Study: Gays Don't Harm Unit Cohesion

[Silverback]

WASHINGTON - Congress should repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law because the presence of gays in the military is unlikely to undermine the ability to fight and win, according to a new study released by a California-based research center.

The study was conducted by four retired military officers, including the three-star Air Force lieutenant general who in early 1993 was tasked with implementing President Clinton's policy that the military stop questioning recruits on their sexual orientation.

"Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion," the officers states.

To support its contention, the panel points to the British and Israeli militaries, where it says gay people serve openly without hurting the effectiveness of combat operations.

Undermining unit cohesion was a determining factor when Congress passed the 1993 law, intended to keep the military from asking recruits their sexual orientation. In turn, service members can't say they are gay or bisexual, engage in homosexual activity or marry a member of the same sex.

Full Story

[Silverback]

Can you feel the objective getting prepped?

[Chiron]

according to a new study released by a California-based research center.

Give me a break.

[Chiron]

Now see the guy in the middle checking out the other's ass... Instead of getting ready to move he's thinking of copping a feel! And you say that gay's in the military is okay?

[Silverback]

And you say that gay's in the military is okay?

I don't think I have ever said that...

[Chiron]

And you say that gay's in the military is okay?

I don't think I have ever said that...

That wasn't meant for you, it was a general comment. I know you would never say something like that.

[Chiron]

....Instead of getting ready to move he's thinking of copping a feel!

I disagree with homosexuals being allowed to serve in the military, but I don't see the above being a serious consideration or concern....

Okay I laughed...

[GoldCoast]

... OK, I admit that I could probably be compelled to accept bi-sexual females -- as long as they were HOT and as long as each sexual encounter had to include a dude as well (at least watching).

I've got first watch. Y'all can draw lots to see who gets next. :)

[abnhawk]

Anyway, my supervisors pointed out to me that 75% of our guards there were fags. Not guys that occasionally took it up the ass or sucked a cock, but who preferred dudes to chicks.

Haha..I bet I could stir up some shit with the contractor crowd with that statement.

[Slowpoke]

Prefacing my remarks with the fact that I'm probably as against male homosexuality as you can get. It should probably be pointed out here that the Spartans no offence Pete activly recruited Gay couples because they believed that a soldier would fight harder to defend a lover than for any other reason. They don't seem to be a large problem in any other part of society and don't seem to be a problem in the Military now. I don't see where changing the wording on a piece of paper is going to change anything.

[Silverback]

Prefacing my remarks with the fact that I'm probably as against male homosexuality as you can get. It should probably be pointed out here that the Spartans no offence Pete activly recruited Gay couples because they believed that a soldier would fight harder to defend a lover than for any other reason. They don't seem to be a large problem in any other part of society and don't seem to be a problem in the Military now. I don't see where changing the wording on a piece of paper is going to change anything.

I just giggled...a guy named "Slow Poke" talking about gays...

[Ranger Bill]

I have not "progressed" enough to support gays serving in the Army.

[K.Ingraham]

Banning gays makes sense only if we ban openly practicing heterosexual men & women from serving in the same units. The issues of romances, jealousy, shower points, CoC preferential/discriminatory treatment etc already exist and the mechanisms for dealing with it have been worked out for over 30 years now. Other than prejudice, there are no issues pertaining to queers in uniform that we haven't already dealt with introducing and figuring out how to work with the women in uniform. It took an entire generation plus, but we've made that work.

Queers are a security threat only because of the ban, drop the ban & blackmail risk is nullified.

Too many fags in too many armies for too many wars throughout history to sustain any defence of the usual rationales for anti-gay policy.
Besides, you're showering with them right now. If they can 'come out', then the CoC can go ahead & make the appropriate shower point arrangements, just like we did 30 years ago for the ladies.
Worry about real issues, like obtaining & retaining capable, motivated soldiers.
We lost a few racists in '51 because they couldn't accept serving with negroes. We lost a few "studs" in '77 because they couldn't jump out of an airplane with a girlie. The Army only got better. The Army will survive the loss of anyone who suddenly can't serve with someone they did just fine alongside of before the "don't ask/don't tell" sham is abolished.
I gotta add the usual caveat: I'm as repelled by gay practices & culture as anyone, makes me want to barf, but if I'm not in the room with the boyos, really, why should I give a damn what they're doing?
If a homo asks you out, do what the girls do "just say no", and if they insist, just do what the girls do when you don't understand "no": kick 'em in the nuts.
And when they can pass RIP & serve in Regt openly just like us breeders, live with it. They're already there.