so you're fine being "nut to butt" with hetero dudes by not gay ones? doesn't sound like a particularly sexually charge scenario.

Is it? I see Sun's argument as more comparable to why men and women should not serve together. That is, it's okay to have women in the military, and it's maybe even okay to have women fighting side-by-side with men in combat situations, but it's not okay for men and women soldiers to be sharing, like, tents and showers, together.

it seemed to work fine in Starship Troopers

but seriously, the underlying assumption this theory is that gay guys look at every situation sexually. clearly, being trapped in a fox hole and fighting for your life isn't exactly a time when one is thinking "oh yeah, rub your butt on my nuts". it's a pretty outdated way of thinking.

and if a gay guy DID act inappropriately in that situation, I don't think any of us would be upset that they were disciplined accordingly

Me personally, it depends I guess on whether the guy had made any prior advances. Like I said the doctor I had worked with who was gay, never did. he was one of the best physicians I have ever worked with.

Im not talking about me, though. Im giving you my opinion of what the outcome will be based on all the people I met and things I did in the military.

The phrase is what that was known as literary be so close because of what was going on. In essence that as with many of the things I would describe are just words your reading on a monitor. It will not cast any lasting meaning until you've experienced it for yourself. Although not in all cases, but in most- its the reason why a large protion of the people wanting this to happen are individuals that have not served.
-----Added 18/1/2009 at 01 : 12 : 21-----

Yeah looked what happend in Starship Troopers between Rico and Liz. Fighting for life and limb does take priority, but what about the rest of time. (and there can be a lot of it)

In Basic Training and Combat Situations there is little assumption to privacy. Women would not be expected to shower, change, and sleep in close proximity with men (who may or may not find them sexually attractive).

Why should men be expected to shower, change, and sleep in close proximity with men (who may or may not find them sexually attractive)?

Yes, I know, they already do. There is a big difference psychologically between doing so without the knowledge of it (how it is currently) and with the knowledge of it. Label that any way you want, but that's the way it is.

It's not their being in a foxhole, together, in combat, that is problematic in and of itself. It's the downtime situations and events – and the social/psychological ramifications thereof, which could affect soldierly trust and morale – that took place prior to their being in a foxhole together, that could cause serious problems.

No, gay guys aren't going to look at every situation sexually, and I'm sure the last thing on their mind in the middle of combat – even in a foxhole, with "nuts to butt" – would be sex. Still, gays males are still male, thus they are, like most all other males, visually sexually stimulated (far more so than women are), which could easily cause, at the very least, discomfort and unease among their heterosexual peers during downtime in the barracks and in the showers, what with soldiers' closeness to one another and their utter lack of privacy.

You know what might make a soldier uncomfortable and complicate their relationships and cause them serious problems? Killing people.

Perhaps we should phase this whole "killing people" thing out of modern warfare. If there's anything the prototypical American soldier has shown himself incapable of, it's being uncomfortable.

Phase killing people out of modern WARfare . . . . don't get me wrong, maybe things would be better with paintball.

Wait wait, let's just have the smartest minds of each country play chess! Whoever wins gets to claim the territory and displace millions of people!

So since we have Deep Blue... does that mean we win?

I don't know what the source is for this discussion. Everything I've seen has said that this is not a priority for Obama: Washington Times - Obama to delay 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal. If he does decide to make a change to the policy it will be interesting to see what kind of response comes out of the active service personnel. Clinton was threatened in Washington Post guest editorials that he would lose the allegiance of the junior officers. That was 1992 though, and there's a lot of turnover in the military. Obama has some ambitious plans for Afghanistan, it's probably not in his best interest to start things off with such a severe challenge to the military command structure. Some of those same people who threatened the 1992 coup are now senior officers (or whatever).

I was in the army for a weekend once.

I don't think it is appropriate for the occupation. I have nothing against homosexuals, but there is a perfectly reasonable motivation as to why the military only wants heterosexual males to occupy the "combat arms" occupations. Simplicity. It is easier to manage like-minded drones.

The military is essentially adult day care for violent henchmen and it's easiest to maintain control over a homogeneous (har-har, I said homo) group of stereotypical angsty woman-humping males than it is integrate different the two biological genders and whatever sexual orientations may exist into the mix. The military wants to try to keep things basic. Although it once was, race isn't an issue from what I've experienced. The excuse to keep women out of combat arms is that men can't psychologically handle seeing a woman blown in half. Honestly... after being deployed for a while, I doubt anything blown in half would really shock me: Man, woman, or child. The excuse to keep open gays out of military is that "it's icky" and that it would violate some conservative sense of military discipline and decorum. I can't argue with that. The military has a hard enough time with male-on-female sexual harassment issues.

