DOD Homosexuality Survey: A Closer Look

image-DADT Report coverAfter the completion of a dubious and flawed survey, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says there is a “low risk” to the U.S. military if homosexuals are allowed to serve openly in the military.

There is also a “low risk” of your children being hurt if they don’t wear their seatbelts, a “low risk” of developing lung cancer if you smoke, and a “low risk” of getting sick from eating undercooked meats. Shall we recommend engaging in these behaviors?  Of course not; they aren’t politically correct and politically favored behaviors.

Earlier today Family Research Council President and former Marine Tony Perkins issued this statement:

“Congress should hold extensive hearings on this topic, on both the findings and methodological weaknesses of this report, before taking any action to overturn current law. No level of risk should be acceptable merely to advance a radical social agenda.

“Sadly, today’s report, and the ten months of work by the Comprehensive Review Working Group, may be of little value to Congress, because they failed to address the central question – whether overturning the current law would enhance our nation’s ability to fight and win wars. By beginning with the premise that the law would be overturned, and exploring only how to implement such a change, the conclusion that such a change would be feasible was foreordained.

“The same concern applies to the surveys conducted of servicemembers and their spouses. Media reports to the effect that a majority of servicemembers ‘would not have a problem’ with homosexuals in the military overlook the fact that the surveys did not ask whether respondents support repeal of the current law. If most servicemembers say that under a different policy, they would continue to attempt to do their job in a professional manner, that is only what we would expect. This does not mean that a new policy would not undermine the overall effectiveness of the force. And if even a small percentage of our armed forces would choose not to re-enlist, or part of the public would choose not to serve in the first place, the impact on the military would be catastrophic.”

I spent 10 years in the military, Stateside and overseas, and can testify not only to the logistical and moral difficulties that would be caused by allowing open homosexual behavior in the military, but also to the professionalism of our troops who would do their best to still defend our nation despite an obstacle placed in their way by their own leaders.  But I have seen homosexuals make overtures toward heterosexual servicemen in the barracks (and elsewhere) and the problems caused by it.

As I have pointed out in great detail numerous times before, military life is unlike any other area of our culture, carrying with it unique challenges and responsibilities that civilians not only don’t face but may not even understand. The consequences of subjecting our troops who often have to live and work in close quarters can be disruptive to military readiness, and may even be deadly to those who cannot count on a military whose effectiveness has been eroded by a lax and permissive atmosphere.  Further, the type of heavy-handed regime that would be required to force this on our service members–who generally have a higher standard of morality and ethos than the general public–is certain to quash basic freedoms in the military, especially religious freedom.  It also poses increased health risks to service members–even beyond the tremendous health risks associated with homosexuality that homosexual service members will bring upon themselves with their own behavior.  Military leaders like Marine Corps Commandant General James Conway has attempted to advise our elected leaders of all this, but their priority is on political correctness, not military effectiveness.

The simple truth is, we should not be making it harder for our military forces to be effective by catering to the lowest common denominator, but rather doing everything we can to facilitate the ability of our armed forces to fight and win wars as effectively as possible.

The DOD survey itself, while lengthy, is very weak. The military is not a democracy, but when we are talking about messing with the most intimate and private details of a soldier’s daily life, the impact of such a move As Perkins pointed out, the survey doesn’t ask service members directly whether the policy should be repealed. Further, the language of the survey assumes that the policy will be repealed and might even be said to assume that the policy should be repealed. In other words, the survey subtly advises the respondent “what the correct answer is.”

A survey recently conducted by CC Advertising of over 10,000 military members does ask the question directly: “DO YOU BELIEVE CONGRESS SHOULD OVERTURN THE CURRENT DON’T ASK DON’T TELL POLICY WHICH PROHIBITS OPEN HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN THE MILITARY?”

The results:

  • Yes…37.14%
  • No….62.86%

The DOD survey, however, begins by leading respondents to “the right answer” (even though the exact question is never asked) by question #5 on page 162 of this report by asking whether there are people of different races or ethnicities in the unit.  Homosexual activists have for years worked diligently to convince people that homosexual behavior is the equivalent of innate, morally-neutral characteristics such as skin color. Exactly how many people are misled by this bait-and-switch deception is uncertain, but we can be sure that at least some are.  Therefore, some respondents have been freshly “primed” to render “the right answer” early in the survey.

