Don't ask don't tell

Ok so it looks like the old "don't ask don't tell" policy which allowed homosexuals to serve in the military as long as they kept their sexuality a secret may be replaced with allowing homosexuals to serve full stop.
This has caused a deal of outrage in certain parts of the political spectrum.

it's estimated that currently there are 65,000 homosexuals actively serving their country with about 1 million homosexual veterans. Since 2005, more than 800 personnel have been discharged from “critical fields” ...... jobs considered essential but difficult in terms of training or retraining, such as linguists, medical personnel and combat engineers not because they failed to do their job, but solely because it was discovered they were homosexuals.

24 nations already allow homosexuals to serve, 12 of which are involved in "operation freedom", all without their military suffering any negative impact on morale, cohesion, readiness or recruitment.

So if it works for other countries why not the US military which is claimed to be the finest. Is it so weak that knowing someone serving is a homosexual will bring it down? I mean they have been allowed to serve and have done so honorably since 1993. Even Hannity called a soldier a great American, thanked him for his service and said semper fi (not that hannity has served, let alone as a marine). I wonder if he would have done so if he knew that soldier used to be a gay porn star?

Isn't this more about bigotry than what is best for the military?

I think they should be separated but definitely allowed to serve.

I think it is a distraction within the same unit/barracks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

I think they should be separated but definitely allowed to serve.

I think it is a distraction within the same unit/barracks.

---

The point is that they have been serving in the same units. how would you separate them and why?

What do you honestly think those big brave marines, those that risk their lives are afraid of ? That the queer could turn out to be more heroic???????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

I think they should be separated but definitely allowed to serve.

I think it is a distraction within the same unit/barracks.

---

The point is that they have been serving in the same units. how would you separate them and why?

What do you honestly think those big brave marines, those that risk their lives are afraid of ? That the queer could turn out to be more heroic???????

---

You would separate them if they admit to being gay.

It has nothing to do with being afraid. It has to do with distraction.

This goes to the core of don't ask don't tell but I think it's wrong to kick them out of military.

With don't ask don't tell there is no distraction in that case.

To your last, WTF?!:blink:

If there's problems in team sports can you imagine the crap in the military barracks . I have an idea make a gay unit and send to the front lines , problem solved . I'm being facetious as yes they should be able serve their country but keep your sexual orientation private , Private .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peat moss

If there's problems in team sports can you imagine the crap in the military barracks . I have an idea make a gay unit and send to the front lines , problem solved . I'm being facetious as no they should be able serve their country but keep your sexual orientation private , Private .

---

I think there should be gay units. However, the problem is with people like that general who said homosexuality is immoral.

Would he send the "gay unit" to the front lines over a straight unit? That would be fucked up.

I simply have problem with a war veteran soldier who risks his life for this country ultimately getting kicked out of the military simply cuz he's gay....as if what he sacrificed means shit cuz he likes the menz bunghole.:ermm:

We could call them g-units, for short.

What distraction are they?

we don't separate jews because the redneck hates his religion, we don't separate coloreds because of racists, we don't separate atheists because some with religion think that no belief is immoral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

We could call them g-units, for short.

---

:glag::glag::glag:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

What distraction are they?

we don't separate jews because the redneck hates his religion, we don't separate coloreds because of racists, we don't separate atheists because some with religion think that no belief is immoral.

---

You do separate women from men though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

You do separate women from men though.

---

what does that have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that homosexuals would be chasing all the straight soldiers? Are you suggesting that all the straight soldiers think that every homo wants to rape them? Are you worried about emotional ties? well what about the "brothers in arms" bond, you could suggest that the emotion is different but then who is to say that a particular homosexual relationship is anything other than just sex? Allowing them to serve openly would remove the "security risk" involved in blackmail we hear used as a reason to ban them so much as well

Now if you are thinking about sexual harassment cases then how would that be any different from heterosexual harassment.

I have yet to hear of a single reason given that couldn't be applied to another group that is allowed to serve openly.

The evangelicals are claiming they not only have the right to serve openly as christians but also to try to convert others, is that not a distraction?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

You do separate women from men though.

