Sexual Orientation & The Military

[KasDaya]

The militaries of the world have a variety of responses to gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Most Western military forces have now removed policies excluding sexual minority members; of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 20 permit open lesbians, gays, or bisexuals to serve; of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, two (United Kingdom and France) do so. The other three generally do not: China bans gays and lesbians outright, Russia excludes all gays and lesbians during peacetime but allows some gay men to serve in wartime (see below), and the United States (see Don't ask, don't tell) technically permits gays and lesbians to serve, but only in secrecy and celibacy.

Policies and attitudes toward gay and lesbian personnel in the military vary widely internationally. Several countries allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly and have granted them the same rights and privileges as their heterosexual counterparts. Many countries neither ban nor support gay and lesbian service members, and a small group continue to ban homosexual personnel outright.

Your thoughts?

[Colonic Immigration]

Any questions you wanna ask? Any points you wanna make?

[Bryn Shander]

Homosexuality fucks up unit cohesion. Not as much as women in the unit do, but homosexuals still damage morale. You have to remember that the majority of people in the US military at least are conservatively inclined and many take great offense to homosexuality.

[KasDaya]

So does that mean you actually encourage a complete BAN on homosexuality in the military instead of just enforcing the 'Dont Ask, Dont' Tell' policy, and have them serve in secret?

[Colonic Immigration]

No, be open about it. It doesn't fuck up cohesion. Gays should have equal rights.

[Bryn Shander]

For all intents and purposes, Don't Ask Don't Tell already is a ban. If a homosexual's orientation is discovered and there is sufficient evidence to support any accusations of homosexuality, they will be discharged.

[Bluth Corporation]

No, be open about it. It doesn't fuck up cohesion. Gays should have equal rights.

In principle, I agree with you.

In practice, though, if the presence of homosexuals upsets enough people who want to and would otherwise be inclined to join the military to the point where it adversely affects recruitment and retention, then if the military is to be full strength as a practical matter the choice becomes between conscription and banning homosexuals. As much as I hate to say it, the latter is the least bad of two bad options.

I don't know whether that's the case in the U.S., but it should be given consideration.

[Colonic Immigration]

No, be open about it. It doesn't fuck up cohesion. Gays should have equal rights.

In principle, I agree with you.

In practice, though, if the presence of homosexuals upsets enough people who want to and would otherwise be inclined to join the military to the point where it adversely affects recruitment and retention, then if the military is to be full strength as a practical matter the choice becomes between conscription and banning homosexuals. As much as I hate to say it, the latter is the least bad of two bad options.

I don't know whether that's the case in the U.S., but it should be consideration.

Why does it upset people? Why should it? It doesn't affect them.


I don't don't see that it would affect the number of people joining. Infact it might increase it. Because people who are now scared of joining cos they're gay, would join.

[Mt Id]

No, be open about it. It doesn't fuck up cohesion. Gays should have equal rights.

In principle, I agree with you.

In practice, though, if the presence of homosexuals upsets enough people who want to and would otherwise be inclined to join the military to the point where it adversely affects recruitment and retention, then if the military is to be full strength as a practical matter the choice becomes between conscription and banning homosexuals. As much as I hate to say it, the latter is the least bad of two bad options.

I don't know whether that's the case in the U.S., but it should be consideration.

Why does it upset people? Why should it? It doesn't affect them.


I don't don't see that it would affect the number of people joining. Infact it might increase it. Because people who are now scared of joining cos they're gay, would join.

It upsets people because they think that the NATURAL way of living is one man, one women. When you start throwing in two men or two women you start messing with people's traditions. Nobody likes having their routines screwed with.

[Colonic Immigration]

It upsets people because they think that the NATURAL way of living is one man, one women. When you start throwing in two men or two women you start messing with people's traditions. Nobody likes having their routines screwed with.

I hate America and it's Christian-ness.

[Bluth Corporation]

No, be open about it. It doesn't fuck up cohesion. Gays should have equal rights.

In principle, I agree with you.

In practice, though, if the presence of homosexuals upsets enough people who want to and would otherwise be inclined to join the military to the point where it adversely affects recruitment and retention, then if the military is to be full strength as a practical matter the choice becomes between conscription and banning homosexuals. As much as I hate to say it, the latter is the least bad of two bad options.

I don't know whether that's the case in the U.S., but it should be consideration.

