'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Repealed

Thank God I'm out of the Air Force. It was hard enough competing with women and minorities for promotion when they needed to fill quotas, now you'll have to compete with the weighted "homo" index. Good luck on the social experimentation with the world's greatest modern army. Its not bad enough having to deal with the women, now you have a whole other group of sensitive humans you're going to have to deal with. Can't wait for when they'll demand base housing for them and their butt buddies. maybe they can make a Barney Frank bath house out of one. Yipee...
This is going to turn out bad. A large portion of combat troops already said that they would not reenlist after this ruling, now will have to see if recruiting from beauty salons, bath houses, and drama troops will make up those numbers.

Gay or straight, sexual relationships are bad for unit cohesion and discipline.

In some rear area support units it is a severe headache for the leadership, but it is manageable.

In a combat unit, however, it can be deadly. Everyone has to rely on everyone else. Perception is as important as what is actually going on. If you introduce lovers into the mix you have to worry about whether they are doing their job or doing each other. This doesn’t effect just the leaders either, everyone has something to say about it. And then think of having to depend on an ex-lover to watch your back.

There are always interpersonal difficulties that have to be handled and overcome but adding love and sex into the mix is very dangerous if you want a reliable combat unit.

It is more than just a matter of what is socially expectable.:smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

There are always interpersonal difficulties that have to be handled and overcome but adding love and sex into the mix is very dangerous if you want a reliable combat unit.

---

Who said anything about adding love and sex into the mix? This is about letting people do their day jobs - that they are already doing, by the way - without fear of discharge if their home lives are discovered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Gay or straight, sexual relationships are bad for unit cohesion and discipline.

In some rear area support units it is a severe headache for the leadership, but it is manageable.

In a combat unit, however, it can be deadly. Everyone has to rely on everyone else. Perception is as important as what is actually going on. If you introduce lovers into the mix you have to worry about whether they are doing their job or doing each other. This doesn’t effect just the leaders either, everyone has something to say about it. And then think of having to depend on an ex-lover to watch your back.

There are always interpersonal difficulties that have to be handled and overcome but adding love and sex into the mix is very dangerous if you want a reliable combat unit.

It is more than just a matter of what is socially expectable.:smash:

---

:laugh4: Brilliant!

Castrate everyone who joins the Army, obvious solution, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Who said anything about adding love and sex into the mix? This is about letting people do their day jobs - that they are already doing, by the way - without fear of discharge if their home lives are discovered.

---

People are people and when you add sexual attraction into a group you are going to complicate the dynamics of the group.

It is unavoidable.

In an open and peaceful society this is not a problem but a unit going into battle need to have single focus in other directions.

It is not a matter of people being unfit or not good enough to perform their duty it is a matter of group psychology and group dynamics.

It was a very ill-conceived bit of legislation in other regards also. It will seriously deplete the recruiting pool in a voluntary force.

The intent behind it may have been good and just but it will lead to some huge problems all across the board.

You change the perception of a rough and ready fighting force into that of a gay dating service.

What kind of recruits do you expect you will get for that?

Considering most US army types get 95% of their steroids from injections this wouldn't do much.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

In some rear area support units it is a severe headache for the leadership, but it is manageable.

---

I´d imagine so! :P

As long as it's just a headache....

~:smoking:

It's not the government's job to nanny-state the soldiers around and protect them from love and other distractions.

If they make a bad decision in combat, they have to bear the consequences, it's also a volunteer army after all.

What about all the straight guys who go to war with the hot blonde as the only girl in their group, is that not a distraction?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Would women feel comfortable showering with men they did not know? Of course not, when someone is sexually attracted to you and you are not interested in them, or in this case, share no attraction, it is very uncomfortable to be exposing yourself to them and showering with them. Especially when men of the average recruiting age (and gay men in particular) have a reputation for being, shall we say, very forward, even when their attentions are not wanted.
Why then is it hard to understand why straight men would feel very uncomfortable with such arrangements, or want separate facilities?

No, contrary to what the media may say, it is not because they hate gays, or not even that they fear them (just as women don't hate or fear men, but wouldn't feel comfortable being made to shower with them), but are just uncomfortable exposing their naked bodies to people who will be attracted by them when they are not attracted to these people at all.

---

Clearly you were never in a fraternity. Or on a sports team.

AFAIK there does not seem to be any major issues in the countries that already has allowed it, so what is the problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

It's not the government's job to nanny-state the soldiers around and protect them from love and other distractions.

If they make a bad decision in combat, they have to bear the consequences, it's also a volunteer army after all.

