Sexual Orientation and Military Service

[DuncanONeil]

Perhaps but it may be more basic than that.
In the past the division of labor was between camp and hunting. In camp you can have a very social and gregarious nature. However the same behaviours on the hunt will likely leave you hungry. With the amount of time spent in such activity the needs of quiet and care likely became more ingrained, unconsciously. Add to that the observation of the manner of behaviour among the women, in primitive understanding, could easily become to be marked as difference between the genders. With the belief than supported that such actions or behaviour would label that "hunter" as a women.
Just a thought, no basis nor classroom interaction created this. The differences seem so ingrained they have to have been inculcated in the human psyche in humanities youth.

I agree, it does seem more prevalent among men. Probably because women tend to be more open about showing emotion, due to cultural conditions more than anything else. Real men don't cry, real men don't hug other men, that kind of thing. All crap, really, but that's the way we're taught.

[DuncanONeil]

Actually the fraternization rules are more about command than sex.
Think about it in terms of the business world. If the boss is dating a secretary it matters not a whit how good she is at her job. If she gets a raise or a promotion is is seen as not earned. That is the issue with fraternization.

It seems to me that any form of sexual activity in the military is seen as a distraction - hence the "no fraternising" rule for straight relationships, and no rule for gays because "there aren't any queers here". The no fraternising rule wasn't necessary before women were allowed in the forces, either, so when gays are permitted to be open about their sexuality, as they surely will before long, they, too, will be required not to fraternise.

[denuseri]

I don't know Duncun, more than a few of my friends that are in the service have told me, that if they get cuaght doing it with anyone else in thier command in the field or at sea, on even on base property in some cases; that there are consequences, even if its on shore leave or off post sometimes.

More often than not they go after the woman alone and eaither don't penalize the male or have far less harsher penalty enforced, and regardless of rank or duty assignment if it's relations with the same sex, its over they are going to be kicked out of the service period.

[IAN 2411]

You are free to contradict. I still contend, and admit I am not familiar with the pertinent documents in British service, that here in the US the governing document for courts martial is the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Note that this is not a law per se in the US but a codification of other US laws in a form unique to the military.

I understand what you are saying, but as you say you are unfamiliar with UK service law. I do know that a lot of the laws that are used today in the UK army, and were in place during the Napoleonic war. They are very much in difference to the ones you talk about, but whether UK or American, even if it were not against military law, there would be found another reason why the gays would not be allowed in the military of either country. 1: there is not an American officer above the rank of colonel which would jeopardise his/her career to openly defend a gay staying in the forces, with the fear of themselves being called camp. 2: with their stiff upper lip, and pomp and ceremony, the British officers are no different. The higher ranks, in the war departments on both sides of the pond, are full of outdated bigots, and they are dinosaurs of the free world.

Regardless of rank or duty assignment if it's relations with the same sex, its over they are going to be kicked out of the service period.

The same punishment takes place in the UK forces, and it is carried out with immediate effect. There was a case in my unit, and the two personnel were flown back to the UK from Cyprus, went to a holding camp and were dismissed from the service, all within 24 hours. There were no charges, no trial and no court martial, because gay relationships never take place in the British army.


Regards ian 2411

[denuseri]

Actually ian our chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has stood up and said before congress that "dont ask dont tell" be revised and he is about as high up as an admiral can be and still be in the military.

[Lion]

I find it sad that gays are still treated as second class citizens in most "Free" countries around the world.

I'm not a soldier, never fought in battle, so I cannot speak for the trust that one must have when fighting in the front lines. I know that the Canadian military is fighting currently in Afghanistan (yup, we have an army too ~15 000 people) with no restriction of sexual orientation, and there has not been a single story about a problem arising from someone being gay.

Secondly, not all army personel are on the front lines. If you're known to be gay, you can do anything, including drive a truck, be an interpretor, be a medic, anything! How is that just? Why don't they kick out the known Muslims off the army because it'll make things easier too? Call it the 'Don't pray don't tell' rule.

I know what it feels like to be a second class citizen, my family moved from that country to Canada for a lot of reasons, a better life was the primary concern. I know how it is when positions and possibilities are denied just because of my label, and I will never accept that another group go through what I did.

[IAN 2411]

I find it sad that gays are still treated as second class citizens in most "Free" countries around the world.

I'm not a soldier, never fought in battle, so I cannot speak for the trust that one must have when fighting in the front lines. I know that the Canadian military is fighting currently in Afghanistan (yup, we have an army too ~15 000 people) with no restriction of sexual orientation, and there has not been a single story about a problem arising from someone being gay.