---

what does that have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that homosexuals would be chasing all the straight soldiers? Are you suggesting that all the straight soldiers think that every homo wants to rape them? Are you worried about emotional ties? well what about the "brothers in arms" bond, you could suggest that the emotion is different but then who is to say that a particular homosexual relationship is anything other than just sex? Allowing them to serve openly would remove the "security risk" involved in blackmail we hear used as a reason to ban them so much as well

Now if you are thinking about sexual harassment cases then how would that be any different from heterosexual harassment.

I have yet to hear of a single reason given that couldn't be applied to another group that is allowed to serve openly.

The evangelicals are claiming they not only have the right to serve openly as christians but also to try to convert others, is that not a distraction?

---

Why don't women and men share the same barracks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Why don't women and men share the same barracks?

---

Again you are making it about sex, again I ask what that has to do with anything. Are you using it as a case to prevent more than one homo per unit :huh:

Why does everyone think that being openly gay means they have to have sex? Can't they be openly gay and not have sex?
What would happen if two troopers, one male one female, where caught engaging in sexual activity? Do you not think the same would apply?

Which ever side of the fence, homeosexuals should be encouraged to join up i reckon.

Those for the "fagtallion" appreciate that homosexuals are human, and can die for their country just as the rest. Sod what churches think.

And, coming from a military background, i can say that if any inappropriate homo action was tried within a barracks, it would be dealt with.

Those against the "gay guides" should also think again. As you are against homeosexuality anyway, this means you hate them . So you want to see them die. So i suggest you start a campaign to start this homo-corps. They can be used as mine detectors. Similar to my idea during "mad cow disease" times, round them up, send them to a minefield, let them graze/be homosexual, problem sorted. Choose it for a

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Why don't women and men share the same barracks?

---

Again you are making it about sex, again I ask what that has to do with anything. Are you using it as a case to prevent more than one homo per unit :huh:

What would happen if two troopers, one male one female, where caught engaging in sexual activity? Do you not think the same would apply?

---

Hell actually now that I think about it, it's a no-win.

A gay unit would present a distraction unto itself since the attraction would be would/could be between those in the same unit.

To your last, let me be more specific. In a unit, it shouldn't matter. Barracks should matter. Women and men serve in the same unit but not barracks (there's some separate trainign too).

My point is that the same way that men and women are separate and unitized is the same way it should be for heteros and homos.

The rationale should be the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimbo12345

Those against the "gay guides" should also think again. As you are against homeosexuality anyway, this means you hate them . So you want to see them die. So i suggest you start a campaign to start this homo-corps. They can be used as mine detectors. Similar to my idea during "mad cow disease" times, round them up, send them to a minefield, let them graze/be homosexual, problem sorted. Choose it for a

---

That's pretty fucked up.:no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

To your last, let me be more specific. In a unit, it shouldn't matter. Barracks should matter. Women and men serve in the same unit but not barracks.

My point is that the same way that men and women are separate and unitized is the same way it should be for heteros and homos.

The rationale should be the same.

---

So who are you saying the distraction affects?

If it's the hetro trooper then why, he isn't going to have sex.

If it's the gay trooper then how would "not telling" make the distraction any less?

As pointed out, under don't ask don't tell the number of gay troopers has not been insignificant. Yet the "distraction" didn't seem to be a problem

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

To your last, let me be more specific. In a unit, it shouldn't matter. Barracks should matter. Women and men serve in the same unit but not barracks.

My point is that the same way that men and women are separate and unitized is the same way it should be for heteros and homos.

The rationale should be the same.

---

So who are you saying the distraction affects?

---

Why are there separations for men and women?

Which ever side of the fence, homeosexuals should be encouraged to join up i reckon.

Those for the "fagtallion" appreciate that homosexuals are human, and can die for their country just as the rest. Sod what churches think.

And, coming from a military background, i can say that if any inappropriate homo action was tried within a barracks, it would be dealt with.

