[quote]Five years after Britain lifted its ban on gays in the military, the Royal Navy has begun actively encouraging them to enlist and has pledged to make life easier when they do.
The navy announced Monday that it had asked Stonewall, a group that lobbies for gay rights, to help it develop better strategies for recruiting and retaining gay men and lesbians. It said, too, that one strategy may be to advertise for recruits in gay magazines and newspapers.[/quote]
After a song by the Village People, Winston Churchill’s famous quote about buggery and a comedian who suggested that the U.S. government simply own up to reality and make the Navy the “gay” service, we have Brits hiring Stonewall and going to lengths to ensure gay servicemen don’t face harrassment.
Meanwhile, in Republicanland, they’re ready to square off against Spongebob Squarepants over his alleged preferences, signalling their willingness to take the fight below the ocean surface.
My bet is that the Royal Navy will make their full enlistment goals. Since Bush doesn’t want to listen to what his generals have to say about the downwards slide of their respective institutions, my guess is that the U.S. won’t.
I have to disagree with you here. The UK military has traditionally been very homophobic and gays are unlikely to come out of the closet, even today.
The requirement of gays to be actively recruited stems from the European Bill of Human rights, incorporating equal rights for gays in the workplace.
Whether enlisting gays in the military will have adverse affects on the performance of hetro sexuals operating in the field or working as a team with gays remains to be seen.
While you can change the opinion of an organisation on the surface, it is impossible to change the opinions and feelings of those who make up the organisation.
Filling quaotas by enrolling gays does not necessarily mean that this is a good thing, as having homosexuals in an all male (or mostly male), enclosed environment could be detrimental.
As a couple of friends of mine who went through the service academies (and are still serving today) in the U.S. discussed the “don’t ask, don’t tell” with me. Their sense is that probably millions of gays have served in the military over the centuries (or even within this century) without any adverse effect upon their units. While it may well be adviseable for soldiers of all preferences to “do unto themselves what they would otherwise do unto others” while in combat, I can’t help wondering if the whole issue about “morale” won’t go away as fast as the concerns 50+ years ago about racially integrated forces.
If homosexuals are given civil rights, then everyone will want them.
Seriously though, this morale issue is just a smokescreen for institutionalizing prejudice. Probably similar specious arguments were trotted out to prohibit blacks from sports, etc., etc.
Q: Why are Marines allowed to board Navy vessels?
A: Sheep would be too obvious.
I’d like to see “Queer Eye” run a few shows from Iraq. Ted would come up with simple ways to make MREs tasty. (“Meals Ready to Eat” is three lies for the price of one…) Carson would put together outfits fit to kill. Kyan would come up with new speedy ways to survive inspections. Thorn will design hooches so good the troops will hate to leave to go out on patrol. Jai would set up these guys with all the social and body-language skills necessary to interrogate terror suspects without piling them into a big pile of buck-naked men … unless that’s what everybody wants!
I don’t think so. Naval recruits in the lower end jobs dont usually have enough flair and intelligence to respect ones sexual orientation. There will always be conflict between homosexuals and those that disagree with it. Some people dont have enough education or willingness to accept it and I feel, unfortuanately, that the safe operation of a vessle could be compromised.
If acceptance is a problem, maybe they could establish special all-gay units. (The Pink Berets?) They could have their own special uniform logos (little rainbow flags? pink triangles?) and everything, and maybe even their own special parade march style (limp wrist on the upswings?) a la the French foreign legion.
I would think that Bush would want to increase his base of homophobic simpletons, not continuously ship them off to die in the Middle East. I just can’t figure that guy out.
But seriously, when your life is on the line, does the sexual orientation of someone covering you in a attack really matter?
Yes, because he might want to cover you back in the tent, too!
“Oh dahling, we could all get killed tomorrow, and you know that Make a Wish foundation, that gives dying people their last wish? Well, guess what mine is for.”
I’ve heard that Michael Jackson has been willing to try to help out “Make a Wish” type kids. My sense is that the military should be a bit more of a Neverland when it comes to sex between soldiers, regardless of their sexual preference.