Secondly, not all army personel are on the front lines. If you're known to be gay, you can do anything, including drive a truck, be an interpretor, be a medic, anything! How is that just? Why don't they kick out the known Muslims off the army because it'll make things easier too? Call it the 'Don't pray don't tell' rule.

I know what it feels like to be a second class citizen, my family moved from that country to Canada for a lot of reasons, a better life was the primary concern. I know how it is when positions and possibilities are denied just because of my label, and I will never accept that another group go through what I did.

No; you have that slightly wrong, in the UK gays have the same rights as a vanilla person. Two married lesbians can adopt a child stating that they are a family, i have to say that it goes against the grain for some bigots, but the equality laws are what the UK abides by.

Regards ian 2411

[Thorne]

Perhaps but it may be more basic than that....Add to that the observation of the manner of behaviour among the women, in primitive understanding, could easily become to be marked as difference between the genders. With the belief than supported that such actions or behaviour would label that "hunter" as a women.

I don't think you can go that far. In many primitive cultures women would hunt, supplementing the male hunters, as long as they were not pregnant or nursing. Like modern day soldiers, women could deal with the rigors of hunting just as easily as the men. The gregarious manner of women, in reality, is no different from the males bonding around the campfire, or at the local bar, after a hard day on the hunt. With the women, though, it was a more constant thing, while gathering plants and fruits, cooking, caring for the young, etc.

[IAN 2411]

I don't think you can go that far. In many primitive cultures women would hunt, supplementing the male hunters, as long as they were not pregnant or nursing. Like modern day soldiers, women could deal with the rigors of hunting just as easily as the men. The gregarious manner of women, in reality, is no different from the males bonding around the campfire, or at the local bar, after a hard day on the hunt. With the women, though, it was a more constant thing, while gathering plants and fruits, cooking, caring for the young, etc.

You are quite correct Thorn, the Amazons were not a ficticious race, they were trained by the Romans to fight in the arena. It is writen though that they became to powerful for the Romans to handle, instead of the Romans putting them to death, they were taken to the Russian stepps and released. There are tapastries showing them fighting Atilla the Hun before Siberia and the Sayan mountains were lost to the Russians. They were all women, and the stories say they attacked other villages for the men, but only for breeding, but after the women mated the men were not killed as it is generaly thought, the Amizons looked after their men and they kept house while the women went hunting. I have spent over seven years studying the Amazons, because it is part of a book that i hope to be published this year.

[denuseri]

As much fun as it may be to make blanket statements about still highly contested mythical races. It would be nice to stay on topic and perhaps open another thread for the other topic.

[Thorne]

As much fun as it may be to make blanket statements about still highly contested mythical races. It would be nice to stay on topic and perhaps open another thread for the other topic.

I'm not so sure it's off topic. The Amazons were, as he says, real, not mythical, and I'm quite sure they indulged in lesbian sex, as well as heterosexual when they wanted children. Nor were they the only female warriors in ancient times. From what I can recall (no citations, though, sorry) homosexual warriors, both male and female, were at one time considered superior warriors.

[Lion]

No; you have that slightly wrong, in the UK gays have the same rights as a vanilla person. Two married lesbians can adopt a child stating that they are a family, i have to say that it goes against the grain for some bigots, but the equality laws are what the UK abides by.

Regards ian 2411

I said most, not all. I am proud to be in a country that allows gays to have all the rights as everyone else.

Although, from what I read, gay marraige isn't yet allowed there. Everything else, thankfully, is. (adoption, military, protection against hate)

[IAN 2411]

Should the Military place restrictions on it's service members for their sexual orientation?

As much fun as it may be to make blanket statements about still highly contested mythical races. It would be nice to stay on topic and perhaps open another thread for the other topic.

The subject of Amazons is still in keeping with your original question denuseri, because to answer it with knowledge and conviction you must delve into history for reference. As thorn as stated they were a not a mythical race as some historians stated, they lived on the shores of the Black sea. They were part lesbian race, and i supose one of the first bi-sexuals, and only had sex with men once a year, and it was for breeding purposes. Taking that in mind, the Amazons had a direct bearing on your question at the beginning of this thread. Proof of reality for the Amazons came about 15 years ago when an expeditionary force of historians went to the Steppes of Russia. They dug into over twenty burial mounds out of several hundred and found all the graves to be of women, all were buried with their swords and all had bowed legs from continues riding of horses. It was also stated that at one time not only did this army of lesbian females fight against Attila the Hun, but they also joined forces with him in several battles. Throwing water on the fire, that gays cannot fight alongside heterosexuals and be successful. Attila and the Amazons were probably one of the most fierce and feared armies that roamed the Siberian plains and Mongolia.


