How Will Allowing Gays to Openly Serve Effect Combat Readiness?

[PanzerJaeger]

As many of you may know, President Obama wants to end "Don't ask, don't tell". There is currently some drama in Washington over whether it should be done before or after a military review of the possible effects of the repeal of the policy.

The main line of opposition to the change seems to be centered on a fear that it will affect readiness.

The chiefs said they wanted to await the Dec. 1 study ordered by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. said he had "serious concerns" about what a policy of open homosexuality would do to military readiness. Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Corps commandant, said he was flatly opposed to lifting the ban.

I'm having a hard time coming up with any specific scenarios in which such a negative impact would occur. The closest thing to a specific example I have yet seen comes from Retired Air Force Gen. Charles Horner.

Gen. Horner, a former fighter pilot, said he supports the ban because he fears military readiness will suffer if open homosexuals are allowed to serve, "particularly given the land forces, the way they have to live and operate."

Asked how an Air Force fighter wing will accept openly gay personnel, he said: "There's a lot less prejudice nowadays against people who are gay, but that does not necessarily mean that people want to live side by side with them."

Is this it? I'm sure many in the military don't want to live in hot, nasty, backwater nations full of people that are less than hygienic by Western standards. They do it anyway.

It seems strange to me that we have a policy in place that essentially acknowledges that there are gays serving, but saying as much openly will apparently deeply effect our military's ability in the field.

Can anybody, specifically our military affiliated members, shed some light on this? Would openly gay comrades destroy morale? Would you be less willing to fight? Would you not be able to shower in peace?

[Beskar]

I think it was Sigurd, or a different European ex-army forum member who served with openly homosexual males. They commented that they didn't have any issues at all.

There is nothing wrong with openly homosexual men in the army, it won't affect any morale, except of that of homophobes or the homosexuals who may become victims of bullying by the said homophobes. In otherwords, the issue is with the homophobes, not the homosexuals.

[HoreTore]

Gay men and women already serve. If there was an issue with that, we would've seen a bunch of scandals. We have not. And the military showers I've been in have all been extremely gay anyway...

Heck, a lot of people also believe that women aren't fit to be soldiers, completely ignorant of the many female heroes of the Red Army. Female soldiers have proven their worth. It's ridiculous to believe that gay soldiers will be worse.

[al Roumi]

If this is anything like the mud being slung in DC now, I'm sure its doing everyone a power of good.

[KukriKhan]

Don't care. Served with them for 16 years - no problems. In the 70's the primary official objection was that being homosexual made one a target for blackmail, and therefore a security concern. That's no longer operable as a threat, I think.

Here's my concern: some cultures we operate in still have strict sanctions against homosexuality. Might that affect the operational missions there, if the host country/ally refuses to interact with our gay soldiers? And if so, will our military think it therefore necessary to identify gays officially and manage their assignments? I would not like that. "Joe, John & Larry: you're off to Saudi Arabia. Stuart, you're gay so can't go there, it's off to Greenland for you."

[Vladimir]

The net loss is bigger than the net gain.

I believe that's the core of the ban.

[HoreTore]

The net loss is bigger than the net gain.

I believe that's the core of the ban.

Those who support the ban also believe that gay people caused Screbrenica.

Why on earth should we listen to people like that, let alone have them decide our future?

[spmetla]

Gay men and women already serve. If there was an issue with that, we would've seen a bunch of scandals. We have not. And the military showers I've been in have all been extremely gay anyway...

Heck, a lot of people also believe that women aren't fit to be soldiers, completely ignorant of the many female heroes of the Red Army. Female soldiers have proven their worth. It's ridiculous to believe that gay soldiers will be worse.

x2 Though they'll be a few homophobes having a hissy fit it won't affect anything else negatively. It's not like it'll turn the whole military into a big gay lovefest as some might think.

As for people in host countries having problems with it, well they can also file it under us having females not covered up, driving trucks, flying jets and so on.

