British Navy Makes Deep Bow to Reality to Get Gays to Join

ac,
i dunno when you served but such was an instant BCD (bad conduct discharge)in the middle '90’s. happened to a guy from my unit. he was having a go with a female soldier… who also happened to be his wife. both got the door. admittedly, such was during a RIF (reduction in force) era and during wartime some stuff that gets attention in peacetime is allowed to slide.

More than 10,000 troops have been discharged from the military over the past decade for being gay, at a cost of more than $200 million.

indystar.com/articles/7/224648-5667-010.html

No, but it might reduce morale :smiling_imp:

The link between morale and homosexuality in the U.S. military is complex. The “problem” changes depending on the viewer. In general, though, even for those in management who have no moral issue with it, this boils down to an issue of “distraction”. This issue existed and still does with women in the military as well.

First, distraction in the office (even a military office) has less lethal consequences. Distraction on the battlefield quite the reverse, so the issue is greater when discussing women or gays in combat units.

Simply put, the argument is this: Right or wrong, most men in the U.S. (maybe until recently) were raised to respect and protect women to a great extent. Add to that the possibility of an emotional attachment. Men in combat with women might be distracted by those habits or attachments and react to a woman in danger or injured in a different way than to a fellow soldier who is also a man. Just accept that for what it is for a moment.

That situation would cause, it is argued, greater distractions during combat. Greater distractions mean less efficiency and increased casualties. No military leader wants that.

In the case of gays, there is the issue of possible emotional attachment as well, but not the learned habit of protectiveness. However, that habit is replaced by homophobia. Together, that provides more than enough material for distraction.

All said, I think the obstacle with gays in the military, provided they don’t ever evolve into gay units or hold gay day parades, is an “initial” one. There is an “acceptance” hump to get over, and once the gay person functions normally, his or her fellow soldiers will likely forget about sexual orientation. It will become a non-issue. With women, this is actually a bigger hurdle. What may be solving it some is that the current generation of 20-somethings seems to have been raised (or chose) to be more unisex. They seem less bound by ideas of chivalry and associated customs.

While still not perfect, the military services of the U.S. made a lot of progress on racial issues, faster than other sectors of society. One of the reasons is that the leaders simply laid down the law about what was and was not acceptable. Sure, it still took a long time, and certain individuals didn’t change, but overall, it made a huge difference and there was at least enough “surface acceptance”, if not more, to allow the units to function. If the military did the same with gays, I’d expect a very similar result.

All in all, as long as any soldier, sailor, or airman joins a unit and functions as a professional, without trying to openly promote personal pet issues, he or she should be afforded every opportunity to serve.

Seeker4

[quote=“Flicka”]More than 10,000 troops have been discharged from the military over the past decade for being gay, at a cost of more than $200 million.

indystar.com/articles/7/224648-5667-010.html[/quote]

Sounds like “don’t ask, don’t tell” is not in effect.

The issue here is not whether a person is gay or not. It is not whether a homosexualists performance is any better or any worse than a hetrosexuals.

The problem lies iin how “straight” people perceive gays and what their ingrained morals towards gays are.

Whatever the situation, there will always be people who are prejudice against gays in any line of work. In a team situation (not just in war but in peace time) this can be dangerous.

I think most of you are missing the point here. It’s not about the gays, it’s the people who have to work with them where the problem lies.

Dangermouse,

I have to say this is the first time I’ve ever considered the “issue” from the angle you’re presenting.

Very interesting.

I sense there is a way to change this but it would require such a convoluted, costly solution, that it seems hardly worth it.

Honest question: does anyone know if there is a substantial group of gay men and women who really want to serve (in the military, beat you to it comedians of forumosa!)? Or is this (by “this” I mean the arguments people are making on this thread apart from Dangermouse’s entries) about equal rights to access vs. ban the pansies?

[quote=“Dangermouse”]The issue here is not whether a person is black or not. It is not whether a Negro’s performance is any better or any worse than a white man’s.

The problem lies iin how white people perceive blacks and what their ingrained morals towards Negroes are.

Whatever the situation, there will always be people who are prejudice against blacks in any line of work. In a team situation (not just in war but in peace time) this can be dangerous.

I think most of you are missing the point here. It’s not about the blacks, it’s the people who have to work with them where the problem lies.[/quote]

Right on! That Harry Truman’s meddling is going to destroy the morale of the armed forces.

[quote]Expulsions of Gay Troops on Decline
Experts debate whether personnel shortages or shifting social focus is to account, By STEFEN STYRSKY, Volume four, Issue 7 | February 17-23, 2005, Gay City News
<–link to article

For the third year in a row the number of service members discharged from all branches of the U.S. military for violating the

Yes, that is pretty much the argument, Rubicon. It is the argument that one finds, for example, on popular TV shows such as the West Wing, which used precisely this analogy in their episode on the subject.

Obviously, the reason that this remains an issue is that the majority of Americans do not, at present, consider racial discrimination and sexual-orientation discrimination to be morally or legally equivilent (see e.g. marriage rights). I’m not saying this is right, but it is the reason that there remains a debate.

