Fuck you, San Francisco

[MaxTheVool]

@magellan01

Anyway, I THINK the military keeps women off the front lines, in part, for this reason.

I gotta agree with Miller here. First of all, I’ve never heard anyone suggest that the reason it’s OK to have women all over the modern battlefield EXCEPT in combat is the risk of relationships forming in combat units. Rather, I’ve heard that:
(a) women are weaker
(b) guys tend to want to protect women, which would make it hard for guys in combat to do their jobs if women were right next to them
(c) the American public doesn’t want to see women getting killed

None of these particularly apply to gays.
Secondly, there’s homophobia in the idea that gays wouldn’t be able to keep their pants zipped. It’s not “gays are icky” homophobia, but “oh, those guys are all such flaming horny bastards, we know that any situation in which gays are present turns into an ass orgy within moments” homophobia.
Btw, does anyone know whether it’s illegal for unmarried straight soldiers to form straight relationships “in the field” if it doesn’t interfere with their performing of duties?

Because if they are reducing the size of our military and depriving it of many who, no doubt, have special skills simply because they find homosexuality icky, I’d try them for treason.

Well, come up with a better reason why much-needed arab translators were let go…

[magellan01]

@MaxTheVool

I gotta agree with Miller here. First of all, I’ve never heard anyone suggest that the reason it’s OK to have women all over the modern battlefield EXCEPT in combat is the risk of relationships forming in combat units. Rather, I’ve heard that:
(a) women are weaker
(b) guys tend to want to protect women, which would make it hard for guys in combat to do their jobs if women were right next to them
(c) the American public doesn’t want to see women getting killed

None of these particularly apply to gays.

Secondly, there’s homophobia in the idea that gays wouldn’t be able to keep their pants zipped. It’s not “gays are icky” homophobia, but “oh, those guys are all such flaming horny bastards, we know that any situation in which gays are present turns into an ass orgy within moments” homophobia.

Btw, does anyone know whether it’s illegal for unmarried straight soldiers to form straight relationships “in the field” if it doesn’t interfere with their performing of duties?

Well, come up with a better reason why much-needed arab translators were let go…

Miller is correct in that the analogy doesn’t hold, which is why I said it was not “apples to apples”. But it does seem to be a rational* argument. Whether it is one they have put forth I don’t know. It came to mind because of the policy of one of the places I used to work.

I still don’t think that homophobia is the reason (or the only reason) militart experts want to keep gays out. That would just be too dumb, particularly in cases like the one where someone has a specialized skill, as you mentioned. As I stated earlier, I think they should be able to serve—anywhere and everywhere. I think it is an honor to serve your country, and I do not see why gay men should be deprived of that honor. Or why we should be deprived of their service.

[MaxTheVool]

@magellan01

Miller is correct in that the analogy doesn’t hold, which is why I said it was not “apples to apples”. But it does seem to be a rational* argument. Whether it is one they have put forth I don’t know. It came to mind because of the policy of one of the places I used to work.

I still don’t think that homophobia is the reason (or the only reason) militart experts want to keep gays out. That would just be too dumb, particularly in cases like the one where someone has a specialized skill, as you mentioned. As I stated earlier, I think they should be able to serve—anywhere and everywhere. I think it is an honor to serve your country, and I do not see why gay men should be deprived of that honor. Or why we should be deprived of their service.

So your deep and abiding faith in the basical decency and rationality of the US military brass causes you to hypothesize the existence of an as-yet-unrevealed rational reason for the exclusion of gays, one that, for some reason, is a secret?

[Lissa]

@Mr. Moto

Well, San Francisco does host a National Maritime Park, with other ships open for tours. One of them is a WWII-era submarine, the USS Pampanito.

In addition, in the Fisherman’s Wharf area is a restored Liberty ship, the SS Jeremiah O’Brien.

Of course, these well-attended museums were established before the current unpleasantness, by people inclined to be reasonable about American history. This contrasts rather starkly with the current board, to it’s detriment.

Wait… your pitting a city for not respecting your years of service and they already HAVE two succesfully operating museums, on NAVY SHIPS!!! Wow, just because one or two council members voice their opinion, when many others had rational reasons (money, profitability, etc…) does not make a whole town hate the military. Also, disagreeing with naval policies that are anti-gay and involved in a War, coupled with expressing those opinions, does not make someone disrespect the military.

[magellan01]

@MaxTheVool

So your deep and abiding faith in the basical decency and rationality of the US military brass causes you to hypothesize the existence of an as-yet-unrevealed rational reason for the exclusion of gays, one that, for some reason, is a secret?

I do not hold that everything I do not know is a secret, particulary those things I haven’t looked into.

[MaxTheVool]

@magellan01

I do not hold that everything I do not know is a secret, particulary those things I haven’t looked into.

Yeah, but… with an issue as contentious as this one, it just strikes me as preposterous that there is a really good reason that no one here seems to know.

What’s more likely to be correct? That homophobia (active and passive, current and institutionally-embedded, personal and impersonal) keeps gays out of the military, or that there’s a solid rational practical reason, but one that is NOT being trumpeted from the hilltops by military brass due to the controversial nature of the issue, and one that none of us have ever heard of?

[magellan01]

@MaxTheVool

Yeah, but… with an issue as contentious as this one, it just strikes me as preposterous that there is a really good reason that no one here seems to know.

What’s more likely to be correct? That homophobia (active and passive, current and institutionally-embedded, personal and impersonal) keeps gays out of the military, or that there’s a solid rational practical reason, but one that is NOT being trumpeted from the hilltops by military brass due to the controversial nature of the issue, and one that none of us have ever heard of?

It seems that your are intent on the reason being homophobia. I don’t what else to tell you. While it no doubt plays a role, the way it does in many aspects of our society, I do not believe that it is THE reason. Twenty years ago I would probably have agreed with you. In today’s world I do not. You may still be correct. Maybe I’m giving the experts charged with protecting the country too much credit. Maybe you’re not giving them enough. (If you, or others, feel the need to insert an easy Iraq/Bush joke here, consider it inserted and guffawed at. Now, back to the topic.) If it helps you to believe the worst, I guess that is what you should do. But before you allow this to eat at you, as it would me if I agreed with you, maybe you should try to get to their actuaal reasons. SDMB is a good start, but it seems no one has the answer. Have you tried other avenues?

[Miller]

@magellan01

It seems that your are intent on the reason being homophobia. I don’t what else to tell you. While it no doubt plays a role, the way it does in many aspects of our society, I do not believe that it is THE reason. Twenty years ago I would probably have agreed with you. In today’s world I do not. You may still be correct. Maybe I’m giving the experts charged with protecting the country too much credit. Maybe you’re not giving them enough. (If you, or others, feel the need to insert an easy Iraq/Bush joke here, consider it inserted and guffawed at. Now, back to the topic.) If it helps you to believe the worst, I guess that is what you should do. But before you allow this to eat at you, as it would me if I agreed with you, maybe you should try to get to their actuaal reasons. SDMB is a good start, but it seems no one has the answer. Have you tried other avenues?

Of course we’ve looked. You think this is the first time we’ve had this debate? This is all old hat. Heck, all you have to do is head over to Wikipedia and do a search on don’t ask, don’t tell for the quick summary, or check out this site. From that report:

Military leaders have expressed concern that the presence of homosexuals will interfere with the bonding of personnel and therefore with the formation of cohesive units. They worry that heterosexual soldiers will be uncomfortable serving with openly gay soldiers or sharing facilities with them and that those who disapprove of homosexuality for religious or moral reasons may be unwilling to work with sexual minorities. Underlying such apprehension is a belief that unit cohesion and morale, and therefore operational effectiveness, will subsequently decline.[36] Military officers also express concern that hostility toward gays and lesbians will lead to violence and a break down in command

Or, basically, “We can’t instill enough discipline in our soldiers to keep them from going apeshit if they have to spend time with a fag.” Personally, I think the DOD is selling our men and women in uniform a little short, but I guess they’re the experts.

