Study: Military gays don't undermine unit cohesion

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
You do realize that they also looked at armed forces from other parts of the world with long standing open policies like Israel and Brittan?

So perhaps Saudi Arabia should also allow gays in their military? Perhaps Iran should too?

Oops, I forgot not all cultures are identical? I forgot that Iranians murder gay people?

How silly of me to think all cultures are the same.

Perhaps a study on dental visits on Americans should be extrapolated to the Brits? Oh wait, they don't give a damn about their teeth.

Perhaps studies on the smoking habits of Euros should be extrapolated to the US. Oh wait, a whole lot more Euros smoke than we do.

Seeing where I'm going here?


Not to mention I still don't see how this is a study. All I see is a bunch of retired military people saying we should repeal it which is basically a poll, survey, or however else you wanna look at it but it definitely isn't a "study" much less a scientific study.

http://www.palmcenter.org/pres...mirals_call_for_repeal

Also I see no evidence posted anywhere of their findings on their "study" of British and Israeli soldiers.

 

[KIRBYEE]

I love you Butterbean. :heart::lips:

Don't ask, don't tell.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Any failures will be 100% character faults of the non-gays. If they can't deal with it, screw em, they can find another job.

Combat units aren't looking for pure impeccable character soldiers. Nor are they looking for the captain of the debate team or who knows which fork to use at a proper dining event.

they are looking for rough men...who get up and attack when someone starts shooting instead of laying in a hole. Who can go 30 days with no shower working 18-20 hours a day. Walk 15 miles plus a day with 50-80 pounds on their back. they want the guy gets up and runs out into a road to get get his wounded buddy...who then gets shot trying....and his friend next to him who just saw him get up to go get him and then get shot .... Now goes and gets up to go get both of them.

its about brotherhood.... and I can't explain why but adding someone of a different sexual orientation does have an affect on that...

No one is perfect.... Unfortunately soldiers do judge and make harsh judgments that don't go away easy. It may change with more time and more social evolution but I just don't think the military...especially combat line units ... are ready for that.

It only has a effect because their is an acceptable culture of homophobia that is allowed to run rampant and perpetuated through the denial that their are gays serving in our military. Gays are there and they are serving along side other soldiers in front line units. Just because they aren't open about it does not make them any less gay or any less of a capable soldier. The examples of armies from across the world which have an open policy and have no issues is an example which further illustrates how forcing a closed policy like we do only further perpetuates this form of bigotry. The issue is not with gay the soldiers learning to deal with serving within the military but with non-gay solders learning to realize that being a American is not a exclusive title that only belongs to a portion of people in our society.

I nver once denied that fact... what i was trying to say was it is what it is....

Your entire first sentence is a huge assumption in many ways. Your assuming everyone is a homophobe.... which is not the case. You assume that if everyone was a homophobe that I and other leaders are suppose to what? Stand in front of our platoons and be like... If you hate or are afraid of anyone who is.... you no longer can be... you must like them now!?! It really isnt...that simple....

There is no denial. Most people don't care. Honestly I think 95% don't care.... I DO think most prefer not to know about it or see it. that is just my opinion though from what I see while serving...

I don't think commanders care much about what other Armies do.... as long as we can defeat any of them. Honestly I don't think it should be up to me...or you...or anyone but the commanders. Does a lawyer ask his shoe shiner how he should defend his client. Does a doctor ask the janitor how to treat someone? Then I don't think anyone should tell a general what makes his army more effective...that why we pay him a generals salary...to command a military effectively as he knows from his 20-40 years of experience.

You need perfect vision to fly...even though eyes can now be corrected... are we going to dictate to DOD they need to change there policy...

I can no longer go to Ranger school or SF Selection if I wanted to because I have a slight hearing loss from being in Iraq... Should anyone tell DOD they need to change their policy becuase they really don't know what they are doing when it comes to military medical qualifications??

