Study: Gays in the military will not undermine effectiveness

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

California-based research center.

Says it all.

Not "all." You left out...

The study was conducted by four retired military officers, including the three-star Air Force lieutenant general who in early 1993 was tasked with implementing President Clinton's policy that the military stop questioning recruits on their sexual orientation.

And

Air Force Lt. Gen. Robert Minter Alexander, a Republican, was assigned in 1993 to a high-level panel established by the Defense Department to examine the issue of gays in the military. At one point, he signed an order that prohibited the military from asking a recruit's sexual orientation.

Alexander said at the time he was simply trying to carry out the president's orders and not take a position. But he now believes the law should be repealed because it assumes the existence of gays in the military is disruptive to units even though cultural attitudes are changing.

And

Navy Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan said he had no opinion on the issue when he joined the panel, having never confronted it in his 35-year military career. A self-described Republican who opposes the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war, Shanahan said he was struck by the loss of personal integrity required by individuals to carry out "don't ask, don't tell."

Yep, a panel US military brass, half of whom were Republicans, came to a conclusion after carefully weighing evidence...but since that study contradicts Ben's homophobic, evidence-free (heck, evidence-phobic) view of the world, and since disagreeing with Republican military officers would cause Ben's head to expode (or, more accurately, pop like a child's balloon), the problem must be that the study was conducted in California!

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
As a poor analogy, If my gay teen broke my curfew, took my car without my knowledge and then showed up at the scene of an accident and saved someone's life, I would respect his actions at the accident but I wouldn't necessarily change his curfew or driving privaledges if I still felt it was the wrong thing to do. But it would certainly make me look at it closer. Now the analogy is poor because that is a family matter and it is a civilian issue instead of a military one. But I thought it represented some of the points where you can be proud of someone service and still not necessarily support breaking the rules to accomodate others to engage in the same.

Does my little change affect anything?

ACK!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

if they are gay, they will be even more productive, as there will be no need to look for hookers when out, so they'll save money and bond extra so when it comes to the worst they will fight for one another like real partners... if someone kills your buddy, no sex tomorrow... they would shoot the enemy in the head first and ask questions later

gay military

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Tuberski


Does my little change affect anything?

ACK!

No. Like I said it was already a poor analogy. You just made it worse.

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Wittlich was in the service. If I'm not mistaken, he retired from the military. I don't think anyone could ever convince me that he didn't serve his time admireably.
Sorry, Wittlich, if you feel I hoist you up as illustration too many times, but when the shoe fits...and in many of my conversations here, you do.

No problem my friend. Make no mistake, gays are and have always been (and will always be) in the US military.
The military itself brought me out of the closet.

But why should US gay soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines be forced to literally live a double life just so that they can serve their country?!?

Wiglaf and Ben Kenobi: Have either of you ever served in the military and made the sacrifices that are neccessary for the military service? --- If the answer is "no" then you really don't know what military service is like, now do you? And when I say "ever served in the military" I mean you yourselves (not your father, uncle, grandfather, etc).

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I think Canada should be modelling themselves after the Americans if they want a successful military rather then vice-versa. I don't see what Canada has to offer that would in any way shape or form improve the US military.

Banning gays doesn't make the US military "successful". They are "successful" in your eyes because they have an obscenely large budget. Even that doesn't translate to success -- look at Iraq.

No, I'm not proud of the Canadian serviceman in Afghanistan regardless of whether he is gay or straight. I am ashamed that they need to hitch a ride from the Americans. I am ashamed that they cannot succeed in Afghanistan without the help of the Americans. I am ashamed at how inclusivity and political correctness, has replaced service and dedication.

What the ****, Ben?

I'm asking you about the individual, NOT the infrastructure. You absolutely disrespect every man and woman in Canadian uniform who is willing to give up his or her life for their country. I'm asking you if you're proud of the PERSON. Of THEIR COMMITMENT to their country.

If you call me a bigot, call me a bigot against Canadians. I am proud of any man whether he is gay and straight who serves in the military provided he is American.

But you're not proud of anyone who serves in the Canadian military, because you disagree with the funding of it from politicians?

I'd just like to give a colossal **** you on behalf of the people serving and giving their lives right now.

[Asher]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
When can we expect you to sign up, Asher?

When they provide adequate compensation.

I looked at and interviewed with both the RCAF and CSIS -- both are ways to "serve my country" -- but the pay grades are insulting and I'm not a charity.

[Patroklos]

I have no problem fighting besides gays. I do however expect the basic standards of sex seperation to apply, which at the very least would be easy enough to implement Air Force wide immediately.

The army and marines wouldn't be too difficutlt.

The Navy would be the hardest, but not impossible. You would just have to do what we did with women, modify the ships that have the space now, and then design the new ones with accomidations and phase out the older ships on the normal procurement plan.

I looked at and interviewed with both the RCAF and CSIS -- both are ways to "serve my country" -- but the pay grades are insulting and I'm not a charity.

People who join for money make lousey officers, if money is your goal you made the right decision. Not everyone is cut out for it, and that is not a bad thing

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
People who join for money make lousey officers, if money is your goal you made the right thing. Not everyone is cut out for it, and that is not a bad thing

I wasn't looking to be an officer (RCAF) or a spy (CSIS). I don't deal well with situations that stifle creative thinking.

Both were computer science-driven civilian positions. The RCAF position was actually to be a RCAF-employed developer to an avionics and weapons-control upgrade on the CF-18's onboard computers.

[rah]

I'll start by saying that gays should be able to serve openly. And I think the results of the research probably reflect reality.

I do, however, have a problem with proving effectiveness based on other countries culture. (god, I had to think that I sound like I'm agreeing with wiggy.) However people like Ben and Wiggy may make up a larger proportion of our population than in the other countries that were looked at. They are the problem, not the Gays. But with enought of people like them in the military, it could impact effectiveness.

Now, I'm not saying that it does make a difference, I'm just saying that looking at other cultures doesn't necessarily mean it's the same as ours.

[Kontiki]

Awesome. I didn't think it was possible for me to have less respect for Ben, but this thread just took it to a new level.

[chequita guevara]

I think we ought to remember how incredibly racist the United States was when the military was finally integrated. Integration did not adversely affect our combat ability. Allowing gays to openly serve in the military will not affect combat ability.

What it will do is provide a positive example of gays in an environment most conservatives have a hard-on for, the military, and lead, ultimately, to conservatives agreeing that homophobia is stupid and old fashioned, especially those that serve along side them. That is what people like Ben fear.

[Wittlich]

Well stated Chegitz!

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Nah, I'm gonna get married to a catholic gal who's a total knockout and we'll have lots of kiddos together.

Let's just hope you aren't caught because of your "wide stance".

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles
There are openly gay men serving your country right now in Afghanistan, Ben. Are you proud of that? Or would you ask that they immediately be recalled from serving their country?

Pride is a deadly sin.

It's also been co-opted by the Gay.

So, no, he's not proud of it.