Those against the "gay guides" should also think again. As you are against homeosexuality anyway, this means you hate them and generally a little mental. So you want to see them die. So i suggest you start a campaign to start this homo-corps. They can be used as mine detectors. Similar to my idea during "mad cow disease" times, round them up, send them to a minefield, let them graze/be homosexual, problem sorted. Choose it for a national day, and you can give the other troops a great firework display. "Wow, look at that Spinning Mary fly!!"

It would work. In deserts, vehicles are painted pink for camoflage. Give the "G-string Unit" pink clobber, send them to a snowy conflict, see how the fuckers fall to enemy fire. Again, you'd find this amusing.

Also, think of the merchandise potential. A whole new line of clothes etc could come out. 105th Tank Brigade tops, Spando Commando pants, Queer Gear.

Think on, you discrimination can effect even the discriminators.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimbo12345

Which ever side of the fence, homeosexuals should be encouraged to join up i reckon.

Those for the "fagtallion" appreciate that homosexuals are human, and can die for their country just as the rest. Sod what churches think.

And, coming from a military background, i can say that if any inappropriate homo action was tried within a barracks, it would be dealt with.

Those against the "gay guides" should also think again. As you are against homeosexuality anyway, this means you hate them and generally a little mental. So you want to see them die. So i suggest you start a campaign to start this homo-corps. They can be used as mine detectors. Similar to my idea during "mad cow disease" times, round them up, send them to a minefield, let them graze/be homosexual, problem sorted. Choose it for a national day, and you can give the other troops a great firework display. "Wow, look at that Spinning Mary fly!!"

It would work. In deserts, vehicles are painted pink for camoflage. Give the "G-string Unit" pink clobber, send them to a snowy conflict, see how the fuckers fall to enemy fire. Again, you'd find this amusing.

Also, think of the merchandise potential. A whole new line of clothes etc could come out. 105th Tank Brigade tops, Spando Commando pants, Queer Gear.

Think on, you discrimination can effect even the discriminators.

---

The fook?:blink:

:eat:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

So who are you saying the distraction affects?

---

Why are there separations for men and women?

---

That's not an answer and has nothing to do with it.

Who does the distraction affect?

You said you have no problem with gays serving as long as they hide their sexuality. So how is that any less of a distraction. Allowing them to serve and admit being gay isn't the same as allowing them to hold hands in the showers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimbo12345

Which ever side of the fence, homeosexuals should be encouraged to join up i reckon.

Those for the "fagtallion" appreciate that homosexuals are human, and can die for their country just as the rest. Sod what churches think.

And, coming from a military background, i can say that if any inappropriate homo action was tried within a barracks, it would be dealt with.

Those against the "gay guides" should also think again. As you are against homeosexuality anyway, this means you hate them and generally a little mental. So you want to see them die. So i suggest you start a campaign to start this homo-corps. They can be used as mine detectors. Similar to my idea during "mad cow disease" times, round them up, send them to a minefield, let them graze/be homosexual, problem sorted. Choose it for a national day, and you can give the other troops a great firework display. "Wow, look at that Spinning Mary fly!!"

It would work. In deserts, vehicles are painted pink for camoflage. Give the "G-string Unit" pink clobber, send them to a snowy conflict, see how the fuckers fall to enemy fire. Again, you'd find this amusing.

Also, think of the merchandise potential. A whole new line of clothes etc could come out. 105th Tank Brigade tops, Spando Commando pants, Queer Gear.

Think on, you discrimination can effect even the discriminators.

---

The fook?:blink:

---

That's called a quality strategy. It please all:

- gay soldier. Wants to fight and die in the army. Definitely will, one way or another..
- anti gay soldier people. Gays die. In horrible ways. All roads lead to Rome.
- pro gay soldier people. Human rights are exacted.
- government. Revenue from merchandise boosts coffers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Why are there separations for men and women?

---

That's not an answer and has nothing to do with it.

Who does the distraction affect?

You said you have no problem with gays serving as long as they hide their sexuality. So how is that any less of a distraction. Allowing them to serve and admit being gay isn't the same as allowing them to hold hands in the showers.

---

Again, why are there separations for men and women?

The rationale is the same.

