Study: Gays in military don't hurt ability to fight

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Chancellor I agree with Ron Paul on this one. “we dont get our rights because we are 'gay or women or minorities,' we get our rights as indiviuals” I agree with him that people are not groups people are themselves individuals and what group you say they belong to doesn’t define them; and that If homosexual behavior disrupts the military it should be removed and if heterosexual behavior disrupts the military it too should be removed. However, it is wrong to allow homosexuals to share sleeping and showering facilities with the sex to which they're attracted if heterosexuals are not also allowed to do so. The homos claim to want equality but there is no equality if they are given special privileges that heteros are denied.

And here we see the standard libertarian hypocrisy on homosexuality. First they declare that the government must treat gays equally (though they're just fine with people being fired for being gay). Then they define demands for equality as "special rights". Bravo! You would do Ayn Rand proud, as she was virulently homophobic.

TC

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: imasnapplefact1 i don't see anything wrong with the don't ask don't tell policy. For a soldier the only thing he has is hope and trust, so if he has to worry about a member of his squad being uncomfortably close or what not he may expose himself under fire and be killed or cause others to be killed

How would you like it if we imposed this policy on straights?

We won't ask you if you're straight but if you choose to tell then we kick you out. Like that?

TC

[ThoughtCriminal]

Let me add that, as naval history shows, even otherwise heterosexual men can turn to homosexual activity when women are unavailable. In other words, even if you're straight as an arrow, Roy's naked butt in the shower might start looking pretty good to you after a few months at sea.

TC

[Jack]

Yes. That's why the military has separate sleeping and showering facilities for women.

When I was in the Army (1970s) the women and men were billeted together in the same barracks on the same floor. Separate facilities were made available, but no one forced you to sleep separately if you chose not to.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Lots of stuff happened in the 70's, few of it good

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal Apparently, the Israelis cope somehow. I suspect masturbation plays a key role in this. TC

Women do not play a combat role in units like the Israeli Paratroopers brigade, they rather play support roles that don't involve the situations I stated, like instructors and parachute riggers.

[The Dunedan]

And here we see the standard libertarian hypocrisy on homosexuality

And here we see the standard leftist inability to think critically...

First they declare that the government must treat gays equally (though they're just fine with people being fired for being gay).

...handily coupled with the equally-standard leftist inability to distinguish between Public and Private conduct, and the standards therefore. Here's the short version: since the Gov't takes everyone's money in taxes and provides "services" to everyone in return (allegedly) they are required to treat gays and straights in precisely identical terms. Since individuals don't collect taxes or provide public services, they should be legally allowed to associate with and disassociate from anyone they like. Don't like someone's anti-gay policies? Fine, do what I do; SHOP SOMEWHERE ELSE.

Then they define demands for equality as "special rights".

I usually find the "special rights" line as nauseating as you, but in this case Chancellor's right. Straight male soldiers don't get to shower, sleep, etc. with female soldiers (the objects of their attraction.) Permitting a homosexual male soldier to shower and sleep with male soldiers (the object of his attraction), when his heterosexual counterparts are unable to do likewise, becomes a "special right," a right granted to one person or group by not the other.

If you're too lazy to type "homosexual", try "gay". Otherwise, I will get you kicked off Volconvo.

And finally, although in reverse order, threats. Beautiful. You don't like what someone says, so threaten him with retribution. The petulance of your thin-skinned tantrum aside, it would behoove you to grok that in the Real World, sometimes people say things you don't like, and threatening them for it can sometimes be a -very- bad idea, especially when the threats you're making are threats you're incapable of carrying out.

Advice: Learn the difference between Public and Private, and how to distinguish between the two. Then try growing some duck feathers.

[Matt W]

Let's drop the personal comments, please. Move on.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: The Dunedan And here we see the standard leftist inability to think critically...

As per the mod's request, I will disregard this attack.

Quote by: The Dunedan ...handily coupled with the equally-standard leftist inability to distinguish between Public and Private conduct, and the standards therefore. Here's the short version: since the Gov't takes everyone's money in taxes and provides "services" to everyone in return (allegedly) they are required to treat gays and straights in precisely identical terms. Since individuals don't collect taxes or provide public services, they should be legally allowed to associate with and disassociate from anyone they like. Don't like someone's anti-gay policies? Fine, do what I do; SHOP SOMEWHERE ELSE.

