Hibiskiss, I think you change 'Soldiers are to 'Soldiers should be'.... I suppose the question is 'what if they aren't'?

What level is this class?

If women are in the military, what's the difference with a homosexual? I really don't care. If someone wants to support their country by enlisting, then that is their right and should be allowed regardless of their sexual orientation.

Just as if a fe/male soldier was constantly putting out sexual advances on the opposite and they would get warned/punished. So should a homosexual soldier. No reason to have any sort of different rules.

For their own sakes I think they should either be encouraged not to tell people or to be put in a different unit. The potential for harassment/persecution is extreme, and could lead to a lot of scandals. I guess they could be open and integrated only if the authority figures in the military were committed to enforcing discipline against those who harassed them.

For opponents of gays in the military, it never is a question as to whether they gay has the right to serve. It always focuses on the effect on other soldiers. And whether we can say it shouldn't affect them, that's not a scientific answer. DOES it affect them and their ability to defend our country?

Arguably yes especially considering the kinds of guys that frequently join the military, which is why I would tentatively support a separate unit. However that could lead to discrimination too (i.e. not enough equipment given to this unit as compared to others, etc.)

So I guess I just don't know. Urging them to keep it confidential would probably be best.

Few women serve in active combat platoons. Do you see any female Navy Seals, Green Berets, or Marine Force Recon? I know the movies present them as possibilities, but there aren't any. The same rules should apply to openly homosexual soldiers. You don't want any issues of sex in the "trenches" of warfare. But, women do serve in support and some in and out combat positions (combat aircraft pilots) as they come back home, in theory, at the end of the run. This too would be acceptable for homosexuals. They key is long term, deep penetration combat should not have to deal with concerns of sex or sexual tension getting in the way of the soldier doing his (or her) job. If you are going to have a unit do that, make certain there won't be any sexual tension in the unit, so all heterosexual male (an all gay male force would still have sexual tension, if not sexual activity).

Huh huh, he said 'deep penetration'

I really don't understand how it can affect the other soldiers that are not gay. Can someone explain to me?

Troodonte, you don't understand how. But do you accept that it does (for some at least)?

I know it does, but I don't understand why...
Do you know why?

@Troodonte - You haven't served have you? Showers and barracks in the service are a walk through/open air environment (especially amongst the enlisted) where every one is exposed to everyone else. I don't want some gay guy seeing me naked. For all I know they might find me attractive (well, back when I was in shape and in the Corps) and be fantasizing about me. I didn't sign up for that and neither did today's military men and women. It's bad enough you don't have any privacy as an enlisted man, but to have to be exposed on any level to potential non-verbal/non-physical sexual harrassment even is unacceptable for anyone, male or female. That's why, even though they may server together, women don't share barracks and showers with men in the service. No women wants to have the lingering stares and "behind the back" banter, and no man does either.

No I haven't served Draugnar.

"I don't want some gay guy seeing me naked."
Do you go to public showers?
Are there Public showers for gays? Public toillets, etc...
" fantasizing about me"
why do you care? They are just gays... not rappers or whatever...

In my opinion there is no way to avoid the situation that draugnar described without having to call it descrimination.

Keeping gays out of the military was a way to keep soldiers from engaging in sodomy. That's a legitimate concern to have, since sexed-up soldiers would hurt discipline.

That being said, I don't see much of justification for how celibate gays can be banned from the military. Keep sodomy as a punishable offense, but people's personal sexual preferences are nobody's business but their own, to quote Seinfeld.

The public showers I use have stalls and curtains at the gym. You have some measure of privacy. Restrooms have dividers between the urinals and doors on the stalls. This isn't the case in the service. It's a row of shower heads, a row of urinals, and a row of commodes. Only the commodes have dividers and they have no doors. You take a shower by walking through from shower head to shower head in the morning and at night. Every one lines up with soap and wash cloth and nothing more. It's a very different environment. And I care because the lingering stares are sexual harrassment. Go to any sexual harrassment training session and you'll discover just all the stuff you do that makes women uncomfortable.

"They are just gays... not rappers or whatever..."

Best unintentional humor in a while.

The idea that 'sex' or 'sexual tension' is bad for trench-style combat is not necessarily a cut and tried fact.

Believe it or not, homosexual relations were sometimes tolerated in WW1 militaries (at least the British/Canadian) because they served to increase team unity and rose morale (in most cases). Men were also less likely to feel suicidal. This applies to both 'straight' and 'gay' men.

Invictus... don't know what you mean, but it was said in the context of draugnar being concerned about gays fatisizinh about him.

As english is not my mother tongue I tend to always be concerned about they way people will interpretate my words...

A person who rapes another is a 'rapist'.

A rapper is a rap singer.

Ok...glad I said that english is not my mother tongue :D

It is okay. Your unintentional hilarity made us all smile. :)

What I find interesting is that men fear from gays what women have feared from men since time began. What is really interesting is that up until recent history (and it ain't resolved yet) the rights of gays and women have had to be won, while the rights of man have been taken to be a given.

You can no more fairly* out-law sodomy than you can hetro intercourse.

Didn't the Greeks (or a country like it) allow for homosexual relations, and didn't even the hetro men engage in it?

Seems to me any decision to ban gays from the military is based on fear.

Not every gay man is going to find every ass they see attractive, and fewer still will ignore their attraction for what it is, and because they have higher purposes being soldiers than getting laid.

"You can no more fairly* out-law sodomy than you can hetro intercourse."

You can outlaw it in the military since they need to maintain order. You can't let people have sex with each other and keep up discipline. I'm pretty sure heterosexual intercourse is also banned. You give up freedoms when you join the army.

Another interesting note;

If you are exposed to opposite sex (or same sex) nudity on a constant basis in mundane situations, it loses its eroticism. Our fetish with simple nudity is something rather cultural (though obviously the base level of biological attraction will still have its effect).

Trust me. ;)

Also, the idea that gay men cannot keep thier sexual desires under control compared to hetero men is an unfortunate myth it would be nice to leave to leave behind, dudes. Welcome to the 21st century. :)

I once heard a pretty good quote on the west wing about gays in the military and it really spoke to me. It was by Admiral Fitzwallace, a black man and chair of the joint chiefs.

To paraphrase:
"Will openly gay men in the military shake things up? Yes. Will it have an effect on unit cohesion? Yes. Will it make the 'regular' soldiers uncomfortable? Of course.
But that is what happened 60 years ago when they let black men serve in the same units as the whites. It caused disorder, discomfort, and lack of cohesion in the unit. But you know what? The unit got over it."

they don't have to mix. i've heard that alexander the great's best military units were all-gay

...or is that a myth??

In the ancient greece the concept of homo or hetero sexual didn't exist, so you were free to do whoever you wanted, although there was some social distinctions on whether you were a (ahem) giver or a taker.

The Spartans most famously encouraged sexual contact in the ranks because they figured a man would go further to defend his lover than merely a comrade. Alexander's troops and Alexander himself were no exception.