Homosexuality and Military Service (Merged thread)

[Deus Ex]

Never seen that argument before.

FWIW, a rifle company just finished up its 7 month tour in one of the most contested areas of Panjwayi district under a female commander.

These same claims were raised over 2 decades ago when the Canadian military was fully integrated. The sky has not fallen. Really - there are better things to expend one's energy on....

Thank you for the response. Although interesting that a woman held the command and did (from the sounds of things) a good job, the tasks of the average infantryman engaged in prolonged and high intensity combat are well beyond that of your average or better than average female. I have seen this personally time and time again in training, and I've only experienced mild stuff.

You know how many 130 pound women I know who, in full kit, can drag or carry a wounded comrade, also in full kit, 50 to 200 meters? Extremely few. I don't even know of a single woman who deadlifts, or could even deadlift her own bodyweight. How many women do you know who can do a pull up from a dead hang? I'm just touching on the empirically documented biological differences that exist between men and women, differences that would put a unit in prolonged and heavy fighting in danger of not being able to accomplish core tasks.


Sure, women can shoot damn well. First time I qualified, I knew of some women with higher scores. But there is a fundamental biological difference in the brains of men that make them
far more competent, effective, and brutal in combat. Imagining women in combat appeals to the lowest common denominator of combat: a firefight at 300 meters that lasts for 30 minutes and ends as it started. Reality for infantrymen could potentially mean a ruck march of 30 miles through extremely difficult terrain at high elevations with 80 lbs of gear with minimal amounts of sleep in horrendous weather, after all of which the enemy would have to be found, closed with, and killed, possibly in close combat. Close combat where, I might add, a female has an absolute disadvantage compared to a man. Read Rommel's book, what I just described is par for the course. You know how many women I know who could do the above? None. For most men that would be pushing the utmost limits of their capabilities.

Back to the original point: the repeal of DADT should in no way be confused with or put in the same category as the inclusion of women into infantry, cavalry, or armor. If there is one thing that would make me leave my commission early, if I am fortunate enough to get combat arms (I'll know in less than 9 months), it is the inclusion of women into the above-stated branches. Call me a mysoginist, but I've worked with and trained women in combat situations (mma and military), and this is one area that they are simply not equal in.

[selil]

I have yet to encounter a single woman who I couldn't beat to death if the need arose. Women are equal to men, but not when it comes to infantry and cavalry tasks.

Deus Ex,

Caveat: I am not calling you on the carpet, or trying to insult you. So, take the following as you can and adjust fire accordingly.

First you are making a logic error of specific to be applied to the general case. It is absolutely possible to construct an argument that excludes a gender, or ethnicity. Your later discussions about carrying a comrade out of a fire fight carrying a full ruck, after a 30 mile march is a fine example of hyper specificity to a small sampling of cases. You even give a counter example yourself in stating that most men would be driven to failure.

So the question is what level must somebody meet to be given the opportunity versus excluded?

You also use a lot of absolutism (none, all, every) statements. Then handily toss out you're not interested in discussing edge cases (but, your argument is completely constructed of them). The use of superlatives are also logical fallacies, but worse they can lead to erroneous decisions based on the least evidence rather than the prJitsueponderance of the evidence.

I like your MMA example. Like you I train in a variety of martial arts (Tae Kwon Do, Judo, Jiu Jitsu , and a minimal amount of Aikido or Hap Kido). I'm not claiming any expertise it is just a point of reference. I easily beat my 19 year old sparring based on guile, strength (me 190lb, him 130lb), but he zips out a 5K in 14-15 minutes, while I plod along at 25 minutes. Simply, there are to many variables across age, training, body type, and conditioning to make any type of substantive comparison.

There is also a concern about the specifics of the example of combat. From your argument you constrain the idea of one man versus the world. I refer to this as the evil side of "army of one", but to put a kinder point on it, you forget the other guys in the squad. If as you stated earlier that even most men would be hard pressed to make the grade perhaps the argument is fully moot. Perhaps the examples of extreme are then examples of other failures that shouldn't have even happened.

I though don't hear an anti-gender argument. I hear an argument that to many soldiers (regardless of gender) are not making the grade. This would follow with recent studies by the Marine Corps, and the Army into recruits entering. The rapid escalation of cross-training and other forms of exercise based on the level of recruit entering are fine examples of adaption to the realities of a soft civilian population. I'm not interested in political correctness, but if we are going to disenfranchise and expel from opportunity half the population, the argument should be well founded and factually based.

[Infanteer]

You know how many 130 pound women I know who, in full kit, can drag or carry a wounded comrade, also in full kit, 50 to 200 meters?

The average soldier carries 50-90 lbs of gear. No soldier, with all that gear, can pick up an additional 200-300 lbs of deadweight and move it, especially in 50 degree (celcius) heat and complex terrain. While (thankfully) none of my soldiers had to be evacuated in combat, a friend related an evacuation of a mortally wounded soldier during a TIC - it took 8 soldiers 45 minutes to move him 800 meters.

