Obama and Gays In the Military

[phrogdriver]

Honestly, most of the military is not nearly fashionable enough to be attractive to homosexuals. I think their reaction to the braided belt, socks-with-topsiders, golfing shirt crowd would be something like, "Puh-leeze."

As Flash said, the UK, Australia, and Israel all allow gays with no apparent loss of effectiveness. To the contrary, those are the three countries that might actually have higher-quality troops, on an individual basis, than the US.

Those of you who have "moral" qualms about gays-where did your moral compass come from? If you lay that Leviticus crap on me, I hope you're not eating pork and that you're making slaves obey their masters as well. Those who think the ship is going to be some sort of gay brothel, you need to realize that it's not going to be any worse than what we have right now with our co-ed ships.

 

[squeeze]

Honestly, most of the military is not nearly fashionable enough to be attractive to homosexuals. I think their reaction to the braided belt, socks-with-topsiders, golfing shirt crowd would be something like, "Puh-leeze."

Don't worry, it'd take them a few years to make Field Grade, so they wouldn't have to worry about dressing like that for a while.

 

[larbear]

As Flash said, the UK, Australia, and Israel all allow gays with no apparent loss of effectiveness. To the contrary, those are the three countries that might actually have higher-quality troops, on an individual basis, than the US.

You assert this based on what? I would seriously like to see an objective study, if one is even possible. Were their decisions to include openly homosexual members intended to improve the ability to fight and win war, or were they intended as social programs to make people feel good? Some combination? Sounds like people thinking with their wieners to me.

Those of you who have "moral" qualms about gays-where did your moral compass come from? If you lay that Leviticus crap on me, I hope you're not eating pork and that you're making slaves obey their masters as well. Those who think the ship is going to be some sort of gay brothel, you need to realize that it's not going to be any worse than what we have right now with our co-ed ships.

If you want to play that game, know your shit. Levitical Law is not followed by most Christians (I assume that is the reference, with the pork thing and all) for various theological reasons. That doesn't mean all of the principles in Leviticus are exclusive to the Old Testament. Homosexuality is one of them, eating pork is arguably not.

Still, I wouldn't use any kind of religious argument in a debate like this. What seems to matter to me is the cost in money and lives of defending our country and achieving its international objectives. If these costs are minimized with homosexuals, women, and whatever else serving without restriction, then I have no objection to their service. I've not seen a single study that would support a conclusion one way or another. Until such a study is brought forward, all this debate will prove is that we have different opinions. It seems to me that most people consider their opinions on this subject to be axiomatic and base their conclusions on assumptions that are not open for debate.

The debate over homosexuals in the military needs to be framed in terms of a problem and a proposed solution to achieve an agreed upon outcome. Right now the problem definition hasn't even been agreed upon. The desired outcome isn't agreed upon either. If the problem is related to social equality, there might be one solution. If it is based on military readiness or something else, there will likely be a different solution. To me this means that all the above argument is completely useless and a waste of your time.

 

[Scoob]

As to Scoob and his rejection of my logistics argument and thinly veiled accusations of homophobia.......

That's an old drill. Dismantle my ideas if you can from a logical perspective. Emotional attacks and acusations won't get anywhere.

The logistics of 4 separate berthing areas is certainly not practical. But, I don't see that separate berthing is a necessity in the first place, other than to placate homophobia (regardless of whether its disguised under the moniker of "morals", "religios beliefs", etc...). The argument that men and women aren't allowed to room together is only a logical justification for not rooming two homosexuals together - not mixed hetero/homo.

 

[phrogdriver]

You assert this based on what?

Only my personal experience working with British exchange pilots, British Royal Marines, and Australian SAS. All absolutely top-notch. Granted, I didn't know if any of them were gay, but maybe that's the point. I've never worked with the Israelis, but their ability to survive while surrounded by enemies speaks for itself (S. Lebanon misadventure excluded).

If you want to play that game, know your shit. Levitical Law is not followed by most Christians (I assume that is the reference, with the pork thing and all) for various theological reasons. That doesn't mean all of the principles in Leviticus are exclusive to the Old Testament. Homosexuality is one of them, eating pork is arguably not.

I only brought the Leviticus bit up because that's the book the "morals" crowd always brings up in regards to homosexuality. The New Testament is much more ambiguous in regards to homosexuality. My point is only that if you're in for a dime of the Old Testament, you're in for a dollar. If one's moral objections are the reason not to allow gays, then those morals must have a source. If not religion, are these people pulling moral objections out of their asses, so to speak.

What seems to matter to me is the cost in money and lives of defending our country and achieving its international objectives. If these costs are minimized with homosexuals, women, and whatever else serving without restriction, then I have no objection to their service. I've not seen a single study that would support a conclusion one way or another.

Agreed. The decision should be based on military efficiency. While I'm not sure a neutral controlled study could ever be done, there are some things to consider. One, we are losing a couple hundred troops a year for homosexuality, not to mention the lost recruits we'll never see. That is a real cost in training, manpower, and skill sets (apparently we've kicked out quite a few linguists in critical languages). Against that, there are vague arguments about not showering around gays. Other Western nations provide a set of evidence to look at. Apparently none of them have fallen apart so far, though I fully admit the subject would be worth further study. Misconduct is already against the rules, whether gay or straight, so the floating San Francisco concept is wearing thin.

