Homosexuality, Ethics
and Military PolicyS.E. Bromberg
Foreword
This paper is a revised introduction to a much longer work written in 1993. It was in that year that the National Defense Research Institute, or RAND, published its study on the effects of lifting the gay ban in the military, entitled Sexual Orientation and U.S. Policy: Options and Assessments. In response, Homosexuality, Ethics & Military Policy was written to challenge RAND’s view that a successful policy could be implemented allowing homosexuals to work openly in the military. To effect that challenge, a case was constructed to show that the simple omission of attention to certain aspects of human sexuality, psychology, and ethics skewed the outcome of their conclusions. In this paper, therefore, the idea is furthered that adopting and refining the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is the workable means of bridging the gap between the military’s need for strict adherence to the rules and civilian openness to diversity in sexual matters.
Introduction to Homosexuality, Ethics
and Military PolicyMany are aware that old ideas often die long and torturous deaths, a process which can inspire unconscionable prejudices to linger for generations in even the most educated societies. The public’s sensitivity to overt expressions of sexuality has changed so radically over the last century that the military’s straight-laced morality regarding sexual conduct seems altogether out of place. The conflict between the military and homosexuals illustrates two very different moral views of the world. The morality of the military appears to be centered on some obscure tradition that is difficult to justify, while the morality of gay activists embraces the notion that sexual morality is relative to time and place, and not to any fixed set of moral principles. One need only look back two hundred years to see an example in which the sight of a woman’s bare ankle would produce a public outcry (although such events obviously would receive no notice today). Since there seems to be ample evidence, at least on the surface, that the principles of sexual conduct and appropriateness change with place and time, the gay and lesbian position would seem more acceptably rational than the dogmatic position of the military. Moreover, one can point to similarities between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement to show how prejudicial thinking has sometimes cloaked itself in an aura of reason to justify blatant acts of discrimination. Gay and lesbian activists, in their struggle for recognition, therefore, see themselves as taking the higher moral and intellectual ground in this debate, while the military is viewed as homophobic, narrow, and rigid in its restrictive rules, particularly those pertaining to sexuality. While the gay activists’ rationale in some ways is preferable, there are compelling arguments in favor of the military’s approach.
At the heart of this “rights” issue is a silent struggle in our society between the promotion of new moral values, and the reaffirmation of the old ones. The nation seems to be beginning a serious examination of its moral beliefs; and it has good reason to do so. There are more than 264 million people in this nation, a million of whom presently serve in the armed forces and would be affected by any change in military policy. In the larger view it must be noticed that the feelings of these millions towards sexual expressions of any kind run deep. Since sex has a profound influence on people’s emotional lives, the time and place of sexual expression has long been governed by cultural traditions and morality. Gays, lesbians, and transgenders feel that it is time to modify these traditions, no matter how appropriate they have seemed in the past. There are two elements likely to work in favor of change. First, while people’s feeling towards sexual conduct may run deep, their own self-interest is also at work. Some of those who oppose homosexuality can be viewed as perpetuating negative feelings towards homosexuals because such beliefs are more socially and economically beneficial to them than acceptance of homosexuals. Second, implicit in gay and lesbian ideology is the belief that sexual attitudes are not wired-in and biologically permanent aspects of human behavior. Rather, they are convinced that sexual predilection and prejudices emerge from attitudes that can be changed. If heterosexual revulsion to homosexuality were wired-in biologically, then it would be difficult to implement a change in those cultural traditions that involve discrimination against gays. If, however, the objection to homosexuals arises from environmental factors, gays and lesbians can be rightfully integrated into the society as equals, given certain modifications in the traditions that govern people’s habits and attitudes. Sexual discrimination thus is assumed to be a learned behavior that can be changed by fostering a more tolerant society.
