Gays responsible for Srebrenica massacre

[Admiral Yi]

Err, the point is NOT to educate new recruits to be indifferent to the sexuality of their comrades. 

The point is to educate new recruits (whether gay or straight) that they should conduct themselves professionally and should not sexually harass other recruits and soldiers. If a gay soldier is open about his sexuality (for example he is known to have a boyfriend) but he does not make uncomfortable passes against other male soldiers, does not try to sleep with them or otherwise sexually harasses them, this is it - I don't see what else you need. If others have a problem with his sexuality in such circumstances (where he does not behave inappropriately towards others), then it is their problem, in the same way a racist soldier may have a problem with a black soldier.

That's the point of a sexual harassment policy in a white collar office setting, with an eight hour, five day work schedule. 

The point is different in a combat unit living together under primitive circumstances 24 hours a day for weeks and months at a stretch.  There are elements of personal relationships that come into play in a combat unit that do not in an office.  Do you have faith that the guy next to you will risk his life to protect yours?  Do you value his approval enough to expose yourself to danger?  Are you worried that someone will jeopardize the mission or the unit because of a favorite?

And Grallon was the one who said straight/gay tensions could be educated away, not me.

And since you keep bringing up black integration, it would be useful to point out that racial divisions were a very serious issue in Vietnam.

[Martinus]

And since you keep bringing up black integration, it would be useful to point out that racial divisions were a very serious issue in Vietnam.

Yes, and? It is no longer the issue, largely because such issues are resolved through exposure.

[Martinus]

That's the point of a sexual harassment policy in a white collar office setting, with an eight hour, five day work schedule. 

The point is different in a combat unit living together under primitive circumstances 24 hours a day for weeks and months at a stretch.  There are elements of personal relationships that come into play in a combat unit that do not in an office.  Do you have faith that the guy next to you will risk his life to protect yours?  Do you value his approval enough to expose yourself to danger?  Are you worried that someone will jeopardize the mission or the unit because of a favorite?

Well this does not appear to be an issue in the militaries that allow gay people to serve openly. So what was your point again?

[Admiral Yi]

Yes, and? It is no longer the issue, largely because such issues are resolved through exposure.

Sure.  And for anyone who views gays in the military as the sole issue and is totally unconcerned about the military's ability to perform its functions that will be the end of the debate.

[Winkelried]

Yeah but Yi's question was whether Brits are doing it completely different. There is no reason to assume this is the case.

Besides, the average age for Vietnam was 19. Surely your explanation wouldn't hold water (assuming both figures are calculated in the same way). 

I doubt they sent reservists and national guard members to Vietnam. Anyway I just wanted to say that an average age of 30 doesn't mean that most members of the armed forces are necessarily around that age. Most are still immature 20 y.o. Though I agree that Brits of the same age don't seem to have the same cultural baggage in regards to gay soldiers.

[The Brain]

It does/would take a little 'getting used to'.  Of course men and women intermingling in the workplace is nothing new - even though in most cases it's under less... intimate conditions.  But we're not talking about females here since gay males are male first - homosexual second.  All iin all, nothing a thorough education cannot iron out.

And female soldiers are human first and female second.  You yourself seem to be aware of the problems that might arise when men and women are sleeping in the same foxhole under high-stress combat situations.

Maybe the comparison would make sense if in civilian schools, gyms etc men and women shared all facilities.

[Martinus]

Yeah but Yi's question was whether Brits are doing it completely different. There is no reason to assume this is the case.

Besides, the average age for Vietnam was 19. Surely your explanation wouldn't hold water (assuming both figures are calculated in the same way). 

I doubt they sent reservists and national guard members to Vietnam. Anyway I just wanted to say that an average age of 30 doesn't mean that most members of the armed forces are necessarily around that age. Most are still immature 20 y.o. Though I agree that Brits of the same age don't seem to have the same cultural baggage in regards to gay soldiers.

Well yeah that's my point. I didn't obviously mean to imply that average 30 y.o. means most soldiers are around that age, but that most are not 19 y.o. either - but in any case, my key point was that there are no reasons to assume British soldiers deployed in Afghanistan or Iraq are older than their US counterparts.

So the conclusion is that: (1) if US soldiers are not younger than UK soldiers, and (2) UK military allows openly gay people to serve in the military (and again there is no reason to assume that gay people are not being deployed), then (3) you can have a working army with gays where the said gays do not make other soldiers uncomfortable with unwanted sexual attraction.

Now, whether straight US soldiers are homophobic and would have a problem with non-intrusive gay people in a way that UK soldiers wouldn't is another question - I guess it is a question to yi and alci whether US soldiers are on a lower level of civilizational and educational development than their UK counterparts.

[The Brain]

Ooh! Ooooh! I know the answer!

[Martinus]

Yes, and? It is no longer the issue, largely because such issues are resolved through exposure.

Sure.  And for anyone who views gays in the military as the sole issue and is totally unconcerned about the military's ability to perform its functions that will be the end of the debate.

Fine. But then please stop making up fake arguments why the situation in the UK army is incomparable to the one in the US army - the only difference (if present) would be that culturally, homophobia is stronger in the US than it is in the UK.

[Admiral Yi]

Well this does not appear to be an issue in the militaries that allow gay people to serve openly. So what was your point again?

AFAIK there are exactly two peices of evidence that have been entered into the debate on the effect of openly serving gays in the military.  One is an article by a respected US miliitary journal that reviewed the experiences of five or so western armies and found no impact.  The other is the testimony by that General Homohater before Congress that the Dutch Chief of Staff told him gays caused [sic] the Sbrenica massacre.  I haven't read the journal article and I assume you haven't either.  I don't know how they evaluated small unit cohesion before and after the inclusion of gays, I don't know if they focused on combat units, or combat units in combat, or anything at all.  But it's still evidence in favor of inclusion.  So the only question is how much certainty we can attach to the future outcome. 

[Admiral Yi]

Maybe the comparison would make sense if in civilian schools, gyms etc men and women shared all facilities.

Or if straights and gays regularly went into combat together in civilian schools.

[pre-emptive Columbine joke]

[The Brain]

Maybe the comparison would make sense if in civilian schools, gyms etc men and women shared all facilities.

Or if straights and gays regularly went into combat together in civilian schools.

[pre-emptive Columbine joke]

Are you being serious?

[Admiral Yi]

Fine. But then please stop making up fake arguments why the situation in the UK army is incomparable to the one in the US army - the only difference (if present) would be that culturally, homophobia is stronger in the US than it is in the UK.

Maybe I was making up fake arguments about the Dutch army.

[Admiral Yi]

Are you being serious?

More or less.  Your argument is that since gays and straights already shit and shower together in school they should have no problems shitting, showering, and killing together in combat.  It might be different.  It might also be that military recruits from predominantly rural, southern, or midwestern locales haven't shat and showered that much with gays.

[The Brain]

Are you being serious?

More or less.  Your argument is that since gays and straights already shit and shower together in school they should have no problems shitting, showering, and killing together in combat.  It might be different.  It might also be that military recruits from predominantly rural, southern, or midwestern locales haven't shat and showered that much with gays.

Will gays as a group be more likely to join up than rednecks as a group? The idea that there would be a higher density of gays in the military may well be valid but not obviously so.

Regarding whether it is different or not we just have to look at the experience of countries that allow gays in the military. Whether their experiences support this or not I cannot say, I don't follow the gays in military issue.