[martin14]

llama, you should read that post with a bit more of an open mind.


Question, Bart: would the same or similar have been said when the US military was
being racially integrated back in the 50's - 60's,
because that doesn't seem to be much of an issue anymore.

Or, at least, something that we don't hear of too much.

[BartSimpson]

martin14 martin14:

llama, you should read that post with a bit more of an open mind.


Question, Bart: would the same or similar have been said when the US military was
being racially integrated back in the 50's - 60's,
because that doesn't seem to be much of an issue anymore.

Or, at least, something that we don't hear of too much.

Racial integration became the law under Harry Truman in the 1940's.

And it was done wrong.

The model of preparing blacks separately and more intensely as was done at Tuskeegee was the model of success for integration as it prepared blacks for leadership roles which they never had in society in general and it also remedied literacy problems among black recruits before they were inducted into the military in general. Consequently, blacks who came out of the Tuskeegee model were major contributors (proportionately) to the military and they opened the door to integration.

Unfortunately, integration was done with the stroke of a pen as if that was all it would take and blacks suffered from an accurate and poor image from Korea into the 1980's when a new group of blacks came into the military who were educated, professional, and elite. Of the officers I know the ones I value the most right now would mostly be black.

So it isn't an issue anymore.

Ironically, it is those very black officers who are the most ardent anti-homosexual contingent in the military and a gay friendly military will mean the loss of this talent. Black officers, FYI, are generally Southern and Baptist.

[roger-roger]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Yeah, I'm going to be called a bigot but whatever.

There are some good reasons why gays are discouraged from military service in the USA.

#1 in practical matters is that homosexuals are statistically more likely to experience PTSD as many of them enter the service with existing emotional problems that are exacerbated by combat experiences. No, this kind of thing is not politically correct so you're not going to find the Pentagon publishing this kind of info outside of closed committee hearings so don't ask me for links.

#2 again, as a practical matter, homosexuals are statistically prevalent among those people who are either blackmailed into betraying military secrets or among those who freely betray military secrets.

#3 Unit cohesion studies (again, not politically correct) show degraded performance in units where soldiers have been indicated as homosexual.

#4 The US volunteer military predominantly and disproportionately recruits from Mid-Western and Southern states and among these volunteers who stay in the military for 8+ years those professing a devout Christian faith predominate. Recruiting studies indicate that this source of new recruits will decline if homosexuals are allowed to openly join the military.

Now of course I will allow that not all queers make for bad soldiers and I'm sure that some, in fact, have been exemplary soldiers. But that does not mean that we need to make a social science project out of the military.

But I guess it's too late for that as due to insane political correctness we have young women now being deployed for extended cruises on Naval surface ships and some have even been deployed on submarines. The incidence of rape of these women is upsetting. The disturbance of rape courts martials is detrimental to performance. The problems with pregnant sailors are legion. The problems with officers having affairs with enlisted females are legion. The problems with onboard jealousies resulting in assaults and even murders are legion. Yet we have to keep women aboard ship to prove some damnable social point that has not one goddam thing to do with the mission of the Navy.

So it will inevitably be the same with gays that we'll put gays in the military and allow them to marry, parade, and cause social disturbances and to hell the consequences because it's more important to prove how f*cking liberal and open minded we are than to worry about trivial things like winning wars and keeping our casualty rates down.

I'm glad I won't have to deal with this idiocy.

#1 You pretty much came out and said this is just a personal theory and is not based in facts.

#2 has some measure of legitamcy, but that only works when the guy is in the closet, if he is allowed to be open about his sexuality, then there is nothing to cover up.

#3 Again that is only because they are not accepted, the gay soldiers I know are moral boosters.

#4 So? If biggots dont want to join the military, the military will be better for it.

If you want to see how homosexuals effect the military you should probably look at the military that has accepted them for 10 years or more.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

llama66 llama66:

we don't wan't any progression in society, that would be scary.

Why do you assume that this kind of thing constitutes 'progress'?

So accepting fellow human beings as equals is not progress?

[Canadian_Mind]

The gay guy in my troop is the one that ends up bringing all the girls on base for the rest of us to "pick up." Man is a life saver.

As for Barts and Sappers number games, here is my take:

1. The gays would experiance more PTSD because the guy they secretly had a crush on or thought was hot gets shot in the face or turned into pink mist. If that happened to either fo the two cute girls in my troop (we have cute girls in the army, not smoking hot, but cute), I'd be a little fucked up after seeing that. Doesn't help that i'm one of the people that feels women shouldn't be in combat, but what can you do?

2. I agree with both

3. In the states, barts opinion is true, as socially gay's simply wouldn't be accepted for whatever bigoted reasosn their would-be comrades have. We have a similar problem in Canada, but it isn't nearly as much of a problem. Like I said, our gay guy basically picks up the chicks for us.

4. In the states the numbers game is more important than the qulity game, which is what we rely on. So both points are valid.

[romanP]

hwacker hwacker:

lily lily:

And the gays in the military aren't working hard?

Who the hell cares if a fellow soldier is gay or straight?

Obviously most, did you not read the article you posted? Or did you just toss it up there because you liked what B-HO did?

