If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Gays in the Military!
This discussion has been closed.
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
'cos other men might think they fancy them, 'cos gays are all rapacious sluts who'll shag anything. Same with women innit.
First sensible thing I've ever heard you say
Come on, if you were living with loads of young nubile women close quarters, you were in close contact, showering together and doing all sorts, don't tell me you wouldn't get some enjoyment out it.
Any unneccessary potential for animosty amongst soldiers is best rooted out - regardless of equality or some sense of enlightenment. It's just practicality.
As I said it's the practical world...in the ideal world the army wouldn't exist in the first place.
Democratic country. Equal representation. It would be practical if we just had one leader who arbitrarily decides what is best for the nation ... would cut out a whole load of complications like voting and squabbles in parliament but its not fair and its not representative.
In a democratic country the army is the extension of the people's will so its only right that it should be an equal opportunity employer.
No, it wouldn't be practical if we had one leader who decides everything.
And the army is an exception. Democracy and equal opportunities have little place in the forces.
Extension of the people's will? You must be joking...
Perhaps we should do away with officers and NCOs and decide things by a vote...
The Army is different from any other civilian job. If you decide to leave a civilian employer you at worst can be done for breach of contract - in the army you can go to jail (and up until recently could have theoretically been shot). It doesn't have trade unions, doesn't accept people with disabilities, is a lot tougher with most crimes than the normal courts.
The Army doesn't exist to be reflect society, but to defend it in extremis. And the reality is that the people who are prepared to put their lives on the line, tend not to be middle-class equal opportunity lawyers (thank God).
Of course it would be practical ... there'd be no debating issues, no voting, no parties. As far as governments go its about as practical as you can get.
... and your basing that on what? An extensive military career? Naturally any army has to be based upon a strict hierachial command structure to operate effectively but an army in a democratic state needs to be representative of the people.
Well I'm obviously not. Would you explain why that comment is so ridiculous?
as for crimes being punished harder than civilians ...your joking.
Doh, when I edit things I should do it properly
Things which are crimes in the military aren't even criminal in civilian life. You will also get jailed (if you're not thrown out) for even touching a bit of pot. Assault is punished much more severely by military courts rather than civilian. I've seen the SIB rip someone's rooms apart whilst investigating a rape allegation and they don't need to stick to such things as PACE - I'd much rather go up against the normal police than SIB.
Is it technically a problem to be attracted to someone you work with when in the military? It's just the same as not liking someone you work with - if you've got an ounce of professionalism, you do the job when you're meant to do the job.
As religion and race is completely different than sex and sexuality I don't see how it matters in this.
I'd be intested to here any opinions of those who can argue against the fact that gay men and women can bring complications to front line troops.
You mean like they were in Operation Enduring Freedom?
Any place where you get more than one person working together brings complications. I deny your assertion that it brings significantly more complications if some of them are gay.
Then you are blind.
The difference between people of deifferent sex and sexuality is far more obvious than people of different religion. Yes?
Again you are blind.
you seem to be unable to see anything other than hypopthetical sex related problems. In the real world it doesn't cause a problem in most cases, same as race and religion don't.
Not anyone can be gay.
Surely if you're making the statement, you should be the one backing it up with facts and examples. You can't just pluck a statement from thin air, then say "disprove it."
I don't see how the 'complications' that a gay man would bring, would be any more disruptive than having different races, or simply having two recruits who don't like each other. Competance is the only thing that should be considered in the army. This includes physical attributes (which should be the same guidelines for men and women), but also attitude. If a gay soldier is making other soldiers uncomfortable through his actions, then he is being unprofessional and should be reprimanded. But if the other soldiers are uncomfortable, purely because he is gay, then that's their problem, and something they will have to overcome if they are to be an effective soldier. Should we ban ethnic minorities, because a few racists are mistrustful of anyone who is not a white male? No. Should we ban perfectly good gay soldiers because a few homophobic people are uncomfortable around them? Not in my opinion.
I feel sorry for the few men who seem to think that, firstly, every gay man will automatically fancy them, and two, will attempt to fuck them in the arse as soon as they bend over near them. Personally, I couldn't care less if the soldiers were racist, homophobic or anything else for that matter, as long as they were absolutely professional in their jobs. If them being homophobic is effecting their ability to do the job, then we should be taking them off the front line, not all gay people. Similarly, if a gay soldier does start going round trying to shag all of his male colleages in the night, they he too should be banned.
In some barracks it might be ok. Like that womens where 4 of them were lesbians. I know in a lot of them thuogh if you just turned round to your mates - comrades etc. and said you were gay they would not be best pleased.
The issue is when people have realtionships with who they work with. It affects their work
What 'real' world are you living in?
You clearly have no idea. Its the same one that most people live in.
I agree with your ideals, but then I also have a reasonable grip on the real world.
Many straight men would not be happy living so intamately with gay men. Relationships in any job amongst any sex or sexuality get in the way of the job in hand. It's an added complication. Who want's added comlplications when lives are at stake?
Well then you ban people from having relationships with fellow soldiers then don't you? If they have a relationship and it effects their work, then they aren't being professional and should be dropped, but until then you don't exclude a group of perfectly good soldiers because of their sexuality rather than their actions.
I disagree.
In most professions nowadays, anyone with an ounce of integrity will leave their personal relationships at the door, along with any biased views they hold, and work with other human beings in a professional and dignified manner.
Anyone who can't manage this is the reason for:
1) sexual harassment laws
2) discrimination laws
3) guidelines for many professions governing 'inappropriate' relationships, and the subsequent fallout from such relationships.
We shouldn't let them into front line combat, unless all our front line troops are to be women - a force that would be far less effective I'm sure.
No disrespect there, just pointing out the obvious.
Again, I agree that this would be the ideal but it's simply not real life.
Who said anything about relationships? You seem to think that the gay soldiers are automatically going to try and get with other soldiers. If they do then they should be sacked for being unprofessional, not for being gay. A few years ago, I'm sure there would have been men who would be uncomfortable living so intimately with people of other races/religions etc.
At what point, say on the Kinsey scale, should we have the cut off?