NationStates Jolt Archive

ok, i didnt feel like going back to some ancient forgotten thread so im starting a new one.
this came from an episode of West Wing if anyone watches that show
the excuse people use for not letting openly gay people in the military serve is that its bad for troop morale. but isnt that the same argument they used to keep blacks out of the army?

As I said in the previous thread about this topic, why the fuck not?

As I said in the previous thread about this topic, why the fuck not?
I think you answered your own question. :p

Seriously, though. Even if you hate gays, why wouldn't you want them to be in the military? More dead gays.

I think you answered your own question. :p

Seriously, though. Even if you hate gays, why wouldn't you want them to be in the military? More dead gays.
So apparently it's win-win...

So apparently it's win-win...
I think so.

http://andrejkoymasky.com/liv/fam/bios1/sacr1.html

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/sacredband.html

http://members.aol.com/matrixwerx/glbthistory/thebes.htm

"


Reader's Companion to Military History





Gays in the Military
Homosexuality among soldiers is rarely discussed in either ancient or modern military histories. Yet there is enough evidence in our sources to assume that group solidarity and unit morale, together with sequestered life in the barracks and on campaign, historically have encouraged physical relationships between men-at-arms. In classical antiquity, the overt expression of male affection per se was not seen as antithetical to either battlefield courage or the maintenance of discipline and was viewed instead as an understandable expression of male aggression and desire among a sizable minority of the army and navy.

The nature of such homosexual bonds ranged widely and depended for the most part on local custom and tradition. Athenian black- and red-figure vases routinely portray infantrymen naked or in half dress, where the clear intent is to highlight뾢ven exaggerate뾲he physique of the young male: the artists assume that military scenarios are innately a part of male sexuality. At Sparta, senior hoplites developed conspicuous relationships with young trainees, where military exercise and the transmission of battle expertise were ostensibly central to the pederastic relationship. And at Thebes, a select unit of 150 paired lovers, the so-called Sacred Band, fought heroically for decades until they were annihilated at Chaeronea (338 b.c.) (q.v.). Elite units뾣rom the Sacred Band, the Praetorian Guard, and the janissaries to the Waffen SS (q.v.)뾥ave frequently entertained the reputation for both military excellence and physical ties among the soldiers themselves.

Among the Macedonian warring elite, the youth of both sexes were permanent fixtures at banquets and feasts, where drunken captains routinely squabbled over attractive lovers; the Hellenistic Greeks likewise assumed that an active bisexuality was normal behavior among their Persian and Eastern opponents. Depilation, interests in fashion, and open homosexual activity are portrayed negatively in Roman literature as symptomatic of extended duty in garrisons and of corruption by Asian practice and custom.

Nor were such homosexual interests limited to the rank and file. The Spartan king Agesilaus, Alexander and the Successors, Caesar ("every woman's man; every man's woman"), and the later emperors such as Hadrian were all known to have developed male liaisons, understood as a natural element of life in the field. In the twelfth century a.d., Richard the Lion-heart purportedly sought a physical element in his ubiquitous male companionship, and we know that many of the close cadre of military advisers that surrounded Frederick the Great in the eighteenth century were primarily homosexual. In more modern times, a number of senior officers?Baron Steuben, Stephen Decatur, Lord Kitchener, and Sir Douglas Haig 뾵ere all alleged to have preferred the select company of men, and there is no reason to doubt that this was true of a few of the more anonymous commissioned and noncommissioned officers as well.

The modern notion in many armies that all types of homosexual expression are both shameful and injurious to military discipline is perhaps an outgrowth of Christianity in general and in particular American Protestant thought, which has seen the army as a nation-in-arms, a moral force protecting the traditional values of the majority of its citizenry. In that sense, the contemporary and absolute (though often unenforced) prohibition of all homosexual activity in some armies is perfectly logical, but there is no historical precedent that physical affection between those of the same sex has either undermined morale or diminished the fighting capacity of the army at large.

There is scant historical evidence of female homosexuality in the military, largely because women took part in fighting generally only during sieges and in times of national catastrophe. Scholars argue whether Greco-Roman accounts of Amazon societies were exaggerations of real military castes in Africa and Asia where lesbianism, hunting, and military gallantry became feminine ideals (see Women in War).

Modern military forces have adopted various attitudes toward homosexuality. The American military's policy of "don't ask, don't tell" bridges the gulf between absolute acceptance and prohibition. Although such halfway measures inevitably pose bureaucratic and legal challenges, the tolerance for homosexuals, but not overt homosexual acts, is actually consistent with most past armies' practice.

