your opinion on gays in the military

[drynoc]

I knew someone would bring that up. But it doesn't wash: it is possible to objectively measure the difference (or lack thereof) in performance between two men of different races, and conclude that there is no reason to exclude blacks (at the same time being careful not to establish set asides for them, either). This can also be done for the physical differences between the sexes, and was not done, hence the headaches we see today. This cannot be done for the differences in outlook, attraction, and chemistry between men and women and between straights and gays. It is purely subjective. Some minor allowance has been made for the differences between men and women, but there are none proposed, and none possible that I can think of, for those between straight and gay.

[WouldaShoulda]

Originally Posted by midlifesailor

The comments against gays in the military struck me as sounding very much like the sentiments of those that would have prefered African Americans either not serve or serve only in the most menial tasks about 60years ago.

Thank goodness you have gotten caught up to the 20th century and left behind Sparta!!

But that's a good point and affirms my own thoughts.

As unfair as it was, wasn't the WWII solution better and more effective for it's day??

There was no need to re-fight the Civil War as well as the Axis!!

[bljones]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

" first instituting all gay units?"
Let's not put the cart ahead of the horse. First, we'll need to give due consideration to getting rid of those horridly dull uniforms. And did you know, the military has absolutely no provision for uniform sweaters worn on the back and tied around your neck?
You can't seriously expect a gay regiment to do ANYTHING with KHAKI?!
At least the Marines have brass buttons and tailors, that's a much better place to start.

I applaud you for studiously avoiding the use of the word "fabulous!"

[sailaway21]

Originally Posted by midlifesailor

The comments against gays in the military struck me as sounding very much like the sentiments of those that would have prefered African Americans either not serve or serve only in the most menial tasks about 60years ago. So then perhaps, gays should be integrated as African Americans were by first instituting all gay units?

If our enemys share the sentiment of many in this thread, such units would be more feared than the Gengis Kahn, Sherman and the Waffen SS combined.

Well they must have struck you by mistake then. The comments were intended to sound much like the sentiments of those that would have preferred women not serve.

And anyone who thinks that the military's experiment with women at sea, and in combat, has been a success either knows nothing of it or is willfully lying about it.

[WouldaShoulda]

We already have a Rainbow Division with the 42nd Infantry...

Hmmm...

And the Navy!!

[SailKing1]

I have a friend who conducts training for the military pilots using simulators. His responsibility is to put them through a series of situations, see how they respond, and then train them on the proper techniques for dealing with such situations until the react accordingly.

He told me sometime back of a female pilot who had not been able to qualify in the simulator elsewhere and was transfered to him. Every time she was put in a situation she could not handle she would break down and cry. He had to reschedule her three times. (the limit) Now this guy is extreamly patient and goes out of his way to be helpful. After continuous attemps he had to fail her but was instructed not to, but to pass her on to another trainer. In other words she was to be trained until she did pass and not be held to the standards as required for everyone else. This was not an exception, but is often the rule. She was eventually passed without being able to do learn the drills. His objection is he is tasked with teaching pilots how to save their lives and those they are entrusted with and this person failed but was pushed through anyway. Typically the pilot would be grounded.

Standards are not the same even when it pertains to safety.

[AdamLein]

SailKing: I oppose affirmative action, especially in such a moronic form as you've described. But had she lived up to the standards set for pilots, then she should be counted as a military resource, no? If homosexuals can meet the standards for performance set by the military, they should be counted as military resources too. And no, there shouldn't be a different set of standards for gays/women/blacks/people from poor neighborhoods/Indians/etc.

[drynoc]

As I mentioned earlier, it is not possible to lump subjective differences in with physical ones. The subjective differences (sex, orientation, even religion) don't have "yes or no" answers to them: there are far too many factors that can't be measured, but which have to be taken into account when you are trying to build an efficient fighting force. The ideal force would be all blood related men, since they would have that camaraderie among them even before training. This isn't possible so the forces are forced to get as close as they can. It should be obvious why women and gays do not fit into this scenario, other than under desparate circumstances. The Israelis, who are surrounded by enemies and who are under pressure just to survive every day, used women in combat in the 1967 war, and even in those difficult circumstances decided that it didn't work. If you want to see a modern example of a fighting force that must be efficient to survive, and which, by virtue of the fact that it has no time or resources for social experiments, look to the Israelis.

[sailaway21]

I'd agree with drynoc.

While my experiences with the training of women for previously male dominated professions mirrors SailKing's anecdotal experience, I'd be lying if I did not say that most passed the test. Of course, the way government does the testing you have only word of mouth to determine whether the female next to you passed on the merits or was "helped".

All of which is beside the point, as drynoc alludes. The differences in sexes, and sexuality, make for an impossible stew. One botched attempt, such as integration of women into combat forces, lead to yet other still-born attempts to expand our scope. The evaluation of, "how's that workin' out for ya?" never seems to come around. Well, it does but, no one values their career so little to tell it to the Congress.