We also don’t know how many of the respondents are themselves homosexual, and thus may skew the results. If we could be sure that the homosexual representation on the survey was similar to the proportion of homosexuals in the general population (2.9% according to a survey commissioned a couple of years ago by the pro-homosexual group Human Rights Campaign), that would give us a better feel for the veracity of these results.  As it is, we don’t know if a disproportionate number of homosexuals responded to the survey and thus skewed the results.

As the Family Research Council has pointed out, one homosexual claims to have gained access to the survey system and given more than one set of answers. If this is true, then the results of the survey are completely compromised.

Another interesting thing about many of these questions is that when it asks about opinions or past/current interactions with homosexuals in the military, it says “someone you believe to be a gay or lesbian Service member.”  We frequently encounter people we “believe” may be homosexual without actually knowing for sure one way or the other. While Bill Clinton’s asinine “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy is a schizophrenic compromise of the original military policy of complete exclusion of homosexuals from the military, it still presents a different scenario in military life from one where the service member’s homosexuality is known.  In other words, you might be willing to bunk with someone you suspect is a homosexual…but definitely not with someone you know is a homosexual and thus may be sexually attracted to you in close quarter living conditions.

A few innocuous but interesting facts about the pool of respondents includes the fact that only 14.8% are in the E-1 to E-3 pay grades that are the most likely to live in the barracks or other close quarters where homosexual behavior is most likely to be a major issue; another 22.4% are E-4 who might also be included in such living arrangements.  The majority of respondents most likely are married, living in off-base quarters or both. In fact, the marital status on page 164 indicates 55.9% were married and only 33.3% never married.

With regard to unit cohesion, question 93 on page 230 is revealing. “If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and a gay or lesbian Service member attended a military social function with a same-sex partner, which are you most likely to do?” While 49.5% said it would not adversely affect their decision to attend military social functions, 5% said they wold stop bringing family members to functions and 30.4% would stop attending altogether. They don’t want this immoral and unnatural behavior openly rubbed in their faces. These results indicate proponents of allowing open homosexuality in the military are willing to alienate 30.4% of military members to appease the immoral behavior of 2.9% or less.

Question 88 on page 227 gets close to the heart of this issue. “If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are assigned to share a room, berth or field tent with someone you believe to be a gay or lesbian Service member, which are you most likely to do?”

Only 26.7% would take no action, with 18.6% giving vague answers like “Something else” or “Don’t know.” Meanwhile, 54.7% would feel compelled to discuss expectations of conduct in the living quarters, talk to a chaplain or leader (who would undoubtedly be instructed to instruct the soldier to toe the politically correct line or get out of the service), or talk to a leader to try to find other living arrangements.

In other words, the overwhelming majority of respondents would have to take actions to deal with this issue–rather than remain focused on mission readiness or much-needed recreational time–that would not be created were the policy left in place.

We have some hard questions to ask ourselves:

  • Taking the results of this survey at face value, are we willing to reduce unit morale by 40.2% (page 191)?
  • Taking the results of this survey at face value, are we willing to risk a 37.6% reduction in combat performance (page 193)?
  • Taking the results of this survey at face value, are we willing to make it 35.1% more difficult for leadership to hold service members accountable to personal standards of military conduct (page 194)?
  • Taking the results of this survey at face value, are we willing to make it 37.7% more difficult for leadership to maintain good order and discipline (page 196)?
  • Taking the results of this survey at face value, are we willing to reduce unit cohesion by 29.6% (page 197(?
  • Taking the results of this survey at face value, are we willing to reduce the trust service members have among each other by 33.1% (page 198)?
  • Taking the results of this survey at face value, are we willing to reduce the mission effectiveness of the United States Armed Forces by 44.3% (page 202)?
  • Taking the results of this survey at face value, are we willing to risk a 30.6% reduction of unit effectiveness in an intense combat situation (page 203)?
  • Taking the results of this survey at face value, are we willing to risk a 20.8% reduction in training effectiveness (page 207)?
  • When homosexuals only make up 2.9% of the general population, and that demanding deployment rotations have taken a toll on recruitment and retention, taking the results of the survey at face value, are we willing to risk a 27.3% reduction in enlistment recommendations from current military members (page 210)?
  • When homosexuals only make up 2.9% of the general population, and that demanding deployment rotations have taken a toll on recruitment and retention, taking the results of the survey at face value, are we willing to risk losing 23.7% of our seasoned troops who might otherwise be retained (page 210)?