While some arguments in favor of a change in attitudes toward homosexuals look sensible on the surface, there are also some cogent arguments that the military can respond with. For instance, the centerpiece of the gay charge against the military is that its stubbornness and resistance to change is the result of homophobic feelings towards gays. Certainly there is evidence to support this contention. However, lifting the gay ban is a problem far more complex than overcoming prejudice and homophobia. While it is easy to evidence the unfair and discriminatory behavior of civilians and military personnel towards homosexuals, there are other factors to consider.
First, in any social situation where sexual behavior is at issue, people must be discreet otherwise they face the consequences of censorious human nature. The defining attribute of this “nature” requires that discretion be the “coin of the realm.” To act counter to this nature is to invite scorn, stigma, and discrimination. If gays and lesbians have in any way been the inspiration of their own discrimination, these indiscretions need to be brought to the forefront of the debate concerning the lifting of the gay ban.
When sexual players aggressively or coercively cross the lines of discretion, they may well inspire negative feeling towards that particular kind of sexual conduct. Reinforced attitudes towards certain sexual practices become classified into widely stigmatized practices. Every time a homosexual is aggressive with an unwilling heterosexual, a negative view of homosexuals is reinforced and perpetuated. With enough coercive advances upon naive heterosexuals, it is not unreasonable to suppose that those victims of assaults will later become vocal opponents of gay rights. Since few people want to recount (to their heterosexual friends) that they have been seduced by homosexuals, researchers might be unaware of the existence of a large political force created by abusive behaviors that has served to keep the stigma alive for generations. Overcoming any reputation for abusiveness, no matter how individually undeserved, is difficult under the best of circumstances. Thus, part of the solution to successful integration is the caveat that gays and lesbians be extra careful to control any sexual expressions that might revive existing fears, thus perpetuating the stigma.
Second, while the violence, prejudice, and intimidations that homophobic people have inflicted on homosexuals seems inexcusable, there may exist other reasons why people behave negatively towards gays and lesbians. For instance, in the 1940s it was prudent to disavow homosexuality to further one’s career. By entering into this type of social agreement a person affirmed a system of values in exchange for a chance to rise in status. What appears to be an unreasonable fear of gays is therefore sometimes no more than an expression of constructive hysteria in support of a political ideology laid out long ago to serve the career ends of an upwardly mobile generation. Since every generation develops beliefs and behaviors that function to further their goals, one should not judge too harshly the presence of homophobia in society.
The third factor to consider involving the military’s reaction to gays rests with the faulty assumption that the military is an organization that should be viewed in the same way as institutions in civilian life. It is commonly believed that the organizational and social policies of organizations such as the Justice Department, universities, and large corporations should be reflected in the way the military treats its personnel. However, nothing in the civilian sector compares to the constant demands of military life for order, discipline, and regard for the rules: military effectiveness can be mathematically equated with a proportionally high level of organization, discipline, and training. This relationship is an inescapable fact that ultimately influences how the U.S. military shapes its personnel policies. If American citizens prefer allowing all of the liberties granted to government, corporate, and university employees to be the standards for military personnel, then there will necessarily be a trade-off in U.S. military effectiveness that must be compensated for by other factors the public may not be willing to accept and pay for. This disparity between the military and civilian organizations runs counter to some of the research conclusions of RAND which, for example, equates the professional demands and occupational dangers of being a policeman or fireman with those of being a soldier. However, an argument can be made that RAND’s research is flawed and incomplete in terms of its assessment of the comparable dangers between being a fireman and being a soldier.
Perhaps nothing more strongly underscores the distinct difference between military and civilian life than the rules that prohibit fraternization between enlisted personnel and officers. In theory, the combat effectiveness of the military is so heavily dependent upon discipline that rules exist which go so far as to prohibit socializing between officers and enlisted men.
