Gays in the Military

I was watching a 60 minutes segment on Gays in the military with focus on the US military’s don’t ask, don’t tell policy.

Heard arguments from both sides:

  1. from soldiers who are gay. Basically, this is no different from history where sexism and racism were reasons for keeping women and blacks out. History of course showed that blacks in the US military earned many honours. History shows e.g. Spartans that homosexuality doesn’t render soldiers ineffective.

  2. from officers who believe gays affect unit cohesion and battle effectiveness

  3. from Duncan Hunter a politician who basically equated gays as ineffective soldiers. He also said European forces (integrated open-gay soldiers) are unfit for combat.

So, I’ve never been in the military, but do people here think that:

  1. Gay soldiers are combat-ineffective

  2. integrating gay with non-gay soldiers destroys unit cohesion/effectiveness.

  3. Gay soldiers shouldn’t have the right to serve their country.

I believe they most certainly should not. Now, with that out of the way, can we move on with something more important: Witches. Should we burn them or just lock them up forever?

tw.youtube.com/watch?v=3AbUZGNeJRU

Some of the most successful armies in ancient times promoted homosexuality. I believe the Greeks and Spartans were examples.

Edit I also believe the pairs they put soldiers during modern warfare for reliance on each other are reminders of this policy.

Too easy.

You have to do the float test.

There’s no need to look to history, since in modern day Israel the IDF allows gays to serve. Thousands of gays are integrated into combat units and many are career NCOs and officers. The overwhelming majority of Israelis are in favor of gays in the military, except for the ultra-orthdox wings, who themselves request exemptions from military service so they can pray in yeshivas or wherever. I read about a sign at a gas station outside a military base in Israel that read “No Blacks,” but it didn’t refer to dark-skinned people, but to ultra-orthodox Jews that wear black and refuse to serve in the military. Gays that are willing to fight and die for their country are welcome.

For me it’s a no brainer. Why the bloody hell would you give a flying feline’s arse about another person’s sexual orientation when considering unrelated areas such as employment, military service, suitability as adoptive parents, etcetera, unless you’re a meddling, bassackwards sanctimonious arsewipe? :loco:

[quote=“Jack Burton”]So, I’ve never been in the military, but do people here think that:

  1. Gay soldiers are combat-ineffective[/quote]

Alexander the Great. Nuff said.

Absolute BS. Despite what one may think of “don’t ask, don’t tell”, it has enabled gays to be integrated within the ranks of the military. No evidence of unit cohesion disintegrating from their presence.

The principle of Equal Rights For All dictates that they have just as much right as any other American to serve.

I’d love to hear from the other side of the argument.

and I’m really talking about openly gay, not the don’t tell, don’t ask scheme.

It’s important to know all that. Who wants such “low morals” in the military, raising kids and on the job. :unamused: :unamused: :unamused: Back to witch burning…

GudDAMN HO-moes.
I say we gather them all up, put them in one place together, cut their hair off, make 'em dress all the same, force them to be doing something every minute of the day, not let them have any free time, feed 'em crappy food, take away their privacy, keep them under lock and key except for real special occasions, refuse to let them think or act as individuals, and maybe, just maybe, force them to go into really dangerous situations where they might even get killed!!
THAT oughta teach 'em…

[quote=“Jack Burton”]I was watching a 60 minutes segment on Gays in the military with focus on the US military’s don’t ask, don’t tell policy.

Heard arguments from both sides:

  1. from soldiers who are gay. Basically, this is no different from history where sexism and racism were reasons for keeping women and blacks out. History of course showed that blacks in the US military earned many honours. History shows e.g. Spartans that homosexuality doesn’t render soldiers ineffective.[/quote]Race is a separate issue. “Gay”, or more appropriately, homosexuality, is not a race.[quote=“Jack Burton”]2. from officers who believe gays affect unit cohesion and battle effectiveness[/quote]What? Its their opinion. Could be right for them;but the question would be - Is this a blanket statement or just their personal opinion?

[quote=“Jack Burton”]3. from Duncan Hunter a politician who basically equated gays as ineffective soldiers. He also said European forces (integrated open-gay soldiers) are unfit for combat.[/quote]Duncan Hunter is much more than “a politician.”
And this does not sound like an accurate representation of Hunters statements - Lets see some sourcing for this. Otherwise I’m calling BS.[quote=“Jack Burton”]So, I’ve never been in the military,[/quote]I have, but I can only express my personal opinion on this subject.[quote=“Jack Burton”]… but do people here think that:

  1. Gay soldiers are combat-ineffective[/quote]Maybe some do…maybe some don’t.[quote=“Jack Burton”]2. integrating gay with non-gay soldiers destroys unit cohesion/effectiveness.[/quote]Depending on the unit and its mission, maybe it would and maybe it wouldn’t.[quote=“Jack Burton”]3. Gay soldiers shouldn’t have the right to serve their country.[/quote]Is this your opinion? Why do you feel that way?
    And what country are you referring to?
    Taiwan?
    Canada?
    The PRC and the PLA?

