Homosexuality and Military Service (Merged thread)

[DVC]

Because it would inherently negatively impact combat readiness. Homosexuality does not inherently have an effect on combat readiness.

Motorfirebox - thanks for your thoughtful post.

Questions about your statement above. If an overweight/over fat person person can pass the PT test, how does their weight negatively effect combat readiness? If it is a health concern (contention that even otherwise fit overweight/overfat people suffer more illness or injury than people within the height weight standards), have you compared the health statistics for homosexuals (even if you factor out HIV) with those of heterosexuals? This seems to be a factor that the mainstream media has really suppressed in the current debate.

[motorfirebox]

Motorfirebox - thanks for your thoughtful post.

Questions about your statement above. If an overweight/over fat person person can pass the PT test, how does their weight negatively effect combat readiness? If it is a health concern (contention that even otherwise fit overweight/overfat people suffer more illness or injury than people within the height weight standards), have you compared the health statistics for homosexuals (even if you factor out HIV) with those of heterosexuals? This seems to be a factor that the mainstream media has really suppressed in the current debate.

There are some problems with how the military measures healthy body weight. There are, indeed, a number of soldiers who, despite being very well-conditioned physically--able to easily pass their physical fitness tests--have to go out of their way to meet the military's standards for body shape. My understanding is that this more frequently happens with men who are above-average height with a lot of muscle mass.

Those are edge cases, though. If, by and large, soldiers who are overweight by whatever standard the military uses are, in fact, able to pass physical fitness tests designed around an honest expectancy of what a soldier needs to be able to accomplish on the battlefield, then the body shape standards are incorrect and should be adjusted. It's my understanding that that doesn't happen, usually (or, if it does, it's blamed on slipping physical fitness standards rather than incorrect standards for body shape). So if a fat soldier does pass his PT test, it's within the military's purview to demand that the soldier alter his body shape anyway. The soldier is an edge case, and there's no need for the military to accommodate edge cases.

Non-straight sexuality can't reasonably be considered an edge case at this point in time.

As for health risks, it's suspect how difficult it is to find articles on the topic that don't come from right-leaning or very right-leaning sources. One might think that's reasonable--that those darn lefties are just banding together to cover up the truth. The problem with this theory is that the only thing us lefties love more than bashing the right is bashing each other. We're our own kryptonite, and have been since before Reagan. If the evidence were any good, frankly, the health nut left would have brained the sexual freedom left with it by now.

[DVC]

There are some problems with how the military measures healthy body weight. There are, indeed, a number of soldiers who, despite being very well-conditioned physically--able to easily pass their physical fitness tests--have to go out of their way to meet the military's standards for body shape. My understanding is that this more frequently happens with men who are above-average height with a lot of muscle mass.

Those are edge cases, though. If, by and large, soldiers who are overweight by whatever standard the military uses are, in fact, able to pass physical fitness tests designed around an honest expectancy of what a soldier needs to be able to accomplish on the battlefield, then the body shape standards are incorrect and should be adjusted. It's my understanding that that doesn't happen, usually (or, if it does, it's blamed on slipping physical fitness standards rather than incorrect standards for body shape). So if a fat soldier does pass his PT test, it's within the military's purview to demand that the soldier alter his body shape anyway. The soldier is an edge case, and there's no need for the military to accommodate edge cases.

Non-straight sexuality can't reasonably be considered an edge case at this point in time.

As for health risks, it's suspect how difficult it is to find articles on the topic that don't come from right-leaning or very right-leaning sources. One might think that's reasonable--that those darn lefties are just banding together to cover up the truth. The problem with this theory is that the only thing us lefties love more than bashing the right is bashing each other. We're our own kryptonite, and have been since before Reagan. If the evidence were any good, frankly, the health nut left would have brained the sexual freedom left with it by now.

Motorfirebox - overweight/overfat but can pass the PT test is "edge" but homosexuals in the military is not "edge"? Statistics or other evidence to support this contention?

Release on health risks from that bastion of right wing extremism, the Center for Disease Control http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Press...STDGay2000.htm

Again, I enjoy the candid exchange.

[motorfirebox]

Motorfirebox - overweight/overfat but can pass the PT test is "edge" but homosexuals in the military is not "edge"? Statistics or other evidence to support this contention?

Release on health risks from that bastion of right wing extremism, the Center for Disease Control http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Press...STDGay2000.htm

Again, I enjoy the candid exchange.

I don't think it's edge, no. That opinion is based on my definition of the term "edge", though, so I won't bother trying to defend it.

But it doesn't matter, frankly. There is an inherent reason to try to keep soldiers fit, and both the fitness tests and the BMI standards are attempts to reach that goal. If there are edge cases where the fitness tests and BMI standards conspire against a particular soldier, well, there are ways to deal with that and one of those ways is to remove the soldier from service. But being an 'edge case' is not enough reason to boot somebody from the military. I doubt there are many, say, six-foot Filipinos who speak fluent German and were born and raised in Wisconsin. I certainly don't know any, much less any who want to serve in the military. Should we keep such soldiers out, just because there aren't many of them? I don't see any reason to do so, and this logic applies to gay soldiers as well. There is not an inherent reason to keep gay soldiers out of the military, which means there's no reason to keep gay soldiers out regardless of how many of them there are.

The military's standards for body shape occasionally screw up and exclude people who are fit for combat. The fact that the military screws up in one area is not carte blanche to screw up anywhere else. (This is probably what I should have said to your first post about BMI/fitness.)

[DVC]

I don't think it's edge, no. That opinion is based on my definition of the term "edge", though, so I won't bother trying to defend it.

But it doesn't matter, frankly. There is an inherent reason to try to keep soldiers fit, and both the fitness tests and the BMI standards are attempts to reach that goal. If there are edge cases where the fitness tests and BMI standards conspire against a particular soldier, well, there are ways to deal with that and one of those ways is to remove the soldier from service. But being an 'edge case' is not enough reason to boot somebody from the military. I doubt there are many, say, six-foot Filipinos who speak fluent German and were born and raised in Wisconsin. I certainly don't know any, much less any who want to serve in the military. Should we keep such soldiers out, just because there aren't many of them? I don't see any reason to do so, and this logic applies to gay soldiers as well. There is not an inherent reason to keep gay soldiers out of the military, which means there's no reason to keep gay soldiers out regardless of how many of them there are.

The military's standards for body shape occasionally screw up and exclude people who are fit for combat. The fact that the military screws up in one area is not carte blanche to screw up anywhere else. (This is probably what I should have said to your first post about BMI/fitness.)

Motorfirebox - let me restate my contention. I think there is reason to believe that common homosexual behaviors pose at least as great a health risk as overeating. I think the CDC report points to the dangers of homosexual behavior. Yet soldiers are discharged for overeating but homosexuality has become more or less a protected behavior in the military. The mainstream media does not cover the health problems associated with homosexual behavior because it deosn't fit with the cause celeb that affirmation of homosexuality has become for the media/Hollywood.

[selil]

Motorfirebox - let me restate my contention. I think there is reason to believe that common homosexual behaviors pose at least as great a health risk as overeating. I think the CDC report points to the dangers of homosexual behavior.

Actually the CDC report doesn't say that at all. It says that better HIV drugs have caused a lack of safe sex (risk taking behaviors). There is no contention that homosexuality is causal, it is the studied group not the causal element. The CDC report is not really research but a survey of other research (common). If you dig into that other research you will find that there are caveats all over the place that similar results are found in heterosexual populations and the issue is education not homosexuality.

Your contention would have to be that sex is as great a risk as overeating. Regardless of sexual preference and that isn't going to stand up either. Go ahead and try and recruit in a volunteer military and state NOBODY is allowed to ever have sex until they retire. I think they call that marriage.

