Having openly gay soldiers does not degrade morale, readiness, recruitment etc

RedRalph

Deity
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
20,708
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/23/us-army-chief-end-anti-gay-rules

The US army chief of staff today said he would consult generals from Britain and Canada about gay men and lesbians serving in the military, adding that armies ending discrimination had experienced no detriment to their battle readiness.

But General George Casey and army secretary John McHugh said they opposed an effort to stop openly gay soldiers being discharged while the Pentagon takes a year to study the repeal of a policy barring them from serving.

Their testimony in the Senate today dashed the hopes of gay soldiers and others that Congress will pass a moratorium on discharges while military brass review personnel policies over the next year.

Barack Obama and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, oppose the Clinton-era policy that allows gay people to serve in the military so long as they keep their sexuality hidden. Since 1994 more than 13,500 gay people have been discharged under the policy, one of the last instances of official discrimination in the US.

Opponents of the policy say it keeps patriotic men and women out of the military while the US is fighting two wars. In Afghanistan, US troops serve alongside British units that include openly gay soldiers, and US generals have said they have seen no problems.

The remarks came today as Congress considered inserting a moratorium on discharges into the US defence budget for next year. Casey said that would in effect implement a policy while military leaders are still studying how best to do so.

A separate study released today of 25 countries that allow openly gay people to serve in the military found rapid implementation is key to success, a position that contradicts the call by US military brass for an extensive review period. The University of California study found that in Australia, Britain, Canada, South Africa and elsewhere, having gay people serve openly did not degrade troop morale, recruitment and retention or otherwise negatively affect military readiness.

Interesting... doesn't take a rocket scientist to see which way the wind is blowing on this, wouldn't you agree?
 
I think he's calling us gay :mad:

I honestly can't imagine DADT lasting now. It's a goner.
 
In other news, cookies are found to be delicious and water is slightly damp.
 
Agreed, there is no inherent problem with homosexuals serving at all. The problem of bigots who don't accept them isn't enough of a reason not to end DADT either to me.

However, there is another often disregarded problem I feel of cultural issues around the US military structure as a whole - that also contributes to the perception gays shouldn't serve. There's simple things like that with regards to various minorities we're more backwards than many other countries in our attitudes towards soldiers - see also women's roles for instance. But it goes beyond that - the US military due to size, who tends to join (all voluntary) by socioeconomic background, cultural background, age, etc... does not mirror what other Western nations may have and isn't an ideal situation as a whole. Of course, without political policy changes on the national level I can hardly blame people for not joining up for myriad reasons.
 
I remember seeing a poll here that sampled enlisted men about attitudes towards gays; something like 75% said they would have no issue serving along side openly gay individuals.
 
I remember seeing a poll here that sampled enlisted men about attitudes towards gays; something like 75% said they would have no issue serving along side openly gay individuals.

Really? that pretty much destroys any argument against gays, do you have a source?
 
I wouldn't think it destroys the argument (any further than it is already destroyed). 25% having an issue with it is a pretty significant number.
 
I wouldn't think it destroys the argument (any further than it is already destroyed). 25% having an issue with it is a pretty significant number.

If studies show that it has no effect on the ability of the army to function, then there is absolutely not reason to let 25% of your soldiers dictate the rules for everyone else.
 
Sure, I completely and absolutely agree. But a study showing that 25% of the military is going to have a problem with allowing gays to serve beside them is not going to allay any concerns about possible disciplinary problems coming out of such a change.
 
Sure, I completely and absolutely agree. But a study showing that 25% of the military is going to have a problem with allowing gays to serve beside them is not going to allay any concerns about possible disciplinary problems coming out of such a change.

True, but it shows that they are outnumbered 3:1, so it will be easier to force them to comply than to keep doing things their way indefinitely.
 
When I was reading MB's arguments, I was assuming he was under the impression that there would be a handful of extra problems; enough to make things difficult, but not a statistically significant number. But 370 000 employees? That's a lot, whichever way you look at it, I would've thought. :dunno:
 
When I was in the army I had a gay soldier, and I worked with plenty of others. I don't recall anyone ever having a problem with the fact that they were gay.
 
When I was in the army I had a gay soldier, and I worked with plenty of others. I don't recall anyone ever having a problem with the fact that they were gay.

It's funny, today the US agreed to allow female sailors to work on submarines... how that can be less of a problem than having a gay guy in the army is just beyond me
 
They think the American troops are too mindlessly bigoted to adapt.

So while we're busy forcing men to shower with men that are sexually attracted to them, will we also be busy forcing women to shower with men that are sexually attracted to them? How dare mindlessly bigoted troops care about their private sexuality!
 
Back
Top Bottom