General says he doesn't want openly gay individuals in the military.... For whatever reason. Maybe they really don't want to deal with any issues that do come up... or look soft to the rougher old school soldiers... I don't know.... It is what it is ....

Forcing a policy change isn't going to do anything but cause more problems in a military that has enough right now....

DOD WILL change they policy....eventually...

Basically you are just saying that because some people have hate towards their fellow Americans over their sexuality it's not something we should try to change or care about enough to force change. Again the only reason why their is so much hate and mistrust is because their is a culture of homophobia ( that Good O'l Boyz Club mentality ) that while you and others like yourself claim to not be a part of you certainly do nothing to stop it's perpetuation and influence from effecting others. You may not have any issues with gays serving in the military but for some reason you are allowing others who do have problems with gays to affect you decision making process and set the agenda. That's a pleasant excuses to keep the status qou.

As for why you equate being straight to having perfect vision or perfect hearing is beyond my grasp. Do you somehow think that gays can't fight or kill? Or that being gay effects their combat worthiness?

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: Drift3r
You do realize that they also looked at armed forces from other parts of the world with long standing open policies like Israel and Brittan?

So perhaps Saudi Arabia should also allow gays in their military? Perhaps Iran should too?

Oops, I forgot not all cultures are identical? I forgot that Iranians murder gay people?

How silly of me to think all cultures are the same.

Perhaps a study on dental visits on Americans should be extrapolated to the Brits? Oh wait, they don't give a damn about their teeth.

Perhaps studies on the smoking habits of Euros should be extrapolated to the US. Oh wait, a whole lot more Euros smoke than we do.

Seeing where I'm going here?


Not to mention I still don't see how this is a study. All I see is a bunch of retired military people saying we should repeal it which is basically a poll, survey, or however else you wanna look at it but it definitely isn't a "study" much less a scientific study.

http://www.palmcenter.org/pres...mirals_call_for_repeal

Also I see no evidence posted anywhere of their findings on their "study" of British and Israeli soldiers.

So basically your argument stems from it having nothing to do with the ability of a gay person being able to serve professionally in our armed forces but a perceived cultural bias of gays by people who can't get past their sexual orientation.

It all amounts to "My grand pappy didn't serve with their kind, so I won't either."

PS - Are you denying that the British and Israelis don't have a open policy?

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
So basically your argument stems from it having nothing to do with the ability of a gay person being able to serve professionally in our armed forces but a perceived cultural bias of gays by people who can't get past their sexual orientation.

It all amounts to "My grand pappy didn't serve with their kind, so I won't either."

Actually what it arrives from is that it takes a very unique set of people in the military to do a very unique job and anything that stands in the way of them doing that job to the absolute best of their ability is unacceptable.

I personally have no problem with gays serving in any form or fashion in the military because god knows we need the people right now. Beggars can't be choosers.

But I'm not ready to piss off a large section of the military and screw them up because 1% of the American population would like the ability to serve as an openly gay person.


I'm just not that naive or stupid enough to think thats a good idea.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: Drift3r
So basically your argument stems from it having nothing to do with the ability of a gay person being able to serve professionally in our armed forces but a perceived cultural bias of gays by people who can't get past their sexual orientation.

It all amounts to "My grand pappy didn't serve with their kind, so I won't either."

Actually what it arrives from is that it takes a very unique set of people in the military to do a very unique job and anything that stands in the way of them doing that job to the absolute best of their ability is unacceptable.

I personally have no problem with gays serving in any form or fashion in the military because god knows we need the people right now. Beggars can't be choosers.

But I'm not ready to piss off a large section of the military and screw them up because 1% of the American population would like the ability to serve as an openly gay person.


I'm just not that naive or stupid enough to think thats a good idea.

Again, same argument that was used for blacks not being able to join. There are still openly racist people in the military... a fair number of them actually. If the number of racists exceeded the number of blacks in the military, would you support barring them from service again? I'm assuming the answer to that is no.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: Drift3r
So basically your argument stems from it having nothing to do with the ability of a gay person being able to serve professionally in our armed forces but a perceived cultural bias of gays by people who can't get past their sexual orientation.