Regards ian 2411

[denuseri]

All of which is still highly contested. A few Sythian burial mounds containing remians of a small grouping intermingled with males all buried with weapons a superiour lesbian fighting force that mated only once a year does not make.

The validity of which should have its own seperate thread where supporting evidience can be presented in detail becuase as a side bar it will consume a great deal of this thread which isnt here to debate their existance so much as determine if sexual orientation should be a criteria of modern militaries. Its about equal rights.

[IAN 2411]

which isnt here to debate their existance so much as determine if sexual orientation should be a criteria of modern militaries. Its about equal rights.

Russian Women

World War II
Women played a large part in most of the armed forces of the Second World War. In most countries though, women tended to serve mostly in administrative, medical and in auxiliary roles. But in the Soviet Union women fought in larger numbers in front line roles. Over 800,000 women served their Motherland in World War II; nearly 200,000 of them were decorated and 89 of them eventually received the Soviet Union’s highest award, the Hero of the Soviet Union. They served as pilots, snipers, machine gunners, tank crew members and partisans, as well as in auxiliary roles.

Land forces
The Soviet Union also used women for sniping duties extensively, and to great effect, including Nina Alexeyevna Lobkovskaya and Ukrainian Lyudmila Pavlichenko (who killed over 300 enemy soldiers). The Soviets found that sniper duties fit women well, since good snipers are patient, careful, deliberate, can avoid hand-to-hand combat, and need higher levels of aerobic conditioning than other troops. Women also served as machine gunners, tank drivers, medics, communication personnel and political officers. Manshuk Mametova was a machine gunner from Kazakhstan and was the first Soviet Asian woman to receive the Hero of the Soviet Union for acts of bravery.


I said in my last post denuseri, that the only way you can argue a case for equality is have a firm basis to work from. Now the above paragraphs state a case for women’s equality that no one can argue with, now as you say it might be a good idea to find one for the gays and lesbian community.

Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

I had no intent to discount what you said here. Though that is in the specific, rather than the general. One of the big arguments in SCA was the reality of women fighters in the ages represented. The women proved their case!
It is just that I see the general nature of the species and it division of labor as being a potential for the differences in PDAs. As for bonding, true, but that bonding also usually centers around shared activities, which also would make for differences in PDAs.
As basic as I can put it male/male PDAs and female/female PDA are likely to have arisen as a result of our maturation as a species.

I don't think you can go that far. In many primitive cultures women would hunt, supplementing the male hunters, as long as they were not pregnant or nursing. Like modern day soldiers, women could deal with the rigors of hunting just as easily as the men. The gregarious manner of women, in reality, is no different from the males bonding around the campfire, or at the local bar, after a hard day on the hunt. With the women, though, it was a more constant thing, while gathering plants and fruits, cooking, caring for the young, etc.

[DuncanONeil]

I agree with Ian, they are not a myth. Don't know about his details though.

As much fun as it may be to make blanket statements about still highly contested mythical races. It would be nice to stay on topic and perhaps open another thread for the other topic.

[DuncanONeil]

Gays may adopt in the US!

I said most, not all. I am proud to be in a country that allows gays to have all the rights as everyone else.

Although, from what I read, gay marraige isn't yet allowed there. Everything else, thankfully, is. (adoption, military, protection against hate)

[denuseri]

Finally some progress from the pencil pushers in Washington.


From Dana Bash and Deirdre Walsh, CNN
Washington (CNN) - Congressional Democrats reached an agreement Monday with the White House and possibly the Pentagon on a key legislative step toward repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bars openly gay soldiers from the military.
In a letter to President Obama obtained by CNN, three congressional sponsors of legislation to repeal the policy outlined the proposed agreement that would set contingencies based on completion of a military review of the matter already under way and subsequent final approval from the president and military leaders.

Specifically, the proposed agreement calls for repeal to become final only after completion of the military review expected by the end of 2010, followed by a review certification from Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen.

"We have developed a legislative proposal for consideration by the House and Senate that puts a process in place to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell' once the working group has completed its review and you, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs certify that repeal can be achieved consistent with the military's standards of readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention," said the letter sent Monday night that was signed by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan; Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut; and Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pennsylvania.

