Gays in the Military

[What_the]

Three general questions…

1. My side (I’ll admit), claims to focus on military effectiveness over the right to serve your country. Seems like the former would vary whether you are talking about gay men or about lesbian women. I could explain why I think that… but the question is whether the recent study looked at it that way.

2. A military guy on ABC just said that the worst thing about DADT is that it allows a would-be soldier to get alot of valuable training up front and then back out of his commitment by “telling” on himself. How much of that is going on and can it be attributed primarily to gays rather than straights who are lieing?

3. More and more and more TG are being lumped together with L and G. Were the trans-gendered community part of that military study? Why not?

[Morgenstern]

@What_the

3. More and more and more TG are being lumped together with L and G. Were the trans-gendered community part of that military study? Why not?

Who’s doing this lumping?

[qazwart]

When I was young, there were plenty of people who pretended to be gay to get out of the draft. Didn’t do them a lick of good. (No pun intended). Back then, it seemed that being gay wasn’t a problem with serving your country.

I truly believe that the military can prohibit gays from serving in the military IF they can prove that being gay is incompatible with military service. For example, the military can prohibit people who are too old, physically disabled, or mentally disabled. You’re allowed to discriminate.

What the military cannot do is say being gays aren’t allowed to serve in the military because they think it’s yucky.

There have been a number of highly decorated military men who have been tossed out of the military when it was discovered they were gay. From that evidence, it doesn’t appear there’s any relationship between whom you hump and your ability to perform as a solder.

[waterj2]

From what I understand, the recent study did not look at the issue of military effectiveness specifically. However, the RAND study from 1993, when Clinton announced his intention to end discrimination against homosexuals did focus specifically on that. Here’s the overview:

Research reviewed by the study team showed that unit performance is clearly correlated with task cohesion. This finding is entirely consistent with the results of hundreds of studies in the industrial-organizational psychology literature on the crucial role of goal-setting for productivity. Social cohesion, on the other hand, bears little relationship to performance. Indeed, studies have shown that high social cohesion sometimes interferes with unit performance.

The presence of a known homosexual in a unit could reduce social cohesion. In extreme cases, it could lead to ostracism or violence. However, both research and the experience of foreign militaries and domestic organizations suggest that a number of factors can minimize social disruption. First, leaders play a key role in promoting and maintaining unit cohesion. Second, military roles, regulations, and norms all enhance the likelihood that heterosexuals will work cooperatively with homosexuals. Third, external threats enhance cohesion, provided that the group members are mutually threatened and there is the possibility that cooperative group action can eliminate the danger.

The RAND study suggests that although the presence of a known homosexual may affect social cohesion, it is unlikely to undermine task cohesion, provided that the individual demonstrates competence and a commitment to the unit’s mission. Therefore, researchers conclude that the presence of known homosexuals on the force is not likely to undermine military performance.

If you’re interested, the whole study is here (548 page pdf file).

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@What_the

2. A military guy on ABC just said that the worst thing about DADT is that it allows a would-be soldier to get alot of valuable training up front and then back out of his commitment by “telling” on himself. How much of that is going on and can it be attributed primarily to gays rather than straights who are lieing?

The military files claims against such soldiers, requiring them to pay back the cost of this training. They even do so when they throw out a gay soldier who wants to stay in.

So this ‘military guy’ obviously doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Cites: [ul]
[li]“the military has required some service members fired for homosexuality to repay the costs of their education and training.” Blue Ribbon Panel on DADT costs (pdf)[/li][li]Army Captain and West Point graduate Anthony Woods: As he was discharged under DADT, Woods is required to repay the government the cost of his military scholarship to Harvard…[/li][li]“Sara Isaacson had a full-ride ROTC scholarship at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a dream of becoming an Army doctor like her grandfather. Today she may owe nearly $80,000 for the cost of books and out-of-state tuition that the Army paid the university on her behalf.”[/li][li]Air Force Captain Dr. Monica Hill: …received a bill from the military demanding that she repay $65,000 – the cost of her medical education.[/li][li]In addition, they have to repay any bonuses and costs of education at a service academy like West Point, even if they’ve been in the military, 10, 15, 20 years serving the country they love.[/li][/ul]

[What_the]

@Morgenstern

Who’s doing this lumping?

The community.

Actually I left out “Bi” … google LGBTG (spelled out) and see what you get.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@waterj2

From what I understand, the recent study did not look at the issue of military effectiveness specifically. However, the RAND study from 1993, when Clinton announced his intention to end discrimination against homosexuals did focus specifically on that.

That is so old as to be pretty useless, on an issue like this, where attitudes are changing rapidly.

Most of the soldiers in our armed forces weren’t potty trained when that was done!