Homosexuals in the military

[Gelion]

Well the argument given back when this was being debated was that they are an inferior cowardly race, unwilling and incapable of fighting and unpatritoic and they were liable to turn and run. At first they were also segragated but eventually integrated with none of these negative results.

There were also similar arguements against women in the military but look at it now. If women can join the military with few cases of rape or sexual harassment than so can homosexuals. And if there are any cases they can be handled by court martial and other diciplinary action.

This is nothing but dicrimination people have against homosexuals. There is no reason that homosexuals cannot fight as well or as ably as any straight people. The military has generally always been the most tolerant, and first to reform.

Hmm...... now I begin to think about it.....

 

[luiz]

Yeah, they should be allowed to serve.
However as someone who served in the brazilian military I would strongly advise to any gay person serving there to hide it deeply.
It was a quite unpleasant experience for me; I can't even imagine the hell that a homossexual would go through.

 

[Jawz II]

Yeah, they should be allowed to serve.
However as someone who served in the brazilian military I would strongly advise to any gay person serving there to hide it deeply.
It was a quite unpleasant experience for me; I can't even imagine the hell that a homossexual would go through.

why, are you gay?

unfortunately i think being gay and serving with straight guys would be rough anywhere in the world, nevertheless if they want to serve, they defenitly should be allowed to.

 

[Gelion]

unfortunately i think being gay and serving with straight guys would be rough

What if it was mandatory to serve? In that case I think they are better off being restricted to the military....
All this time I was under the assumption that military service is compulsory.

 

[sanabas]

But with women in different bunk houses.. what status should gays get? Should we provide 4 different bunk houses just to accomodate the different demographics?

What's the point of segregation like that?

I guess, but 2 gay people in one combat unit? No way. Woman in combat units already have enough negative effects on it's capability.

Yeah right. That's based on what?

How many militant gays are there in the first place?

Storm in a teacup I'd say.

Quite a lot I'd suspect. I don't see why the proportion would be any different to the rest of the community.

so what is single-sex education?

Unisex schools. i.e. all boy or all girls, rather than coed. Tends to be restricted to expensive private schools only here.

 

[luiz]

why, are you gay?

unfortunately i think being gay and serving with straight guys would be rough anywhere in the world, nevertheless if they want to serve, they defenitly should be allowed to.

No. What I meant is that serving in the brazilian army is already a very tough experience for straight guys like me, so I can't even picture the hell it must be for a homossexual (assuming that people know it).

I agree with the rest of what you said.

As a side note, it is mandatory for 18 year old males to serve in the Army. However, convincing the recruiting officers that you're gay is one the safest forms to be dismissed of military duty. But if you pretend to be gay and they don't buy it, you are seriously screwed. That's why very rarely people try to fake homossexuality.

 

[Jawz II]

What if it was mandatory to serve? In that case I think they are better off being restricted to the military....
All this time I was under the assumption that military service is compulsory.

what do you mean, in russia? i was under the impression that you have draft in russia, so service is mandatory (or compulsory or whatever you wanna call it.)

also, ive read some horror stories about the way the draftees are treated in russia, and that there are huge numbers of deserters due to the bad conditions.

here its officially mandatory, but i think something like 50% or even less actually do serve, so yeah basicly all you have to do to get out is that you tell them you really dont want to do the service, which is nice i suppose.


@sanabas: thank you for clearing that up, i was under the impression that single-sex ed was special sex ed about masterbation, boy is my face red

 

[AceChilla]

Yeah right. That's based on what?

Experience of various army's around the world. Like the Israeli's. And Im talking about actual combat duties, not in the back of the army.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20031020-122552-3754r.htm

 

[classical_hero]

Something like 3-5% of men and 2-3% of women are homosexual.

The much-quoted figure of 10% is from the Kinsly (sp?) report, and despite popular misconception isn't the ratio of homosexuals, but of men who have ever engaged in homosexual behaviour - quite a few straight men experiment with such at some point or another (altho the percentage has alledgedly fallen in the last half-century, perhaps due to the decline of single-sex education).

The actual number is closer to 1% for men and 0.5% for women.

 

[downtown]

At least for the American army, i think we're a the point where we really cannot afford to turn able-bodied recruits away. Times are changing, and guys are going to have to deal with the fact that the guy driving his tank might be gay. If he does a good job, it shouldnt matter, at least if the solider has any measure of professionalism. Chances are, most guys in the army have already served with a gay guy.

Besides, there are other roles besides combat duty...like translating.

 

[sanabas]

Experience of various army's around the world. Like the Israeli's. And Im talking about actual combat duties, not in the back of the army.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20031020-122552-3754r.htm

Interesting to read. Nowhere does that state women in a combat unit make it less effective. It states that people not up to a certain physical standard make the unit less effective, and it states that less women make that standard than men. If a combat unit was designed by simply assigning random men and women, then yes, adding women would make the unit less effective on average. That's not how a unit is formed though, so your argument is rubbish. It's even more rubbish when you suggest 2 gay men will lessen effectiveness, since as far as I know, there's no significant difference in the physical abilities of homosexuals v heterosexuals.

The actual number is closer to 1% for men and 0.5% for women.

Link?

 

[silver 2039]

The Indian Army is volounteer so and it has women in it so homosexuals should be no real problem.

 

[Shaihulud]

Yes, but post them to the "all gays" unit please.