Why does it upset people? Why should it? It doesn't affect them.

I agree, it shouldn't. Doesn't change the fact that it does upset some people. You can say, "Well, they should be educated so they grow beyond their ignorant attitudes"--and I'd agree totally. But that's not going to create an overnight turnaround, and in the meantime the military still needs to remain at full strength; as bad as keeping people from doing something they want to do is (not allowing gays to join the military), it's not as bad as forcing someone to do something he doesn't want to do (conscription).

Because people who are now scared of joining cos they're gay, would join.

But would that number be more or less than the number who would choose not to join because they don't want to be around homosexuals, and by how much?

[Bryn Shander]

Why does it upset people? Why should it? It doesn't affect them.

Spoken like someone with no military experience. Volunteer militaries are the most conservative groups you'll ever find. The entire point of basic training is to remove the individuality and make everyone the same. Homosexuals do not fit into that mold, and will make people wonder if Private Smith is watching their ass or staring at it.

I don't don't see that it would affect the number of people joining. Infact it might increase it. Because people who are now scared of joining cos they're gay, would join.

Anti-homosexual conservatives greatly outnumber homosexual conservatives to such an extent that the latter group is statistically meaningless. Homosexuals are by and large very progressive as a group. They're not the type that join the military in significant numbers regardless of if homosexuality is banned.

[Vervaria]

The way I see it, it doesn't matter if a bunch of bigots are upset by homosexuality, there's no more reason to ban gays than there was to ban blacks. They have as much right to serve in the military as anyone else. (I'm sure there were plenty of racists in the military upset by serving with blacks, and in fact there were some high-ranking officers opposed to integrating the military, yet it didn't destroy unit cohesion or anything like that.)

[Bryn Shander]

The way I see it, it doesn't matter if a bunch of bigots are upset by homosexuality, there's no more reason to ban gays than there was to ban blacks. They have as much right to serve in the military as anyone else. (I'm sure there were plenty of racists in the military upset by serving with blacks, and in fact there were some high-ranking officers opposed to integrating the military, yet it didn't destroy unit cohesion or anything like that.)

Blacks were in segregated units for the majority of the history of the US military, and sex and sexuality are even more polarizing than race.

[Colonic Immigration]

Why does it upset people? Why should it? It doesn't affect them.

Spoken like someone with no military experience. Volunteer militaries are the most conservative groups you'll ever find. The entire point of basic training is to remove the individuality and make everyone the same. Homosexuals do not fit into that mold, and will make people wonder if Private Smith is watching their ass or staring at it.

I don't don't see that it would affect the number of people joining. Infact it might increase it. Because people who are now scared of joining cos they're gay, would join.

Anti-homosexual conservatives greatly outnumber homosexual conservatives to such an extent that the latter group is statistically meaningless. Homosexuals are by and large very progressive as a group. They're not the type that join the military in significant numbers regardless of if homosexuality is banned.

Obviously I've had no military experience- I'm 15.

Everyone would be similar if enough gays joined.

And who cares if a couple of homophobes don't want gays there-fuck em. They're scum.

[Vervaria]

The way I see it, it doesn't matter if a bunch of bigots are upset by homosexuality, there's no more reason to ban gays than there was to ban blacks. They have as much right to serve in the military as anyone else. (I'm sure there were plenty of racists in the military upset by serving with blacks, and in fact there were some high-ranking officers opposed to integrating the military, yet it didn't destroy unit cohesion or anything like that.)

Blacks were in segregated units for the majority of the history of the US military, and sexuality is even more polarizing than race.

I was referring to when the US military was integrated. And frankly, no matter how polarizing sexuality is or isn't, it's no excuse to stop someone from serving their country.

[Bryn Shander]

Why does it upset people? Why should it? It doesn't affect them.

Spoken like someone with no military experience. Volunteer militaries are the most conservative groups you'll ever find. The entire point of basic training is to remove the individuality and make everyone the same. Homosexuals do not fit into that mold, and will make people wonder if Private Smith is watching their ass or staring at it.

I don't don't see that it would affect the number of people joining. Infact it might increase it. Because people who are now scared of joining cos they're gay, would join.

Anti-homosexual conservatives greatly outnumber homosexual conservatives to such an extent that the latter group is statistically meaningless. Homosexuals are by and large very progressive as a group. They're not the type that join the military in significant numbers regardless of if homosexuality is banned.