Another bit regarding the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” program of the USA military.[quote]Gay Military Discharges Drop
by Doreen Brandt 365Gay.com Washington Bureau, Posted: February 11, 2005 9:01 pm. ET

(Washington) Nearly 700 service members were discharged in Fiscal Year 2004 under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” not counting the Coast Guard, according to Department of Defense figures released Friday. This is the fourth straight year “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” discharges have fallen, a fifteen percent drop since 2003 and a forty-seven percent drop since the start of the Global War on Terror.

“The continued drop in ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ discharges at a time of war clearly shows that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a law we don’t need,” said Kathi Westcott a spokesperson for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. “These numbers clearly show that military commanders value good service members during a time of war, whether the service members are gay or straight.”

According to the Department of Defense, three hundred twenty- five Army soldiers, ninety-two Airmen, fifty-nine Marines and one hundred seventy-seven sailors were discharged in 2004. Numbers for the Coast Guard were not released by the Department of Defense. These numbers represent the lowest annual “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” discharges since 1994 and the second lowest number of discharges in the last twenty years.

But despite the historic low, the SLDN said that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” continues to weaken U.S. military readiness by forcing out service members with critical skills.

Recently released Department of Defense information found that at least 20 Arabic linguists have been discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the past five years. Congressman Marty Meehan (D-MA), a leading opponent of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the House of Representatives stated “Even one discharge of an able-bodied service member under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” during a time of war is one too many. At a time when reservists’ tours of duty have been extended and thousands of former service members have been involuntarily recalled, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is stretching our troops to the breaking point. The Department of Defense should be focused on winning the war on terror, not advancing an agenda of discrimination.”

Westcott added, “Who can support a law that is irrelevant, unnecessary and harmful? The fact is that gay and lesbian service members don’t harm unit cohesion, and the continuing decline in discharge numbers clearly illustrates this fact. 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’s days are numbered.”

According to a recent Urban Institute report, there are an estimated 65,000 lesbian and gay service members on active duty, and in the National Guard and Reserves.

Interesting that once upon a time in U.S. history, blacks were not permitted to marry in many states that bothered to consider the question. Interracial marriage was banned in some states long after the Civil War.

Anyone here remember Cheech & Chong’s “Buggery on the High Seas”? :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

And California banned Asians from marrying Whites. The South didn’t.

I guess the Royal Navy will use this as a recruitment poster

Did any of you ever see the Michael Palin sketch on Saturday Night Live – in a period piece set some 200 or so years ago, Palin’s character Miles Cowperthwaite tells of his months aboard The Raging Queen.

[quote]Miles Cowperthwaite V/O: “What Mr. Spunk had sighted was not land at all, but a small, open boat. Which, upon closer inspection, was found to contain two remarkable passengers.”

[ two women climb onboard The Raging Queen ]

Captain Ned: [ greeting them ] I am Captain Ned, of The Raging Queen! Tell me… are there any males with you?

Madeline Warrington: No. Just my sister and I.

Ruth Warrington: Yes. My name is Ruth Warrington. This is my sister Madeline. We were crossing the West Indies, when pirates seized our ship. They took our entire crew prisoners.

Captain Ned: [ thinking ] Hmm… Uh… can you tell me, were these pirates manly and virile?

Madeline Warrington: They were contemptible animals, who subjected our ship’s crew to the most unspeakable torture!

First Mate Spunk: Do you suppose these pirates might still be anywhere in the area.

Ruth Warrington: Yes. I’m afraid they may yet be very close…

Captain Ned: I see. [ runs to address his crew ] Men! There are pirates in these waters! Pirates who inflict hideous punishment to those who fall into their hands! [ crew oohs ] Now, we can turn tail and run. Or, we can take the manly course, that which our manhood demands! Find these despots of discipline, and comfort them! What is your answer!![/quote]

[quote=“mofangongren”]Did any of you ever see the Michael Palin sketch on Saturday Night Live – in a period piece set some 200 or so years ago, Palin’s character Miles Cowperthwaite tells of his months aboard The Raging Queen.
[/quote]

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

snltranscripts.jt.org/78/78rcowperthwaite.phtml

Screaming Jesus,
Interesting how homophobes like you can only get themselves heard on the internet; when you’re sitting in run-down bars tossing back rail whiskey no one wants to keep you company.
I do understand, however, the difficulty someone would have bathing with someone who might look at them sexually. Women don’t bathe with men for that same reason. What exactly is the policy? That is probably the sticking point. :astonished:

Hmmm…could it be this…?

or this…?

RUM, SODOMY AND THE LASH
A Devon Lad’s Life in Nelson’s Navy
by Anthony Blackmore

An exciting new book on life on the lower deck in Nelson’s Navy. Its intriguing title is based on the famous quotation, attributed to Sir Winston Churchill, about the value of naval tradition.
It tells the story of Samuel Blackmore, not a famous admiral, but a lower deck sailor in Nelson’s Navy from 1793 to 1802.
This book will certainly appeal to all who love the Patrick O’Brian and Hornblower books, fans of Lord Nelson and students of naval history.

What kind of hornblower books are these??