 

[MobBoss]

With all due respect, what is fine and ok with other countries may not be fine and ok with another. Different cultures, different ways of doing things, and one doesnt necessarily have to be any worse than the other.

Women in the United States Army do not serve in the combat arms units. They do serve in combat service and combat service support type of units. Just mentioning this as informational only, it doesnt really pertain to the thread.

Could gays serve their country? Sure they could. However, your average american is not used to showering with a homosexual on a daily basis, or sleeping in a bunk next to them. This is one of those issues, whose day may be in the future, but the US military just isnt ready to take that step yet.

If a combat unit was designed by simply assigning random men and women, then yes, adding women would make the unit less effective on average. That's not how a unit is formed though, so your argument is rubbish.

You are obviously ignorant of how people do get assigned to to military units. The process is almost totally random...very, very, few people ever get "assignment of choice" and even if you do, its not unit selective, but you just know the post your going to.

 

[Rambuchan]

Homosexuals should be allowed into every military, upon a meritocracy system and with the understanding that professionalism is maintained at all times. In other words, treated the same as heterosexuals who face the same 'human instincts'. And as has been pointed out in the thread, they have been in many countries.

In fact there have been a great many queer commandos in the British Army. In the heyday of its imperial times the British boasted many high profile homos, including Lord Kitchener as just one top-of-the-head example. Imagine if they'd banned characters like him from Her Majesty's Forces!

 

[IglooDame]

Could gays serve their country? Sure they could. However, your average american is not used to showering with a homosexual on a daily basis, or sleeping in a bunk next to them. This is one of those issues, whose day may be in the future, but the US military just isnt ready to take that step yet.

I'd think that the average American is not so mentally feeble that they couldn't handle showering in the same public shower with a homosexual on a daily basis, or sleeping in a bunk next to, above, or below them. I mean, come on, what's the big frikkin deal? :shakehead

 

[storealex]

also, ive read some horror stories about the way the draftees are treated in russia, and that there are huge numbers of deserters due to the bad conditions.

I have Russian friends who cannot go back to Russia without being drafted. As a result they cant visit their family before they get Danish citizenship

 

[sanabas]

Could gays serve their country? Sure they could. However, your average american is not used to showering with a homosexual on a daily basis, or sleeping in a bunk next to them. This is one of those issues, whose day may be in the future, but the US military just isnt ready to take that step yet.

Neither is your average Aussie, your average Pom, or your average Canadian. All of them have taken that step, none of them have experienced difficulty because of it.

You said in another thread that people on this forum are biased and make sweeping generalisations about americans, you are doing it yourself, saying that the average american is less tolerant than the average pom or aussie. Do you think americans are less tolerant?

You are obviously ignorant of how people do get assigned to to military units. The process is almost totally random...very, very, few people ever get "assignment of choice" and even if you do, its not unit selective, but you just know the post your going to.

I'm not suggesting that people get to choose their own assignments. I am suggesting that the army does put at least a bit of thought into assigning people, rather than just drawing names out of a hat. If a minimum standard is required to effectively serve in a combat unit, I assume the military will check that the people it assigns to that unit meet the minimum standard, and will maintain the unit's effectiveness.

 

[nonconformist]

Of course not. They'll surrender to those handsome enemies anyday


Yes, and anyone giving that sort of crap as an excuse is an idiot.


Interestingly, back in the 1800s, when homosexuality, or indeed any sexuality was scandalous, and held in a rather dim light, the Royal Navy was forced to give the sailors' tea or grog rations with bromine added, to stop them getting too randy.

 

[MobBoss]

Neither is your average Aussie, your average Pom, or your average Canadian. All of them have taken that step, none of them have experienced difficulty because of it.

With all due respect, the American military isnt the same as the Aussie, PM or Canadian Marine. Much smaller population, much easier to manage/control. A plethora of other differences as well. Just because its fine and ok for them to do it does not equate that its ok and will work well with the US military. Your arguement holds no more weight than if I pointed out that country X bans homosexuals from serving and their military works fine as well.

You said in another thread that people on this forum are biased and make sweeping generalisations about americans, you are doing it yourself, saying that the average american is less tolerant than the average pom or aussie. Do you think americans are less tolerant?

The other thread asked the question are foreigners biased towards Americans and I replied of course they are. I am not saying here that the average american is less tolerant per se...that may or may not be the case. What I am pointing out though is there are valid reasons that the government has its policies on gays in the military. You may not agree with those policies, which is what we can debate, but they are in place and probably wont change any time soon.

I'm not suggesting that people get to choose their own assignments. I am suggesting that the army does put at least a bit of thought into assigning people, rather than just drawing names out of a hat.

Sanabas, you are wrong in this. Soldier assignments are almost precisely akin to pulling names out of a hat at first. Its at the very base level, the squad/team level, that the type of assessment you are referring to takes place. However, that squad/team has no idea who is going to show up next as a new recruit/assignment. Only at the more senior levels is more thought put into where certain people should be assigned as to their skills.

If a minimum standard is required to effectively serve in a combat unit, I assume the military will check that the people it assigns to that unit meet the minimum standard, and will maintain the unit's effectiveness.

Basically true, but training is no indicator of personality or ability to work as a team. If a person does not fit into the team, regardless of his training, that teams effectiveness decreases. Often, the lives of the entire team rest on a certain individual.