Victor Davis Hanson

K. J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality (1978); Randy Shilts, Conduct Unbecoming (1993)."

Source: http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/mil/html/mh_019800_gaysinthemil.htm

I think homosexuals should be allowed into the armed services if they so desire. During a conflict, a government should be appreciative of any willingness of the community to assist in combat.

I imagine that if homosexuals were permitted to join, there would initially be significant animosity directed toward them, as is often the case when cultural change is top-down rather than grassroots.

With the military such a haven for facilitating close friendships between service personell, I'd expect that over time homosexuals would prove their worth and their courage just as other alienated groups have done before them. It would be yet another opportunity for people to experience that homosexuals are just like everybody else. Just because someone's gay doesn't mean they're obligated to try to hump you. Homosexuals have standards too.

I thought this was more a point for the Navy... *COUGH*

I mean frankly, who cares. Let them in, why not, they're citizens like anyone else.

In this day and age in the US, I think that argument about morale is pretty much dead. Even if it were a valid argument once, I dont think it applies any longer. The fact is, with the sheer number of gays who have come out of the closet in the last decade people have been forced to come to terms with the fact that homosexuals are ordinary people. Being gay today is nothing like it was a few decades ago, and I dont think the argument holds water any longer even if we assume it did once.

Curious line of thought...
Could some of the resistance to Gays in the military steam from a traditional military culture that objectifies women. Were there men who were attracted to other men present, males would have to wonder if they were now being viewed as sexual objects rather than people. Some men may feel they are being reduced to the same status as women by being viewed in such a light.

I have no idea if this is a factor, but it would make some sense to me as homophobia and sexism seem to linked. Personally, I think "Don't ask don't tell is an affront to civil rights. If gays and lesbians have to pay taxes and obey the rule of law, they are entitled to equal treatment in every facet of life.

Right now, the US is in an unescapable quagmire. They need all the help they can get. To be refusing help from ANYONE during a war (ie gays) seems both hypocritical, and frankly, stupid.

Over here in the UK, when the idea of allowing openly gay men into the armed forces was proposed (back in 2002, I think. Could be wrong), it was supported by only a narrow margin of the army elite. Now it's almost universally regarded as a good move, with one senior army official coming out only a few months ago, saying that he now thought that the level of tolerance in the army was enough for him to do so.

So it only takes the legislation to be brought in for such a difference to be made; I just hope such a move can be made in the US.

The guys in the military are just afraid they'll be made into someone's bitch

The root of the issue is what best maintains discipline, and what undermines it.

Without discipline, a military unit is little more than a rabble, with it, miracles can be achieved.

Introducing a sexual dimension into a military unit would undermine discipline, best case scenario, a little bit of favouritism, worst case, Abu Ghraib.

Ergo, keep gays out.

Anything that would make a military unit fight below the standard, shouldn't be allowed. If homosexuals in the Army give units friction amoung the members, then their performance will go in the tank and thats one more dead unit.

It seems that most people are missing the point. Its not IF we should let homosexuals into the military, its what do we do about the Homosexuals already IN the military, and those joining up every day!

Its not like we've "rooted them from our ranks" we simply aren't letting them serve while openly gay. There are already thousands of gay men and women serving with our troops. They aren't going anywhere, and they only get in trouble if they admit who they are.

That's the idiocy of our current policy, we can't bring ourselves to be so bigoted and stupid that we'll make the effort of actively hunting them and kicking them out of the military. Not only that, we can't be bothered to actively discourage homosexuals from joining either! We're lazy!

If the United States military is going to be bigoted, they damn well better get off their speading behinds and do it. None of this half-cocked "Don't ask don't tell" bull, put derogatory banners all around basecamp, put anti-homosexual literature in the recruitment office, force people to declare their sexuality and discharge any who put down "homosexual" on the form.

As it is, they're there, they're queer, and nobody seems to realize that there's nothing to be gained by pussyfooting around the issue. Let them serve openly or don't let them serve. Period. Anything else is just delaying the inevitable.

Either allow homosexuals to serve openly or hunt them down and kick them out. Period. They are in the military as we speak, serving our nation, protecting our freedoms, let us now decide wether or not we are bigoted enough against their sexuality to force them to stop protecting us.

It seems that most people are missing the point. Its not IF we should let homosexuals into the military, its what do we do about the Homosexuals already IN the military, and those joining up every day!

I guess I can't argue with that, just the context in which you say it.

Its not like we've "rooted them from our ranks" we simply aren't letting them serve while openly gay.

For a good reason.

There are already thousands of gay men and women serving with our troops.

You have no source anywhere yo back up that statement. Otherwise you would have posted it.