I have no idea why you are harping on holding hands in shower.

Plus where did you get that I think gays should hide their homosexuality? Now you are making stuff up.

Since I don't have the same liberal thinking that you do, I must be for the opposition.:ermm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimbo12345

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

The fook?:blink:

---

That's called a quality strategy. It please all:

- gay soldier. Wants to fight and die in the army. Definitely will, one way or another..
- anti gay soldier people. Gays die. In horrible ways. All roads lead to Rome.
- pro gay soldier people. Human rights are exacted.
- government. Revenue from merchandise boosts coffers.

---

Uh yeah, whatever. That's a strategy for the Lounge.:ermm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

That's not an answer and has nothing to do with it.

Who does the distraction affect?

You said you have no problem with gays serving as long as they hide their sexuality. So how is that any less of a distraction. Allowing them to serve and admit being gay isn't the same as allowing them to hold hands in the showers.

---

Again, why are there separations for men and women?

The rationale is the same.

I have no idea you are harping on holding hands in shower.

Plus where did you get that I think gays should hide their homosexuality? Now you are making stuff up.

Since I don't have the same liberal thinking that you do, I must be for the opposition.:ermm:

---

When will the division stop? Man/Woman. Gay/Straight. Black/White. Likes rock music/likes pop music. Men and women are not seperated because they dont like each other, they are seperated due to their orientation, probably sexual .

Therefore, i thinks gays should be in the army. Have a split barracks. Not due to their sexual orientation, but out of respect for it.

Man and Woman is the most broad of groupings, whereas we all know that each has many subcatergories, preferences and needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimbo12345

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Again, why are there separations for men and women?

The rationale is the same.

I have no idea you are harping on holding hands in shower.

Plus where did you get that I think gays should hide their homosexuality? Now you are making stuff up.

Since I don't have the same liberal thinking that you do, I must be for the opposition.:ermm:

---

When will the division stop? Man/Woman. Gay/Straight. Black/White. Likes rock music/likes pop music. Men and women are not seperated because they dont like each other, they are seperated due to their orientation, probably sexual .

Therefore, i thinks gays should be in the army. Have a split barracks. Not due to their sexual orientation, but out of respect for it.

Man and Woman is the most broad of groupings, whereas we all know that each has many subcatergories, preferences and needs.

---

Good post.

Gnite folks. Gotta watch the rest of the Wizards/Pacers game, some of the Mavs/Suns game, and rip Harsh Times and Casino Royale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Again, why are there separations for men and women?

The rationale is the same.

I have no idea why you are harping on holding hands in shower.

Plus where did you get that I think gays should hide their homosexuality? Now you are making stuff up.

Since I don't have the same liberal thinking that you do, I must be for the opposition.:ermm:

---

My apologies I am confusing segregation arguments with banning, however what I am trying to get out of you is why it would be a distraction and who would be distracted. I gave my points as to why I disagree.

which leads me to ask again who it is that suffers from the distraction. Just asking why men and women are separated is irrelevant to the point.
You have a problem with the person being kicked out just because he is gay, therefore how was his being gay detrimental to his service (or anyone else's)
If however you wish to draw the comparison between male/female segregation could you please explain exactly your point.

How is separating hetro males and females the same as separating hetro/homo. surely the first is to prevent hetro sex, whereas the latter will prevent nothing as hetros and homos do not mingle sexually........... the only comparison would be separating homos.
I will rephrase the holding hands comment.......

Allowing them to serve and admit being gay isn't the same as allowing them to have sex in the barracks/toilets etc..

EXACTLY the same rules would apply as with male/female troops.

What your argument seems to suggest is that they should be banned/segregated in case someone breaks the rules. Well perhaps we should get rid of barracks altogether in case one trooper goes nuts and attacks another because they don't like their religion/color/football team.

Quote:

---

What your argument seems to suggest is that they should be banned/segregated in case someone breaks the rules. Well perhaps we should get rid of barracks altogether in case one trooper goes nuts and attacks another because they don't like their religion/color/football team.