I can recognize the distinction but I don't see it as a significant difference. The reason we don't allow the government to discriminate is that is is a violation of our civil and human rights. More simply, it is harmful and immoral. Why would it suddenly become any better when privatized? If we outsource evil, does that improve it somehow?

There's also the typically libertarian error of confusing the private with the personal. Who I choose to befriend, to dislike, to hang out with, or to make love to, is strictly personal. It is my business alone, not the government's and not my boss's. If they try to meddle, it is a violation of my core privacy rights and should be prosecuted to the full extent of civil and criminal law.

When I start patronizing businesses, hiring employees, and otherwise participating in the economy, it is no longer personal, it is merely private. It is a part of the private sector as opposed to the public, but it's not just about me. Rather, it necessarily has an effect on others that is not protected by my veil of personal privacy. So if I fire Bob because I find out he's gay, this isn't just my personal choice, and my property rights do not allow me to step on his human and civil rights.

As for "shop elsewhere", add "work elsewhere" and "live elsewhere". This isn't a matter of free association, we're talking about basic protections that let you live a normal life. It's also different from free speech, where we are usually compelled to just hold our noses and wait for the unpleasantness to pass. These aren't just words, it's real economic harm. This is equally the case whether it's in the private or public sector, so the law should not distinguish between the two.

Quote by: The Dunedan I usually find the "special rights" line as nauseating as you, but in this case Chancellor's right. Straight male soldiers don't get to shower, sleep, etc. with female soldiers (the objects of their attraction.) Permitting a homosexual male soldier to shower and sleep with male soldiers (the object of his attraction), when his heterosexual counterparts are unable to do likewise, becomes a "special right," a right granted to one person or group by not the other.

As it stands, under the idiotic "don't ask don't tell" policy, gay soldiers get to shower with straight ones all the time. Is that a special right? Under the same policies, straight soldiers can admit to their orientation without getting thrown out. Is THAT a special right? And in Europe, where they're not held back by Puritan prudishness, men and women of various sexual orientations walk down the beach naked and nobody cares, so why are you so hung up about communal showers. It's just skin: get over it.

Unless, of course, the real issue here is homophobia. Oh, no, that gay dude's looking at my package! I'm gonna die!!!!

Whatever.

Quote by: The Dunedan And finally, although in reverse order, threats. Beautiful. You don't like what someone says, so threaten him with retribution. The petulance of your thin-skinned tantrum aside, it would behoove you to grok that in the Real World, sometimes people say things you don't like, and threatening them for it can sometimes be a -very- bad idea, especially when the threats you're making are threats you're incapable of carrying out. Advice: Learn the difference between Public and Private, and how to distinguish between the two. Then try growing some duck feathers.

Again, I'm going to skip over the insults and threats. However, I do want to make it quite clear that this forum frowns on disparaging remarks, and I personally frown on slurs. There is no threat involving in informing someone who's violating forum rules that they will be reported if they continue. Let's try to remain civil, even when provoked.

TC

[Jack]

Here's a thought on this topic that I haven't seen addressed. Perhaps someone who has served more recently than I can say if this is still true.

As I mentioned, I enlisted (yup, beat the draft by enlisting...pretty smart, huh?) in the early 70s. I was not openly gay at that time, but I knew pretty well what interested me.

Basic training was the only time we all bunked and showered together. I'm willing to bet anyone who has gone through basic will agree with me when I say that I can't remember once thinking about sex in basic. There's no time. Every moment of your day is filled with physical activity that could hardly be considered exciting. When you finally stumble off to bed, you're far too exhausted to want to do anything but sleep. Six hours later you're back at training.

After basic you go to school, where the barracks are more dormitory-like. Males and females are barracked on the same floor. Since everyone's an adult (legally), separation was left to the individual. Gay or straight, everyone I knew was discreet and respectful about coupling.