A view implicit in the gay activists’ charge is that the military is heavy-handed and autocratic in its rules regarding sexual conduct. However, it is not just autocratic impulse that guides military thinking, but rather the realities of a world of reckless, hostile, and aggressive leaders who force our military to adopt certain policies and priorities. While creativity and freedom to express oneself may contribute to great social growth outside the military, the same values in the services can be detrimental to order, discipline, and thus to military effectiveness. For example, such stringent social policies as the prohibitions against fraternization exist to enhance the power and efficiency of the armed services, not to assure comfort to military personnel. Those who consider enlisting in the military are generally aware of the sacrifices that military life demands. Changing the military to conform to civilian standards of social order and fairness might make life in the military more comfortable, but it would frustrate the military’s very purpose. Since rules such as those in Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which include the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), are laid out with considerable clarity and consistency, a person should expect no problems getting along. But problems develop when soldiers—believing the rules to be negotiable and changeable by political action—seek to undermine military policies with upstart behaviors and ideologies. In civilian life some people succeed in changing social policies by tactically breaking the rules, inspiring uprisings in support of change. People with ideologies, who are seeking recognition, leverage support by inventing and executing effective consensus-building strategies. This practice is so entrenched in business and politics that “breaking the rules,” one way or the other, to some extent is an acceptable game to play. But in the military a line must be drawn which prevents the emergence of competing systems of social order so that discipline in the chain of command can remain both effective and intact. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is thus a viable idea because it allows for homosexuals to be in the military, but strips away the power of activists to disrupt the power of the chain of command by promoting a competing ideology.
While the political centering of military law turns on rank and authority defined in the UCMJ, in civilian life it revolves around the Constitution. Obviously the former is subject in some regards to the latter, but the important point to be made is that in both instances decision-making about what is acceptable is not swayed by popular beliefs and passions. Rather, it is focused instead on maintaining a consistency of reason implied in the rules and legal precedents. The military represents a self-contained, secular moral system that is defined by rank, discipline, and obedience to the rules. Its intelligence is centralized at the top, from where commands are sent down. Reason and the rules of order are often not mandated in civilian life from the top down. Instead, high level decisions are apt to be mitigated by a consensus of opinions of those working at lower levels who on their own will challenge authority where they feel it is wrong. Military order is dictated hierarchically, not because it allows high-ranking people to be self-serving dictators, but to allow the armed forces to respond to crisis in the quickest and most effective way, that is without political maneuvering to slow them down. Because of a lack of understanding about the military’s necessary focus on rank, order, and discipline, gay and lesbian activists appear to be under the erroneous impression that the military is unfair and hypocritical.
The seeming unfairness that activists cite (i.e., that ranking officers often go unpunished when they break the rules) only mirrors abuses that occur with regularity in the civilian sector. Such abuses must be separated from more credible arguments in defense of the gay and lesbian position. And in the instance of charging the military with hypocrisy, it could be said that gay activists in return provide no details on the inner workings of the moral theory that governs their own actions. On one hand the military is accountable to moral standards, which if they flaunt, they are deemed hypocritical—while on the other hand gay activists have not defined the moral standards by which their actions and moral theories can be judged. Moreover, homosexuals are left in the questionable position of explaining just why homosexuality, which for centuries has been considered non-contributory to society—if not immoral—should now be considered moral. Where has a logical bridge been constructed to justify the change in moral view? Simply proclaiming the equal value of the homosexual life is not necessarily reason enough for dramatic change in the culture’s moral traditions. Thus, denouncing opponents as hypocrites is not a wise route for activists to take since they need to justify their own moral views, which some see as resting on shaky theoretical ground.
Returning to descriptions of differences between the military and civilian institutions, one must emphasize the vast differences in responsibility between the two. Quite evidently, the world’s most powerful weapons are entrusted to the military and those weapons should remain clear, in all their aspects, of the influence of one of the world’s most powerful, and least understood, forces—human sexuality. As with the mixing of religion and affairs of state, sexual expression and defense needs do not work well together. While the conclusions of the RAND study deny to a certain extent that sexual issues within the military ranks can undermine the strength of the nation to defend itself, there exist opposing reasons based upon the inherent systemic differences between military and civilian life to say it can be undermined. The Army, Navy, and Air Force are obviously not designed to serve as an amusement park for the pursuit of passions or hedonistic whims, nor are they a mating and dating ground.