Call me a mysoginist, but I've worked with and trained women in combat situations (mma and military), and this is one area that they are simply not equal in.

I don't need to read Rommel or imagine your situations. I've commanded women in a Rifle Platoon in Afghanistan (support trades - sister platoon had a female infantryman). These situations of morale and effectiveness falling apart and the images of weeping, ineffective female soldiers are simply not true. If standards of competence and fitness are kept reasonably high, then the problems don't really manifest themselves.

To avoid getting off on too much of a tangent, the issue of women in all branches of the military is not really a significant one - especially in the combat trades. Small combat units are type-A organizations, much like football or hockey teams, and appeal to certain personalities. Even with a completely open military, we see less than 1 percent of the spots filled by women. The ones who tend to end up there are usually the ones attracted to fit and demanding tasks.

[Deus Ex]

The average soldier carries 50-90 lbs of gear. No soldier, with all that gear, can pick up an additional 200-300 lbs of deadweight and move it, especially in 50 degree (celcius) heat and complex terrain. While (thankfully) none of my soldiers had to be evacuated in combat, a friend related an evacuation of a mortally wounded soldier during a TIC - it took 8 soldiers 45 minutes to move him 800 meters.



I don't need to read Rommel or imagine your situations. I've commanded women in a Rifle Platoon in Afghanistan (support trades - sister platoon had a female infantryman). These situations of morale and effectiveness falling apart and the images of weeping, ineffective female soldiers are simply not true. If standards of competence and fitness are kept reasonably high, then the problems don't really manifest themselves.

To avoid getting off on too much of a tangent, the issue of women in all branches of the military is not really a significant one - especially in the combat trades. Small combat units are type-A organizations, much like football or hockey teams, and appeal to certain personalities. Even with a completely open military, we see less than 1 percent of the spots filled by women. The ones who tend to end up there are usually the ones attracted to fit and demanding tasks.

I greatly appreciate and respect your service in commanding a rifle platoon. I mean absolutely no disrespect when I ask the following questions:
At what intensity level was the combat your rifle platoon experienced during their tour? Was your female-integrated rifle plt. conducting dismounted patrols? If so, how often? What was your optempo like? How many casualties did you suffer? Was contact with the enemy based around them initiating distant ambushes and employing ieds, or did your men and women seek to close with and kill the Taliban? How heavy was your kit load for an average dismounted patrol? What part of Afghanistan were you deployed to?

[Deus Ex]

Deus Ex,

Caveat: I am not calling you on the carpet, or trying to insult you. So, take the following as you can and adjust fire accordingly.

First you are making a logic error of specific to be applied to the general case. It is absolutely possible to construct an argument that excludes a gender, or ethnicity. Your later discussions about carrying a comrade out of a fire fight carrying a full ruck, after a 30 mile march is a fine example of hyper specificity to a small sampling of cases. You even give a counter example yourself in stating that most men would be driven to failure.

So the question is what level must somebody meet to be given the opportunity versus excluded?

You also use a lot of absolutism (none, all, every) statements. Then handily toss out you're not interested in discussing edge cases (but, your argument is completely constructed of them). The use of superlatives are also logical fallacies, but worse they can lead to erroneous decisions based on the least evidence rather than the preponderance of the evidence.

I like your MMA example. Like you I train in a variety of martial arts (Tae Kwon Do, Judo, Jiu Jitsu , and a minimal amount of Aikido or Hap Kido). I'm not claiming any expertise it is just a point of reference. I easily beat my 19 year old sparring based on guile, strength (me 190lb, him 130lb), but he zips out a 5K in 14-15 minutes, while I plod along at 25 minutes. Simply, there are to many variables across age, training, body type, and conditioning to make any type of substantive comparison.

There is also a concern about the specifics of the example of combat. From your argument you constrain the idea of one man versus the world. I refer to this as the evil side of "army of one", but to put a kinder point on it, you forget the other guys in the squad. If as you stated earlier that even most men would be hard pressed to make the grade perhaps the argument is fully moot. Perhaps the examples of extreme are then examples of other failures that shouldn't have even happened.

I though don't hear an anti-gender argument. I hear an argument that to many soldiers (regardless of gender) are not making the grade. This would follow with recent studies by the Marine Corps, and the Army into recruits entering. The rapid escalation of cross-training and other forms of exercise based on the level of recruit entering are fine examples of adaption to the realities of a soft civilian population. I'm not interested in political correctness, but if we are going to disenfranchise and expel from opportunity half the population, the argument should be well founded and factually based.

No offense taken at all, I enjoy the debate.

I think we are in pretty fundamental disagreement. My example of what an infantryman is expected to do is not an example of hyper specificity. Although it may be an exceedingly difficult and trying experience for a well conditioned infantryman, it was, like I said, par for the course for the Württemberg infantry Rommel commanded. They were not some ultra elite unit. They were simply veteran infantry in an above average unit led by a genius. I didn't say most men would be driven to failure (although most civilian men, without training, would of course fail and die). I said that for a well trained infantrymen it would be a very trying experience. An infantryman is expected to be adaptable and capable of fighting successfully in an innumerable amount of circumstances.

My 1st Sergeant during training last summer was a cav guy. His basic + AIT training many years back involved a 25 mile ruck march test in full gear in incredibly hot weather. How many women could complete that? I'm willing to bet for every 10 guys who could do that, you would find 1 woman (tops!) who could as well.

The best part about this is that thus far we have merely discussed the basic physical qualities necessary to be in prolonged and varied combat in high intensity warfare (which I posit 99% of women are not capable of, or if capable, would be decisively less efficient at than men). We haven't discussed the myriad of other factors that would make the choice obvious to exclude women from combat arms MOSs like infantry/cav:
1) The clearly separate evolutionary track that male and female brains took in regard to combat.
2) The problems of potential integration of women into Knox and Benning. Having had multiple friends go through Benning and Knox, and friends who went to Jackson and other joke training centers, there is an absolute difference in difficulty and training when women get involved. If you deny this, you're either mendacious of ill informed. Knox and Benning stay more difficult because women are not there, and because men in combat arms are held to a higher standard.
3) I have read about Israel forming an all female infantry unit. It was said to be an abject failure and the Israelis relegated it to innocuous border duty before disbanding it. If anyone has any further information on this topic I'd be very interested in reading more.
4) Before we can even consider putting women in the infantry/cav, we must correct that women are held to a FAR lower standard on the PT test (Army) that is pitifully easy to pass. The minimum amount of push ups for men is the MAX for women. The minimum passing time on the 2 mile run for men is again the MAX for women. A real test for a combat arms fitness would be something more similar to this.

My MMA training involves real fighting. No offense, but Tae Kwon Do, non Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Aikido, and Hap Kido are not very effective martial arts. This Hollywood crap of a 125 lb female doing spinning and ineffective Tae Kwon Do kicks against a mob of built men is utter fantasy. If the above-stated were effective, I would be seeing fighters using those martial arts in Mixed Martial Arts. Those styles simply do not train in a realistic and brutal enough fashion for street fighting or MMA. I have trained in the four most proven martial arts: Muay Thai, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, wrestling, and boxing. I have done this for years, and it teaches you hard lessons about waxing philosophically on issues that are settled by kinetic force. For no fault of their own, women have never been even close to equal in any of those fighting styles. Not in my elite fighting gym, and not in higher organizations like the UFC, K1, Dream, Pride, etc. On the battlefield, there are no weight classes. The bullets fired by your enemy do not give a damn that Pvt. Susie Baker can run 2 miles in 15:30 for a 100 point score on her PT test. The burly Chechen foreign fighter who is about to bludgeon to death with his AK-47 a decidedly disadvantaged 5 foot 4 130 lb female soldier does not care about the feminist cause, or equal rights, or her entirely unrelated score on the joke that is the PT test. This is real life. And people will die.

I must restate again that this is a very separate issue from DADT. We already have gay men and women in the service. They have not affected the quality of our military. I personally know gay people in the Army, a few are open about it to trustworthy individuals, and the majority are in the closet. They are already here, working hard, and doing just as well as anyone else, if not better. We do not have women in situations that can be comparable to what infantrymen and cavalrymen must endure. There is no precedent for women in high intensity warfare that can be objectively evaluated. If all signs indicate that women are not as physically and mentally capable of conducting high intensity warfare, the onus is on you to provide evidence that women are not only capable, but will not detract from the quality of combat arms.

To open the channels to women entering infantry and cav would be the height of stupidity.

[motorfirebox]

I'm going to defer to Infanteer on the topic of combat viability. (Mostly because he agrees with me )

All right, what value does ending DA/DT provide?

Equality. It is inarguable that gay soldiers receive unequal treatment in the military under DADT. Our founding documents make it clear that equality is a virtue in and of itself.

Where is this right found? I haven't seen it anywhere. Or are you arguing that there should be a right to serve.

Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The 9th Amendment applies, here. The reason the 9th Amendment exists is that the Founding Fathers feared that creating a specific list of rights could be taken as an exclusion of any rights not listed. Being denied entry into any government enterprise based on opinion of personal choices, rather than any actual deleterious effects related to entry, seems like exactly what the 9th Amendment was included to prevent.

I simply do not understand this. I cannot fathom how anyone thinks integrating females into combat arms and the repeal of DADT are in any way the linked. 82 already responded appropriately, but this seems to be a developing trend and it worries the hell out of me.

I was mainly responding to JMA's assertion that the main reason to bar openly gay soldiers from serving is that it would create sexual tension.

[selil]

I think we are in pretty fundamental disagreement. My example of what an infantryman is expected to do is not an example of hyper specificity. Although it may be an exceedingly difficult and trying experience for a well conditioned infantryman, it was, like I said, par for the course for the Württemberg infantry Rommel commanded.

Unfortunately we are not dealing with Rommels infantry nor are most of the people to be found in the current military of America going to be conditioned by the blue collar jobs and strength over brains career of early industrial Europe. Watching Restrepo as the Marine unit moved on to OP Restrepo struggled heavily and that hike wasn't nearing 20 miles.

Simply put the use case for exclusion is an aberration rather than a standard.

My 1st Sergeant during training last summer was a cav guy. His basic + AIT training many years back involved a 25 mile ruck march test in full gear in incredibly hot weather. How many women could complete that? I'm willing to bet for every 10 guys who could do that, you would find 1 woman (tops!) who could as well.

So, your 1st Sgt and I likely were in the Army around the same time. More on this later.

The best part about this is that thus far we have merely discussed the basic physical qualities necessary to be in prolonged and varied combat in high intensity warfare (which I posit 99% of women are not capable of, or if capable, would be decisively less efficient at than men). We haven't discussed the myriad of other factors that would make the choice obvious to exclude women from combat arms MOSs like infantry/cav:

I'm still not why if a woman could meet the physical entry requirements why would you expel her? Entry requirements that are non-gender based are good for quality, but other than gender why would you exclude?

1) The clearly separate evolutionary track that male and female brains took in regard to combat.

There is no well founded science to this point. You can find citations to this point, but close study will show that women are perfectly capable of tripping the trigger..

2) The problems of potential integration of women into Knox and Benning. Having had multiple friends go through Benning and Knox, and friends who went to Jackson and other joke training centers, there is an absolute difference in difficulty and training when women get involved. If you deny this, you're either mendacious of ill informed. Knox and Benning stay more difficult because women are not there, and because men in combat arms are held to a higher standard.

Back to your 1st sgt. I personally went through Knox around 25 years ago. But, wait.. There is more. I also went through MCRD San Diego around 24 years ago. Then about 22 years ago I went through Police Academy. That puts me through basic training, boot camp, and a law enforcement academy. Do I get any personal cred points to say I have a clue what it means to hump a ruck old style on my back instead of in a jeep?

The point succinctly is that humping an M60 with ammo 25 miles (I've done it numerous times because I'm fat) is back breaking work. If somebody can do it, and they want the job they should be allowed to do it. If they can't do it then they shouldn't be allowed to do it. Regardless of gender. This point is likely moot because we can likely count on one hand the number of women who WANT to do it, and CAN do it. And, likely all five could kick our rumps easily. Exclusivity at the edge of the data set has a tendency to create examples in extremism.

4) Before we can even consider putting women in the infantry/cav, we must correct that women are held to a FAR lower standard on the PT test (Army) that is pitifully easy to pass. The minimum amount of push ups for men is the MAX for women. The minimum passing time on the 2 mile run for men is again the MAX for women. A real test for a combat arms fitness would be something more similar to this.

This we are in agreement with. The test should be the test. Regardless of gender.

My MMA training involves real fighting. No offense, but Tae Kwon Do, non Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Aikido, and Hap Kido are not very effective martial arts. This Hollywood crap of a 125 lb female doing spinning and ineffective Tae Kwon Do kicks against a mob of built men is utter fantasy. If the above-stated were effective, I would be seeing fighters using those martial arts in Mixed Martial Arts. Those styles simply do not train in a realistic and brutal enough fashion for street fighting or MMA.

One point we disagree on is that MMA is real fighting. It is close, but it still has rules. Rules that can be abused and used to strategize a winning bout. Maybe I should have mentioned but I do Brazilian Jiu Jitsu with a Gracie (as he trained in Brazil) trained instructor. Tae Kwon Do and Jiu Jitsu is how my two 10 year olds, my 19 year old, my wife and I spend our time most evenings. When we are not sneaking through the woods with bows, running marathons, or doing combat courses.

To reiterate MMA is a great work out, and grappling, kicking, punching are great but they usually mean you've screwed up. I spent 7 years in constant combat working rapid response inside a corrections environment averaging up to 7 or 8 fights a shift (inner city 1000 prisoner county jail). There are no rules, there is only one allowed outcome, and contrary to public opinion when the five-o shows up they are always outnumbered.

But, that doesn't change the fact. Whomever, you bring into combat, infantry or otherwise, should be ready to engage the enemy and do the enemy harm as dictated by the mission and rules of engagement. Insuring the barriers to entry are set correctly, and that the training is focused on the requisite knowledge, skills, and abilities, are of paramount importance. They also should be gender neutral.

The bullets fired by your enemy do not give a damn that Pvt. Susie Baker can run 2 miles in 15:30 for a 100 point score on her PT test. The burly Chechen foreign fighter who is about to bludgeon to death with his AK-47 a decidedly disadvantaged 5 foot 4 130 lb female soldier does not care about the feminist cause, or equal rights, or her entirely unrelated score on the joke that is the PT test. This is real life. And people will die.

The bullets don't care if you're the lantern jawed perfect PFT soldier either.

Interesting. I train with a Polish (former Spetznaz type do the math) career infantry guy. When we are doing TKD, or BJJ he whoops my ass (did I mention I'm fat?). When we are free form and I move between Aikido, Muay Thai (fun by the way), and back through Judo seamlessly I get some pretty good take downs. When the rules are relaxed the art creeps in and I'm sneaky. Perhaps your mythical superstud infantryman can handle all cases and situations, but what set them apart can be assessed. Your 5'4" 130# female (who is nearly overweight for the Army by the way) isn't the case you want ever.

If you want to argue this case take the 5'8" 150# male and female and test two who pass the same physical fitness standards. That is your case study for whether they can pass. Using constructed cases of the tiny chick you'd have to compare her to that mini-me man to have validity. Instead you should be testing based on equality from the onset of your study.

To open the channels to women entering infantry and cav would be the height of stupidity.

The exact same arguments were made about women fighter pilots, and half a dozen other occupations. Some of the best cops I knew were women, and some of the worst cops I knew were men. In isolation that might mean something but really it doesn't have any bearing on reality. There were always bad cops and good cops. Regardless of gender. You use of edge cases simply doesn't stand to any logical rigor. The examples must be comparable to be accurate.

The problem is this argument like DADD is more about puritanism and social constructivism then it is about reality. The argument is that gender inequality of service is about inadequacy but it glosses over the bitter reality that the your chosen examples are edge cases based in historical inaccuracies. I'm willing to bet that any serving Army soldier who is active on a daily basis in MMA and Crossfit is going to be an edge case against the backdrop of the totality of the Army population. Much like the flaming fairy private in a tu-tu dancing through the chow hall is going to be an aberration of the other extreme.

One final point. Opportunity is not entry. If the opportunity is the same across the board (not the current silly different scales) and is monitored and evaluated with the same quality. Then hopefully the pool of applicants increases and the overall quality increases. That is a difficult point to ponder, but statistically and in reality if you increase the overall pool of available volunteers, then the men in the pool will simply get better too.

[J.C.]

I think the real point is:

1.What does this mean for the TLs, SLs, PSGs, PLs, 1SGs, and COs.
2.What will the new EO courses be ( 6hrs of online PPT).
3.What about CO LDRs who refuse the training based on religious belief.
4.What happens when soldiers start claiming or filing EO.
5.What happens with housing, benifits, and FRG groups.

All in all, asking about gay or lesbian soldiers serving is the 25m target. When has that Army etc.. implemented a policey well....

This will be a signifigant issue at the CO lvl. CDRs will over react, and it will be painful. In the end it is what it is.... But, we will lose alot of good leaders who are just feed up with the EO BS. In the end nobody cares... untill its their problem. We can't even kick out over wieght, under performing people for the right reasons now, what happens when this just becomes another one of those layers.

v/r

J.C.

[bourbon]

Special forces wary of 'don't ask, don't tell' repeal, by Rowan Scarborough. The Washington Times, 27 December 2010.

The working group's report contained this observation: "These survey results reveal to us a misperception that a gay man does not 'fit' the image of a good warfighter - a misperception that is almost completely erased when a gay service member is allowed to prove himself alongside fellow warfighters.

"Anecdotally, we heard much the same. As one special-operations force warfighter told us, 'We have a gay guy [in the unit]. He's big, he's mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay.' "

Said Adm. Worthington: "It just depends on how they comport themselves. If they start breaking out the bows and the earrings in the barracks, that might cause a little trouble. That becomes a good order and discipline sort of thing. The services are going to have to tighten up on regulations."

It has always amazed me on how readily the military and SOF in particular embrace all things Sparta of ancient Greece, yet overlook the pervasive homosexuality of the Spartans. You can’t cherry pick history.

[DVC]

Been lurking on SWJ and enjoyed the back and forth but have decided to post. Am retired military, combat arms.


I am definitely opposed to the repeal of DADT because I believe homosexuality is morally wrong and saying that things that are morally wrong are right and normal is damaging to society.

Not sure the driver behind society's perception of homosexuality changing from moral evil to mental illness to normal. It does seem like those in favor of repeal use the standard of "if it's consensual between adults and there is not overwhelming scientific data that it is physically harmful, then it is OK." If that is the standard is there still a basis for societal or military prohibitions on adult incest, polygamy, bestiality, prostitution, or even marijuana use?

As an interesting aside, on another forum there was a post by an acquaintance of someone in AIT. The guy in AIT asked his NCO what he thought of the repeal. The NCO answered that as soon as it went through, he was going to grab his towel and shower in the women's barracks because if gays get to shower with the gender they like to have sex with, it's only fair that straights have the same opportunities.

[JMA]

I was mainly responding to JMA's assertion that the main reason to bar openly gay soldiers from serving is that it would create sexual tension.

Yes, and that sexual tension extends to females in the military in general and combat units specifically.

The problems are hidden or under reported on the pretext that everything is just fine and dandy with the introduction of females into the military. The truth is being hidden.

As much as the Canadians may claim "there is no problem" they have recently lost a brigadier-general and a colonel who couldn't keep their pants zipped. I'm sure if one dug a little deeper one would find more evidence that all is not as well as claimed. For example disciplinary 'charges have risen by as much as 62 per cent over an eight-year period' (of the Canadian deployments to Afghanistan) and that includes "sexual" offences.

OK so thats the naughty stuff. On the heterosexual consensual side we see them banging away like belt-fed mortars with the resulting problems to the services caused by pregnancies. See here and here and elsewhere.

So clearly the introduction of females into the military has brought a number of specific problems which go beyond my principle argument of the introduction of sexual tension.

The same will be the case when gays can openly serve in the military. More of the same.

[davidbfpo]

Moderator at work: The few posts on the un-related issue of Chechen warriors have been moved to the thread on that topic. Now back to our normal programming.

[Rex Brynen]

Yes, and that sexual tension extends to females in the military in general and combat units specifically.

The problems are hidden or under reported on the pretext that everything is just fine and dandy with the introduction of females into the military. The truth is being hidden.

As much as the Canadians may claim "there is no problem" they have recently lost a brigadier-general and a colonel who couldn't keep their pants zipped. I'm sure if one dug a little deeper one would find more evidence that all is not as well as claimed. For example disciplinary 'charges have risen by as much as 62 per cent over an eight-year period' (of the Canadian deployments to Afghanistan) and that includes "sexual" offences.

OK so thats the naughty stuff. On the heterosexual consensual side we see them banging away like belt-fed mortars with the resulting problems to the services caused by pregnancies. See here and here and elsewhere.

So clearly the introduction of females into the military has brought a number of specific problems which go beyond my principle argument of the introduction of sexual tension.

The same will be the case when gays can openly serve in the military. More of the same.

Of course, the other interpretation would be:

1) The rules are being applied even to BGs and Colonels, rather than senior officers being allowed to get away with violations. Presumably that's a good thing.

2) The increased number of disciplinary charges could be a function of lower tolerance and tightened-up unit discipline in wartime.

Moreover, none of the links above address the human resource gains of enlarging the recruit pool beyond heterosexual males, nor for that matter the larger political and normative issues around discrimination.

In any case, it is a done deal and has been for years. Given the very strong support in both the Canadian Forces and Canadian society for the full inclusions of women, gays, and lesbians in the military, there is zero chance of the policies being changed (which would be unconstitutional in any event).

[motorfirebox]

Not sure the driver behind society's perception of homosexuality changing from moral evil to mental illness to normal. It does seem like those in favor of repeal use the standard of "if it's consensual between adults and there is not overwhelming scientific data that it is physically harmful, then it is OK." If that is the standard is there still a basis for societal or military prohibitions on adult incest, polygamy, bestiality, prostitution, or even marijuana use?

The major driver is the shift away from Abrahamic religions (mainly Christianity) in a large portion of our society. If you don't care about God's opinion of homosexuality, there's little reason to view it as wrong. Incest and bestiality don't fit your definition--incest is physically harmful, in that it greatly increases the chance of harmful effects on any children; and bestiality isn't something that occurs between consenting adults. I'm in favor of reclassifying marijuana to have usage restrictions similar to alcohol, and likewise I don't have any real problem with prostitution other than how it's often conducted, so I can't really comment on that part of your comparison. As for polygamy, by the standards set out in the Bible, it's already a culturally accepted phenomenon, what with the rate of divorce and the frequency of extramarital sex.

And frankly, I don't think moral aspersions on any sexual behavior, in comparison to prostitution and/or polygamy (again, as understood in the Bible, since that's where a lot of these arguments come from) can really be taken seriously when it comes from a military perspective. At most levels I'm familiar with, soldier promiscuity and engagement with prostitutes is widely accepted and viewed as acceptable so long as it doesn't actually cause any issues. To turn around and say that homosexuality is wrong on the same basis that promiscuity/polygamy and prostitution are wrong is pretty thin reasoning in practice.

[DVC]

The major driver is the shift away from Abrahamic religions (mainly Christianity) in a large portion of our society. If you don't care about God's opinion of homosexuality, there's little reason to view it as wrong.

Agreed and very frightened by what this means for America.

