, ministry officials, scholars, and NGO observers all have claimed that their presence has not eroded cohesion, performance, readiness or morale.

Gay bashing - "You can’t expect these boys to accept open homosexuals overnight.”

In Britain, none of the twenty-five experts, officials, activists, and service members interviewed for a recent University of California report knew of a single case of gay-bashing or assault related to sexual orientation after the lifting of the ban. One military official reported that there have been no incidents related to sexual orientation reported to his office since the ban was lifted. He added: “The change in policy has been a complete non-event.”

Comparisons with Racial Integration

“Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument. Blacks do not choose to be black, but gays can choose not to act gay.” The question isn’t whether race is biological and sexuality is chosen or whether racial difference is benign while differences in sexuality are not, but whether lifting the gay ban would undermine military effectiveness. In fact, many experts believe that sexuality is chosen for some people and biologically determined for others. But again, the origin of sexuality is not what’s important. What matters is whether lifting the gay ban undermines the military. And the evidence shows decisively that it does not.

“Why do gay soldiers have to tell other soldiers that they are gay?”

The answer to the question is simple: honour and integrity. Whether we mean to or not, all of us regularly ask questions that make assumptions about sexuality: “Are you married?” “Do you think she’s attractive?” “Who are you taking to the dining in night / ball / social?” There is no way for gay servicemen to answer such ordinary questions without pretending to be straight or admitting they are gay.

Gay and lesbian service members do not seek the right to “flaunt” their identity or put their sexuality above the interests of the military. What they do seek, however, is the same right every other soldier has: to say who they are honestly and honorably, without getting fired or beaten up. It is just as unrealistic and dishonorable to expect gay soldiers to constantly lie about themselves to their civilian friends as to their military peers.

"Have there been any anecdotal problems of integrating to open service in other countries?”

Even the leading opponents of allowing gays and lesbians into foreign militaries believe that the lifting of the bans did not damage the armed forces.

Professor Christopher Dandeker, one of Britain’s most distinguished military experts, predicted that the lifting of UK’s gay ban would undermine the military. He has since concluded, however, that integration has not caused any problems. An internal government report that appraised the British change in policy characterized it as a “solid achievement … with fewer problems than might have been expected.” The assistant chief of the navy staff, Rear- Admiral James Burnell-Nugent concurred, “Although some did not welcome the change in policy, it has not caused any degree of difficulty.” Overall, the report suggests that “there has been a marked lack of reaction” to the issue of including homosexual personnel in the British Armed Services.

In Australia, for example, spokesmen for the Returned and Services League, the country’s largest veterans’ group, predicted that lifting the gay ban would jeopardize morale and military performance. Eight years after Australia’s 1992 decision to lift its ban, however, the President of the Returned and Services League, Major General Peter Philips, stated that gays in the military have “not been a significant public issue. The Defence Forces have not had a lot of difficulty in this area.” Commodore R.W. Gates, whose rank is equivalent to a one-star admiral, remarked that the lifting of the ban was “an absolute non-event.” Professor Hugh Smith, a leading academicexpert on homosexuality in the Australian military, observed that when the government ordered the military to lift theban, some officers said, “Over my dead body, if this happens I’ll resign.” However, Smith said that there were no departures and that the change was accepted in “true military tradition.” Bronwen Grey, an official in the Australian Defence Ministry reported, “[T]here was no increase in complaints about gay people or by gay people. There was noknown increase in fights, on a ship, or in Army units or something … The recruitment figures didn’t alter.”

In Canada, Steve Leveque, a civilian official in the Department of National Defence, commented that including gays and lesbians in the Canadian Forces is “not that big a deal for us … On a day-to-day basis there probably hasn’t been much of a change.” A 1995 internal report from the Canadian government on the lifting of the ban concluded, “Despite all the anxiety that existed through the late 80s into the early 90s about the change in policy, here’s what the indicators show– no effect.”

In Israel, Stuart Cohen, a Professor at the Center for Strategic Studies who is recognized as a leading expert on the Israel Defense Forces, remarked, “As far as I have been able to tell, homosexuals do not constitute an issue [with respect to] unit cohesion in the IDF. In fact, the entire subject is very marginal indeed as far as this military is concerned.” Reuven Gal, the director of the Israeli Institute for Military Studies, wrote, “According to military reports, [homosexuals’] presence, whether openly or clandestinely, has not impaired the morale, cohesion, readiness, or security of any unit.”

In over 100 interviews conducted by University of California researchers with both pro-gay and anti-gay experts, not one expert informant believed that the Australian, Canadian, Israeli, or British decisions to lift their gay bans undermined military performance, readiness or cohesion, led to increased difficulties in recruiting or retention, or increased the rate of HIV infection among the troops.

“Isn’t it true that no foreign military has conducted rigorous internal reviews of open service 5+ years after changing their policies?”

The reason the foreign militaries tend not to conduct ongoing internal reviews is that early inquiries, when problems should be most apparent, uncover so few problems that these organizations conclude that there is no reason to conduct additional research.

In 1995, for example, the Section Head for Human Rights Policy, a bureau of the Canadian Department of National Defence, prepared a memo on the lifting of the gay ban. His conclusion was that “Despite all the anxiety that existed through the late 80s into the early 90s about the change in policy, here’s what the indicators show– no effect.”

In Britain, the military’s own comprehensive, internal assessment at six months found that there were no indications of negative effects on recruiting levels, no mass resignations, no major reported cases of gay-bashing or harassment of sexual minorities, no major reported cases of harassment or inappropriate behavior by gay or lesbian soldiers, and no perceived effect on morale, unit cohesion or operational effectiveness. The classified report was not intended for a civilian audience, and was not written with an eye toward shifting public opinion or influencing policy debates. It concluded that the policy change produced a “marked lack of reaction.”

In Australia, Bronwen Grey, a Defence Ministry official responsible for monitoring the effects of the lifting of the ban reported 8 years after the policy change that “[T]here was no increase in complaints about gay people or by gay people. There was no known increase in fights, on a ship, or in Army units or something … The recruitment figures didn’t alter.”

Unbiased, external reviewers conclude exactly the same thing as these internal reports: the lifting of a gay ban does not undermine the military. The Rand Corporation, which is not a liberal or gay organization, concluded on the basis of its multi-million dollar study that lifting the gay ban would not undermine cohesion in the US military. The Harvard University journal International Security, which is the most prestigious journal in the field of military studies, published a peer-reviewed 1998 study concluding lifting the ban would not undermine cohesion.

"Should HIV+ positive soldiers be able to continue to serve?”

Some would argue that HIV+ service members should not be allowed to serve in combat or combat-support roles, but that they should be allowed to serve in administrative capacities that do not entail the possibility of exposure.

”Should transsexuals be able to serve in the armed services, too?”

Some would argue that anyone who is capable of doing a good job and who is willing to follow orders should be allowed to serve.

This list is based on the Jul 03 publication by Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military entitled "Gays and Lesbians in the U.S. Military: 64 Points and Counterpoints" and all data are as at that date, unless otherwise specified.