Studies from the Israeli military found too many drama issues with coed combat units. The problem with homosexual males in a combat unit is that it's like having a girl... but a big ugly hairy one that gets to see you take a shower in a trailer with no privacy curtains. We're really insecure about that stuff.

Military Spirit: I submit that there were no openly gay Vikings. The military is a place of manly-men and homosexual males are not considered "real men." It's hard to get Sergeant Ultimate Badass to befriend Corporal Cupcake. Sexual orientation equates to more than just what you do with your genitals during your free time in the military. Homosexuality means weakness, ineptitude, being a total pussy, unreliable, won't kill the bad guys, might touch my no-no hole, etc.

Seriously... how would a drill sergeant insult an openly gay private? Call him Princess? Hah, they use that on the straight guys.

...

God, sexual orientation and gender roles are freakin' confusing. Pfft, no wonder the military doesn't like homosexuals...

It's beyond the 7th grade reading level to understand the implications.

oh my god, that's hilarious

Hilarious or not, it's true. I think it's sad that something as petty as sexual orientation can be a huge limiting factor in one's life. It's just as bad as gender or skin color or religious preference.

I can understand where the logic came from but I sure as hell don't know where it's going. We live in a society where "everything is cool now" but is it?

well thank God I'm a straight white male and I don't have any of these genetic defects. well, my "love's blowing shit up with guns" gene is defective I guess, which basically makes me a black homosexual

You can't SERIOUSLY be comparing gays in the military to animals, children etc??? I mean honestly.

I served my time in the Marines, and met a few Marines, Navy, and Army that were gay. We all knew they were, but we didn't concern ourselves with that. All I gave a SHIT about, was that if the shit hit the fan, and I was being shot at, would they help protect me and save my ass from being dead.(ok, I see the humour from the last sentence coming soon...lol) We didn't care if they were gay, they didn't hit on any of us. We did our job, we followed orders, and we got the job done. THAT is what the Marines were about. get the job done, follow orders, and get back safe. THAT is what is important. And YES I have been in confined areas with others who were gay. It didn't bother me, acause I knew I saw straight, and they new I was straight. Who cares. they are human beings, just like everyone else.

They already do. They're called decent Iraqis and they get blown up a helluva lot more than we do.
-----Added 19/1/2009 at 10 : 31 : 17-----
Where did anyone mention genetics, guy? Plenty of straight guys that can't fit the bill in the military. And why did you mention race? I fail to see how...

...

Oh, wait... you're Derwood. Sorry. Carry on.

I was comparing the people who use slippery slope arguments against increased acceptance of homosexuality to idiots.

I was just riffing on your absurdity. carry on.

Study Finds Gays Do Not Undermine Canadian Military Performance | Palm Center

Also,

Soldiers march in Toronto Gay Pride parade

This can mean a few things, but maybe we can come to this conclusion: Gay and lesbian members of the U.S. forces should continue hiding regardless of the outcome...or they can try to join a more tolerant armed forces culture. Most of NATO should be okay...the U.S. is problematic and has a similar situation to Russia, who allows "well adjusted homosexuals" in regular service (i.e. "don't be gay").

Remember, the U.S. is quite conservative compared to other industrialized nations, and the military tends to be more conservative than other areas of society. It might take a while, but I think things will change eventually. You can't change a culture overnight.

I wonder how much of the problems from integrating open homosexuals into the military can be directly traced to the fucked-up notions of masculinity used to define military culture.

It seems to me that if the military found ways to motivate people that didn't depend on sexual insecurity (i.e. calling someone a princess) they might be in a much better position to welcome openly homosexuals to the party.

Honestly, what do you care? Military is just a bunch of dumb baby-butchers anyway, right? Henchmen for the man! Just a waste of tax-payer dollars. All we do is ruin foreign countries on purpose. All the deep intellectuals of the world can solve all our problems without conflict.

Did you get that defensive presumptuousness in the service?

I did.

Where did you get your deep enlightenment about the military?

Did you think what I said was deep? It seemed pretty obvious to me.

Crompsin has taken an early lead in the 2009 Strawman of the Year race.

He doesn't seem to be paying attention to other people's experiences which negate his assumptions about how gay service members ARE assimilated. He also is apparently unaware of the past 5 years of women in combat roles (and 17+ years as combat pilots). Israel is a different culture, their military has a largely different purpose, and Israeli soldiers are conscripts. His concern seems to be focused on the platoon level where, yes, non-conformity can be dangerous and erode morale. It's already been pointed out that military conduct codes wouldn't allow for someone to be a flaming pansy regardless of sexual orientation. Interestingly, some of the more stereotypical lesbian personality traits would be ideal for military service.