As more women and more homosexuals fill the ranks, the military is moving from being an organization that is predominantly male heterosexual towards a more even mix found in the civilian sector. Clearly, as this shift occurs there will be more sexual activity within the military and thus greater possibility that discipline and order will break down. In civilian life, a sexual ambiance in the workplace may add a little charm and romance to life, but in the military sector it can be a distraction from exercising one’s duties and can be disruptive of military order. RAND failed to regard the potential of disruption from such conflicts to be meritorious enough to include in its study, emphasizing instead responses to gays in American police and fire units that did not report any serious problems integrating homosexuals. Common sense might dictate otherwise under conditions such as those in the Navy. While duty shifts vary from command to command, duty on an aircraft carrier might run four hours on and eight hours off. In some instances the duty might be six on and six off or twelve on and twelve off, in cramped quarters among thousands of men and women at sea where it may be two months or more before the ship makes a port call. Even after a week at sea, personnel accustomed to living in more spacious quarters can become a little edgy. Firemen, on the other hand, might work three shifts, twenty-four hours on and twenty-four off, bunking at the station between calls after which they enjoy a four-day rest period before their duty cycle begins again. In addition to these factors, RAND overlooked the serious nature of certain critical tasks, such as the handling of nuclear, chemical, biological, and conventional weapons which require more stringent organizational policies. An increase in a “sexual ambiance” encouraged by lax or unenforced policies could well have tragic consequences. Never before has the military had to confront issues of human sexuality in such a global way. It is to be hoped that from a thoughtful and untainted examination of the issues to be mediated, realistic and humane policies will be embraced.
Certainly, hard-headed prejudices and vile expressions now directed at homosexuals will diminish as the rules of sexual socialization are more clearly defined in a sensitive way and heterosexuals adapt to the presence of homosexuals in their society. Nevertheless, sexual ambiance, whether it derives from homosexual or heterosexual sources, must be held in check by military policy. For example, sexual intrigues transpiring at 30,000 feet in an AWACS plane protecting and coordinating military operations, might jeopardize operations and lead to the downing of planes by friendly fire. In the control tower at an airbase, one would not want to be party to an incident in which a passionate lover makes advances towards another moments before a collision of two armed planes on the ground. Anything can happen in the heat of an affair that has gone bad—leading one party to spite the other by physical or symbolic methods; even if that means carelessly dropping a chemical weapon off a truck to make a point. An aircraft mechanic in the heat of high emotions could carelessly leave a tool loose in a fighter plane, severing wires and hydraulic lines in the plane as it maneuvers at seven G’s force. If this type of “constructive carelessness” involved a Stealth bomber, the cost of the tragedy could be a billion dollars, the loss of a nuclear weapon, and the life of the pilot and others.
These examples define critical task areas in which military personnel must fully concentrate on their jobs and not on their sex lives. Otherwise, many innocent people are put at risk. In addition, there remain many other subtle influences that can undermine the military’s strength. For instance, heterosexual and homosexual love affairs that foster covert relationships can result in a lower-ranking member of the military being favored for an assignment which he or she is not capable of handling. Hidden relationships, where favors are exchanged, undermine the very essence of military order. Ideally, men and women in combat will be given the best possible support. However, this is not possible if a person’s sexual relationship to another has resulted in someone being placed in a position of authority. If sexual policies are not spelled out clearly and enforced consistently, they invite sexual predators to extract sexual favors from emotionally weak and low-ranking staff. Not only do sexual intrigues such as these undermine the strength of the military, but also there exist other forms of struggle that add to confusion and inefficiency. For instance, the struggle for power within military organizations might spill out into the civilian sector, drawing senators and congressmen into the fray where they do not belong. These struggles, where each side spites the other with constructive ignorance and carelessness, would more than likely contribute to disorder and to a lowering of military morale. Attempting to make the military an affirmative action battleground to validate in the public mind the “moralness” of homosexual practice, is an inefficient and politically costly route for homosexual activists to take.
There are other methods to bring about lasting change that are less forceful and do not engender vicious circles of provocation and retribution that can go on and on. Slow and thoughtful integration in accordance with the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy can be maximally beneficial to both parties and help to prevent some of the problems of political backlash that the civil rights affirmative action programs have encountered over the last several decades. It is reasonable to believe that someday homosexuals will be allowed openly into the military. However, it will probably be on terms they will not like if their ultimate goal is to find a mate or exploit sexual opportunities in an environment of large numbers of potential sex partners.
For young and sexually active heterosexual women, gays, and lesbians, the military may seem the perfect place to meet a large number of potential lovers. With tens of thousands of young and impressionable recruits in their sexual prime joining each year, soldiers’ attentions will naturally drift towards sexual play and sexual games. A shift in priorities from paying attention to one’s duties to sexual games more than likely will lead to excesses of behavior that potentially tarnish the pride and honor of the armed forces. While it might seem petty for the Defense Department to worry about adultery proliferating, there are many things to consider. First, adultery is generally discouraged as being immoral or undesirable social behavior. For the military to appear to support sexually immoral behavior reflects badly upon its character. Second, if the military cannot rein in the behavior of its officers and enlisted men, how can it expect to carry out complex defense maneuvers requiring a high degree of coordination and discipline? Military men and women in uniform are direct representatives of the United States government and their actions reflect directly on the nation. Therefore, how they appear in the public mind here, and abroad as representatives of the government, is very important. Being in uniform, and being highly visible, saddles them with certain responsibilities that civilian government employees do not have. Third, since the military is not intended to be a dating service it will always appear from a civilian standpoint to be somewhat prudish, arbitrary, and hypocritical as it moves from time to time to stem activities that might tarnish its image in the public mind. It need not be said that military goals have nothing to do with sex and yet these problems of military life have endured. Fourth, when a military is strong, its presence in a nation frees up ordinary citizens from the need to be fully attentive to their survival needs in times of international crises or natural disaster. Should disaster strike, whether it be nuclear devices detonated by terrorists, a large meteor such as the one that fell on Mexico millions of years ago, or an invasion of foreign nationals, discipline inculcated in military personnel will work towards the restoration of order. It would seem apparent that one part of the nation must remain highly disciplined to allow efficient cultural regeneration in times of great disasters.
In order to understand how militaries work efficiently, one must grasp the idea of honor and tradition. The idea of governing one’s actions according to honor might seem old-fashioned and out of date, but honor is one moral value of many. It is bound up with other important social ideas such as moral obligation, loyalty, respect, honesty, and conformity with the virtues of tradition. When a soldier does something, say for “the honor of the corps,” he or she does something of moral value. The object of good training for soldiering is to build character, not tear it apart. For soldiers to repeatedly get involved in extramarital affairs is therefore an action that tarnishes the honor of the military because it not only violates tradition but is also devoid of moral value. Immorality as such can be likened to the corruption of character. Hedonism, decadence, and involvement in illegal activities all exacerbate the corruption of one’s character. Sexual activity that gets out of hand fosters a hedonistic climate. Once hedonism is entrenched, decadence soon can follow. It is not surprising that the military reacts so strongly to actions it views as tarnishing its honor.
The idea of honor focuses a person’s attention on correct behavior. Being honor-bound and tradition-bound are for the most part one and the same. Without the strong moral guidelines implied in codes of honor and traditions, societies could not evolve efficiently. If fads and new fashions could easily alter the moral values guiding a society, arbitrary laws and injustices would follow. Traditions keep the passions of political causes from wreaking havoc on a functioning political system. They slow the impulses of those who would change a valid political system and replace it with one that is popular but as yet untested for its integrity and worth.
