The following information is from the Military Freedom Initiative Project
of the NGLTF (originally posted to America Online):
===========================================================================

COUNTERING MILITARY ARGUMENTS AGAINST GAY AND LESBIAN SERVICE MEMBERS:

Questions and Answers

1. The issue of ending the ban should be studied before the President rescinds
the anti-gay policy.
	
	No military personnel issue has been so studied, discussed and debated
as the anti-gay/lesbian ban. The government's own studies on the issue have
shown that the policy is unjustified and expensive to implement.  Some of the
results of those studies include the following:
	
	The Crittenden report (formally the Report of the Board Appointed to
Prepare and Submit Recommendations to the Secretary of the Navy for the
Revision of Policies, Procedures and Directives Dealing With Homosexuals),
March 1957 : "The concept that homosexuals pose a security risk is unsupported
by any factual data...The number of cases of  blackmail as a result of past
investigations of homosexuals is negligible.  No factual data exist to support
the contention that homosexuals are a greater risk than heterosexuals."

	Nonconforming Sexual Orientations and Military Suitability, Defense
Personnel Security Research and Education Center (PERSEREC), December 1988:
"...the values that any society places on social acts are subject to
change...the lessons of history tell us that the legitimacy of our behaviors,
customs, and laws is not permanently resistant to change.  Custom and law
change with the times, sometimes with amazing rapidity.  The military cannot
indefinitely isolate itself from the changes occurring in the wider society, of
which it is an integral part."

	Preservice Adjustment of Homosexual and Heterosexual Military
Accessions: Implications for Security Clearance Suitability, PERSEREC, January
1989: "...the preponderance of the evidence presented in this study indicates
that homosexuals show preservice suitability-related adjustment that is as good
or better than the average heterosexual."

	Defense Force Management: DOD's Policy on Homosexuality, U.S.
Government Accounting Office, June 1992: "DOD annually expelled an average of
about 1,500 men and women between 1980 and 1990 under the separation category
of 'homosexuality.'" The cost of replacing those service members is $28, 226
for each enlisted troop and $120,772 for each officer.   The total cost to U.S.
taxpayers of implementing the anti-gay policy between 1980 and 1990 was
therefore $493, 195, 968. The report also stated the following: "Major
psychiatric and psychological organizations in the United States disagree with
DOD's policy and believe it to be factually unsupported, unfair and
counterproductive.  In addition, two DOD/service-commissioned study efforts
have refuted DOD's position on the potential security risk associated with
homosexual orientation as well as disclosed information that raised questions
about the basic policy.  Further, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff have recently acknowledged that homosexual
orientation is no longer a major security concern."


2. Integration based on sexual orientation is not similar to integration based
on race because race is a non-behavioral characteristic while sexual
orientation indicates a changeable behavior.
	
	Whether or not sexual orientation is a biological or behavioral
characteristic is a constant issue of  scientific study, with several recent
studies indicating that there may be a biological link.  Regardless of the
cause of sexual orientation, many of the arguments used in 1948 during the
debate about integration by race were actually based on the ideas that
African-Americans engaged in different behaviors than white Americans and those
behaviors would be disruptive to the effectiveness and morale of the military. 
The stereotypes invoked in 1948 were proven false and integration based on race
was implemented. The stereotypes invoked this year are similarly false.  The
issue was never whether African-Americans could serve -- the issue was racism. 
The issue now is not whether gay men and lesbians can serve, the issue is
homophobia and discrimination.


3. Won't military readiness be hurt by allowing gays in the military?
	
	Gay men and lesbians are in the military -- tens of thousands of them. 
They serve at all levels of the armed forces, including in the Pentagon. No one
argues that they are not.  They have even served bravely in Operation Desert
Storm and are serving in Somalia.   An executive order would insure that gay
men and lesbians could serve their country openly. 


4. Given the special environment of the military, the presence of openly gay
and lesbian service members invades the privacy rights of heterosexuals in the
foxholes, showers and sleeping quarters. 
	
	These comments are based on the stereotype that gay people cannot
control their sexuality. Gay and lesbian service members are in all those
places today, and are behaving themselves appropriately.  The penalties for
inappropriate sexual behavior, whether by gays or heterosexuals, are the same
and are already in effect.  Repealing the  ban does not alter these
regulations.   The most similar civilian situation is that of fire and police
departments which must often sleep, live and work in close quarters.  The GAO
study from June 1992 indicates that those agencies that have ended previous
employment bans on gay officers "have not experienced any degradation of
mission associated with these policies.  Most department officials did not
identify major problems related to retaining homosexuals in a work force."
  

5.  What about straight service members who fear sexual harassment and sexual
overtures by openly gay and lesbian troops?	
	