I think with Obama, unlike Bush, at least we'll have a military Commander in Chief who will prioritize individual's vital skill sets for combating terrorism over excluding people based on their sexual identity. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/op...amin.html?_r=1

Eh, we talk about what we know. I know platoon level. That's what I did. I avoid some of the posts in this thread because they aren't similar to my experience.

...

Where are the female 11Bs (infantry), again? 13 series (artillery)? 18s (special forces)? 21s (combat engineers)? Oh, yeah... there aren't any. When I said "combat arms" I meant combat arms, not combat service support.

...

Well, I know how many days I wore a uniform. Anybody else?

...

At no point in this thread have I said that I have anything against homosexuals serving. I did say that it would be a bad idea right now for the points that others above have noted: because of the two fronts we're "fighting" on and the conservative senior leaders.

Don't rock the boat when the boat is firing missiles.

If Alexander the Great was a fag, thats good enough for me. A fighter is a fighter.

And what would those be? I'm curious, because my old unit had two undercover-but-obvious lesbian mechanics and they were just as bad as the male mechanics. Don't stereotype homosexuals. That'd be politically incorrect.

It would be incorrect period

Really?

Now I know that between the U.S. and Canada, our armed forces are like night and day, but we have females serving in all of these roles. I'm sure we aren't the only ones. Are you sure there aren't any in the U.S. forces, or are you speaking in generalizations?

Oh, and I'm sure there are homosexuals everywhere; they're just hiding, as per their orders.

"Complicating the dynamics would add more problems than it would solve."

I'd tend to agree with that.

Does this suggest that U.S. personnel don't have the discipline?

I submit there were plenty of openly gay Roman soldiers/officers. I submit there were plenty of openly gay Greek/Spartan kings/soldiers. I submit Richard the Lionheart was so openly gay his own beloved countrymen constantly mocked him for never providing an heir.

Part of me hates the fact we are on the same side of the issue after you put forth a statement like this.

Dude, you don't want to get into a discussion about women in combat roles. Just because females sometimes come under fire does not mean they are, by and large, physically/culturally prepared for full blown combat. My experience with women in actual firefights is limited, but I was very disappointed. Most women in 'combat roles' aren't. They are serving in ways that do not typically place them toe to toe against someone else who is trying to kill them. We had a female canine handler with us for a while and she embarrassed herself when we got in our first real fight with her. After leaving her at the local fire base for the next couple firefights we were told to take her along again and that we were being sexist. We got in another fight and she almost shot one of our guys because she was shooting with her weapon over her head and being afraid rather than aggressively trying to deliberately line the gun up and kill people. Oh, and her dog ran the show...she had very little control over him and she refused to allow her dog to be put at risk instead of a soldier because she valued him as much as a human.

I have had to run and fight while wearing 90+ pounds of kit at altitude. Ruck 130 pounds all night long. Muscle jammed machine guns back into working order. Man handle people I didn't want to shoot. Pee while driving because we couldn't afford to slow down. Carry injured soldiers and detainees out of a fight. Etc.

The army has had to drastically lower the PT standards for women because they are simply not competitive with men physically. Sure, there are exceptions, but they are too few and far between to base policy on.

Also, what Crompsin was trying to get at is that men will try to protect a woman to the detriment of the unit in combat. It is just a part of male culture and Israeli officers would lose control over their units when a woman was injured...

But, for what it's worth, I fully support women in roles where they can compete (or out compete) men. Such as aviation. I have had a female Apache pilot shoot people just yards away from me when my vehicle broke down in an ambush. She would engage when we really needed it but others were reluctant because of the possibility of a mishap. I am friends with a bunch of fantastic female Kiowa pilots and I have seen them do some amazing things.


As for gays, I don't particularly care about someones sexual orientation...unless I am going to be naked around them in communal showers/toilets, spooning to stay warm in the cold, etc. Then it is an issue for me.
-----Added 19/1/2009 at 09 : 07 : 10-----
Canada can get away with it because they are not actually fighting. Come the next real war and the policies will change real fast.

Additionally, with open recruitment and equal standards for men and women, women comprise less than 2% of combat arms branches in the canadian military. If they were just as capable as men, there would be more of them in the more demanding fields.

To be fair, those fucked up notions of masculinity are pretty much the norm outside of the military too (though less so lately).

Canada's role in the invasion of (and continued deployment in) Afghanistan

Captain Nichola Goddard, artillery observer, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (1st Regiment Royal Canadian Horse Artillery), Canadian Forces casualty in Afghanistan

What is a "real" war anyway?

Where have I heard that line before? :rolleyes: