Lesbian outed from military due to police

[UMDRevan]

Check out this link (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Rather incredible.

Just putting this out for your discussion.

Edit: per request, I'm adding a basic summary of the article in case the link doesn't work. Basically, a lesbian sergeant was honorably discharged from the Air Force after 9 years of service. Her partner was wanted for charges of theft, and when the sergeant refused to leave the air force base to go home to speak with police, the police peered through the sergeant's home windows, saw the marriage license on the table, and then informed the local air force base that the sergeant was gay, causing her to be discharged.

[Wien1938]

I think it just proves once more the stupidity of anti-homosexual regulations. Bill Clinton was a coward - the situation demands a clear cut decision.
Either outlaw homosexuals serving in the military or (my prefered option) remove all bar to them serving their country.

[Dodeca]

Punish anyone and all the tattletales that snitch on their fellow homosexual solders. Thats my opinion.

[Angel1]

Honestly, no reason for "Don't ask, don't tell." Let's just do away with this and be done with it. The police should neither have reported her, nor snould she have been discharged.

[Fox]

Anyone who wants to put their life on the line for my ass should be allowed too.

[Lucid]

Who, exactly, is still in favor of the don't ask, don't tell policy?

I don't even know any republicans who want this to stay in place.

Though I'm sure I'll find some on this forum.

[ya lyublyu tebya]

Anyone who wants to put their life on the line for my ass should be allowed too.
Amen! That is the height of ingratitude. If they want to fire her, they should have to take her place.



Um, the policy is "don't ask, don't tell," and obviously, the police told. There should be some kind of punishment for them. Obviously, it goes without saying that I don't think she should have been discharged.

[Elfrun]

Don't ask don't tell is long out dated, what happened is disappointing, that she can't serve because of her sexuality is disgraceful.

[Ytterbium]

Only in the US.

Those at fault here are the police and the armed forces. Seem to have alot in common with some ofn the middle east fundamentalists; "Lets stone the rape victim"

[SShack]

I'm deeply skeptical about the description of how police found out. They saw the marriage certificate on a table through a window and were able to read it? That seems really, really unlikely.

[Zsych]

Its iffy whether the military would be better served by having homosexuals in it making other recruits uncomfortable, or not.

There's a difference between the philosophical view and the functional view.

[plotthickens]

Its iffy whether the military would be better served by having homosexuals in it making other recruits uncomfortable, or not.

There's a difference between the philosophical view and the functional view.

If it were just a philosophical quandry, then 'iffy' may apply. But it's happened in real life. There's no problem.

[hubcap]

If it were just a philosophical quandry, then 'iffy' may apply. But it's happened in real life. There's no problem.
It has not happened in the United States military so to suggest that it won't be a problem there would appear to be an uninformed opinion.

[plotthickens]

It has not happened in the United States military so to suggest that it won't be a problem there would appear to be an uninformed opinion.

You're right. Please allow me to rephrase.

"Examples of this sort of issue in other countries, and their solutions, would lead us to believe that this is not such a Great Big Deal as current US politicans and policies make it out to be."

[Elfrun]

Its iffy whether the military would be better served by having homosexuals in it making other recruits uncomfortable, or not.

What's iffy or philosophical about it? They do serve, they are there. No war pitting US soldier against US soldier has resulted.

Btw going through recruit training is not 'comfortable', nothing about it is supposed to be. The "comfort" of a recruit is not important in most other areas, why is this so special and taboo?

It has not happened in the United States military so to suggest that it won't be a problem there would appear to be an uninformed opinion.

That's a bit of a head-in-the-sand view, there are gay men and women in the US Military, don't ask don't tell doesn't stop them serving, sometimes being gay is pretty obvious in the way one carries themselves, their comrades would know without being told. If their comrades are homophobic and would have an issue with an openly gay serving soldier then guess what, don't ask don't tell being removed will not result in that soldier coming out, not being accepted by people you have to trust with your life is not worth it, what would happen if don't ask don't tell was removed is they would be able to list their partner as their partner and if anything happened to them they would be notified, they could have their partner live with them and be taken into consideration when getting a new post. These are things straight couples have taken into consideration automatically. It is not simply a matter of a soldiers right to parade around saying their gay. Soldiers are not children that have to be babied in a way that the rest of society are not allowed to be due to discrimination laws.

Why is the right for those who are homophobic more important that the right of a soldier to have their relationship considered legitimate. It's pandering to those who are homophobic and it's outdated.

[Yhor]

I dunno. I do think government is out of bounds by discriminating, in any way, against homos. I think they should be allowed to marry, as heteros are, and given equal treatment in the eyes of the law, in every instance.

However, I am a bigot when it comes to homos. I openly admit that I just don't care to be around them, if they are flamboyant fags. I imagine they'd fall up the ladder well a time or two if they weren't respectful.. stepped out of line.. whatever. There are heteros that also fall into this category, so maybe I'm not a bigot, but just dislike the personality that seems pretty common with openly gay men. If you act in a way, that you know will cause conflict, then yes, you do deserve an ass kicking, especially in the military. So, I truly believe that the policy is still enforced to save them from their selves (as Big Brother so often does). I do think they should be allowed entry and be allowed to stay if/when found out, as long as they conduct their selves with military bearing (which is also a condition of straight men and women).

[Elfrun]

I do think they should be allowed entry and be allowed to stay if/when found out, as long as they conduct their selves with military bearing (which is also a condition of straight men and women).

DADT doesn't agree with you. A soldiers performance is inconsequential compared to their sexual preference when it comes to being allowed to serve.

You are entitled to dislike someone for whatever reason you choose. Legal discrimination is a very different beast, that's what DADT is.

Also, the policy is not for the protection of gay soldiers;

DADT: "it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

^ Being gay in society is not a dismissible offence, does it have that kind of impact? Does having a gay co-worker that you are forced to interact with affect your morale, good order, discipline or cohesion? I doubt it, if you are homophobic then I imagine you wouldn't like it but your hate is your problem, racists are not pandered to, you can't say you have a problem with serving with a black man because you believe in the ethos of white pride and be heard, your right to discriminate against him does not exist, you don't have to like him, want him to be there or choose to associate with him outside of doing your job but his right to equality supersedes an individuals right to antiquated racism. Disliking someone because of their sexuality is an individual's prerogative, but legal discrimination in the name of homophobia is not a right in the US why should the military be different. Removing DADT doesn't mean those who don't accept homosexuality have to accept it and it won't change soldiers taking 'discipline' into their own hands.

I've served in the Australian Military where being gay used to be banned. It is no longer. I've known some soldiers to serve openly, I've known a fair number of soldiers who did not disclose their sexual preference but could not hide the fact that they were gay, I've known soldiers who would not come out and their sexuality was not known by their mates, and I've also known those who are homophobic. The Army did not internally combust, it wasn't much of an issue.

Do you know what affected "high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability"? Soldiers who were incompetent, soldiers who were jack and didn't pull their weight, soldiers who did things that showed they would be a liability in combat, it may surprise supporters of DADT to hear that a soldiers sexuality has never had that affect, it was their attitude and ability that mattered.

I doubt there are very many openly gay men in Infantry, Artillery or Armoured, they are places where being gay may be harmful to your health. Removing DADT will not result in soldiers who have a fair contingent of comrades that are homophobic coming out, fitting into your unit is a pretty important aspect of military life, if coming out would jeopardise that those who are smart will stfu until they gtfo. DADT does not protect them, it forces them into a corner and leaves them with less rights than the heterosexual soldiers around them have.

It just really isn't that big of a deal. DADT is antiquated and needs to go.

[Vagrant]

I think it just proves once more the stupidity of anti-homosexual regulations. Bill Clinton was a coward - the situation demands a clear cut decision.
Either outlaw homosexuals serving in the military or (my prefered option) remove all bar to them serving their country.

He was dealing with a Republican Congress. He had to compromise.

He got it through so it could be changed at a later time.

I'm deeply skeptical about the description of how police found out. They saw the marriage certificate on a table through a window and were able to read it? That seems really, really unlikely.Agreed. It would have to be framed and sitting on a table next to the window, facing the window to read it or even notice.

[hubcap]

He was dealing with a Republican Congress. He had to compromise.

He got it through so it could be changed at a later time.
"Don't Ask Don't Tell" was passed in 1993 which was before the republicans took control of Congress. Clinton was dealing with a democratic majority in both the House and Senate at the time.

[themuzicman]

He was dealing with a Republican Congress. He had to compromise.

He got it through so it could be changed at a later time.


Sorry, but this was Clinton's policy, passed before the GOP took control in 1995. This "intolerance, hatred and homophobia" belongs solely to the Democrats.

---------- Post added 03-16-2010 at 12:04 PM ----------

Don't ask don't tell is long out dated, what happened is disappointing, that she can't serve because of her sexuality is disgraceful.

So, screw military effectiveness and the effects of openly gay people serving in units?

[plotthickens]

So, screw military effectiveness and the effects of openly gay people serving in units?

What effects? Is there any proof that having fabulous males and hairy females in the military will (pardon me) queer its effectiveness? Or is it just your bias?

[themuzicman]

What effects? Is there any proof that having fabulous males and hairy females in the military will (pardon me) queer its effectiveness? Or is it just your bias?

No, it is based upon multiple conversations with people who have extensive military experience, both officers and non-coms.

[SShack]

So, screw military effectiveness and the effects of openly gay people serving in units?

And the alternative is "So, screw expecting our soldiers to act like professionals and cater to those with base, childish, unfounded fears?" Perhaps we should continue banning gays and open the military to 12-year-olds. "Military effectiveness" is not gained by pandering to people's immaturities.

The funny thing about this argument is that it can't actually be proven one way or another about the effect on military readiness until it's tried, so it's just fear tactics. Even when we point out that other countries have done it just fine, the response "Yeah, well America is different!"

Actually we know gays in the military won't effect military effectiveness because there are thousands of gays in the U.S. military right now and everybody, including the members of the military, knows it, and still do their jobs just fine. Most of them even know who around them is gay. My partner is in his late 30s, attractive, friendly, hard-working, not married and doesn't date (obviously). He doesn't talk about it of course, but no doubt most of the soldiers around him have a pretty good idea.

Literally nothing will change at all when DADT goes away. Everybody has already adapted to gays in the military.

[plotthickens]

No, it is based upon multiple conversations with people who have extensive military experience, both officers and non-coms.


Are these folks members of militaries who do not discriminate? Or are they just your friends? Cuz I have friends in the military too, and they don't care one way or the other.

[themuzicman]

Are these folks members of militaries who do not discriminate? Or are they just your friends? Cuz I have friends in the military too, and they don't care one way or the other.

I don't think they care personally about whether someone is gay or not. Their concern is the cohesiveness of a military unit fighting in the field. I doubt it matters much for paper pushers and desk jockeys.

[plotthickens]

Are these folks members of militaries who do not discriminate? Or are they just your friends? Cuz I have friends in the military too, and they don't care one way or the other.

I don't think they care personally about whether someone is gay or not. Their concern is the cohesiveness of a military unit fighting in the field. I doubt it matters much for paper pushers and desk jockeys.


Are these folks members of militaries who do not discriminate? Or are they just your friends?

[hubcap]

And the alternative is "So, screw expecting our soldiers to act like professionals and cater to those with base, childish, unfounded fears?" Perhaps we should continue banning gays and open the military to 12-year-olds. "Military effectiveness" is not gained by pandering to people's immaturities.
Any policy which diminishes the effectiveness of the military to accomplish its mission is a bad policy.
The funny thing about this argument is that it can't actually be proven one way or another about the effect on military readiness until it's tried, so it's just fear tactics. Even when we point out that other countries have done it just fine, the response "Yeah, well America is different!"
Before we are willing to potentially compromise the security of the nation I would suggest we take a very deliberate and informed approach. Rather than just make a sweeping change and find out 5 years down the road that our military has become ineffective, I would suggest deliberation, rather than rushing head-long into a policy just to pander to a political constituency.
Actually we know gays in the military won't effect military effectiveness because there are thousands of gays in the U.S. military right now and everybody, including the members of the military, knows it, and still do their jobs just fine. Most of them even know who around them is gay. My partner is in his late 30s, attractive, friendly, hard-working, not married and doesn't date (obviously). He doesn't talk about it of course, but no doubt most of the soldiers around him have a pretty good idea.

Literally nothing will change at all when DADT goes away. Everybody has already adapted to gays in the military.
You've made a number of claims which are unsubstantiated. Do you think the military reports all the issues that have came up due to this issue?

Let me be clear. I am not for or against homosexuals in the military. I am simply for the most effective military we can put into the field. The military is not a social experiment, nor should it be treated as such.

[SShack]

The military is not a social experiment, nor should it be treated as such.

Life is a fucking social experiment. Living with gay people isn't an experiment, it's reality. The military isn't any different.


You've made a number of claims which are unsubstantiated. Do you think the military reports all the issues that have came up due to this issue?

Er, which claim is unsubstantiated? That there are thousands of gays in the military? (There are plenty of studies on this) That people in the military know this? (Many soldiers have both said this in interviews in the press and have testified as such before Congress) What is unsubstantiated? Okay, the "everybody has already adapted" claim is a generalization, but unless you're going to attempt to prove that the military is less effective now than it was before DADT was implemented in the first place, there's pretty good evidence that the gays and the military are completely compatible.

Perhaps we should stop this "social experiment" of allowing the military's least professional members to determine its policies? The military is not a special institution. If you can't work with certain types of people, you don't belong there.

[themuzicman]

Life is a fucking social experiment. Living with gay people isn't an experiment, it's reality. The military isn't any different.


The military has a specific function, and social experiments detract from that function.

[Seriously]

It's all the same arguments they use for not allowing women in the military. If someone can do the job then let them do it. Who cares what sex they are or what sex they sleep with.

What bothers me more are the whiny ass people who join for college benefits and then cry when they get deployed. What the heck did you think was going to happen, you joined the MILITARY for God's sake!

[yoginimama]

Y'know, we already went through this 70-odd years ago with racial integration of the military. Everyone was all, "It will never work!" etc etc until someone or other simply gave an order that The Military Was Now Integrated. It seems to me that we have survived.

We're the United States of America. Our strength is in our differences. Our power comes from being a ragtag bunch of mutts and mongrels. We need our blacks, our whites, our East Asians, our West Asians, our South Asians, our Natives, our Latino/as, our women, our Jews, our Mormons, our atheists, our rich, our poor, our lefties, our righties, our New Yorkers, our farm boys, our immigrants, our Mayflower descendants, our multi-ethnic folks, etc etc etc in order to fulfill our potential as a nation.

Which means we need our gays and kinksters and polys and bisexuals and furries too.

[Yhor]

The military has a specific function, and social experiments detract from that function.

The same was said about black people in the military. The exact same.
If you can't view image, it can be seen at To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. gif&doi=10.2307%2F2717718

[SShack]

The military has a specific function, and social experiments detract from that function.

Every institution has a specific function and has to deal with issues that may "detract" from it. So what? This is a meaningless statement, a mantra that opponents trot out all the time. It can't be "disproven" because it doesn't actually say anything. Dealing with other Americans is not a "social experiment" -- it is, in fact, reality. If fact, it's an argument that reduces the intelligence and skills of our entire military to that of children.

[yoginimama]

Every institution has a specific function and has to deal with issues that may "detract" from it. So what? This is a meaningless statement, a mantra that opponents trot out all the time. It can't be "disproven" because it doesn't actually say anything. Dealing with other Americans is not a "social experiment" -- it is, in fact, reality. If fact, it's an argument that reduces the intelligence and skills of our entire military to that of children.

Worse than children, even, because public schoolchildren in the United States are expected to get along with classmates of varying backgrounds and lifestyles. No one has to like anyone else, but everyone has to suck it up and get through the day.

[hubcap]

Life is a fucking social experiment. Living with gay people isn't an experiment, it's reality. The military isn't any different.
The military is significantly different than civilian life.
Er, which claim is unsubstantiated? That there are thousands of gays in the military? (There are plenty of studies on this) That people in the military know this? (Many soldiers have both said this in interviews in the press and have testified as such before Congress) What is unsubstantiated? Okay, the "everybody has already adapted" claim is a generalization, but unless you're going to attempt to prove that the military is less effective now than it was before DADT was implemented in the first place, there's pretty good evidence that the gays and the military are completely compatible.
Your claim that literally nothing will change after DADT is eliminated seems quite presumptuous. I am not claiming anything in regard to the military's effectiveness now or prior to DADT.
Perhaps we should stop this "social experiment" of allowing the military's least professional members to determine its policies? The military is not a special institution. If you can't work with certain types of people, you don't belong there.
The military serves a special purpose. Assuming a worse-case scenario of a total break-down in the military as a result of eliminating DADT, the repercussions would be significant. I am not suggesting that will happen, just pointing out that it would have far greater implications than if some other government entity became completely disfunctional.

[Holiman]

Hubcap, I want to tell you a story about on the ship I served a corpman asked the Captain (this was during capt. call a sorta town hall in the military) " will women server aboard this ship in the forseeable future?"

I will never forget the response the capt turned red and all but went ballistic, the only words I can repeat was there is one color in the navy, blue. Woman man black purple skinned are all blue shirts.

The concept that the military isnt a social experimentation shows you have not spent much time there. During boot camp people enter with tons of baggage during the following 8 weeks or more the only concept they beat into your brain is "esprit de corp".

I would heartily suggest you look further into the history of the US military and world militaries to see better how and why they work.

[Thinktress]

The reality is that there already are people of every race, both genders and a couple in between, and every race fighting for the US in battle. They just don't always announce everything about themselves. I don't see it as an issue for the women and gays who are ALREADY serving to say that they are serving. I think this is really a non-issue.

[hubcap]

The concept that the military isnt a social experimentation shows you have not spent much time there.
You and I apparently use a different definition of social experiment.

You seem to be assuming a lot about my past experiences.

[Elfrun]

So, screw military effectiveness and the effects of openly gay people serving in units?

You seem to have most conveniently skipped over the parts that mentioned I'm in the Australian Army where it is no longer banned to be gay, I'm not theorising or talking out my ass here, I'm talking about witnessing firsthand the total lack of effect that being able to be an openly gay soldier has had.

You also seem to be skipping over the part where it is explained that there are already gay soldiers in the US military and while they may not be able to be open about their sexuality not all can hide their sexuality. Allowing gays to serve is not a social experiment, they are already serving and with a fair number their mates can tell, nothing has been blown up as a result.

Those I've met who have an issue with gays in the military do so because they are homophobic or simply need to target someone who's different out of pack mentality, not out of fake concerns over their ability to serve like any other soldier, well fine they can go ahead and hate gays as much as they want but just like racism that hate should not be supported by discriminatory legislation.

If you happen to think this can't be related to racism, read the link Yhor posted very carefully.

[Holiman]

I apologize if I assumed to much but from what you said I feel comfortable saying you do not appear to have experiance in the military. If you can picture 90+ people in a long room whom have never met each other suddenly going through the experiance of their life. The fact is these people come from every corner of the US and territories they are melded into a unit in the course of a couple months in that time you would be amazed at how different these people lives are and what they go through.

And thats just boot camp, from there often times training gets more intense or cerebreal depending upon their chosen fields. Is there racism, sure there is and alot of old baggage from where they come from they either get beyond this or do not get very far in their careers. There is sexism rampant in the service but woman are serving in nearly every part (soon to be on subs too).

How is that not a social experiment already?

[hubcap]

I apologize if I assumed to much but from what you said I feel comfortable saying you do not appear to have experiance in the military. If you can picture 90+ people in a long room whom have never met each other suddenly going through the experiance of their life. The fact is these people come from every corner of the US and territories they are melded into a unit in the course of a couple months in that time you would be amazed at how different these people lives are and what they go through.
I know what it is like. I went through the same thing. I just don't view it as a social experiment any more than I would consider it a social experiment for someone to go to enter a new highschool where they didn't know anyone.

And thats just boot camp, from there often times training gets more intense or cerebreal depending upon their chosen fields. Is there racism, sure there is and alot of old baggage from where they come from they either get beyond this or do not get very far in their careers. There is sexism rampant in the service but woman are serving in nearly every part (soon to be on subs too).

How is that not a social experiment already?
Women in the military is somewhat of a social experiment. My best friend came back from a combat tour in Iraq last year. He told me that the women in his unit were the worst thing that he had to deal with during his entire tour.

Let me state once again that I am not philosophically opposed to homosexuals serving in the military. However, to think that there aren't going to be issues, particularly in combat units seems somewhat polyannaish to me.

[plotthickens]

However, to think that there aren't going to be issues, particularly in combat units seems somewhat polyannaish to me.

Enough issues to warrant this constant shedding of valuable personnel (many of our military translators are... excuse me, WERE gay) and drama in the media?

[Zsych]

This is really a matter that should be put to vote by the soldiers, since it is they who would serve with gay personnel - and either want or not want them.

The military at its core is a very male organization. It represents the more animal side of us. Brothers in arms.
If the people in the army can't feel that way about some people, then those people shouldn't be there.

The military is not a civilian organization, it is a country's weapon. You don't want the weapon malfunctioning, because of some philosophical idea that has no real relation to it. It'd be like putting up decorations on a sword to make it prettier, but heavier and harder to wield at the same time.

[firebee]

This is really a matter that should be put to vote by the soldiers, since it is they who would serve with gay personnel - and either want or not want them.

It is exceedingly important to make sure that the orders we give to soldiers are in tune with their feelings. Hence why we have them vote on things like whether they want to be yelled at by drill sergeants, sent on long deployments away from their families, and/or shot at by mean people. Hence also why we have encounter meetings with soldiers who can't work with other soldiers of different ethnicities, rather than canning their asses.

If the military is this caring and sensitive with only straight people in it, imagine how much of a love-fest it'll be when they let the gays in?

[plotthickens]

This is really a matter that should be put to vote by the soldiers, since it is they who would serve with gay personnel - and either want or not want them.

The military at its core is a very male organization. It represents the more animal side of us. Brothers in arms.
If the people in the army can't feel that way about some people, then those people shouldn't be there.

The military is not a civilian organization, it is a country's weapon. You don't want the weapon malfunctioning, because of some philosophical idea that has no real relation to it. It'd be like putting up decorations on a sword to make it prettier, but heavier and harder to wield at the same time.

Weapon or not, people are people. White southerners probably would not have voted to allow blacks into their sacrosanct schools.

And please let me know how sloughing valuable, learned members of our military has "no real relation" to the functioning of the Armed Forces?

[Zsych]

That would be a cost vs. benefit thing. How willing is the military to accept them.
Personally, if I were to allow a removal of homosexuals from the military - it would probably be from the groups that do the fighting, rather than stuff like translators.

In any case, the military is not a civilian organization. Its whole existence is focused on something the average person does not want in their lives. Protection - but really killing. It is not a moral or good organization - it is a necessary evil - that can potentially bring a longer term good.

The military should not be concerned with stuff like gay rights. It might be good if they reduced their expenditures though.

In the end, if you're in a battle situation with lives on the line, and you don't trust the person you're with and don't accept them - that is a catastrophe. You can't control what people feel. Either the soldiers need to accept them, or homosexuals shouldn't be there.

The morals of civilian life and the ideals of various groups of people (ideals that are not even accepted by all the people of the United States), are not the military's problem. The military is a separate society, made up of a different kind of people, with its own culture and its own laws that are different from the culture and laws of American civilians.

---

In a sense this is similar to managing us INTJs the same as everyone else, and trying to sell us on massive extroversion and parties and what not, and trying to teach us like S types. It is not suited to us, to who we are, to how we should live.

[nacht]

This is really a matter that should be put to vote by the soldiers, since it is they who would serve with gay personnel - and either want or not want them.


"We're here to protect democracy, not to practice it."


The military at its core is a very male organization. It represents the more animal side of us. Brothers in arms.
If the people in the army can't feel that way about some people, then those people shouldn't be there.


So... lesbians and transgendered individuals are allowed but not straight women?


The military is not a civilian organization, it is a country's weapon. You don't want the weapon malfunctioning, because of some philosophical idea that has no real relation to it. It'd be like putting up decorations on a sword to make it prettier, but heavier and harder to wield at the same time.

Right. We should kick those blacks out immediately. It is time for this long running social experiment to end.

After all, everyone knows that blacks can't see as well at night.

[Zsych]

If I was managing the military, I'd make sure people who don't work together, don't work together - definitely not for things that are critical and where they have to function well. Which for racist people might mean segregation.

Of course, you could go the route of discriminating against people who don't want to work with gay people and not letting them in, but I rather suspect that would cut out a large number of the recruits.

In any case, the military doesn't need to be a place for random social experiments.

[nacht]

If I was managing the military, I'd make sure people who don't work together, don't work together - definitely not for things that are critical and where they have to function well. Which for racist people might mean segregation.


You think combat efficiency is improved by having white-only units? What happens when the chain of command leaves the highest ranking individual on the field as someone who is black but the other troops are white segregationists?


Of course, you could go the route of discriminating against people who don't want to work with gay people and not letting them in, but I rather suspect that would cut out a large number of the recruits.


Or you can just let them all in so long as they don't do anything that compromises the chain of command or the mission and tell them to deal with it.


In any case, the military doesn't need to be a place for random social experiments.

Like having strictly isolated chains of command based on prejudice?

[plotthickens]

In a sense this is similar to managing us INTJs the same as everyone else, and trying to sell us on massive extroversion and parties and what not, and trying to teach us like S types. It is not suited to us, to who we are, to how we should live.

Homophobia is not like I vs. E. Trying to normalize homophobia through these kinds of arguments is silly. Do you have anything besides "Homophobia is normal" and "The military should not be bothered with silly things like equality" as arguments?

Please let me know -- my Master Sargeant Aunt would like to hear something new on the subject of excluding certain (you know, wink wink) types.

[firebee]

Like having strictly isolated chains of command based on prejudice?

That shouldn't be an insurmountable problem. All we need is a huge database for all the various soldiers indicating their political opinions, racial and social prejudices, et cetera, and listing people that they just don't like very much. That way, we can make sure to assign soldiers to areas containing only people that they have warm and fuzzy feelings for, and particularly to ensure that they are only given orders by people that make them feel good.

This sort of sensitivity is central to military efficiency, and deviating from the notion that soldiers don't have to do things that make them sad-face :( would be a bizarre social experiment that can only end in people being nonconsensually shot.