The article doesn't say they weren't working. It says they were disbanded for "homosexual conduct." Do you mean to say that straight men and women in the military don't do anything sexual with each other while they're on duty?

[romanP]

SigPig SigPig:

hwacker hwacker:

It's called order.

So you cant have order when there are gay people around?

No, just hwacker can't. He's so pent up from hating himself for how he feels about other men that when he sees another man, he can't control himself. I bet you one day, he'll suggest that men should wear burkas so that he doesn't cream himself in public.

$1:

Speaking of asses, take your head out of yours.

I'm pretty sure that's impossible. He probably had his head grafted onto his ass when he was old enough to have elective surgery.

[romanP]

Tricks Tricks:

And do homosexual people in the military do that?

Apparently straight people in the US military do this:



A bunch of guys dressing in gold lame thongs seems pretty tame by comparison.

[BartSimpson]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

#1 You pretty much came out and said this is just a personal theory and is not based in facts.

Oh, so you have links to the documentation for every conference you attend?

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

#2 has some measure of legitamcy, but that only works when the guy is in the closet, if he is allowed to be open about his sexuality, then there is nothing to cover up.

It's more than just that. The number of queers who freely violate security is disproportionate to their population.

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

#3 Again that is only because they are not accepted, the gay soldiers I know are moral boosters.

Good for you.

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

#4 So? If biggots dont want to join the military, the military will be better for it.

People who have strongly set values make the best and most reliable soldiers. Or would you rather have comrades who constantly make situational judgments about their actions instead of doing what they're trained and ordered to do?

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

If you want to see how homosexuals effect the military you should probably look at the military that has accepted them for 10 years or more.

Indeed. Do that.

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

So accepting fellow human beings as equals is not progress?

So a pedophile or a jihadi is your equal? Or do you not accept fellow human beings as your equal?

[Brenda]

I hope I am coming to the wrong conclusion here, and that you are not comparing pedophiles with gays?

[BartSimpson]

romanP romanP:

Apparently straight people in the US military do this:

I see nothing there that you won't see at any fraternity hazing this fall.

As offensive as it looks, humiliation is a very effective technique for breaking down Muslims and it is far more successful than physical torture with these guys.

Threaten to cut them up with a kabar and they just smile and ask for more.

But threaten them with a 'used tampon' soaked in 'pigs blood' (chocolate pudding, cocoa, and corn syrup, really) and they sing like Celine Dion.

What's sad at Abu Gharaib is that the enlisteds took the heat for what they were ordered to do. It sucked.

[ziggy]

"queers"

That says it all.

Reminds me of an episode of CSIS where Grissom says there's a clam that is born with both sexual organs,it would outsurvive any other clam because it could reproduce regardless of a mate.

Maybe that clam was normal and the others were all abnormal.

[BartSimpson]

Brenda Brenda:

I hope I am coming to the wrong conclusion here, and that you are not comparing pedophiles with gays?

You're reading too much into my comment.

Sapper's saying all human beings are equal. I'm just asking a probing question to see if he means it.

[BartSimpson]

lily lily:

It was a lame comparison. Being gay is no longer illegal. Pedophilia and jihadiism are.

So you don't accept pedophilliacs and jihadis as your equals?

Oh, and pedophillia is just illegal in your narrow minded country. In Saudi Arabia, as was in the news this month, marrying a 10 year old girl is perfectly acceptable and legal.

I dare say that being a jihadi is also legal in many jurisdictions.

[DerbyX]

lily lily:

It was a lame comparison. Being gay is no longer illegal. Pedophilia and jihadiism are.

Actually thats not quite true. Pedophilia is still legal in some parts of Afghanistan (now that the Taliban are gone) and there are no laws anywhere against "jihadiism". For a lot of Muslims jihadiism can be a "jihad" against immorality like so many Christians "crusaded against immorality" when they tried to ban D&D or rock music.

A better comparison would be that all the arguments about unit cohesion and bigotry in the military was said about blacks also. They used to make up such things as "blacks had bad night vision" to keep them out of combat units because they knew many white soldiers would simply not fight alongside them.

Racial tension which was very much present in the Vietnam error is all but gone in the US military if I'm not mistaken.

Like the same erroneous arguments against gay adoptions that they said the same for mixed race adoptions they fall to the wayside under an open and accepting society.

They aught to be drumming any soldier with a problem with gays out of the service like they did with the racial bigots of old.

[BartSimpson]

lily lily:

Please explain the relevance to the US military.

I already did. As a demographic group homosexuals have a higher incidence of undesirable traits for military service than all other groups.

Homosexuals also tend to be more literate and better educated than any other demographic group and for some this capability overcomes any possible shortcomings. Thus I don't really care to do more than the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy because if they are smart enough to just do their job then I figure they're also smart enough not to do the things that generally make homosexuals unfit for duty. Those that are stupid enough to go to gay pride parades in uniform (it's happened) are looking to get out and should be obliged, IMHO.

Notice I'm not saying anything about lesbians?

Lesbians are pretty good soldiers and they are usually very reliable in security matters, more so than average. CIA and NSA don't give them any mind for that reason and the military in general doesn't make a big deal out of lesbians except when it's someone who wants to make a demonstration of some political point and then they get bounced ostensibly for being gay when in fact they're really getting bounced just for making a spectacle of themselves.