Obviously I've had no military experience- I'm 15.

Everyone would be similar if enough gays joined.

And who cares if a couple of homophobes don't want gays there-fuck em. They're scum.

There aren't enough homosexuals to even come close to the amount of people opposed to homosexuality in the military. Until you've actually served in the military, I don't think you should be commenting on how the military should decide who is and is not welcome.

The way I see it, it doesn't matter if a bunch of bigots are upset by homosexuality, there's no more reason to ban gays than there was to ban blacks. They have as much right to serve in the military as anyone else. (I'm sure there were plenty of racists in the military upset by serving with blacks, and in fact there were some high-ranking officers opposed to integrating the military, yet it didn't destroy unit cohesion or anything like that.)

Blacks were in segregated units for the majority of the history of the US military, and sexuality is even more polarizing than race.

I was referring to when the US military was integrated. And frankly, no matter how polarizing sexuality is or isn't, it's no excuse to stop someone from serving their country.

If allowing one sexuality harms the military as a whole, be it by hurting unit cohesion or recruitment, it is in the best interest of the military to tell the homosexuals to find another way to serve their country.

[Colonic Immigration]

T

here aren't enough homosexuals to even come close to the amount of people opposed to homosexuality in the military. Until you've actually served in the military, I don't think you should be commenting on how the military should decide who is and is not welcome.

wtf!? Cos I haven't been in the military I have no say on it. That's fucking retarded.

And as I've said if the army was more gay-friendly, more would join.

[Bluth Corporation]

And who cares if a couple of homophobes don't want gays there-fuck em. They're scum.

Because there's a high likelihood that it's more than just "a couple." It's possible that a very significant percentage not just of current servicemembers but potential future recruits would not be willing to serve in the military if homosexuals were permitted to serve openly. This would have a hugely negative effect on reenlistments and future initial enlistments. You can't just handwave around this. If this is the case, it's a serious issue that needs careful consideration.

And again, maybe this wouldn't be the case with the U.S. military--I certainly hope it's not. If it's not the case, then great, go right ahead. But when the effectiveness of the military is at stake, it's not a possibility that should be ignored simply because it doesn't fit our ideological preconceptions of how the world should be (with which, I should emphasize, I wholeheartedly agree).

[Bluth Corporation]

T

here aren't enough homosexuals to even come close to the amount of people opposed to homosexuality in the military. Until you've actually served in the military, I don't think you should be commenting on how the military should decide who is and is not welcome.

wtf!? Cos I haven't been in the military I have no say on it. That's fucking retarded.

You're right, Bryn Shander was out of line to suggest this.

And as I've said if the army was more gay-friendly, more would join.

Saying it doesn't make it so. Neither does honestly believing it.

Is it not possible that not enough homosexuals would join to make up for the numbers lost by homophobes who choose not to join or re-enlist?

[Vervaria]

If allowing one sexuality harms the military as a whole, be it by hurting unit cohesion or recruitment, it is in the best interest of the military to tell the homosexuals to find another way to serve their country.

And what's the evidence that allowing gays to serve openly in the military would hurt either recruitment or unit cohesion? Seriously, many members of the military are already serving alongside homosexuals anyway, so what would change except that they'd be serving openly, and you wouldn't have to kick out valuable military members (Like Arabic translators) for being gay. Bigotry is not acceptable under any circumstances.

[Bryn Shander]

T

here aren't enough homosexuals to even come close to the amount of people opposed to homosexuality in the military. Until you've actually served in the military, I don't think you should be commenting on how the military should decide who is and is not welcome.

wtf!? Cos I haven't been in the military I have no say on it. That's fucking retarded.

And as I've said if the army was more gay-friendly, more would join.

Yes. Because you haven't served you have no say. You don't have the slightest clue what it's like in the military.

And no, more won't join. The ones that would want to join already do and they generally keep their mouths shut about their sexuality. Allowing them to be openly homosexual won't bring any more in. Homosexuals are for the most part progressives that are not fond of war, killing, and other masculine things like that. What allowing open homosexuality will do, however, is turn plenty of young conservatives, especially religious types, away from the military because they don't want to 'get grouped up with no goddamned fags'.

If allowing one sexuality harms the military as a whole, be it by hurting unit cohesion or recruitment, it is in the best interest of the military to tell the homosexuals to find another way to serve their country.