Granted, this was an MI unit. Conditions may have been different for my brethren in infantry units.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Jack Here's a thought on this topic that I haven't seen addressed. Perhaps someone who has served more recently than I can say if this is still true. As I mentioned, I enlisted (yup, beat the draft by enlisting...pretty smart, huh?) in the early 70s. I was not openly gay at that time, but I knew pretty well what interested me. Basic training was the only time we all bunked and showered together. I'm willing to bet anyone who has gone through basic will agree with me when I say that I can't remember once thinking about sex in basic. There's no time. Every moment of your day is filled with physical activity that could hardly be considered exciting. When you finally stumble off to bed, you're far too exhausted to want to do anything but sleep. Six hours later you're back at training. After basic you go to school, where the barracks are more dormitory-like. Males and females are barracked on the same floor. Since everyone's an adult (legally), separation was left to the individual. Gay or straight, everyone I knew was discreet and respectful about coupling. Granted, this was an MI unit. Conditions may have been different for my brethren in infantry units.

There's a lot to be said for giving people some basic amount of privacy and treating them like adults.

TC

[xyzer]

IMNSHO what many seem to ignore is the fact that military organizations over the years have been built around a hierarchy of discipline. Homosexuality has only been legally recognized in this country in the past few years. Until then sexual proclivities were legally limited to hetrosexual unions and in combat units the sexes were not mixed.. The idea seemed to be built around the maintenance of disciplne. Leaders have less trouble giving orders to someone they are not sexually involved with, than someone they love or are sexually involved with! Favoritism is suggested in such a relationship not the ability pull a trigger or deliberately kill another human.

Not to deny personal likes and dislikes(favortism) are involved between members of any organization. But more intense physicaland emotional relationships are more likely to inhibit the assignment of tasks and the need for more exacting control and impartality in an life or death situations?

The military is unique and it is not a social organization. It is not designed like other societies for the preferences of the individual,rather than the mission of the unit. In the cutting edge fighting units decisions can be vital and must be unmarred by emotional attachments. The rights of indiviiduals must be subordinated to the mission>

[JaneDoe321]

Quote by: xyzer IMNSHO what many seem to ignore is the fact that military organizations over the years have been built around a hierarchy of discipline. Homosexuality has only been legally recognized in this country in the past few years. Until then sexual proclivities were legally limited to hetrosexual unions and in combat units the sexes were not mixed.. The idea seemed to be built around the maintenance of disciplne. Leaders have less trouble giving orders to someone they are not sexually involved with, than someone they love or are sexually involved with! Favoritism is suggested in such a relationship not the ability pull a trigger or deliberately kill another human. Not to deny personal likes and dislikes(favortism) are involved between members of any organization. But more intense physicaland emotional relationships are more likely to inhibit the assignment of tasks and the need for more exacting control and impartality in an life or death situations? The military is unique and it is not a social organization. It is not designed like other societies for the preferences of the individual,rather than the mission of the unit. In the cutting edge fighting units decisions can be vital and must be unmarred by emotional attachments. The rights of indiviiduals must be subordinated to the mission>

I served more recently than Jack, I guess, since I enlisted in 1990, before women were in combat roles, and we were still a military family when women first started being assigned to ship duty.

Sexual attraction is not the only reason a leader could assign or refuse to assign somebody to a "dangerous" mission, you're right. That's the reason behind fraternization regulations, not just with regards to dating but social interaction in general has always been closely monitored to help prevent that kind of conflict of interest from creating difficulties for the group as a whole. If there is a problem, then that officer (or whatever) should be dealt with. That doesn't mean throw the baby out with the bathwater, though.

When I was in boot camp I was *way* too exhausted to be thinking about having sex. Maybe it's different for different people, I dunno. But part of becoming part of the military is learning discipline, so I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that to extend to inappropriate sexual overtures/activities, whether they be from homosexual shipmates (or squad members or whatever term you want to use) or heterosexual ones.

I have not served in combat. Several of our friends have, and this has been a regular topic in our household off and on for almost 20 years, and although the "EW!" factor is still there when the subject of homosexuals come up, the consensus still remains that in reality, you're too focused on not getting your a** shot to worry about getting a piece of a** at the same time.


And I will reiterate.Gays have been serving in the military probably almost as long as there has BEEN such a thing as "military". It's about time they were afforded equal protection for equal service. Personally, I would like to see us get past the whole juvenile giggly/ewwwwwww/whatever of mixed genders as well, but I suppose that's not going to happen in this lifetime, at least not in this country. But right now, the ONLY way to ENSURE beyond a shadow of a doubt that nobody is forced to "endure", knowingly or otherwise, the scrutiny of somebody who is sexually attracted to them, would be to have individual shower pods in every single facility on every single military base worldwide.

Let's raise taxes to fund that!

[Aussie]

Quote by: Jack Here's a thought on this topic that I haven't seen addressed. Perhaps someone who has served more recently than I can say if this is still true. As I mentioned, I enlisted (yup, beat the draft by enlisting...pretty smart, huh?) in the early 70s. I was not openly gay at that time, but I knew pretty well what interested me. Basic training was the only time we all bunked and showered together. I'm willing to bet anyone who has gone through basic will agree with me when I say that I can't remember once thinking about sex in basic. There's no time. Every moment of your day is filled with physical activity that could hardly be considered exciting. When you finally stumble off to bed, you're far too exhausted to want to do anything but sleep. Six hours later you're back at training. After basic you go to school, where the barracks are more dormitory-like. Males and females are barracked on the same floor. Since everyone's an adult (legally), separation was left to the individual. Gay or straight, everyone I knew was discreet and respectful about coupling. Granted, this was an MI unit. Conditions may have been different for my brethren in infantry units.

I did a brief stint in 1998 in RMC Duntroon (like Westpoint) and I can tell you the LAST thing we thought about was that. Dorms were not segregated but we had rooms to ourselves, so the potential to room hop was huge but again the LAST thing you were thinking about so it never happened. The only people the older cadets were bringing back was the tarts in town and even then they had to hide that from the CO.

It really is a dumb suggestion - I can just imagine after learning how to bayonet someone in the face that yeah, would mind a bit of bum! Its this homophobic notion that while the blokes are on the field, the p00fs will be up the rear checking out the blokes. I mean how ridiculous. I'm sure most of these comments come from people who've never been in that environment.

[Burning Giraffe]

I simply cannot understand how these myths continue to annoy our nation. Sexual Preferences do not aid or detract from military service.

[xyzer]

Agree Jane Doe, service on shipboard is unique. But one must qualify rights with the uniqueness of the military mission. In certain instances, particularly in land combat the mission is all important and sexually derived relationships could/might deter proper assignment and even performance?
Plus . it usually takes a long time to change institutional rules and all those who have never served have opinions??

I served in the Marine Corps during peace and war and it never occured to me to buck the system? I didn't question the orders and regulations that existed. If I had I'd probably have been locked up. Besides I trusted those who made the rules to know what they wanted and never became a "sea lawyer" trying to acquire new rights?

Go with the flow was my motto!

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: xyzer I served in the Marine Corps during peace and war and it never occured to me to buck the system? I didn't question the orders and regulations that existed. If I had I'd probably have been locked up. Besides I trusted those who made the rules to know what they wanted and never became a "sea lawyer" trying to acquire new rights? Go with the flow was my motto!

Somehow, someway...this does not surprise me at all.

[another day]

I served in the Marine Corps during peace and war and it never occured to me to buck the system? I didn't question the orders and regulations that existed. If I had I'd probably have been locked up. Besides I trusted those who made the rules to know what they wanted and never became a "sea lawyer" trying to acquire new rights?

Careful, they won't let you into France with that level of extreme submissiveness!

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: another day Careful, they won't let you into France with that level of extreme submissiveness!

True, but there are always BDSM clubs...

TC

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Dunedan Permitting a homosexual male soldier to shower and sleep with male soldiers (the object of his attraction), when his heterosexual counterparts are unable to do likewise, becomes a "special right," a right granted to one person or group by not the other.

Well that's just about as bag'o'hammers dumb as it gets. What do you think gays have been doing all their lives, starting with PE classes in Jr. and Sr. high school? You don't think there's been gays showering next to you at the gym?

Since when is being treated as an equal in ones own society considered a "Special Right"?

.