"The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man." - G.K Chesterton, Chapter 19, What I Saw In America, 1922

[Fuchs]

So clearly the introduction of females into the military has brought a number of specific problems which go beyond my principle argument of the introduction of sexual tension.

The same will be the case when gays can openly serve in the military. More of the same.

Let me slap you with math.

Example:
Assumptions:

A unit has
60% heterosexual men,
30% heterosexual females,
5% homosexual males and
5% homosexual women.
Unit not deployed.
No bisexuals (would complicate math much for no gain).
Covert homosexuals did not identify each other under DADT.

Introduction of females into service meant that
60% may find a partner among 30%, while 30% may find a partner among 60%.

Introduction of gay tolerance means that
5% may find a partner among 5% (and this twice).

Sorry, but in-unit sexual tensions will likely be tiny unless homosexuals are much less choosey than heterosexuals.

-----------------------

I'm more concerned about stupidities of the heteros in the unit. Infantry service is for example considered to be a very 'male', 'warrior' thing - and this attracts at least some highly motivated men (and more than too much loud-mouths, of course).
Aside from recruitment issues, heterosexual males may develop stupid behaviour towards homosexual males and turn the latter into outsiders.

May happen, doesn't need to happen. It's usually a NCO job to correct stupid behaviour by stupid people, but sadly many NCOs are stupid as well.

[Deus Ex]

Agreed and very frightened by what this means for America.

"The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man." - G.K Chesterton, Chapter 19, What I Saw In America, 1922

No need to be worried. Modern atheists tend to be the biggest proponents of universal and unassailable human rights. I know I am. I know Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris believe the same.

The Bible and Quran are ripe with quotes that would lead us to not be equal. Hell, the Bible tells you how exactly one should own and treat a slave. Strange that Jesus never told the slave owners to stop owning slaves, as it is a gross and disgusting practice.

I don't need a sky daddy to tell me to be good.

Btw, just so everyone knows, the United States is not and never was a Christian nation. Read The Treaty of Tripoli, universally ratified by our nation's early Senate: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

[motorfirebox]

Agreed and very frightened by what this means for America.

"The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man." - G.K Chesterton, Chapter 19, What I Saw In America, 1922

I can understand that. I don't mean this as an attack on you or an attack on religion, but the reason I can understand it is that I'm fairly frightened of what it would mean for me if the religious right regained control over the US. I think the religious right would outlaw about 75% of my lifestyle, including my sex life--I'm not gay or bi, but I'm not married and I'm not refraining.

But I don't think the argument that without God there can be no equality is really reasonable. A logical premise for equal treatment of all humanity can be arrived at without religious dogma. It's fairly straightforward: it hinges on the acceptance of the idea that circumstance does not define the individual. The idea of rejecting circumstance hinges on the idea of free will (now, some people reject that free will exists, but I don't think it's worthwhile arguing with those people). If one has free will, then circumstance is at most a modifier to one's actions, not the ultimate determinant. And if circumstance does not define an individual, then one must to some extent disregard circumstance when it comes to determining the value of other human beings. If you disregard circumstance, then you accept that all humans are indeed created equal.

And on top of that... I'm not sure it matters where the basis for equality comes from. Let's say you're right and the only reasonable basis for equality is Christian dogma. Well, Christianity has had over two millennia to get equality right, and it's only been in the last two centuries that it's arguably even started on the right path. The previous thousands of years have been filled with countless human horrors perpetrated by people who could show you a strong theological basis for their actions. Again, I'm not attacking Christianity or religion, here--Pol Pot didn't need God to give him a reason to commit atrocities, after all--but the evidence simply doesn't support the idea that having a basis in Christianity, or any other religion, or any lack of religion, matters in the end when it comes to creating societies that treat all humans equally.

Which makes sense, really. I've studied the Bible fairly extensively, and I don't recall Jesus ever saying that his words were intended to create good nations. Just good people.

[DVC]

No need to be worried. Modern atheists tend to be the biggest proponents of universal and unassailable human rights. I know I am. I know Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris believe the same.

The Bible and Quran are ripe with quotes that would lead us to not be equal. Hell, the Bible tells you how exactly one should own and treat a slave. Strange that Jesus never told the slave owners to stop owning slaves, as it is a gross and disgusting practice.

I don't need a sky daddy to tell me to be good.

Btw, just so everyone knows, the United States is not and never was a Christian nation. Read The Treaty of Tripoli, universally ratified by our nation's early Senate: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

I agree that atheists can be moral people, great advocates of human rights, and good neighbors. Now Steve Martin has even given them something to compensate for their lack of sacred music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADNes...eature=related.