It all amounts to "My grand pappy didn't serve with their kind, so I won't either."

Actually what it arrives from is that it takes a very unique set of people in the military to do a very unique job and anything that stands in the way of them doing that job to the absolute best of their ability is unacceptable.

and none of it involves taking a person's sexuality into account to bar them from serivce.

I personally have no problem with gays serving in any form or fashion in the military because god knows we need the people right now. Beggars can't be choosers.

But I'm not ready to piss off a large section of the military and screw them up because 1% of the American population would like the ability to serve as an openly gay person.


I'm just not that naive or stupid enough to think thats a good idea.

So basically you rather cater to the bigots who have no valid excuse to deny gays from serving openly. Having the same old, same old makes things easier for them and you since you can pretend that there are no gays around you. Because gays are to quote Moonbeam "Icky and weird". Instead of changing view points and the homophobic cultural in our armed forces its better to cater to bigots. I gotcha ya...."Land of the free and home of the brave" and all that superficial flag waving crap.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Any failures will be 100% character faults of the non-gays. If they can't deal with it, screw em, they can find another job.

Combat units aren't looking for pure impeccable character soldiers. Nor are they looking for the captain of the debate team or who knows which fork to use at a proper dining event.

they are looking for rough men...who get up and attack when someone starts shooting instead of laying in a hole. Who can go 30 days with no shower working 18-20 hours a day. Walk 15 miles plus a day with 50-80 pounds on their back. they want the guy gets up and runs out into a road to get get his wounded buddy...who then gets shot trying....and his friend next to him who just saw him get up to go get him and then get shot .... Now goes and gets up to go get both of them.

its about brotherhood.... and I can't explain why but adding someone of a different sexual orientation does have an affect on that...

No one is perfect.... Unfortunately soldiers do judge and make harsh judgments that don't go away easy. It may change with more time and more social evolution but I just don't think the military...especially combat line units ... are ready for that.

I was in the military too remember, so I've had first hand experience with what you're talking about. That doesn't change the fact the fault is ENTIRELY within the non-gays. It's bigotry. It's like excusing soldiers for thinking ni--ers should stay out. Yes, it's the EXACT same thing. You're ok with pampering people who are such poor human beings that they will let their own insecurities and prejudices affect how they do their job, even to the point of costing lives. It IS a weakness, you're right...in the character of the non-gays.

Character weakness is character weakness. ANY weakness in a soldier weakens the overall military. It's why it's so bad that the requirements have been reduced to nothing under Bush in order to make recruitment numbers. We need to weed out those with character defects, not those with differing views on sexuality.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
That group and its "study" are a total joke. The Michael D. Palm Center was formerly known as the "Center for Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military". It's a homosexual group that's only concerned with forcing homosexuality into the military: " This is an activist group that has promoted homosexuals in the military for years?usually by releasing or promoting various faux ?studies? that cannot withstand close scrutiny. "

http://www.cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?DocID=287

Most half legit polls of military people show around 75% do not support changing policy for homosexuals - even less support it it when informed of the "sensitivity" training (brainwashing) that would ensue should anyone not be happy with homosexuality being forced on them.

With the exploding epidemics of MRSA and VRE in homosexual populations it would be a crime to encourage a disease multiplying behavior in the close ranks of the military.

"This is the horror scenario," she said. "We have very little time left."
Dr Perdreau-Remington on MRSA/VRE

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...08/01/15/MNUKUDB6D.DTL


As sensible people know "homophobia" is no reason to justify changes in the military because its just a pollitical tool designed to intimidate people from their common sense. As former APA president Nicholas Cummings said ""'Homophobia as intimidation' is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda. Sadly, I have seen militant gay men and lesbians-- who I am certain do not represent all homosexuals, and who themselves have been the object of derision and oppression-- once gaining freedom and power, then becoming oppressors themselves."

Cummings also stated regarding that when APA conducts research they only do so "when they know what the outcome is going to be...only research with predictably favorable outcomes is permissible." So we can put away our little studies from the APA as well as the Michale Palm study.

The fact is the military is still moderatlay functional and the liberals and their "special interest" groups cant stand it. It still has a shadow left of a masculine ethic and the feminized left resent it deeply. They would like nothing more than to turn the military into a play are for their little sensitivity trainings, mind screws and all the insane politically correct red tape that will doubtlessly ensue.

Comparing the US to Israel is not wise because military is compulsory in Israel and not in the US. Israels's military has also gone downhill a great since the 90's (when homosexual were allowed openly) and Lebanon woke people up to how bad its become.

Liberalism destroys everything it touches if not restrained. Homosexual political groups only care about themselves and the changes they want forced.

Wow, *edited*

Please try to keep it a bit more civil or we may have to lock this thread.

T.I.A.

Fern
AnandTech P&N Moderator

 

[Moonbeam]

Again we see that you can tell a bigot but you can't tell him much. A person always defers to that inward feeling of revulsion applied first to himself first as a child and which he later transfered to others. A bigot can heal only by the practice of a tolerance of others that eventually transfers to the self. A bigot is a self hater who has externalized his hate.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: loki8481
god damn the US-of-KKK-A that won't let me die to support the interests of an oil company.

it's a weird world we're living in when we send our breeders off to become sinners and die while those of us who are supposedly condemned to the fires of hell already are sheltered and protected.

Touche'! :laugh:

 

[Moonbeam]

Deceptacon:

"they are looking for rough men...who get up and attack when someone starts shooting instead of laying in a hole. Who can go 30 days with no shower working 18-20 hours a day. Walk 15 miles plus a day with 50-80 pounds on their back. they want the guy gets up and runs out into a road to get get his wounded buddy...who then gets shot trying....and his friend next to him who just saw him get up to go get him and then get shot .... Now goes and gets up to go get both of them."

Then why would they want a bunch of candy-assed pansies who would fold at the sight of a gay.

 

[mxyzptlk]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.. Only white, christian, heterosexual males are good enough to die for my freedom. Everyone else needs to be ejected from the military.

 

[XMan]

I don't really give a crap one way or another if gays are in the military so long as they can perform their job with effectiveness.

We should impeach George Washington for having instituted such a barbaric policy.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

As far as your numbers, Zogby seems to disagree with you as 75% of the military didn't care last time they polled it. While it is true that to say 'nobody cares' is an overstatement, I have the better part of a decade of personal experience with the issue and I never once saw the slightest indication of it being a problem... anywhere.

What I called indisputable was the fact that keeping gays out of the military is wrong. It is. As for your idea that right and wrong is up to a majority vote, I think if you sit down and think about that for a minute you'll realize why that's stupid.

Finally you are attempting to argue for continued discrimination based upon your idea of recruitment that you admit you have no evidence to back up. The burden of proof is on you buddy, not me, because you're the one trying to discriminate against people. In reality you just made up something you thought sounded good.

The only zogby poll I found on the matter did not address that question. If there is such a poll I haven't seen it.

I went ahead and bolded your line about indisputable, and again, you are intellectually arrogant to assume that your take on the issue is "indisputable". It's not like science where there is a right and a wrong and something can be proven beyond dispute. It's wrong according to *you*, it might not be wrong according to someone else. Who the heck appointed you the ruler on what is right and wrong? I'm pretty sure each person can determine for themselves if they believe something is wrong or not, and values are not absolute, unless you're a fundamentalist wacko who happens to think he's got a direct line to God who tells him the absolute right answers

The "burden of proof" is not on me, since I'm not the one pushing any kind of action. I believe in doing whatever is best for our military, PC be damned. If allowing gays to serve helps the military, then by all means, do it. The onus is on those who want to change the existing policy to determine that whatever new policy they want to implement is better for the military.

As for your idea that right and wrong is up to a majority vote, I think if you sit down and think about that for a minute you'll realize why that's stupid.

Spoken like a true elitist. Clearly, we need a small group of enlightened few such as yourself to keep the rest of us idiots on the straight and narrow. In a representative republic such as ours, the representatives form somewhat of a buffer against mob mentality, but ultimately if a large enough segment of the population feels a certain way about something, that becomes the law of the land, no matter what each one of us personally thinks of as "right" or "wrong".

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: eskimospy

As far as your numbers, Zogby seems to disagree with you as 75% of the military didn't care last time they polled it. While it is true that to say 'nobody cares' is an overstatement, I have the better part of a decade of personal experience with the issue and I never once saw the slightest indication of it being a problem... anywhere.

What I called indisputable was the fact that keeping gays out of the military is wrong. It is. As for your idea that right and wrong is up to a majority vote, I think if you sit down and think about that for a minute you'll realize why that's stupid.

Finally you are attempting to argue for continued discrimination based upon your idea of recruitment that you admit you have no evidence to back up. The burden of proof is on you buddy, not me, because you're the one trying to discriminate against people. In reality you just made up something you thought sounded good.

The only zogby poll I found on the matter did not address that question. If there is such a poll I haven't seen it.

I went ahead and bolded your line about indisputable, and again, you are intellectually arrogant to assume that your take on the issue is "indisputable". It's not like science where there is a right and a wrong and something can be proven beyond dispute. It's wrong according to *you*, it might not be wrong according to someone else. Who the heck appointed you the ruler on what is right and wrong? I'm pretty sure each person can determine for themselves if they believe something is wrong or not, and values are not absolute, unless you're a fundamentalist wacko who happens to think he's got a direct line to God who tells him the absolute right answers

The "burden of proof" is not on me, since I'm not the one pushing any kind of action. I believe in doing whatever is best for our military, PC be damned. If allowing gays to serve helps the military, then by all means, do it. The onus is on those who want to change the existing policy to determine that whatever new policy they want to implement is better for the military.

As for your idea that right and wrong is up to a majority vote, I think if you sit down and think about that for a minute you'll realize why that's stupid.

Spoken like a true elitist. Clearly, we need a small group of enlightened few such as yourself to keep the rest of us idiots on the straight and narrow. In a representative republic such as ours, the representatives form somewhat of a buffer against mob mentality, but ultimately if a large enough segment of the population feels a certain way about something, that becomes the law of the land, no matter what each one of us personally thinks of as "right" or "wrong".

Sorry for giving you too much credit. I'll give you the crayon version this time. Barring people from the military based upon their sexual orientation is indisputably wrong if you believe in the principles of equality that our country espouses. Sure people try and make exceptions, but they are really just deluding themselves and those exceptions nearly always come in the form of cultural or ideological biases.

I like your tactic on trying to shift the burden of proof though, basically you are arguing that once we start discriminating against someone, the burden of proof is on them as to why you should stop... because that's a change in the status quo! So if someone is punching you in the face, the burden of proof is on you to show them why they should stop.

As for your continuing attempts to brand me as an elitist... I think you watch too much TV. First of all I don't consider being an elitist a pejorative like you apparently do. Secondly there's huge sections of our Constitution that seem to also think that what is right and wrong shouldn't be put up to a majority vote. Then again, the founding fathers were elitists.

 

[SAWYER]

I don't give a shit who someone screws, if they want to serve their country then I salute them

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
I don't give a shit who someone screws, if they want to serve their country then I salute them

I don't care whether someone's gay, if they want to kill people because the government says to, I tell them they need to at least wait until we have a better government elected.

 

[SAWYER]

You make it sound like the US military is a renegade mob group.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Deptacon
Im in the Army...I'm in a combat unit...I have been in combat....

It won't work.... I have seen lesser things break unit cohesion.... I am not a 'gay basher" at all... I have family members who are.... But like women in combat line units.... it just won't work.