[DVC]

Actually the CDC report doesn't say that at all. It says that better HIV drugs have caused a lack of safe sex (risk taking behaviors). There is no contention that homosexuality is causal, it is the studied group not the causal element. The CDC report is not really research but a survey of other research (common). If you dig into that other research you will find that there are caveats all over the place that similar results are found in heterosexual populations and the issue is education not homosexuality.

Your contention would have to be that sex is as great a risk as overeating. Regardless of sexual preference and that isn't going to stand up either. Go ahead and try and recruit in a volunteer military and state NOBODY is allowed to ever have sex until they retire. I think they call that marriage.

Selil - let me restate my contention-common homosexual behaviors carry health risks greater than overeating or being overweight. Overweight is a cause for discharge while homosexual behavior soon will not be.

Re: what the CDC release says. A quote:

However, this trend began to reverse as gonorrhea rates among MSM in the county increased from 225 cases per 100,000 in 1997 to at least 475 cases per 100,000 in 1999. By comparison, in 1999 the gonorrhea rate in the remainder of the county's population was approximately 44 to 49 cases per 100,000. The researchers identified a similar trend for cases of chlamydia among MSM in the county.

Understand this is a sampling of one county (King County, Washington) for the year 1999 and math was never my strong suite. That said it looks like Men who have Sex with Men (MSM in CDC terminology) had 10x the rate of gonorrhea that the rest of the population had. Or do you have a different interpretation of this data?

[Brihard]

Motorfirebox - let me restate my contention. I think there is reason to believe that common homosexual behaviors pose at least as great a health risk as overeating. I think the CDC report points to the dangers of homosexual behavior. Yet soldiers are discharged for overeating but homosexuality has become more or less a protected behavior in the military. The mainstream media does not cover the health problems associated with homosexual behavior because it deosn't fit with the cause celeb that affirmation of homosexuality has become for the media/Hollywood.

Your analogy is suspect. Are soldiers discharged for overeating, or are they discharged for being fat and unable to meet the physical demands of the job? My understanding is a soldier can eat as much of whatever he wants, as long as he meets the standards of fitness and of body fat % required.

Let's say we accept the highest figure you've offered here for gonorrhoea prevalence amongst homosexuals- 475/100,000 MSM, or 0.47%. So a bit under one in every two hundred

If we began running a list of all risky behaviours and eliminating form candidacy for membership in the armed forces every person engaging in risky behaviour that has a 1/200 chance of something bad happening, there'd be problems. Odds of alcohol dependency amongst people who drink are substantially higher than 1/200. Smoking has a host of related cancers and health concerns.

At some point people must be accountable for their own actions and for mitigating the risks they take. Would we exclude 200 smokers because one will eventually get lung cancer (arguably a more serious medical condition than the clap)? Would we allow nobody who drank to join the military, even though some will develop dependencies, or get DUIs?

The numbers you state also indicate that about 99.5% of 'MSM' homosexuals are pretty careful about their behaviour. I would venture to guess that if all 'MSM' homosexuals were subcategorized into groups based on lifestyle patterns, probably there would be a disproportionate concentration of STD cases in a much smaller subset, just as there is in the rest of society. Not every homosexual is going out to gay swingers' bars on the weekend and hooking up with whomever.

If a soldier gets fat, or if a soldier gets drunk, or if a soldier gets an STD, those are all valid reasons for the chain of command to take action to curb that soldier's behavioural excesses in whatever soldier. To collectively punish everybody who might share and arbitrary attribute with that soldier because he does something stupid does not make sense. If I had one fat soldier, I'd still let the rest eat cake. If one of them gets a DUI, I'll not tell the rest they can no longer go to the mess after work. It's funny to see risk aversion used as an argument against homosexuals being allowed in the military though.

[DVC]

Are soldiers discharged for overeating, or are they discharged for being fat and unable to meet the physical demands of the job?

Brihard, I somewhat liked my analogy. In the U.S. Army, soldiers can be discharged for being fat even if they are able to meet the physical demands of the job. Homosexuality is a fashionable cause. Who's out campaigning to end fat-o-phobia?