Maybe it would be safer if the military was ALL gay!

[Sheldonrs]

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009...y_soldier.php#


Oct 20 2009, 4:00 pm by Shauna Miller

50 Years Of Pentagon Studies Support Gay Soldiers
In a new paper on the efficacy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" published in this month's Joint Force Quarterly, Col. Om Prakash boils down half a century of Pentagon-commissioned studies on gays in the military into seven short pages. Reviewing the research, he finds that the facts of gay servicemembers' fitness to serve have changed little over 50 years. But the reports themselves reveal something more: The Defense Department's own criticisms of military policies toward gay soldiers have remained consistent, too.

The DoD has funded studies on the impact of gay servicemembers as far back as 1957, when the Navy's Crittenden Report found "no factual data" to support the idea that they posed a greater security risk than heterosexual personnel. Straight officers boasting secrets due to "feelings of inadequacy" were a realer threat, it found. Despite these findings, the report recommended no changes to dismissal policies, for a reason that would define the department's stance on open service into the 21st century: "The service should not move ahead of civilian society nor attempt to set substantially different standards in attitude or action with respect to homosexual offenders."


In 1988, the Defense Personnel Security Research Center -- a DoD agency -- conducted its own study on gay soldiers to determine whether their service under current policies created security risks, for instance in terms of blackmail. It also discussed, based on the military and wider social data available, whether the military's policies were sustainable. The study returned again and again to the facts of conduct: "Studies of homosexual veterans make clear that having a same gender or an opposite-gender orientation is unrelated to job performance in the same way as is being left or right-handed."

The study also owned the lessons of racial integration: "The intensity of prejudice against homosexuals may be of the same order as the prejudice against blacks in 1948, when the military was ordered to integrate," it found. "The order to integrate blacks was first met with stout resistance by traditionalists in the military establishment. Dire consequences were predicted for maintaining discipline, building group morale, and achieving military organizational goals. None of these predictions of doom has come true."

The Pentagon rejected a draft of the report and its follow-up, claiming it exceeded its mandate. Excerpts from the unpublished studies were released in a 1992 General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) 10-year report on the Pentagon's policies toward gay servicemembers as Congress debated the guidelines that would become DADT.

The GAO report itself turned a harsh light on the DoD. It found that existing policy was "based solely upon concerns about homosexuality itself," and criticized the department for not conducting hard research to support its practices. "In addition," the report said, "professional psychiatric, psychological, sociological associations and other experts familiar with the research conducted on homosexuality in general disagree with the basic rationale behind DoD's policy."

The latest data Prakash cites comes from a 1993 RAND Corp. study commissioned under President Clinton to determine a "practical" strategy on gays in the military. It pulled together the broadest range of data, including opinion of active-duty officers and attitudes of foreign militaries with openly gay servicemembers. Its straightforward conclusion supported the previous 40 years of findings: Policy should set equal expectations of conduct for all servicemembers, and "emphasis should be placed on behavior ... not on teaching tolerance or sensitivity."

Civilian criticism of DADT has been largely couched in the language of gay rights as civil rights, but change in the military moves top-down. As Prakash's paper makes clear, the data are well-known; what remains is an ideological shift among military leadership.

That's something Kevin Nix, a spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which provides legal support and advocacy to gay soldiers, says may be a matter of time. "The military doesn't exist in a vacuum from the rest of American culture," he says. "There is a generational divide. The newest generation and the next generation of military leadership are much more open and tolerant ... and that is helping the top-down process."

[Spexxvet]

An all gay military would ensure that no soldiers would leave his buddy's behind.

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

An all gay military would ensure that no soldiers would leave his buddy's behind.

LOL!!!!

And we'd be well versed at hand to gland combat.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Higher probability of fucking the enemy? Sounds good to me.

[joelnwil]

I believe it is in Plato's Symposium where he says that a soldier will fight better if his lover is at his side, because he will not want to seem cowardly in front of his lover.

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by joelnwil

I believe it is in Plato's Symposium where he says that a soldier will fight better if his lover is at his side, because he will not want to seem cowardly in front of his lover.

If his lover is "at his side", how can he "penetrate" enemy lines?


hehehe

[ZenGum]

There are scores of examples from Greek history to support this idea. Plato's comment above is just one.

The Spartans, terrors of ancient Greece, were largey bisexual. The emotional bonds between their soldiers were so strong they would be too ashamed to behave in a cowardly manner in front of their beloved.

The Spartans were finally defeated by the Theban "Sacred Band", a 300 strong force whose name was due to the fact that the greeks thought homosexual love was "inspired by god" (try telling that to a baptist preacher!) and the Sacred Band were all doing it with each other. Their esprit d'corps was even stonger than the Spartans'.

It is even recorded in Plutarch that Hercules and his companion Iolus were lovers, and even into the 4th century BC male lovers would exchange vows at their tombs.

[Cloud]

but the Greeks also admired small, delicate dicks. Which is just wrong.

to avoid testosterone altogether, I vote for all female militarys. 'cause then we wouldn't need them at all.

[ZenGum]

You've never seen what happens when two netball teams get drunk at the same pub. They need to call in rugby players to haul out the bodies.

[Cloud]

what's netball? volleyball? badminton?

[ZenGum]

Netball is similar to basketball but:
no running with the ball
no backboard
all goals are worth one point
less contact (officially ... HA!)
generallly played by women
main countries are Australia, New Zealand, England and Jamaica.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7dja...eature=related

[Cloud]

huh. thanks!

[wolf]

Well, an all queer military would cut down on the number of fraternization pregnancies ...

But it leads to other problems. Currently women are relegated to "non-combat" roles. In an all gay military, would the non-combat divisions be composed lipstick lesbians and flamers, with anyone with a certain level of butchness placed on the front lines?

(I'm sorry, I'm bad, I just keep thinking Village People here, you know?)

[ZenGum]

Well if we're getting into that sort of thing, for any job, military or otherwise, anyone who is physically and mentally capable of doing it should be allowed to do it, and anyone who isn't so capable, shouldn't, regardless of what is between their legs.
Maybe the Flamboyant Fellow support units could help the Butch Dyke Commando regiment with their camouflage face-paint.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Netball is similar to basketball but:
no running with the ball
no backboard
all goals are worth one point
less contact (officially ... HA!)
generallly played by women
main countries are Australia, New Zealand, England and Jamaica.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7dja...eature=related

It reminds me of the way my mom said they made the girls play basketball when she was in school. Shots were underhand (both hands, through your legs and up) and I'm not sure if there was dribbling or running.

Ugh. How can you get the ball and not go somewhere with it? And that girl needs to work on her follow-through on her shot.

I prefer to watch women play basketball (rather than watching men's b-ball) because there is less run and gun and dunking and more setting up actual plays. For men, if all they can do is jump and dunk and generally hot-dog, then perhaps raise the basket a couple feet.

:swish:

Oh, then there's baseketball!