Society seems to function more smoothly when its attributes are compartmentalized into activities that have their designated time and place. By the time most people are adults they have experienced the powerful effects of sexual passion. They know that oftentimes a person is not acting rationally when he or she is responding sexually. As a result, difficult situations arise that strike the consciousness so poignantly that people begin to be more careful in situations with overtones of sex. One possible strategy is to avoid such situations. Several hundred million people in this nation grapple daily with the problem of organizing their time most efficiently, most of them going out of their way to avoid situations that give rise to unnecessary stress and/or emotions that undermine rational thought. From common problems and common resolution of those problems, traditions evolve to guide the way for people who want to adopt sane social strategies. These traditions clearly define the time and place for various activities. For instance, flirtation and provocative dress are clearly inappropriate for employees of a bank, although both might be acceptable in a nightclub later in the day. Earning a living requires dedication and focus. In this respect most people do not want to be distracted by sexually provocative circumstances in the middle of their working day. Prohibitions against nudity illustrate this sensitivity of people to sexually explicit situations. Nudist camps are acceptable of course, but otherwise dress codes, formal or informal, apply.
Many traditions evolve from common observation of actions that are efficient, as well as supportive of peace, prosperity, and productivity. Traditions act as a way of synchronizing the many different needs of hundreds of millions of people in a way that designates, in exhaustive detail, a time and a place for most activities. The process of maturing and becoming adult includes an increased knowledge of, and respect for, the socio-cultural requirements of adulthood.
The issue of lifting the gay ban in the military represents a clash of cultural values that must be resolved by some equitable means. On the one hand, a person’s sexuality should not be a criterion of acceptability in the military, and on the other hand, people’s private sexual sensitivities should not be vulnerable to manipulation by others. In short, people everywhere need the right of quiet enjoyment and civil liberties enforced by policies that discourage even subtle forms of sexual harassment.
Gays and lesbians are unwilling to adapt to existing compartmentalizations of strategies to deal with sexual issues. But it should be noticed in any debate that there is an inherent difference in sexual codes and sexual maturity between the two groups that must be mitigated by rules of conduct. The emotionally hardened and sex-wise lives of people who have dealt with discrimination and exotic forms of sex naturally lends itself to a different resiliency to sexual situations. Gays and lesbians appear to misunderstand the size, complexity, and emotional maturity of the modern world. In this nation alone there are more than 264 million people, most of whom at one time or another in their lives will have heightened sensitivities to situations with sexual overtones. To visualize the vast size of the population one might think of a telephone book that lists every person’s name and telephone number. Such a book would be 45 feet thick. If a few sentences were included to describe the category or type of sexual sensitivity each person had, the book would be enormous. Traditions can be changed, but before homosexuals become truly accepted, some readjustment of common reactions to sex must be worked out. Gays and lesbians have been fair in working for their rights. Many of the relationships they enjoy are mature and responsible ones which in effect have built a new model of homosexual life that affects old views of them in a more positive way. It will obviously take more than rights work and improved domestic relationships among homosexuals to change military policy towards homosexuality. This may be a case of “irreconcilable differences” based on functionality more than on mere bias. Change, if change is made at all, must be made in a safe and effective way to maintain the high standards of military life.
In a letter dated 24 September 1997 General John M. Shalikashvili Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote, "Thank you for the recent letter forwarding a copy of Homosexuality, Ethics and Military Policy. Congratulations on the completion of your work. You have clearly invested a tremendous level of talent, energy and enthusiasm in the application of ideas and methodology to a complex issue."
This piece was written with the full knowledge of members of the gay community some of whom helped edit the text.
S.E. Bromberg www.evolutionaryethics.com
Copyright © 1997
College and university professors may
reproduce this web site for academic purposes.