Hasn’t this thread been done before?
No that there’s anything wrong with that!

CBS news article with Hunter interview.

Thanks for the link Poagao.

TC makes some interesting comments.

  1. minor issue: What is wrong with calling Duncan Hunter a politician? What are you implying? Or should I have to refer to him as the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. Am I lying or inaccurate that he is a politician just as Arnie, Bush, Ted Kennedy and Obama are politicians? Not sure where you’re going with this.

  2. The article is not a complete transcript like one you might find used in court (e.g. it has a narrative voice and doesn’t alway identify the speaker) The interviewees, including Hunter do say other things that weren’t included, but most of what Hunter says is on there.

  3. OK, I would like to put on hold the question: whether gays make good soldiers (and I take back my statement on Hunter to that extent that I claim he says gay soldiers are ineffective soldiers).

  4. Instead, we can focus on: Does having gay-integrated combat units affect combat effectiveness.

On this issue, I think it’s clear Hunter means gay-integrated units are fine for peacekeeper roles, but not for heavy-combat duties.

On that basis, can you please clarify what types of unit and missions do you feel that gay-integrated units would be effective and which would not.

[quote]Jack Burton wrote:
2. integrating gay with non-gay soldiers destroys unit cohesion/effectiveness.
TC wrote:
Depending on the unit and its mission, maybe it would and maybe it wouldn’t.[/quote]

  1. How is racial and gender discrimination different from sexual orientation in this context? One may feel disgust, distrust, unfamiliarity with a gay person as much as a black person??

I actually haven’t heard any convincing arguments against allowing gay soldiers. Has anyone else? As far as “complicating things within the unit,” I can only imagine we’ll be able to avoid any such complications when soldiers are replaced by robots with no emotions and simple directives. In a combat situation, I doubt soldiers will really be concentrating on such irrelevant matters. In other situations, they will have to deal with such matters like any other matter, according to the regulations and hopefully according to reason.

Nothing that isn’t really a disguised form of “we just don’t laaaaahk 'em”. It’s just ignorant bigotry, to the core.

There are no heterosexuals in foxholes…

Maybe they should get their own unit–the Pink Berets!

I was under the impression that quite a few on this board served in their armed forces, so it would be illuminating they might share their own knowledge/experience as former soldiers (and by that, I don’t mean outing themselves, etc. but what they saw and heard from actual soldiers in the field)

Frankly, I’d rather have real soldiers tell me, not consultants, politicians, arm-chair generals.

Nobody’s arguing that “gay” is a race. But like race and sex (oh, and religion too), sexual orientation is an arbitrary trait by which people have historically been (or still are) discriminated for or against.

Jack -
I served almost 11 years in the US Army. End of the '60’d till the late '70’s. During that period there were ‘gays’ in service. At that time most tended to be in the medical service MOS’s(Military Occupational Specialties - your job).
Why? I haven’t a clue. I was not in that area so I don’t know how or if it affect unit operation. I think, and its just my opinion, that any problem, or lack of problem, was based more on the individual and their personality rather than any bias or anti-‘gay’ feelings of the fellow workers. Yeah, there were undoubtedly backward asshats who were just plain prejudiced against homosexuals, and these people also probably expressed these prejudices in blatant acts. But I’m pretty certain that they had some other personality defects - drunkenness for example -that made them intolerable in most other areas of their life.
In my time I traveled quite a bit and saw many different bases and did notice a something of interest.
IMO lesbianism is/was more prevalent than male homosexuality. At just about every fort there was at least one barracks building that was pretty much known as the “Womens/Wymins” barracks. It was the preferred base housing for women who liked women. I never noticed this same feature for ‘gay’ men on any base. I chalk it up to it being easier to overlook the women than the men. Heck, butches and dykes wearing mens uniforms and having short hair just isn’t going to stand out like a flamer. Maybe that was the case, maybe not.
I came across a few ‘gays’ in the combat units I worked with. They were all professionals and kept their preferences quiet.
Another thing, every services has ‘gays.’ Even the Marines. In the San Diego area there are ‘gay’ nightclubs around Camp Pendleton. Popular with the some of the troops. And there is at least 2 ‘gay’ clubs that are favorites with ‘gay’ Marine aviators; who are officers. Some career men.
IMO - Yes, homosexuals, of either gender, can, and do, make good Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines.
Does their presence affect/effect unit cohesiveness and mission accomplishment? Possibly. But if this were the case this would be dealt with and removed as a problem factor. That is - it would not happen on a regular re-occurring basis. Just my opinion based on my experience.
Oh, and ‘gay’ persons can be life-takers and heart-breakers just as effectively as heteros.

I hope this answered some of your Q’s. Just my opinions.