The Obama administration endorsed the proposal in a letter sent to the congressmen Tuesday from Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag, who wrote that the agreement "meets the concerns raised by the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Congressional Democratic sources said they hoped Gates himself would explicitly support the compromise language because that could determine whether the measure will pass. Several Democrats in the Senate and House have said they are reluctant to support any legislation that doesn't have complete backing of the Pentagon.

There was no formal comment from the Pentagon on a possible agreement.

"Given that Congress insists on addressing this issue this week, we are trying to gain a better understanding of the legislative proposals they will be considering," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said in a statement.

Initial votes on the measure in the Senate Armed Services Committee and the full House could occur as soon as Thursday, sources said.

Joe Solmonese, president of the civil rights organization Human Rights Campaign, praised the agreement.

"We are on the brink of historic action to both strengthen our military and respect the service of lesbian and gay troops," he said in a statement Monday. "Today's announcement paves the path to fulfill the president's call to end 'don't ask, don't tell' this year and puts us one step closer to removing this stain from the laws of our nation."

The agreement emerged from a meeting Monday at the White House involving administration officials, gay rights groups and Pentagon officials, the sources said. There were also talks on Capitol Hill involving White House lawyers, Pentagon officials and staff from the offices of influential House and Senate Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the sources added.

Gates has said he supports repealing the policy, but also has launched an extensive review of how to make the change. The review won't be finished until the end of the year.

Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, recently said he would push for a measure now to repeal the law. Gates opposed the idea, saying in a letter to the House Armed Services Committee chairman that he "strongly opposed" any changes before completion of the military review.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a top Republican on defense issues, also indicated his support for the military review before any possible repeal.

"I think most members really would like to hear from our commanders and men and women in uniform and get their input on a decision like this," said Graham, a member of the Armed Services Committee.

A senior U.S. military official with direct knowledge of the review process said that the Joint Chiefs of Staff remain committed to taking the time to get views from troops.

That process is well under way, the official said, noting that a survey will go out shortly to about 70,000 troops and families to solicit their views. In addition, the official said, town hall meetings already have been held around the country and more are expected, while a website provides a place for troops to write in their views.

The official noted that military commanders have been telling the troops for weeks that the review process was intended to ensure their views were incorporated in contingency planning in the event that Congress changes the law.

According to the official, changing the process now before completing the review could be harmful because some troops believe the whole repeal initiative is an effort to appease supporters of repeal.

The military needs until the end of 2010 to figure out how to implement the repeal in terms of housing, medical and marriage benefits, as well as issues involving the reinstatement of gay soldiers previously discharged under the policy, the official said.

The Obama administration letter indicated the agreement would address those issues, saying its approach "recognizes the critical need to allow our military and their families the full opportunity to inform and shape the implementation process through a thorough understanding of their concerns, insights and suggestions."

A major problem might be determining how to reconcile the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" with federal law that defines marriage as between a man a woman, the official added.

Supporters of repealing the policy have been pressuring congressional Democrats to act now, fearing the party will lose its House or Senate majority in November's mid-term election and be unable to pass the measure then.

A senior administration official said Monday it was the understanding at the White House that "Congress is determined to act this week."

[DuncanONeil]

Should the Military place restrictions on it's service members for their sexual orientation?

The military has all kinds of restrictions on sexual activity and said restrictions are not limited to same sex issues.

Personally I think it is a red herring issue. There are gays in the military, probably always have been. This pressure is more likely aimed at aiding the Gay community in the civilian world than anything else!

[DuncanONeil]

The male - female issue is called fraternization. Same applies between the ranks.
It is not as simple an issue as many would like to call it.

Personally, I see both sides of the issue.

One one hand, no one should be restricted from serving our country if it is their wish - unless they have a physical reason they cannot do so.

On the other hand, if there are sexual relations going on within a unit, a soldier (man, woman, gay, lesbian, straight, etc) might not have his/her head completely in the battle if he or she is concerned with the safety of a loved one that is fighting side-by-side with said soldier. I believe this more than anything is the concern of the government. However, that door has already been opened by allowing women to serve in combat, so because that line has already been crossed, I feel that this specific argument is moot. If the argument is used that being forced into combat with someone who's sexual orientation makes said soldier uncomfortable, then the government MIGHT win that case, because there are enough "touchy-feely" people out there to stand behind this issue. I believe though that the military (whichever armed force the soldier serves in) instills enough maturity and bolsters patriotism to the point it overrides any misgivings about another person's sexuality.