However if the basis of atheism is an evolutionist/materialist worldview, it is illogical and anachronistic for atheists to be compassionate, moral, or advocates of human rights. These things, that worldview implies, just serve as roadblocks to the ultimate survival of the fittest and contribute to excess population that consume resources and stress the environment. Stalin, Hitler (though probably more correctly rejector of the Judeo-Christian foundation of Western Civilization that a pure materialist atheist) and Mao were logically consistent atheists; Dawkins and Hitchens are not.

Re Treat of Tripoli. C'mom Deus this is some obscure stuff. I think the wording is expedient rather than definitive as compared to the mountain of writing that indicate that a Christian, particulary Christian as informed by the Reformation, worldview was the foundation of the United States. But I feel for the treaties authors. How do you explain to a Muslim ruler who I imagine operated from a Muslim worldview, that the U.S. though founded on a Christian worldview, did not have any pretense of using political or military power to "expand the borders" of Christendom and was in this regards different from the traditional European powers."

As a counterexample, let me point to the last few lines of a perhaps more familiar document:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.

Go Washington - President and deputy from Virginia et al

Who do you think that "Lord" might be that was conducting "ground operations" 1787 years before that the document refers to?

Re: Slavery. Please point me towards a place in the New Testament that advocates for slavery as an institution?

Enjoy the discussion. Happy New Year and God bless you (sorry, couldn't resist )

[DVC]

I can understand that. I don't mean this as an attack on you or an attack on religion, but the reason I can understand it is that I'm fairly frightened of what it would mean for me if the religious right regained control over the US. I think the religious right would outlaw about 75% of my lifestyle, including my sex life--I'm not gay or bi, but I'm not married and I'm not refraining.

But I don't think the argument that without God there can be no equality is really reasonable. A logical premise for equal treatment of all humanity can be arrived at without religious dogma. It's fairly straightforward: it hinges on the acceptance of the idea that circumstance does not define the individual. The idea of rejecting circumstance hinges on the idea of free will (now, some people reject that free will exists, but I don't think it's worthwhile arguing with those people). If one has free will, then circumstance is at most a modifier to one's actions, not the ultimate determinant. And if circumstance does not define an individual, then one must to some extent disregard circumstance when it comes to determining the value of other human beings. If you disregard circumstance, then you accept that all humans are indeed created equal.

And on top of that... I'm not sure it matters where the basis for equality comes from. Let's say you're right and the only reasonable basis for equality is Christian dogma. Well, Christianity has had over two millennia to get equality right, and it's only been in the last two centuries that it's arguably even started on the right path. The previous thousands of years have been filled with countless human horrors perpetrated by people who could show you a strong theological basis for their actions. Again, I'm not attacking Christianity or religion, here--Pol Pot didn't need God to give him a reason to commit atrocities, after all--but the evidence simply doesn't support the idea that having a basis in Christianity, or any other religion, or any lack of religion, matters in the end when it comes to creating societies that treat all humans equally.

Which makes sense, really. I've studied the Bible fairly extensively, and I don't recall Jesus ever saying that his words were intended to create good nations. Just good people.

Sorry, no advocacy of theocracy from me. My biggest objection to the repeal of DADT is that its proponents, including many of our government and military leaders, framed it not so much as a correction to make our limited government silent on a issue that society has determined should be outside of government purview, but really was framed as affirmation of homosexual behavior as normal, natural, and deserving of government support and, in today's environment, probably subsidy, and a affirmation of homosexuality as an identity that is qualitatively equal to race and ethnicity If this is the case because homosexuality is consensual and adult sexual expression, on what grounds can there be legal prohibitions on consentual adult incest (especially if the adults make themselves incapable of bearin children), polygamy, bestiality, prostitution etc. Should we start preparing for a coming DoD Polygamist Heritage month. Probably should have more chairs at that lunch than some of the others.

Probably another analogy (maybe more useful because it's not about sex) would be the issue of overeating/overweight. Should the government enforce height/weight standards on the general population? Probably outside the limits on limited government. Should the government affirm overeating/overweight as normal and natural? Should the only question about fat people in the military be can they do their job, pass the PT test, and fit in their assigned piece of equipment? Should we lift military height weight standards and stop the discharge of fat but talented people in this era of persistent conflict? Why should someone not be allowed to serve their country just because of what they love (on their plate)?

Strongly agree that the new birth through Jesus Christ gives those that take it the potential to be better people, though still far from perfect. I think better people make better nations. The Great Awakening, IMHO, is the father of American exceptionalism and the fact that it produced a large number of true Christians as opposed to church members allowed the U.S. to have a great degree of freedom without anarchy. Individuals ruled themselves based on a desire to live godly lives rather than needing a Leviathan state to keep them in line. I think you only need to compare the American War of Independence with the French Revolution to see this.

Motorfirebox -On a probably much too personal a level though, I'll ask - do you object to Christianity because you doubt its truth or because "walking the talk" might cause you change your lifestyle? Disregard if I'm crossing the line.

Again I enjoy the debate. God bless you and Happy New Year