What about all the straight guys who go to war with the hot blonde as the only girl in their group, is that not a distraction?

---

Women only drive convoys. But if a gay person choses to be in the army he choses for a disciplined enviroment, you would expect they thought that through, people should worry so much about developing relationships you can expect them to understand that they can't do that, they are professionals after all. People think too much, it never led to any trouble here.

@Tincow indeed. Two in my class were gay, never saw them having a boner in the shower or had even a hint of a pass. It's like topless women sunning, it's asexual unless intended otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I remember a quote from a America soldier on the BBC news website about the issue, he said about some one who was known to be a homosexual in the unit, and said how he was the toughest b* word there (he said it in a complimentary fashion).

Also, I have no issue with men and women shower and bed together Starship Trooper style.

---

agreed, it's the 21st century, we can get past this surely.

i'm with you brother! :cowboy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

@Tincow indeed. Two in my class were gay, never saw them having a boner in the shower or had even a hint of a pass. It's like topless women sunning, it's asexual unless intended otherwise.

---

:yes:

A lot of people don't seem to understand that there's a big difference between public and private nudity. Private nudity is intimate and personal and thus creates a sexual aspect to the experience. Public nudity is, by definition, not intimate or personal and that in and of itself removes almost all sexual arousal from the act. (Note that 'public' and 'private' in this sense are more in terms of the intent of the naked person, not the number of people around. There can be 'private' nudity with multiple people around (i.e. orgies) and 'public' nudity between only two people (i.e. medical examination).) It's like a person posing nude for an art class. Even if the person is very attractive, the purpose of the nudity itself makes it a very non-sexual experience. In the military, the only nudity that is forced on a person is this non-sexual 'public' nudity. While I can understand that causing a person to be self-conscious, that's a result of the individual's own feelings about themselves, not someone else's feelings about them.

Study of the effects of allowing openly gay people to serve in Australia in 1992 http://www.palmcenter.org/publicatio...g_the_evidence

Quote:

---

this study finds that the full lifting of the ban on gay service has not led to any identifiable negative effects on troop morale, combat effectiveness, recruitment and retention, or other measures of military performance. Furthermore, available evidence suggests that policy changes associated with the lifting of the ban may have contributed to improvements in productivity and working environments for service members

---

Yes I know it says may, but still...

Quote:

---

Prior to the lifting of the ban, ADF service chief argued that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would jeopardize recruitment, troop cohesion, and combat effectiveness while also spreading AIDS and encouraging predatory behavior

---

Excluding the AIDs bit that basically sums up the arguments against it in this thread so far.

Quote:

---

Recruitment and retention rates have not suffered as a result of the policy change. As Commodore R. W. Gates of the Royal Australian Navy states in the report, “There was no great peak...where people walked out, and there was no great dip in recruiting. It really was a non-event.”

---

In a few months or years no one will even care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Yes, and I am sure that those straight and bi men wanting a career in the army are not there to harass women, yet harassment and rape happen all the time. Don't BS rory, people are people, and when put together, they will do what people do.

Yes, you are supposed to be training to kill with with a bayonet, and not having to worry about harassment, rape, or some 18 year


W old with raging hormones trying to get close to you in the shower. It is very important to have strong platonic bonds with your fellow Marines if you are going to function correctly in combat. Putting men with women, or gay men with straight men disrupts these bonds and endangers everyone. I have nothing against gay guys serving in the military, but I do think that they should be housed and showered separate from straight men.

---

Well, that's a really great idea to get the soldiers to fight better together and to invoke regimental unity,eh? :idea2::juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

People are people and when you add sexual attraction into a group you are going to complicate the dynamics of the group.

It is unavoidable.

---

It is avoidable. It is called self control. The military tends to weed out those that don't have it early on. Somehow the tens of thousands of gay soldiers serving now in every capacity in the military have been able to manage it. You are aware that this legislation does not sanction relationships between soldiers, correct? Gay people will still be required to maintain the standards of conduct every US soldier is required to adhere to.

Quote:

---

It was a very ill-conceived bit of legislation in other regards also. It will seriously deplete the recruiting pool in a voluntary force.

---

Evidence suggests otherwise, both from other nations who have made the change and the US military's own research.

Quote:

---

You change the perception of a rough and ready fighting force into that of a gay dating service.

---

No, you don't. :dizzy2:
Gay people already serve in the US military. Everyone knows gay people already serve in the US military. I'm not sure what you think is changing here.

Quote:

---

What kind of recruits do you expect you will get for that?

---

Bright young men and women who value their country far more than their petty predjudices.