That's the idiocy of our current policy, we can't bring ourselves to be so bigoted and stupid that we'll make the effort of actively hunting them and kicking them out of the military. Not only that, we can't be bothered to actively discourage homosexuals from joining either! We're lazy!

I think you're a moron and so is your strawman.

If the United States military is going to be bigoted, they damn well better get off their speading behinds and do it. None of this half-cocked "Don't ask don't tell" bull, put derogatory banners all around basecamp, put anti-homosexual literature in the recruitment office, force people to declare their sexuality and discharge any who put down "homosexual" on the form.

God you're an idiot.

As it is, they're there, they're queer, and nobody seems to realize that there's nothing to be gained by pussyfooting around the issue. Let them serve openly or don't let them serve. Period. Anything else is just delaying the inevitable.

Some gays are good soldiers, but that doesn't mean they make the other soldiers comfortable around them. Hence the don't ask don't tell.

Either allow homosexuals to serve openly or hunt them down and kick them out. Period. They are in the military as we speak, serving our nation, protecting our freedoms, let us now decide wether or not we are bigoted enough against their sexuality to force them to stop protecting us.


Do not post in this thread anymore.

I guess I can't argue with that, just the context in which you say it.
For a good reason.

You have no source anywhere yo back up that statement. Otherwise you would have posted it.

I think you're a moron and so is your strawman.
God you're an idiot.

Some gays are good soldiers, but that doesn't mean they make the other soldiers comfortable around them. Hence the don't ask don't tell.

Do not post in this thread anymore.

Check me on this people, but is this not flaming? I mean he directly called another poster an idiot, a moron, then ordered me not to post.

Am I wrong on this?

Check me on this people, but is this not flaming? I mean he directly called another poster an idiot, a moron, then ordered me not to post.

Am I wrong on this?
You shouldn't bait.

The only argument I can ever see put forward against gays in the military is that there is a danger of creating friction in the unit and reducing its effectiveness.

The problem with that argument is that it is the same one used to argue against Blacks being let into the military. They argued that interracial military units would create friction. And, in the short term, it may have done. But the unit changed and the unit got over it.

I don't see any problem with it. If they can defend their country as well as the next person then so be it. Isn't that what really matters?

ok, i didnt feel like going back to some ancient forgotten thread so im starting a new one.
this came from an episode of West Wing if anyone watches that show
the excuse people use for not letting openly gay people in the military serve is that its bad for troop morale. but isnt that the same argument they used to keep blacks out of the army?

Anyone who watches the West Wing to get their political feed needs their head examined.

I will remind you that prior to Clinton, the policy was open to allow a gay person to be retained or dropped at the commander's discretion. This usually meant that most gay soldiers stayed in the military - unless your commander was an asshole.

I will also remind you that there are many other ways to get rid of soldiers a commander doesn't like (let's say the soldier in question is not gay, but is an asshole). You can even put someone out "for the good of the Army" and not say why.

So, when I was in, there were many gay and lesbian soldiers - and most of us knew they were gay or lesbian. It didn't matter to us, and wasn't a morale problem.

One thing that non-military people do not understand is the concept of "an order" and "commander's discretion". If the President gives an order, no one may exercise discretion - it must be followed to the letter with an absolute minimum of interpretation.

Clinton did not understand this.

So when Clinton implemented "don't ask, don't tell" his "order" resulted in the highest number of gays and lesbians to ever be thrown out of the military in the entire history of the military.

Thanks, Bill. Good job on screwing over the people who voted for you, and for not understanding how being Commander in Chief doesn't mix well with micromanaging.

Illegal, but just separate the gays and not gays. While there will still be friction, it will be lessened.
Two major points for this attitude
Heterosexual men do not like to shower with gay men. (Be similar to women showering with men)
Which self-respecting enemy wants to fight and get killed/captured by gays

Officer "I have good and bad news regarding your sons death"
Father "What"
Officer "The good news is he died fighting the americans, and protecting Holy islam against the infidels"
Father "That is some comfort, What is the bad?"
Officer "He was killed by the Pink Platoon"
Father "NOOO!!!"

The American mentality is still too "backward" to accept openly gay men/women in the military. Any concerns over morale, etc., should look at the success that Western European countries have had. But, I don't know why any homosexual would want to serve for a government who openly discriminates against them.

Illegal, but just separate the gays and not gays. While there will still be friction, it will be lessened.
Two major points for this attitude
Heterosexual men do not like to shower with gay men. (Be similar to women showering with men)
Which self-respecting enemy wants to fight and get killed/captured by gays

Officer "I have good and bad news regarding your sons death"
Father "What"
Officer "The good news is he died fighting the americans, and protecting Holy islam against the infidels"
Father "That is some comfort, What is the bad?"
Officer "He was killed by the Pink Platoon"
Father "NOOO!!!"