---

Why on earth do you think they seperate women and men, then?
Oh, right, to prevent hetero sex, you say, which is to say it's to prevent them from breaking the rules, I suppose.


I'd say it's about more than that, tho'. I'd wager a lot of women would feel very uncomfortable if they had to go unisex on the showers. And I'd also wager they'd feel very uncomfortable being in a situation where they had no privacy from said men. Which would be a part of why men and women are separated from each other, in the army.

I think that's Busyman's point, and one I agree with. The same way a man might consider a woman, or a woman a man, for that matter, can make people feel very uneasy if they have no retreat, no control over it, anywhere.

With that in mind, should the fact that a straight man (same goes for straight women vs. lesbians, obviously) wouldn't be interested in someone who still might feel attraction to him take away his rights to chose when and where he might be objectified, or somesuch?


Gay men aren't somehow automatically excluded from feeling attraction towards men who aren't gay.

life is full of unwanted attention. What is being suggesting is that gay men/women are unable to control their desires or that they are somehow all sexual predators that the hetro men will have to fight off. A preconception based more on fear, bigotry and ignorance (3 things that feed each other)

We are not talking about sensitive little flowers here, we are talking about fighting men and women. If they would be broken down by the thought of someone looking at them in the shower how would they cope facing an enemy that wants to kill them?

The system seems to have worked up to now. If a person wants to be a soldier and is capable of carrying out all the duties involved then their sexual preferences should not be brought into question.

If you start segregating soldiers because of sexual preferences then you are opening a can of worms. The same rules should apply to all soldiers who are physically alike.

Does any one have any info on the views of other nations armies (other than usa) in relation to this topic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

life is full of unwanted attention. What is being suggesting is that gay men/women are unable to control their desires or that they are somehow all sexual predators that the hetro men will have to fight off. A preconception based more on fear, bigotry and ignorance (3 things that feed each other)

We are not talking about sensitive little flowers here, we are talking about fighting men and women. If they would be broken down by the thought of someone looking at them in the shower how would they cope facing an enemy that wants to kill them?

---

I'd say that is still the primary reason to separate straight men and women.

And if any sort of sex going on in that context is against the rules, and we separate men and women because they may be attracted to each other and may have sex because of it, we're still assuming someone isn't going to be able to control their urges, and then we should give everyone the same allowance or the opposite of that, as it is.


Actually, you've invented your own brand of discrimination, I'd say. Seeing as you won't allow (or because you assume that their breaking the rules somehow merits segregation while others possibly breaking the rules may not) straight men something you'd allow straight women, for instance.

Me, I say they should go unisex on the barracks.

If they aren't timid little flowers, why should we separate anything? We shouldn't assume someone will break the rules, then.

Like it or not, keeping men and women apart most likely has more to do with what I said than what you claim.

EDit: In line with what zed asked above, I can say that I'm pretty much certain it's for reasons of personal integrity men and women would be kept apart here. Well, that and the fact that sexual tension may drag down the performance of units, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 100%

Does any one have any info on the views of other nations armies (other than usa) in relation to this topic?

---

This is the British state of things. Transexuals also. Rule Brittania!:ph34r:

SURVEILLANCE OF SERVICE PERSONNEL
8. Military Police had routinely spent a disproportionate amount of time, money and effort on undercover surveillance operations purely to establish that a Service Person might be homosexual. On 9 May 1996, Nicholas Soames MP, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, agreed in the House of Commons that it would "not be sensible, economic or efficient use of resources to identify those who were homosexual and wish to keep it to themselves". This change of policy accurately reflected the feelings of Service Police Investigators who admitted that they would "sooner be employed combating genuine crime such as theft or drug abuse". Sadly Service Authorities had failed to act upon the Minister's directive and undercover operations continued. Where cases came to light, Ministers were invited to explain why the Armed Forces were not following their wishes.
THE RIGHT OF CONSULTATION ON ISSUES OF HOMOSEXUALITY
9. As a direct result of the profile achieved by Rank Outsiders and the professional manner in which Rank Outsiders had sought to conduct itself, The Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Nicholas Soames MP, directed in 1996 that the MoD was to consult with Rank Outsiders on all issues related to the treatment of homosexuality by the Armed Forces. Although not always a willing party to this directive, the MoD had nevertheless started to work with Rank Outsiders to resolve the many and varied issues involved.
SERVICE RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUALS
10. Although the Armed Forces have been extremely reluctant to even admit that there were homosexuals serving, arguing that because homosexuals were banned there weren?t any, this had not been the case with related Service Organisations. During 1996, the Soldiers, Sailors and Air Force Association started working openly with Rank Outsiders to support ex-Service Personnel in need, and other organisations such as the Royal Naval Association were beginning to follow suit. Most significantly, in November 1996, Rank Outsiders were invited to the Royal British Legion to join the Remembrance Day Parade and lay a wreath at the Cenotaph in London. These links were leaving the Armed Forces themselves increasingly isolated in their attitude towards homosexuals.
THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE
11. On 19 February 1997, Terry Perkins, a former Naval Medical Assistant brought a case against the MoD in the High Court claiming the Ban on homosexuals breached the European Equal Treatment Directive and urged the High Court to refer the case to the European Court of Justice for a ruling. On 13 March 1997, Mr Justice Lightman agreed to refer the case and noted that the prospects of the European Court upholding Mr Perkins' case were significant. In 1995, the MoD had argued that the directive related solely on gender and they had a good chance of winning a case, although if they lost compensation would be substantial. Since then, the European Court of Justice has interpreted the Equal Treatment Directive to apply more broadly than just gender and it had been extended to protect the right of transsexuals. It seemed almost inconceivable that the directive should not also be found to apply to homosexuals and a ruling was expected in late 1998.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

Actually, you've invented your own brand of discrimination, I'd say. Seeing as you won't allow (or because you assume that their breaking the rules somehow merits segregation while others possibly breaking the rules may not) straight men something you'd allow straight women, for instance.

---

What am I not allowing straight men that I would straight allow women?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

EDit: In line with what zed asked above, I can say that I'm pretty much certain it's for reasons of personal integrity men and women would be kept apart here. Well, that and the fact that sexual tension may drag down the performance of units, I think.

---

then how do you account that the large number of gay men and women that have served since 1993 have served honorably, efficiently and have not dragged down the performance of the units?
The reality has shown that the fear is unjustified.

Back in the day they said colored pilots would be detrimental to the service. The reality turned out to be opposite.

It seems the reasons given for them to not serve are more to justify personal bigotry than the value of their service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

Quote:

---

What your argument seems to suggest is that they should be banned/segregated in case someone breaks the rules. Well perhaps we should get rid of barracks altogether in case one trooper goes nuts and attacks another because they don't like their religion/color/football team.

---

Why on earth do you think they seperate women and men, then?
Oh, right, to prevent hetero sex, you say, which is to say it's to prevent them from breaking the rules, I suppose.


I'd say it's about more than that, tho'. I'd wager a lot of women would feel very uncomfortable if they had to go unisex on the showers. And I'd also wager they'd feel very uncomfortable being in a situation where they had no privacy from said men. Which would be a part of why men and women are separated from each other, in the army.

I think that's Busyman's point, and one I agree with. The same way a man might consider a woman, or a woman a man, for that matter, can make people feel very uneasy if they have no retreat, no control over it, anywhere.

With that in mind, should the fact that a straight man (same goes for straight women vs. lesbians, obviously) wouldn't be interested in someone who still might feel attraction to him take away his rights to chose when and where he might be objectified, or somesuch?


Gay men aren't somehow automatically excluded from feeling attraction towards men who aren't gay.

---

vid avoided the question that you seemed to answer and hit the nail right on the head.:)

On another note, gay men have always been stigmatized as "soft".
Should not their presence and want to be in the battlefield show the contrary.

There has been little is any discussion about their actual capabilities, performance in the actual field.

I am glad the press does not focus on the gay communities achievements in the field.

"General saved by a gay soldier" etc

@jimbo thanks for info

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

What am I not allowing straight men that I would straight allow women?

