Don't ask don't tell

[jimbo12345]

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!

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.

[vidcc]

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?

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.

[Busyman™]

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.

[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

[Snee]

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

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

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

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

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

[100%]

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

[Busyman™]

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

[Snee]

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'.

[vidcc]

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.

[100%]

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.