Does America really want people so socially backwards and beholden to religious doctrine that they cannot bear the thought of serving with those different from themselves conducting anti-insurgency campaigns? I can only imagine how such people treat would their host populations.

Bigots always will claim that allowing a greater freedom for different people to mix in social/government constructs will make things worse by mixing things up. Vuk and the Evangelicals is just history repeating itself, he goes off on unit cohesion and gays having an insatiable sex drive, hitting on straight men in a firefight, Strom Thurmond and the social Darwinist's for a hundred years before him went off about how the negro brain is scientifically smaller/less capable then the European one and how we should not mix races to create a weak breed. Remember way back when women couldn't vote because their monthly temperamental cycle disqualified them from gaining the right to vote due to an incapacity for logical thinking?

Gays serving openly hasn't destroyed the armies of pretty much every other western country and it won't destroy ours. Miotas has spoken the most truth here, "In a few months or years no one will even care".

PAH!

I BET ALL YOU HOMOPHOBES SECRETLY DREAM OF A SHOWER, CREAMY SOAP, AND GETTING YOUR HANDS ON SOME SLIPPERY DICK.



Can you handle my slippery dick?

there was a time when a more intolerant macho culture reigned in the forces, as a magnified reflection of societies intolerance.

it would indeed have damaged unit cohesion from bullying and beasting, whereas the confirmed bachelor was quietly tolerated.

it isn't the states job to use the forces as a mechanism for 'enlightened' social engineering, it was there to defend the realm, so i supported that policy.

society changed and so has the army, it's the 21st century and this is not necessary now for all that it was always an unpleasant phenomenon.

The army is just returning to it's ancient homo leanings anyway :yes: I mean come on marching around in dress uniforms and the like the ancient greeks would be delighted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

The army is just returning to it's ancient homo leanings anyway :yes: I mean come on marching around in dress uniforms and the like the ancient greeks would be delighted.

---

At last a return to normality then? :beam:


https://img545.imageshack.us/img545/6939/vaseb.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

At last a return to normality then? :beam:


https://img545.imageshack.us/img545/6939/vaseb.jpg

---

When you dig a bit into the oldest material you get the sense that homosexuality was normal in warrior society back in the day.

Good for Congress (I don't say that often).

I don't buy the doubts expressed by Vuk. Considering how modern young men act in frats, sports teams, etc., and even soldiers in the army doing Lady Gaga videos, I don't think they'll really feel uncomfortable with gays serving openly.

I've been in a gay bar and never had any of the experiences you suggest;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

three guys in my Taiji class who regularly wear shirts with things like "QUEER! BITCH!" written on them? Yeah, they do 'act gay' around dudes.

---

Most people can deal with someone they aren't attracted to hitting on them. But that isn't even going to happen, due to the Army's rules against fraternizing.

CR

@Louis: the picture probably depicts a man and an (underage) boy. You can tell because the men are depicted with beards (= sign of masculine maturity).
So the picture is not about brothers in arms, it is about paiderastia: you see the erastes making advances towards the eromenos.

Worth noting that all this change does is make it impossible to dismiss a gay servicemember for being gay. Inappropriate sexual conduct is still against the rules, as is adultery. Our military ain't gonna turn into a love-in, fear not.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...lagepeople.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

When you dig a bit into the oldest material you get the sense that homosexuality was normal in warrior society back in the day.

---

Exchange of loot between hunting party's I think. You see men carying things off in opposite directions.

So, this is what I posted elsewhere.

I'm glad because:

1. Better uniforms: Do you think any self-respecting gay man would wear the pukesuit? :no:

2. Better drill and ceremony: In amazing uniforms.

3. Cleaner barracks.

4. Fewer gay jokes and male groping.

5. Strike fear into the heart of the infidel: Our current enemy fears teh gays (but bisexuality is OK).

6. Less competition over the scarce female resource: The military caps out at a certain strength, thereby increasing my odds.

Ironically, it may result in a less gay military.

Good point Lemur.

My favorite political cartoon on the issue:


https://img696.imageshack.us/img696/2552/greenberg1.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going to happen now that sexual orientation is not an issue, more gay people wont magically start flocking to the military, it's just that the gay people who are already in the military wont have to live in constant fear of being unceremoniously kicked out.

---

Entirely agree. I think that gay men who wanted to join the military have already done so (and will continue to do so). The only thing that has changed is the fact that they can now openly do so. There won't be a sudden influx of gay men (and presumably women). It really is a non-issue. I have served for 12 years in the personal reserves in Switzerland and I don't recall a single time this even became an issue. Now of course, I never actually served in a war zone but I do not believe that someone being gay would be one of the priorities then.

Quid