 

[FMRAM]

If you have to separate straight men from gay men, wouldn't you also have to separate gay men from each other?

WOW. That post was almost too insightful...

 

[phrogdriver]

So being gay might get you your own stateroom...hmm...might just be worthwhile.

 

[MasterBates]

One, we are losing a couple hundred troops a year for homosexuality, not to mention the lost recruits we'll never see. That is a real cost in training, manpower, and skill sets (apparently we've kicked out quite a few linguists in critical languages). Against that, there are vague arguments about not showering around gays.

And what about the people like me, who can serve America in another way, that would leave/not join over having to live with gays. To me its the living in close quarters thing. If they had their own berthing and were not flamboyant, I would not care.

But when I had to deal with "all gay, all the time" it got real old, real quick.

For the couple hundred we don't lose a year, how many straight guys who have no want to deal with it would leave?

Maybe in the other cultures that allow it, the gay culture there is not as flamboyant/in your face as it is here. I don't know. But based on my experience living with a gay on the boat (who later came out and left the service) IN THE RACK BELOW ME, I do not want to deal with that ever again.

 

[Huggy Bear]

Why does it have to be treated as such? No other country that allows gays to serve openly, such as the UK, Australia and Israel, have such seperate facilities. It appears to me that they have not lost any of their combat effectiveness or have serious personnel problems resulting from it.

You really shouldn't compare us to other cultures. The US is definitely more uptight and the greater part of our society is not ready for mixed gender/sexual preference berthing. I spent three weeks on a norwegian torpedo boat that had a male and female sharing the stateroom across from mine. No big deal. When our service and society is willing to tolerate that then you can talk about adding open homosexuals.

 

[Scoob]

And what about the people like me, who can serve America in another way, that would leave/not join over having to live with gays.

And what about people who's drug use doesn't quite fall under "experimentation".
And what about people who would join, but only if they don't have to live with "them fereners".
And what about people who want to join, but have a swastika or MS-13 tattoo.
.
.
.
The rest of us will get along just fine, thank you. Especially if you end up taxing the system so much that we get bigger bonuses out of it.

 

[NavyOne]

That is a real cost in training, manpower, and skill sets (apparently we've kicked out quite a few linguists in critical languages)

When I was at DLI, the Army kicked out a handful of guys for sleeping in the same bed together. Their lame excuse: they did not want to make their racks.

And just last month or so, 60 Minutes ran this story on a Sailor who used to live across the hall from me. I was in charge of him for nearly a year. Once he got "operational" as a linguist, he was one of the best Arabic lings, but as a Sailor, he was a s-bag. He sort of went insane with the gay stuff his last year before he got booted out. I had left to go to OCS, but I heard through friends he could not stop talking about gayness on the chat channels we use to talk to the warfighters.

 

[HeyJoe]

My 2 cents:

If you are going to allow homosexuals to openly serve, you need to treat it as a mixed gender situation. If a homo man can be in male berthing, then a hetero man can be in female berthing. We know that is not going to happen, so there will have to be either four types of berthing - hetero male, hetero female, homo male and homo female. You might be able to reduce it to three combining the homo male and homo female but I doubt it.

So it would come down to airline type seating preferences:

Window, aisle, center and maybe exit row seating/berthing....

So you might get want you want, but they can't accomodate everyone due to limited number of seats/racks and you might end up seating/sleeping somewhere other than your preferred alternative

Answering with your preference would get pretty hilarious as people gamed the situation..let's see, if I claim to be X I can end up in female berthing? Glad I'm retired...

 

[Flash]

You really shouldn't compare us to other cultures. The US is definitely more uptight and the greater part of our society is not ready for mixed gender/sexual preference berthing. I spent three weeks on a norwegian torpedo boat that had a male and female sharing the stateroom across from mine. No big deal. When our service and society is willing to tolerate that then you can talk about adding open homosexuals.

I think you can make comparisons when it comes to this subject, especially when it comes to the military. Part of the reason that I have repeatedly pointed out the examples of the UK and Australia is that they, along with Canada, (not Scandinavia or elsewhere) have as similar cultures to ours than anyone else in the world, especially their military cultures. There are certainly a lot of differences but when you get down to it, I have found that I have much more in common with them than I do with any other of our allies and friends. In addition, their optempo and recent combat experience is very similar to ours, with both of their countries serving in Iraq and Afghanistan side by side with us.

And it is not up to what our military is willing to tolerate, it is what our society as a whole wants. Can't separate the two. It is part of that whole 'shut up and color' theme.

 

[HercDriver]

The gays don't bug me...it's the Irish I can't stand. All that drinkin' and Riverdancin'.

It ain't natural.

 

[eddie]

And it is not up to what our military is willing to tolerate, it is what our society as a whole wants. Can't separate the two. It is part of that whole 'shut up and color' theme.

My money says it will be another ten years. Our society isn't ready.

By then, gay culture will have "toned it down" even more than it already has, having been better assimilated and therefore accepted into greater society. Militancy and flamboyance are largley survival mechanisms born of "closet-culture" which will become unecessary and increasingly counter-productive.