[DuncanONeil]

And this is any difference when the specialist is a female and the boyfriend is in that threatened unit?

I think the point that steelish is trying to make is this, if there are two gay men on the front line and one of them is a specialist. Then the speicialists boyfriend, mate whatever is out in the open, but in close combat with the enamy. His borfreind has to put a rocket so close that it not only kills thirty enemy and saves sixty troops, but at the same time puts his mate in the kill zone, it will have an effect on the specialist mate to carry out his task. I believe this to be true, and you have to think vanilla to think gay in that scenario, it is sad but a possibility that a lot of people would die for the sake of one persons love. That is the scenario that the military chiefs are afraid of, and so to are the streight troops fighting beside the gay lovers. I have tried to make that as clear as i can. Please dont for one minute think that i am anti gay, becaue there are places for gays in the forces, but not in a combat batallian, because life and death depend on cool heads.

Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

0123456789

[DuncanONeil]

I have a question. What is the official position on heterosexuals? Now that women are serving on board ship and in the Army, how do they deal with relationships that grow up between male and female?

There are several things that can be done all fall under Article 134 of the UCMJ. This is a very ambiguous articles. It is considered to be the "catch all" article. For things considered to be "prejudicial to good order and discipline"

Article 134. General article:
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

Example; Cohabitation, Wrongful
"See Paragraph 60 (Article 134 - General Article).
Elements.

(1) That, during a certain period of time, the accused and another person openly and publicly lived together as husband and wife, holding themselves out as such;

(2) That the other person was not the spouse of the accused;

(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Explanation. This offense differs from adultery (see paragraph 62) in that it is not necessary to prove that one of the partners was married or that sexual intercourse took place. Public knowledge of the wrongfulness of the relationship is not required, but the partners must behave in a manner, as exhibited by conduct or language, that leads others to believe that a martial relationship exists.

Lesser included offense. Article 80—attempts

Maximum punishment. Confinement for 4 months and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 4 months.

Or; Indecent Acts With Another
See Paragraph 60 (Article 134 - General Article).
Elements.

(1) That the accused committed a certain wrongful act with a certain person;

(2) That the act was indecent; and

(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Explanation. “Indecent” signifies that form of immorality relating to sexual impurity which is not only grossly vulgar, obscene, and repugnant to common propriety, but tends to excite lust and deprave the morals with respect to sexual relations.

Lesser included offenses. Article 80—attempts

Maximum punishment. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years."

Some offenses formerly adjudicated under Article 34 have been moved to Article 120, a much more punitive Article as it is based on events such as rape.

[IAN 2411]

It seems that i overlooked this when writing my previous posts, the Laws have now been changed.






British Army Gay
Recruitment Drive Launched
By Jonathan Leake and Philip Cardy
The Sunday Times - UK
8-27-5

The army came out in style this weekend when it launched a recruitment drive aimed at tempting more gays, lesbians, transvestites and even transsexuals into the ranks.

It set up a recruitment stall at the Gay Pride festival in Manchester, backing its new-found commitment to homosexual rights by sending 10 gay and lesbian soldiers in combat trousers and tight T-shirts to join thousands of marchers on a five-mile parade through the city.

They strode out behind a float put together by the RAF, which was also recruiting. Themed on a fighter jet, it featured an oversized cockpit and a banner proudly proclaiming, "RAF rise above the rest".

At the stall, the men in uniform, complete with medals, mingled with eager would-be recruits, one dressed in tight leather shorts and a pink cowboy hat.

It was the first time the army had actively tried to recruit from such groups. It says it simply wants to tap into the talents of the gay population.

Lieutenant-Colonel Leanda Pitt, commander of regional recruiting in the northwest, said: "It is such a massive event in the Manchester calendar that we can't afford not to attend. As far as the army is concerned, sexual orientation is a private matter."

For campaigners, however, the sight of gay soldiers on parade was more reminiscent of a victory march.

It was only because gay rights groups such as Stonewall went to the European Court of Human Rights in 1999 that the Ministry of Defence was forced to lift its long-standing ban on homosexuality in the services.

Yesterday Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, welcomed the military presence at the Gay Pride march. He said: "The army is now beginning to realise that even at infantry level there are very good, tough lesbians and gay men who are capable of serving very competently. There is a huge pool of talented lesbian and gay people out there who want to serve their country."