	Sexual harassment is already prohibited through military codes of
conduct.  In recent years, we have seen that heterosexual service men have
sexually harassed military women and violated many codes of conduct.  The
Tailhook incident shows that military leaders have often been slow to
discipline troops who violate those codes.  Instead of fearing the unsupported
potential of sexual harassment and misbehavior from openly gay and lesbian
troops, military leaders should enforce the current policies fairly, regardless
of the sexual orientation of the perpetrators or the victims.


6.  Won't the presence of gay service members increase AIDS in the military? 
And what about blood transfusions in combat?
	
	AIDS is permeating all sectors of American society, and HIV does not
discriminate.  The spread of HIV among recruiting age American young men and
women is growing rapidly, as a result of failure to educate about the risks and
self-protection measures involved with HIV.  The Department of Defense already
has a strict HIV testing and screening policy and bars new recruits with HIV.
The number of service members with HIV has remained fairly level at about 500
from year to year.  

	Regarding blood transfusions, the reliance on battlefield transfusions
has been historically very low.  Instead, the military relies on blood that has
been previously stored. Service members with HIV are not placed in deployable
units.


7. Clinton should consult more closely with military leaders before moving
forward on repealing the ban.
	
	When President Truman issued his executive order banning racial
discrimination in the armed forces in 1948, he received virtually unanimous
advice from his senior military officers that this would be disruptive. 
President Clinton is knowledgeable about the Department of Defense's own
studies on the issues that show no justification for the ban.  President
Clinton is acting as a leader to end discrimination.  In 1948, the generals
were wrong and strong presidential leadership by President Truman turned the
country  in the right direction.  President Clinton has the same opportunity.


8. Recent incidents indicate that violence against gay men and lesbians will
increase in the military if the ban is lifted and they serve openly.
	
	The Joint Chiefs of Staff and senior military leaders are responsible
for the discipline and conduct of the troops.  It should concern the U.S.
public if  military leaders cannot control the actions of their well-armed
troops.  If  heterosexual service members act out their bigotry  through
violence against fellow gay service members, military leaders must swiftly
discipline the offenders.  Gen. Colin Powell and the Joint Chiefs of Staff plus
other senior military leadership must speak out as loudly against anti-gay
violence by bigoted troops as they have against the Commander-in-Chief's
commitment to repeal the ban.


9.  The military is no place for a "social experiment" and we should respect
heterosexual military members who don't want to serve with gays.
	
	This is not a social experiment.  In fact, gay men and lesbians already
work, live and even, in school and sport situations, shower side-by-side with
heterosexuals throughout society.  And gay men and lesbians are in the
military.  Discrimination is wrong and the anti-gay policy should be repealed. 
The military is no place for bigoted service members who cannot cooperate and
work with fellow Americans, gay or straight, who wish to serve their country.
	 

10.  The sexual practices of gay men and lesbians should not be permitted in
the military.
	
	Current military regulations prohibit many private sexual activities
that heterosexuals engage in as frequently as gay men and lesbians.  Those
codes of conduct must be either revised to reflect the reality of individual
sexual behavior, or must be enforced across the board regardless of sexual
orientation.


11. If the ban were lifted, would men dance with men in officers clubs and
would women hold hands with other women on bases?
	
	The military already has regulations prohibiting open displays of
affection while in uniform.  This policy would not change if the ban were
repealed, and gay and lesbian service members would be required to follow the
same policies as heterosexuals.  However, gay and lesbian service members would
have the right to engage in behavior permissible for heterosexuals.  Repealing
the ban would end discrimination and allow gay and lesbian service members to
serve their country openly and with honor.


12. What about spousal benefits and other unresolved issues?
	
	While these details are important, opponents of repealing the ban are
using these issues as a smokescreen for their bigotry.  Domestic partnership
and other issues are regulated by the states and local jurisdictions and policy
debates will continue for years in the public sector.  The basic issue is this
-- the current policy blatantly discriminates against a whole class of American
citizens and disqualifies them from military service without justification. 
The policy is wrong and must be repealed.


13. Many other countries prohibit homosexuals from serving in the military.
	
	Among NATO allies of the U.S., only Great Britain has an explicit
policy barring gay and lesbian service members, as in the U.S.  In the past
year, both Canada and Australia have successfully lifted their anti-gay bans.
The world-renowned Israeli military doesn't ban gay and lesbian service
members.  The U.S. military should be capable of this challenge and should move
swiftly to end discrimination and retain many well-qualified gay and lesbian
service members.


14. If the ban were lifted, should gay and lesbian service members perhaps be
segregated from straight service members?
	
	Segregated forces are unacceptable and unnecessary.  Gay and lesbian
service members already do serve side by side with heterosexual troops. 
Enforcing current codes of conduct and instilling a sense of respect for fellow
service members, regardless of sexual orientation, is what is necessary to
maintain good order and discipline in the troops.


The Military Freedom Initiative of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
challenges the anti-gay discriminatory policy of the U.S. Department of
Defense.  For further information, contact Tanya Domi, director of the Military
Freedom Initiative, at (202) 332-6483.
===============================================================================