Oh, wait, they’re not the experts, and they admit so themselves:

The Department of Defense stated in 1992 that its policy prohibiting the service of homosexuals is based not on scientific or empirical data, but on the reasoned judgment of its military leaders and civilian policymakers (GAO, 1992). Social scientific evaluations are therefore not considered sufficient to warrant changes in the policy.

The actual experts have a very different opinion:

In 1993, Secretary Aspin commissioned a study from RAND to provide analysis useful for the implementation of President Clinton’s order to remove the ban on sexual minorities in the military.[42] The RAND study, which ran more than 500 pages, found, “There is no evidence, and no compelling reason to believe, that homosexuals are inherently less capable of performing military tasks than are heterosexuals” (National Defense Research Institute, 1993, p. 284). Its authors acknowledged that hostile opinions concerning homosexuality were prevalent within the American military, but they concluded that evidence suggested, “[H]omosexuals can be successfully integrated into military and public security organizations” (National Defense Research Institute, 1993, p. 32). In reviewing research related to the issues of unit cohesion and operational effectiveness, RAND found:

[H]omosexuals who serve in the military are committed to the military’s core values, which Henderson (1990, p. 108) lists as "fighting skill, professional teamwork, physical stamina, self-discipline, duty (selfless service) and loyalty to unit. (National Defense Research Institute, 1993, p. 312)

The researchers used the sizable literature on unit cohesion more generally to extrapolate the likely effects of open homosexuality on unit cohesion and operational effectiveness. The RAND researchers concluded that potential problems could be overcome with effective leadership, and stated, “[T]here is ample reason to believe that heterosexual and homosexual military personnel can work together effectively” (National Defense Research Institute, 1993, pp. 329-330).

The RAND study also reviewed the experiences of foreign militaries, as well as domestic fire and police departments that had instituted non-discrimination policies. For those foreign militaries that had liberalized their policies on homosexual service, RAND researchers found no problems for conscription, recruitment, or retention. Military personnel, members of advocacy groups, and social scientists told researchers, “[T]here was no significant threat to unit cohesion or organizational performance created by the presence of homosexuals in their militaries” (National Defense Research Institute, 1993, p. 104). With respect to domestic fire and police departments, the authors found that there was a “shared consensus” among leaders of domestic departments “that a policy of non-discrimination had in no way compromised their ability to perform their mission” (National Defense Research Institute, 1993, p. 141). The authors of the RAND report recommended the implementation of a conduct-based policy that would establish clear standards of behavior for all service personnel, regardless of sexual orientation, and would not consider sexual orientation, by itself, as germane (National Defense Research Institute, 1993).

Is this homophobia? You can probably guess what I’d say, but I’m interested to hear your take on it.

[magellan01]

@Miller

Is this homophobia? You can probably guess what I’d say, but I’m interested to hear your take on it.

Thanks for the information and the links. The CSSMM study was interesting. I thought the inclusion of firemen in their study was not relevant, as those people are not extracted from society for weeks, months, aor years at a time, but it probably matters little. I thought the most helpful part was the real-world experience with the Australian Armed Forces, who concluded that the change to allowing gays to serve was a “non-event”.

Your post has pushed me further into the “they are homophobic” camp. But I do not have the advantage of hearing the best of the argument from the other side. I heard on TV earlier that C-Span is going to be doing a piece on “Gays in the Military”. I think it airs this weekend or next. I’ll be watching for it.

Until I hear the best of the other side’s argument I am inclined to give our leaders the benefit of the doubt, in regard to their motives. I still, however, believe their policy is misguided and unhelpful in their efforts to build the most effective military. Doing so would also have societal benefits, which is a nice bonus. But, I thiink you would agree, that should not be the measring stick for military policy.

Well, let me ask you: do you agree?

[Miller]

@magellan01

Thanks for the information and the links. The CSSMM study was interesting. I thought the inclusion of firemen in their study was not relevant, as those people are not extracted from society for weeks, months, aor years at a time, but it probably matters little. I thought the most helpful part was the real-world experience with the Australian Armed Forces, who concluded that the change to allowing gays to serve was a “non-event”.