---

To stay apart from men who'd be attracted to them, obviously :blink:

Everybody should be entitled to a safe zone (if some are already), when they are off duty. I thought I'd made that clear :unsure:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

EDit: In line with what zed asked above, I can say that I'm pretty much certain it's for reasons of personal integrity men and women would be kept apart here. Well, that and the fact that sexual tension may drag down the performance of units, I think.

---

then how do you account that the large number of gay men and women that have served since 1993 have served honorably, efficiently and have not dragged down the performance of the units?
The reality has shown that the fear is unjustified.

Back in the day they said colored pilots would be detrimental to the service. The reality turned out to be opposite.

It seems the reasons given for them to not serve are more to justify personal bigotry than the value of their service.

---

How on Earth am I working from bigotry here(or are you putting something completely irrelevant to what I'm saying as a counterargument?), I'm just saying that everybody should have the same privilieges and restrictions :blink:

As for the rest, how can you possibly tell whether they've affected performance of units or not? It's not as if you have an alternate testgroup without homosexuals in the service. Or do you :O

EDit: Stick everyone in the same barracks then, that's the fairest solution. Or is there a problem with that?

Have any of you actually been in the army?
I have not

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 100%

On another note, gay men have always been stigmatized as "soft".
Should not their presence and want to be in the battlefield show the contrary.

There has been little is any discussion about their actual capabilities, performance in the actual field.

I am glad the press does not focus on the gay communities achievements in the field.

"General saved by a gay soldier" etc

@jimbo thanks for info

---

I don't think a gay person's abilities are an issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

To stay apart from men who'd be attracted to them, obviously :blink:

Everybody should be entitled to a safe zone (if some are already), when they are off duty. I thought I'd made that clear :unsure:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

EDit: In line with what zed asked above, I can say that I'm pretty much certain it's for reasons of personal integrity men and women would be kept apart here. Well, that and the fact that sexual tension may drag down the performance of units, I think.

---

then how do you account that the large number of gay men and women that have served since 1993 have served honorably, efficiently and have not dragged down the performance of the units?
The reality has shown that the fear is unjustified.

Back in the day they said colored pilots would be detrimental to the service. The reality turned out to be opposite.

It seems the reasons given for them to not serve are more to justify personal bigotry than the value of their service.

---

How on Earth am I working from bigotry here(or are you putting something completely irrelevant to what I'm saying as a counterargument?), I'm just saying that everybody should have the same privilieges and restrictions :blink:

As for the rest, how can you possibly tell whether they've affected performance of units or not? It's not as if you have an alternate testgroup without homosexuals in the service. Or do you :O

EDit: Stick everyone in the same barracks then, that's the fairest solution. Or is there a problem with that?

---

Hey I've seen many movies that show a future where everyone in the military bunks together....men and women.

That would solve everything.:naughty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 100%

Have any of you actually been in the army?
I have not

---

Nope, while it's kinda' mandatory to show up for intial testing and that here, and to serve if you are fit, I got out of it on a technicality.

Most of (the male half) of my relatives have, tho'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

How on Earth am I working from bigotry here

---

I am pointing to where the arguments and justification come from.

example.

A unit serves together for a couple of years, they've seen action, they trust each other. One day a group decides to go see a strip show and one says "no thanks that doesn't interest me". He receives the sarcastic "You gay or something" line.



To which he replies..."actually yes"



What has changed?


Is he less reliable than he was before that answer?

Is he somehow now detrimental to the efficiency of the unit?

the answer is no he hasn't changed one bit.


I tell you what and who may have changed, the attitude of the person that asked the question towards the guy that admitted he is gay. It will have nothing to do with the person that admitted he is gay and everything to do with the personal bigotry held within the person that asked the question.


I'm not saying he could only have changed for the worse of course. It's entirely possible that he will realize that he had nothing to fear in the first place. Also it's entirely possible that it didn't matter to him in the first place.

I doubt in that senario he/she would say no.

Your sex "need" is only temporary, it does Not control your whole way of life.
I expect in the military more so. There are other more vital issues at hand.

The Discovery channel should do an show on masturbation in the military.