This weekend, the MoD confirmed the new policy also applied to transvestites and transsexuals. A spokesman said: "People's sexual orientation is none of our business. We have a code of social conduct that everyone has to follow whatever their preference."

The RAF became the first of the armed forces to take part in a Gay Pride festival when it joined the same Manchester march last year.

The police have allowed uniformed officers to take part in such events since 2003. Yesterday there were contingents from three forces - Greater Manchester, Cheshire and North Yorkshire.

While the march continued, the army's recruiting stand did brisk business. The officers manning it were dressed in full military regalia, but were easily outdone by their would-be recruits: one sported a pair of red devil horns and a cape.

Captain Guy Sutcliffe said hundreds of people had taken leaflets and many more were expected to visit before the festival ends tomorrow.

He said: "We are actively recruiting anyone. We reflect society irrespective of sexuality, gender or religion." Sutcliffe said the army had 'no idea' how many gay soldiers there were within its ranks. "It's not relevant," he said. "It's not something we monitor."

Such attitudes mark a huge change within the forces. Recruitment of non-heterosexuals has only been permitted since 1999 when the European court ruled the ban on gays was against the law.

Since then, the RAF has led the way in promoting diversity. It attended last year's Manchester Gay Pride and a similar event in Brighton this year, and has also supported transsexual officers seeking sex-change treatment.

In 2000 Flight Lieutenant Eric Cookson became Flight Lieutenant Caroline Paige and last year two squadron leaders applied to have £32,000 sex-change operations and now fly as women.

Warrant Officer Lutha Magloire, 39, of the Logistic Corps, who organised the soldiers, contingent, said he had asked for 10 recruits " and got 30 volunteers. "We don't really care what sexual orientation you are if you want to come and join us in the army."

Regards ian2411

[Hamishlacastle]

ahh Deni you complicate every thing it is simple put the gays into their own battallions. the competition betweent eh gay and straight battalions would lead to a fiersom army. Can you imagine dome taliban not knowing which batallion is attacking. spoils of war and all lOl. mixing the straights and gays is not wise if they are identifiable. I think the army had the best policy in dont ask dont tell. It seems to have worked so far. Why do they openly want to enroll as being homosexual. thats like declaring your religion. or sexual fantasies. being a special class may be desirable, but it opens the door to to many other issues what about cross dressers, transsexual etc. I would be terrifying for the taliban to have bunch of men dressed in burka charging across the field lol

[Hamishlacastle]

or Gorean women who think they should be in the mens battalion because they are just as tough

[Hamishlacastle]

i WILL LEAVE THIS ISSUE TGO THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED. the military should have one law for all

[Hamishlacastle]

it is simple put the gays into their own battallions. the competition betweent eh gay and straight battalions would lead to a fiersom army. Can you imagine dome taliban not knowing which batallion is attacking. spoils of war and all lOl. mixing the straights and gays is not wise if they are identifiable. I think the army had the best policy in dont ask dont tell. It seems to have worked so far. Why do they openly want to enroll as being homosexual. thats like declaring your religion. or sexual fantasies. being a special class may be desirable, but it opens the door to to many other issues what about cross dressers, transsexual etc. I would be terrifying for the taliban to have bunch of men dressed in burka charging across the field lol

[Hamishlacastle]

I have stepped into a minefield here. I was born during the 2nd world war and lived in a war vets housing complex.(war destroys everyone not only the wounded and dead) At university I took a course on the history of war. one thing I learned is that, study after study shows that soldiers in active combat function best in groups of 5

through out history it has been said by many soldiers why didn't you run when it happened. the answer was always I couldnt leave my buddies. They were not fighting for king and country or family or god. they were fighting for each other. One thing is sure you dont want a homophoe in a squad where there is a gay. Perhaps for the future they should put the homophoes in their own groups and the rest of the straights and gays mixed. I am straight. the issue has never crossed my mind.

previously on this page I took a frivious look at it If I were in a squad I think that I would be more concerned that my back is covered than someones sexual orientation. I apologise. It comes down to the squad being able to handle hellish pressure that one man cant. they do it as a unit. If one breaks they often all do. If the unit is a band of brothers, women working as one.
I am told women have proven them selves in war. I was opposed to that, it is not the person; it is can you trust them. that is all that matters. you put your life in their care. I never thought if they were gay or not until the issue was raised a few years ago. If they want to sacrifice for their country let them and honor them for their service. like we do all military personal. not gay or straight. just soldiers serving their service to country. they should march proudly with their medals like every soldier.