Study: Gays in the military will not undermine effectiveness

[Asher]

If I beat you, could it not also be said that you beat me?

It's times like this I wish I had taken more than three filosofy courses.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Wittlich


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?!?

This is my point. Gender orientation has nothing to do with any other feeling, up to and including patriotism and a wish to give back.
Pat spoke of a segregation of units in housing. That might have merit. I don't know if gays would feel somehow slighted, but I wouldn't think so.
What do you think, Wittlich?

[Asher]

I'm no military man, but wouldn't splitting up a fighting unit make it less effective than having the unit live as one?

Seems to me that segregation of homo/heteros will just justify the claim later that homosexuals in the military reduce effectiveness because they don't form as tight a camaraderie as before.

[SlowwHand]

In barracks. Not in the field.
In the Air Force, from my memory, males and females worked together, but lived in different barracks.
I'm just asking the question.

[Asher]

Understood. Hug? Before it's too late. I may become Asher soon.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why should gays and lesbians in military have to be discrete while their heterosexual comrades can openly identify themselves as being straight??

My point exactly. If gay people aren't willing to be discreet, they should be booted out. I don't care what they do on their own time.

[Ben Kenobi]

I can be 100% straight-acting and macho and under Don't ask / don't tell, then I can be dismissed cause my facebook indicates my partner is another man.

Then you should be willing to agree that a gay person should be discreet if he wishes to sleep with men on his own time and serve with men in the barracks.

Yes or no, it's a simple question. I agree that they shouldn't be fired for what they do on their own time, but they should be willing to obey the conduct required of them while they are serving.

The issue is what does happen off-duty is directly impacting if the person remains a member of the service.

Off-duty?

Do you believe that a gay serviceman should be discreet while he is on duty?

You repeatedly say you don't think it should -- so, then, you are in agreement with me that the policy of "don't ask, don't tell" is flawed.

It is flawed. I don't believe it's without merit.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then you should be willing to agree that a gay person should be discreet if he wishes to sleep with men on his own time and serve with men in the barracks.

No person, heterosexual or homosexual, should engage in any activities or discussion, heterosexual or homosexual, while on duty. This isn't hard.

Off-duty?

Do you believe that a gay serviceman should be discreet while he is on duty?

As I said, both sides play by the same rules. While on duty: Men can't hit on women, men can't hit on men, men can't sleep with women, men can't sleep with men.

Fair, right?

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by SpencerH
As was mentioned in the OP, a soldier has to trust the soldiers around him. Even in training its important.

I'm pretty/possibly sure that a couple of mates that I shared some ****ty locales, and a few bullets with, were gay. It didnt bother me, and I dont think it would have bothered me if they had been openly gay either. That doesnt mean that it wouldnt have bothered others in our unit (despite how stupid that is) and that might've had dire consequences.

So, to be honest, I'm glad those guys stayed in the closet but wish they didnt have to.

That is the reason it would reduce combat effectiveness, the few *******s that couldn't serve next to a gay person. Not the gay person themselves and not the majority of service members.

ACK!

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Anyone who joins the military because of the sweet benefits would make a poor recruit. Anyone demanding that the military give them special treatment before they enlist should be shown the door.

The point is that they should serve because they want to serve, not because they are given benefits.



They haven't always gotten this, that is a relatively new change. It used to be they wouldn't get married until their service was done, and even if they did get married, they would hardly ever see their wife and kids, and when they passed on they wouldn't get any benefits at all.

Yet they still stepped up and served. That's the point of a voluntary army, that the people who are the most dedicated will be willing to step up and give their lives for their country.

Hate to tell you Ben, but a large majority of service members do, in fact, join for the benefits. Or to escape from lousy living conditions, to get college money, to get medical care for their families.

Most of those people you mention that "stepped up and served" were drafted and required to serve. Yes, a lot served because it was the right thing to do, but they would likely have been drafted.

A volunteer service needs benefits to get people to serve. "Stepping up and serving" does you no good if your family isn't taken care of.

I am proud of my service, but if there weren't any benefits to my service, I probably wouldn't have served.

Another thing, because of don't ask, don't tell, gays don't get all the benefits of a straight service member. Therefore, I must conclude that the majority of gay soldiers are the most dedicated and willing to step up and give their lives for their country.

Think about it.

ACK!

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles
Man, I am just kicking ass and taking names these past few days.



It's time to transform into a new persona. All of this huggy-touchy-feely **** is getting old. I need to be vicious again.

No offense -- I really am enjoying the show, and we're in complete agreement on the issue at hand -- but intellectually besting Ben and Wiglaf is not exactly "kicking ass and taking names." It's more like winning the gold at the Special Olympics.

[Wiglaf]

Go get hit by a bus, Rufus T. ****fly, you think you have insulted me but you have really insulted the special Olympics, I hope that you are arrested on some trumped up charge and beaten until you are retarded. I got like a 172 LSAT and that was without sucking off princeton review. In addition I was named Most Likely to succeed three times in high school, though the third time there was no contest because I was boinking the newspaper editor in chief, that which department chooses Most Likely To Succeed (They are supposed to count votes but who are we kidding?).

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
I was named Most Likely to succeed three times in high school

So what happened?

[Kuciwalker]

Go get hit by a bus, Rufus T. ****fly, you think you have insulted me but you have really insulted the special Olympics

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
This is my point. Gender orientation has nothing to do with any other feeling, up to and including patriotism and a wish to give back.
Pat spoke of a segregation of units in housing. That might have merit. I don't know if gays would feel somehow slighted, but I wouldn't think so.
What do you think, Wittlich?

Feel slighted? I doubt it as well. As long as gays can serve without threat of dismissal based soley on their sexual orientation, seperate barracks and the like would probably be fine.