Even though this survey was engineered to obtain the answer desired by the Obama Administration, and even though the Obama Administration-run DOD put the best spin possible on a bad idea, a closer examination of this survey reveals not a “low risk” but a very high risk of causing serious damage to the quality and effectiveness of an already strained military.

A nation intent on protecting itself as best as possible and determined to make its military the most effective fighting force possible doesn’t take the approach of seeing how many distractions and counterproductive policies with which it can saddle its armed forces and still hope to win; rather, it seeks to remove all distractions and impediments to producing and maintaining the most efficient fighting force possible.

Perhaps you are willing to take those kind of gambles with the U.S. Armed Forces, but as a military veteran, as someone interested in keeping my freedom, as someone interested in maintaining the safety of my country, as someone who has many friends who still serve in the military, as someone whose children may someday serve in the military…I am NOT willing to take such risks with the U.S. military so that homosexuals can display their behavior openly in the ranks.

Our elected representatives and the American public should not stand for it, either.

12 Responses to “DOD Homosexuality Survey: A Closer Look”

  1. We had to figure this administration would “cook up” a FAKE SURVEY! Give me a break! Our military would be irreparably harmed with flaming homosexuals causing problems within the ranks!! We must not doubt for a minute that the militant homosexuals (I DON’T mean our soldiers and Marines) will launch their assault the moment the DADT policy is repealed!

    If you have to ask what I’m talking about, then you’re part of the problem!!!

  2. “Homosexual activists have for years worked diligently to convince people that homosexual behavior is the equivalent of innate, morally-neutral characteristics such as skin color.”

    To those who do not acknowledge homosexuality as what it is, i.e., an unhealthy (and recoverable) sexual addiction: Can you name any other sexual preference, not consisting of “heterosexual” (that is, normal) monogamy, that you would consider to be OK and a valid “diversity” category? My guess is that you can’t. So why do you give homosexuality a pass that you don’t give to other “sexual preferences”? Answer: you don’t have a good reason.

  3. …well, there’s also asexual, bisexual, and hermaphroditic.

    But getting back to the notion that only monogamous heterosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military… I’m curious as to how strictly you want to define the term ‘monogamous’ as it applies to heterosexuals?

    In the strictest ‘moral’ sense, or ‘Biblical’ sense, only those who remain abstinent until marriage and are married only once in their lifetime would truly qualify as having been ‘monogamous.’

    Otherwise, you have to draw an imaginary line in the sand as to how many times a person can be ‘monogamous’ before the word loses any and all ‘moral’ implications.

  4. The homosexual behavior is the behavior which presents problems in a military environment. Let’s stick to the subject.

  5. Asexual is actually closer to normal than homosexual. A person who’s not interested in normal sex actually does the right thing by not bothering with abnormal sex. That’s what celibacy (the only normal alternative to married sex) is about.

    A bisexual is really just a “homosexual” who hasn’t managed to bury their normal sexual nature completely. The same rules should apply to bisexuality as to any other deviance.

    True hermaphroditism is, of course, rare and has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

    It’s always interesting to see what sort of logic someone can try to counter a question with –without actually addressing it, of course.

    BTW, I didn’t specifically say only monogamous “heterosexuals” should serve in the military, and I don’t think anyone else did either. Therefore (as Bob points out) your tangent about monogamy would be relevant to a different discussion but not this one.

  6. “… BTW, I didn’t specifically say only monogamous “heterosexuals” should serve in the military, and I don’t think anyone else did either. …”

    No you didn’t, and that’s exactly my point… if you are as truly concerned about morality in the military as you claim to be, then you would be demanding that promiscuous and non-monogamous heterosexuals be barred from the military as well. But you aren’t…

    You “give a pass” to promiscuous heterosexuals that “you don’t give to others”… why?

    Answer: you don’t have a good reason.

  7. You know, I spent 10 years in the military, interacting with people from all branches, and have a number of friends who are still on active duty and in the national guard. I don’t know of a single one, or have heard of a single one, arguing that heterosexuals should be promiscuous or non-monogamous, or that anyone should call heterosexual immorality “moral” or accept heterosexual immorality. Never have heard it once.

    And as I said, heterosexual behavior–being normal, and understood between the sexes–is not disruptive to military living and working conditions as is an aberrant sexual behavior like homosexuality.