Then again...its just my opinion

I also served in the Army...in combat units...and have been in combat...and think it would work.

I love my instant credibility

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
-snip-
He's trying to discredit the study by discrediting the author. It's a simple ploy to used to try to invalidate what someone does not want to hear without actually having to go through the hassle of proving anything how the study was actually conducted.

Hmmm... Sounds a lot like what goes on when someone here posts studies debunking MMGW.



Fern

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Butterbean
That group and its "study" are a total joke. The Michael D. Palm Center was formerly known as the "Center for Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military". It's a homosexual group that's only concerned with forcing homosexuality into the military: " This is an activist group that has promoted homosexuals in the military for years?usually by releasing or promoting various faux ?studies? that cannot withstand close scrutiny. "

http://www.cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?DocID=287

Most half legit polls of military people show around 75% do not support changing policy for homosexuals - even less support it it when informed of the "sensitivity" training (brainwashing) that would ensue should anyone not be happy with homosexuality being forced on them.

With the exploding epidemics of MRSA and VRE in homosexual populations it would be a crime to encourage a disease multiplying behavior in the close ranks of the military.

"This is the horror scenario," she said. "We have very little time left."
Dr Perdreau-Remington on MRSA/VRE

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...08/01/15/MNUKUDB6D.DTL


As sensible people know "homophobia" is no reason to justify changes in the military because its just a pollitical tool designed to intimidate people from their common sense. As former APA president Nicholas Cummings said ""'Homophobia as intimidation' is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda. Sadly, I have seen militant gay men and lesbians-- who I am certain do not represent all homosexuals, and who themselves have been the object of derision and oppression-- once gaining freedom and power, then becoming oppressors themselves."

Cummings also stated regarding that when APA conducts research they only do so "when they know what the outcome is going to be...only research with predictably favorable outcomes is permissible." So we can put away our little studies from the APA as well as the Michale Palm study.

The fact is the military is still moderatlay functional and the liberals and their "special interest" groups cant stand it. It still has a shadow left of a masculine ethic and the feminized left resent it deeply. They would like nothing more than to turn the military into a play are for their little sensitivity trainings, mind screws and all the insane politically correct red tape that will doubtlessly ensue.

Comparing the US to Israel is not wise because military is compulsory in Israel and not in the US. Israels's military has also gone downhill a great since the 90's (when homosexual were allowed openly) and Lebanon woke people up to how bad its become.

Liberalism destroys everything it touches if not restrained. Homosexual political groups only care about themselves and the changes they want forced.

Wow, *edited*

Please try to keep it a bit more civil or we may have to lock this thread.

T.I.A.

Fern
AnandTech P&N Moderator

Sorry mods, I call em as I see em. I'd rather you sent me on vacation than locked the thread though.

 

[cwjerome]

We all know the ARMY would founder and collapse completely with the gays. Military bearing and professionalism cannot survive the homosexuals...

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Shrug. As long as they can do their job then I could care less. Wouldn't the Navy be a better fit for them though?

Actually you are absolutely correct! The Navy will be the best Service they should join. Shower and bathe next to them in nude and the best part is to sleep in a very confine space of about 6 inches away from each other. How come if I don't like to shower and sleep right next to a gay person I'm branded as homophobic! Are gay people really that special that we have to treat them differently than normal people? That no one cannot say they don't like them (not specifically for them being gay but just because of their personality) or do not even prefer to mingle with them without ever being called an homophobic? I've disliked a number of heterosexual people but I have never been branded as "heterophobic" or "normophobic"! In fact, even with some women I disliked, I was never referred to as "womanophobic"! And yet if it's homos I dislike, I'm always branded as homophobic! But you know what? I can careless if you call me homophobic everytime I dislike homos. But I can assure you it's never about their sexual orientation rather it's about their aggressive and amoral personalities!

 

[nageov3t]

you're homophobic for assuming that a gay man can't be within 2' of a breeder without wanting to jump his bones.