[al Roumi]

Don't care. Served with them for 16 years - no problems. In the 70's the primary official objection was that being homosexual made one a target for blackmail, and therefore a security concern. That's no longer operable as a threat, I think.

Here's my concern: some cultures we operate in still have strict sanctions against homosexuality. Might that affect the operational missions there, if the host country/ally refuses to interact with our gay soldiers? And if so, will our military think it therefore necessary to identify gays officially and manage their assignments? I would not like that. "Joe, John & Larry: you're off to Saudi Arabia. Stuart, you're gay so can't go there, it's off to Greenland for you."

Would that last not also apply to women in the Armed Forces too?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

More or less an inevitable change, really.

Any reasonable student of history can point out that homosexuality has never been a quality that decreased one's ability to wage war. If anything, history might suggest that it was a "plus" for soldiering.

During the transition, unit cohesion will, initially, suffer and openly gay serving will bear the brunt of ostracism and some abuse. Neither the loss of unit cohesion nor the ostracism will be as crippling as their respective proponents are asserting at the present time. As higher-ups police this up a bit, the culture will begin to change. We did this in the 1950s with race -- took a while, but everyone learned the lesson and we were better for it in the long run. While sexuality and race aren't directly parallel, I think you can make a good parallel of how things will change.

Women serving in combat should work the same way. Some roles/specialties will be largely unavailable to women based on purely physical requirements -- but those same requirements should be screening out a lot of the swinging richards as well. Set the appropriate standards and whoever meets those standards can get the billet. However, Israel supposedly had some evidence that women casualties were disproportionately distracting to male soldiers -- might be something that has to be looked into.

[PanzerJaeger]

Women serving in combat should work the same way. Some roles/specialties will be largely unavailable to women based on purely physical requirements -- but those same requirements should be screening out a lot of the swinging richards as well.

Indeed.

The fear of "sissyfying" the military seems to be an underlying current among the supporters of the ban.

Ignoring the fact that feminine acting gays probably wouldn't be interested in joining the military, at least not in combat roles, if a soldier is unable to perform his or her job, he or she would be removed regardless of sexuality. For example, Sacha Baron Cohen's Bruno would not make it in the military simply because he wouldn't be able to perform as a soldier.

I think some of the Joint Chiefs fail to understand that sexuality is not a personality trait.

[HoreTore]

It's not like it'll turn the whole military into a big gay lovefest as some might think.

No, it won't turn the military into a big gay lovefest.... The military IS a big gay lovefest....

I believe homophobes have a much harder time in the army now than any gay ever will. Once you let people know that you don't enjoy having other males touch your fanny in a loving way, you can bet your ass that every time a platoon member walks by you in the future, your ass will be lovingly caressed...

[spmetla]

No, it won't turn the military into a big gay lovefest.... The military IS a big gay lovefest....

I believe homophobes have a much harder time in the army now than any gay ever will. Once you let people know that you don't enjoy having other males touch your fanny in a loving way, you can bet your ass that every time a platoon member walks by you in the future, your ass will be lovingly caressed...

Ain't that the truth sweet-cheeks! Pseudo-gay imitations are apparently an international standard for passing time in the military.

[drone]

Ain't that the truth sweet-cheeks! Pseudo-gay imitations are apparently an international standard for passing time in the military.

So that scene from Jarhead was accurate?

[HoreTore]

Ain't that the truth sweet-cheeks! Pseudo-gay imitations are apparently an international standard for passing time in the military.

Yes, we'll all feel a lot better about ourselves if we convince ourselves that it's all an act, that it's just imitation...

I don't buy it however.

Males in their first year in the military are typically young, inexperienced and for many it's the first time away from mommy. We were all thrown into a macho enviroment without anyone to comfort us. Let's face it; humans need a calming touch, like the one your parents or girlfriend will give. Unfortunately, they're not in the military. And since providing such comfort to another man is GAY, and just admitting that you need it is unmanly, we created the gay jokes as an excuse to touch each other without being accused of being gay.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The best way to have cohesion in the army is for every soldier to be a white, heterosexual, male, Anglo-Saxon Protestant.