I was in the Army from 1987 to 1991. There were gays and lesbians there - and I served with them - and everyone knew they were homosexual.

No one had a problem in the showers.

In fact, you'll find that if you go to the field, and you have to take a crap, you eventually don't care too much if you're dropping your pants in front of ANYONE. If you have to go, you have to go.

People who believe that Americans are too uptight to have gays serve in the military have never seen or observed American soldiers up close. While certain people in the government might have a problem with it, the soldiers most certainly do not have a problem with it.

Refer to my previous post. Clinton was the one who dumped more gays out of the military at once than any President in history.

Let's just start up Gay divisions and what not. Sure they may not be the meanest in the military, but they sure look fabulous. We could even give them fun names like "the Rainbow Warriors", the "Glory Hole Assault Team", the "Backdoor Bandits", etc.

Whispering Legs is right, commander's discretion is the best way. Referring back to my post, the root of this issue is discipline, commander's discretion allows problems to be removed, and people who are not problematic to stay.

Whispering Legs is right, commander's discretion is the best way. Referring back to my post, the root of this issue is discipline, commander's discretion allows problems to be removed, and people who are not problematic to stay.

Indeed. In the Army, the commander has the discretion to remove fat people from the Army. It doesn't always happen - if the person can still do their job, very often the commander lets them stay.

And, as I said, there's always the loophole, "for the good of the Army" which the commander never has to define.

Clinton really screwed the military and screwed the gays and lesbians with his stupid order.

It seems that most people are missing the point. Its not IF we should let homosexuals into the military, its what do we do about the Homosexuals already IN the military, and those joining up every day!
Okay, I'll go along with that.

Its not like we've "rooted them from our ranks" we simply aren't letting them serve while openly gay. There are already thousands of gay men and women serving with our troops. They aren't going anywhere, and they only get in trouble if they admit who they are.
And that, for the most part.

That's the idiocy of our current policy, we can't bring ourselves to be so bigoted and stupid that we'll make the effort of actively hunting them and kicking them out of the military. Not only that, we can't be bothered to actively discourage homosexuals from joining either! We're lazy!
I agree with that for the most part, but obviously not for the same reasons.

If the United States military is going to be bigoted, they damn well better get off their speading behinds and do it. None of this half-cocked "Don't ask don't tell" bull, put derogatory banners all around basecamp, put anti-homosexual literature in the recruitment office, force people to declare their sexuality and discharge any who put down "homosexual" on the form.
I don't agree with this at all.

As it is, they're there, they're queer, and nobody seems to realize that there's nothing to be gained by pussyfooting around the issue. Let them serve openly or don't let them serve. Period. Anything else is just delaying the inevitable.
Okay, I pretty much agree with that.

Either allow homosexuals to serve openly or hunt them down and kick them out. Period. They are in the military as we speak, serving our nation, protecting our freedoms, let us now decide wether or not we are bigoted enough against their sexuality to force them to stop protecting us.
I pretty much agree with that.

Illegal, but just separate the gays and not gays. While there will still be friction, it will be lessened.
Two major points for this attitude
Heterosexual men do not like to shower with gay men. (Be similar to women showering with men)
Which self-respecting enemy wants to fight and get killed/captured by gays

Officer "I have good and bad news regarding your sons death"
Father "What"
Officer "The good news is he died fighting the americans, and protecting Holy islam against the infidels"
Father "That is some comfort, What is the bad?"
Officer "He was killed by the Pink Platoon"
Father "NOOO!!!"
Wouldn't you rather destroy the enemy's morale and cause as many blows to the ego as you possibly can?

Hah theres a whole load of funny literature and pictures on gays in the army.

Not being hostile or anything, but wouldn't gays develop an attraction to each other, a serious infatuation, and then if one parter in that relationship gets killed, it would cause an emotional break down of the remaining parter and he would be useless in combat? I don't know, it just seems like a little bit of a risk to me.

Hah theres a whole load of funny literature and pictures on gays in the army.

Not being hostile or anything, but wouldn't gays develop an attraction to each other, a serious infatuation, and then if one parter in that relationship gets killed, it would cause an emotional break down of the remaining parter and he would be useless in combat? I don't know, it just seems like a little bit of a risk to me.

Ordinary heterosexuals develop an attraction to each other in combat. And if one partner in that relationship gets killed, it does cause problems.

Go back and try again.

I agree with Niccolo.