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 the issues surrounding
military life.
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.
“As a heterosexual
man, I should not have to expose my body to a gay man in the shower.” >
answer
“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.” > answer
“What happens if
openly gay soldiers come onto a straight soldier in the showers? What
happens if gay soldiers
hit on each other?” > answer
“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.” > answer
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?” > answer
“What about [incident
X] in Iraq, in which a gay British soldier compromised unit cohesion? > answer
“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?” > answer
Gay bashing - You can’t
expect these boys to accept open homosexuals overnight.” > answer
“Why do gay soldiers
have to tell other soldiers that they are gay?” > answer
"Have there been any
anecdotal problems of integrating to open service in other countries?” > answer
“Isn’t it true
that no foreign military has conducted rigorous internal reviews of
open service 5+ years after
changing their policies?” > answer
"Should HIV+ positive
soldiers be able to continue to serve?” > answer
”Should transsexuals
be able to serve in the armed services, too?” > answer
“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 recent study of 368 officers and enlisted
personnel in the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps found that 20.1 percent
personally know a homosexual service member; another 22.3
percent are unsure as to whether they know a homosexual service member.
If these figures are extrapolated to the entire 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 Code
of 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 oradmitting 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 nodepartures 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.
Can't find the information you are looking for? Search the entire
proud2serve.net site and forum using Google, MSN Search or our own
search engine > go to the search page