And what's the evidence that allowing gays to serve openly in the military would hurt either recruitment or unit cohesion? Seriously, many members of the military are already serving alongside homosexuals anyway, so what would change except that they'd be serving openly, and you wouldn't have to kick out valuable military members (Like Arabic translators) for being gay. Bigotry is not acceptable under any circumstances.

Experience. The majority of the military is made up of people that make it a career, not one enlistment teenagers joining for college money. Most of those career soldiers and sailors are of a strong conservative lean, and will be highly opposed to allowing open homosexuality. Many will choose not to reenlist.

Nobody in the military cares if some Specialist that can speak Arabic or Farsi quits because he's a homosexual. They do care when the fifteen year Captain or Sergeant Major decides to not reenlist because homosexuality is now allowed.

[Colonic Immigration]

T

here aren't enough homosexuals to even come close to the amount of people opposed to homosexuality in the military. Until you've actually served in the military, I don't think you should be commenting on how the military should decide who is and is not welcome.

wtf!? Cos I haven't been in the military I have no say on it. That's fucking retarded.

And as I've said if the army was more gay-friendly, more would join.

Yes. Because you haven't served you have no say. You don't have the slightest clue what it's like in the military.

Are you insane?

And no, more won't join. The ones that would want to join already do and they generally keep their mouths shut about their sexuality. Allowing them to be openly homosexual won't bring any more in. Homosexuals are for the most part progressives that are not fond of war, killing, and other masculine things like that. What allowing open homosexuality will do, however, is turn plenty of young conservatives, especially religious types, away from the military because they don't want to 'get grouped up with no goddamned fags'.

I can't believe you just said that. Are you serious? That's a bad,bad generalisation. Wait- if you've never been gay, how can you comment?

[Vervaria]

T

here aren't enough homosexuals to even come close to the amount of people opposed to homosexuality in the military. Until you've actually served in the military, I don't think you should be commenting on how the military should decide who is and is not welcome.

wtf!? Cos I haven't been in the military I have no say on it. That's fucking retarded.

And as I've said if the army was more gay-friendly, more would join.

Yes. Because you haven't served you have no say. You don't have the slightest clue what it's like in the military.

And no, more won't join. The ones that would want to join already do and they generally keep their mouths shut about their sexuality. Allowing them to be openly homosexual won't bring any more in. Homosexuals are for the most part progressives that are not fond of war, killing, and other masculine things like that. What allowing open homosexuality will do, however, is turn plenty of young conservatives, especially religious types, away from the military because they don't want to 'get grouped up with no goddamned fags'.

Completely disagree. If I was homosexual, for example, I would almost certainly not join a military that maintained such bigoted standards towards people like me. If, as we both seem to agree, that gays are already serving secretly in the military, then how many "young conservatives" would really turn away just because they can serve openly? Heck, in fact, you'd think they'd appreciate knowing whose gay and who's not.

I also love the not-so-subtle implication in your post that gays are feminine liberal hippies as a majority....

[Bluth Corporation]

And what's the evidence that allowing gays to serve openly in the military would hurt either recruitment or unit cohesion?

Where's the evidence that it wouldn't?

I don't know either way, and I suspect you don't, either. In fact, I don't know that the matter has ever been studied; so far, all the public debate has been between "ZOMG BIGOTRY!" and "ZOMG MY GUYS HATE FAGS!" Neither of these are shining examples of critical thinking.

Best as I can tell, there haven't been any serious attempts at researching what the actual effect of allowing homosexuals to serve openly would be; there have just been assumptions and ideologies.

Seriously, many members of the military are already serving alongside homosexuals anyway, so what would change except that they'd be serving openly,

The difference is that as it stands, the homophobes are blissfully ignorant of who these people are, meaning they can reasonably tell themselves that those people are straight and so there's no problem.

Exactly. and you wouldn't have to kick out valuable military members (Like Arabic translators) for being gay.

Which is a concern that needs to be included in the research I suggested above; though I suspect that straight people are just as capable of learning Arabic as homosexuals, so it might be irrelevant.

Bigotry is not acceptable under any circumstances.

I don't know, it seems reasonable that government bigotry might be acceptable, if not ideal, when what's at stake are the security of our property and lives. I could see how that would be an acceptable trade-off in that situation.