[HoreTore]

The best way to have cohesion in the army is for every soldier to be a white, heterosexual, male, Anglo-Saxon Protestant.

Is it now? What about the guy who insists on listening to RnB when the others like rock?

What about the really religious guy thrown in the midst of secular soldiers who hate preachers?

What about the guy who is openly racist on a team where the other members have good african american friends?

And the list goes on....

[Rhyfelwyr]

What about the really religious guy thrown in the midst of secular soldiers who hate preachers?

As I said they should all be Protestants.

What about the guy who is openly racist on a team where the other members have good african american friends?

As I said they should all be white, preferably Anglo-Saxon.

Is it now? What about the guy who insists on listening to RnB when the others like rock?

As long as they share their WASP heritage I don't think these minor issues matter. We don't all have to be the exact same, they're going to fight the communists you know!

[HoreTore]

As I said they should all be Protestants.

There's no difference in how religious people are in your world?

As I said they should all be white, preferably Anglo-Saxon.

And no white people have black friends....?

As long as they share their WASP heritage I don't think these minor issues matter. We don't all have to be the exact same, they're going to fight the communists you know!

One of the main reasons we hated one guy in our platoon was because of his insistance to listen to and talk about his hiphop crap that nobody else could stand. The reason that was my first point was because of real experience

[Rhyfelwyr]

There's no difference in how religious people are in your world?

Jesus said you are either for him or against him., there is no middle ground.

And no white people have black friends....?

No, that would be immoral.

One of the main reasons we hated one guy in our platoon was because of his insistance to listen to and talk about his hiphop crap that nobody else could stand. The reason that was my first point was because of real experience

If you are so filled with hate as to ostracise someone over their taste of music, then I am sorry that you are such an intolerant person.

[HoreTore]

[drone]

[Megas Methuselah]

Haha, that was awesome, Rhy.

[edyzmedieval]

It will be curious to see how this will fare out. I hope nobody will attack each other any more in the Army.

[miotas]

Eighteen years ago when our anti-gay military policies were repealed, many high ranking officials kicked up a big stink, but after a few months everyone forgot all about it. I'm pretty sure that if we still had those policies in the military, that it would be against our anti-discrimination laws, and some enterprising gay person would have sued the government by now.

[Louis VI the Fat]

There are great costs to not having gays in the army. Talent is wasted, identification with a large segment of society is undermined. There are legitimacy concerns if the army is far out of tune with society - although this argument works in reverse too: if society disaproves of gays, the legitimacy of the army is undermined by having them.

[drone]

[stereotyping]
Why prevent buff, fit gay men from serving? Our hetero male soldier pool is increasingly fat and out of shape.
And there are some lesbians that frankly scare me, I pretty certain they could kick my tail.
[/stereotyping]

[Centurion1]

Women are a way bigger pain in the butt to accomadate in the military.

You try to retrofit a sub tohave seperate female quarter

The problem is that they are accomadated rather than integrated

[Tellos Athenaios]

Depends on the sub/crew. They come in various editions, some with more luxury than others. But yes, those which are supposed to serve at minimum risk of detection run sleeping shifts as much as ordinary shifts (3 people sharing the same bed, IIRC). It's the only part of the military in the Netherlands where that argument is actually upheld and consequentially women cannot serve.

[HoreTore]

[stereotyping]
Why prevent buff, fit gay men from serving? Our hetero male soldier pool is increasingly fat and out of shape.
And there are some lesbians that frankly scare me, I pretty certain they could kick my tail.
[/stereotyping]

I work out with Vibeke Skofterud, lesbian olympic gold winner. She will have absolutely no problems kicking my arse.

And nobody felt to comment on whether the gay jokes in the army really are jokes? Not even you, Louis, had something to say to that?