I think the data about fireman is relevant in so far as studying the effects of integration on unit cohesion in a crisis situation, but I agree, it doesn’t contribute to understanding group dynamics during extended tours of duty. By itself, it doesn’t necessarily prove anything, but taken in with the other data, I think it has some signifigance.

Your post has pushed me further into the “they are homophobic” camp. But I do not have the advantage of hearing the best of the argument from the other side. I heard on TV earlier that C-Span is going to be doing a piece on “Gays in the Military”. I think it airs this weekend or next. I’ll be watching for it.

I’ll have to keep an eye open for that.

Until I hear the best of the other side’s argument I am inclined to give our leaders the benefit of the doubt, in regard to their motives. I still, however, believe their policy is misguided and unhelpful in their efforts to build the most effective military. Doing so would also have societal benefits, which is a nice bonus. But, I think you would agree, that should not be the measring stick for military policy.

Well, let me ask you: do you agree?

Conditionally, yes, I agree. If there were evidence that integration really would severely damage the military’s effectiveness, then I would reluctantly have to oppose integration. Absent such evidence, however, I think that the social benefits of integration are sufficient reason to integrate in and of themselves. In other words, if it didn’t hurt anything, and would help improve things in the civilian sphere, it ought to be done. When you consider that the current policy seems to be actually harming the military by driving out many valuable service men and women, and by limiting the pool of available recruits in a time of a severe manpower shortage, it becomes imperative to repeal the current policy.

[MaxTheVool]

@Miller

Conditionally, yes, I agree. If there were evidence that integration really would severely damage the military’s effectiveness, then I would reluctantly have to oppose integration.

Although there’s an important distinction between short-term and long-term damage…

[magellan01]

@Miller

Conditionally, yes, I agree. If there were evidence that integration really would severely damage the military’s effectiveness, then I would reluctantly have to oppose integration. **Absent such evidence, however, I think that the social benefits of integration are sufficient reason to integrate in and of themselves. **In other words, if it didn’t hurt anything, and would help improve things in the civilian sphere, it ought to be done. When you consider that the current policy seems to be actually harming the military by driving out many valuable service men and women, and by limiting the pool of available recruits in a time of a severe manpower shortage, it becomes imperative to repeal the current policy.

(Emphasis mine.)

Slight point of disagreement. I think that deciding what to do about gays in the military should be based solely on the military effectiveness. Arguing to remove the ban because of a benefit that might be realized in another sphere I think is irresponsible. The decision should be a military one. Allowing gays to serve (or, more simply, not disallowing them) broadens the available pool to help us increase both the number and quality of our fighting force. But I do thiink that the burden falls to the military to offer rational, practical reasons to exclude, should they take that position.

[MaxTheVool]

@magellan01

(Emphasis mine.)

Slight point of disagreement. I think that deciding what to do about gays in the military should be based solely on the military effectiveness.

I strongly disagree. That should be the prime concern, but not the only concern. The aim of the government is to make the US a better place. The military is a branch of the government. It’s the branch that is concerned with national defense, but that doesn’t mean that it can just ignore all other considerations. If the military has two possible recruiting strategies, one of which will result in a 0.2% more effective military fighting-wise, but which will have devestating economic impact on farm communities (or something), it shouldn’t just cold-bloodedly always pick the course of action that results in the greatest military effectiveness, damn all other considerations.

[magellan01]

@MaxTheVool

I strongly disagree. That should be the prime concern, but not the only concern. The aim of the government is to make the US a better place. The military is a branch of the government. It’s the branch that is concerned with national defense, but that doesn’t mean that it can just ignore all other considerations. If the military has two possible recruiting strategies, one of which will result in a 0.2% more effective military fighting-wise, but which will have devestating economic impact on farm communities (or something), it shouldn’t just cold-bloodedly always pick the course of action that results in the greatest military effectiveness, damn all other considerations.

Okay, I can subscribe to that—in theory. Of course, the potential gain and the potential loss will have to be weighed. And the current state of military affairs would also have to be taken into account. So while I can, and do, agree with the theory you propose, I still think that military effectiveness should be criteria 1-99. And #100 still has to be weighed.