Never had to live off 20 year old C-rats, have you? I’ve still got my P-38.[/quote]
The P-38 is a marvelous invention … used one since I was a kid. However, I still think Ted would find a way to make “beans and mutherfuckers” taste good. Don’t know how, but he’d possibly rise to the challenge.
[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]
If acceptance is a problem, maybe they could establish special all-gay units. (The Pink Berets?) They could have their own special uniform logos (little rainbow flags? pink triangles?) and everything, and maybe even their own special parade march style (limp wrist on the upswings?) a la the French foreign legion.
Yes, because he might want to cover you back in the tent, too!
“Oh dahling, we could all get killed tomorrow, and you know that Make a Wish foundation, that gives dying people their last wish? Well, guess what mine is for.”[/quote]
Yeah, and apparently black people only knew how to chuck spears and eat fried chicken, making them useless in combat.
My sense is that millions of gay men and women have already served and done so honorably. The difference here is that the British Navy has gone to lengths to ensure that recruits are not excluded based on sexual preference and are given assurances that gay recruits will not be harrassed while serving their country.
The relegation of black troops during World War II to work as cooks, as truck drivers, etc. in the U.S. military was yet another sad relic made all the more ironic considering the sort of racist regimes we were fighting. That we managed to get one segregated fighter unit into operation was just a baby step forward for a nation in which about 11% of the population is black.
The fact that women (who can carry less equipment but who generally can take much higher G-forces) have been accepted into a much wider combat role than gay men is absolutely stupid.
This is interesting. Where did you learn this, MFGR? Do you know if whoever did the study (presumably the military) knows the physiological differences that account for this?
[quote=“mofangongren”]
The fact that women (who can carry less equipment but who generally can take much higher G-forces) have been accepted into a much wider combat role than gay men is absolutely stupid.[/quote]
Hobbes – A good friend of mine from the Air Force told me about it. He was going through flight training at the same time the women-in-combat issue was going strong, and he went into detail about the pros and cons (from the Air Force perspective of course). He said it was women’s lower center of gravity that helped. Very funny and good guy – considering that in his days it was so competitive to get flight postings that most would’ve been glad to fly tankers out of Maine, he didn’t mind the potential extra competition.
Comrade Stalin – Figuring that gay men have been fighting (whether the people around them knew they were gay or not) in militaries for ages, I see it as stupid that we treat them worse than women, for whom there may be legitimate questions about their ability to carry heavy loads and carry out the the more physical aspects of combat. I don’t think gay men will lisp into the radios, bugger other soldiers under fire, expose units to enemy fire through wearing of bright-pink camouflage, or otherwise decrease the combat efficiency of the U.S. military. However, I would also expect straight male/female members of the military to perform their duties in a professional manner.
Omigawd I have to keep pinching myself from falling asleep. :snore:
Thank you for curing my rampant insomnia.
I mean REALLY, in the US it’s now commonly agreed (although mostly silently - open secret kinda stuff) that J. Edgar Hoover was gay. HOMOsexual, for those who don’t understand the slang. And then I read in Time magazine (YES!!! TIME!!!) that former US president Abraham Lincoln was so, too. Or at the very least, lighting it up at both ends, so to speak (using the FAG metaphor, ok?).
What’s this thang that the BRITS are oh so homosexually inclined?
Fer gawd’s sake, all you’re required to do in any navy, marine corps, army, air force, infiltrating posse, guerrilla group, urban terrorist group, whatever, is to fire a gun. If it’s the rear one, well shucks, would your enemy notice or care? :loco:
What a heavy load to carry :snore: Go hire a sherpa.
I never understood this whole issue of moral in the military due to homosexual.
I have had the pleasure of observing US enlisted personel on a military base during the weekend, where heterosexual males and females would bang each other in squeeky bunk beds, located in shared barrack facilities.
Which leads to the question, how would same sex individuals banging each other in squeeky bunk beds in shared barrack facilities on the weekends reduce moral in the arm forces?
for curing my rampant insomnia.