Debate:Gays in the Military

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Should gays and lesbians be allowed to serve openly in the armed forces?

[]

Background and Context of Debate:

In 1993, President Bill Clinton attempted to remove the long-standing ban on gays in the US military, resulting in a compromise known as "Don’t ask, don’t tell" - one that achieved such currency in US society that politicians routinely campaign as "don’t ask, don’t tell" candidates. The USA is the only country in NATO to maintain such a ban. The UK held one until January 2000, when it was lifted after being declared unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights.[1]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Battle field effectiveness: Would allowing gays into the military have not effect on overall military strength?

[]

[]

Yes

• There is no reason why the known presence of homosexuals in the military would harm morale:

• No-one now can realistically doubt the ability of a gay man or woman to be as hard-working, co-ordinated, intelligent or patriotic as one of their heterosexual counterparts: It is therefore sheer bigotry to deny those who want to join the army (and even to suffer its endemic homophobia) the opportunity to do so.[2]

[]

[]

No

• Homosexual sexual tension will result from allowing gays in the military, which will undermine troop bonds and performance on the battle field: This is a debate about soldiers being required to defend their country while living and rooming in close quarters with each other. It is a fact that their effectiveness depends on mutual trust and uncomplicated camaraderie. Sexual relations or tension between soldiers, of whatever gender, undermines this bond.[3]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Homophobia: Is a ban on homosexuals largely driven by homophobia?

[]

[]

Yes

• Fears and arguments against homosexuals in the military are largely a result of homophobia: This homophobia is maintained and encouraged by continued segregation. Allowing straight soldiers to see how effective gay soldiers can be will reduce the prejudice.[4]

[]

[]

No

• A genuine worry is that not all gay applicants for the military will be driven by a vocational calling: The high concentration of individuals of one gender within a military unit make it a fruitful source of sexual partners, and will provoke a disproportionate gravitation of gays, lesbians and bisexuals towards application. This in turn will provoke even more homophobia among heterosexuals as these motives become clear.[5]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Other careers: Do other careers or industries allow for homosexuality participation? Is this important?

[]

[]

Yes

• Other careers that demand bondage between employees don't deny homosexuals: Many other professions require a bond of trust and intense living conditions amongst employees, and gays are not barred from any of them (emergency services, oil rig workers, etc.).

[]

[]

No

• The armed forces are a special case, putting their employees into life-or-death situations where any mental distraction could be fatal. Men and women aren’t sent into combat together; why should gays and heterosexuals?[6]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Blackmail issues: Does the risk of the blackmailing of closeted homosexuals in the military help justify banning them?

[]

[]

Yes

• This would allow those gays that are already being accepted into the armed forces to come out of the closet: This, in turn, reduces the risk of blackmail, which is itself fast decreasing as homosexuality is increasingly accepted.[7]

[]

[]

No

• Closeted homosexuals run the risk of blackmail, which could have implications for national security if they were privy to military secrets.[8]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Enforcement issues - Would allowing gays in the military make for a more enforceable legal environment?

[]

[]

Yes

• Some individuals discover their homosexuality only after they have been in the military for some time: Sexual identity can be reached at different times. Gays and lesbians frequently only come to terms with their sexuality in their late teens or early twenties, which could be long after they had enlisted in the armed forces. A ban would therefore entail the firing of serving staff who had joined in good faith. This is discrimination at its worst.[9]

[]

[]

No

• The problem is not so much the concept of a ban, but the half-hearted enforcement: If a ban is well-publicised and it is understood that the peculiar and intense living conditions of the army, navy etc. make in inappropriate to encourage sexual interest between staff, then gays are not being misled.[10]

[]

References:

[]

Motions:

• This House would not admit gays into the armed forces
• This House believes that the military and sexuality do not mix

[]

In legislation, policy, and the real world:

[]

See also on Debatepedia:

[]

External links and resources:

• USMC Boot
• The Ban on Gays in the Military: Links
• Family Research Council: Human Sexuality

[]

YouTube videos

• CNN YouTube, Democratic Debate

[]

Books:

• Exclusion: Homosexuals and the Right to Serve ^{Melissa Wells-Petry}
• Gays and Guns: The Case against Homosexuals in the Military ^{John Eidsmoe}
• Out in Force: Sexual Orientation and the Military ^{Gregory Herek}
• Don’t Ask: A Reader’s Guide to the Military’s Anti-Gay Policy ^{Janet Halley}