Military Discharged 770 Last Year for Being Gay

[Elfdart]

A lot of a good points have been raised in this discussion. After doing some research I've found that I can't reasonably defend my position without grasping at straws, which I've probably already done.

Therefore, I concede.

Besides, I wouldn't even care. Hopefully we can look forward to co-ed showers next! (jk)

Be careful what you ask for. The chicks they make you shower with could all be two-baggers. *

[Darth Wong]

Then maybe the Army should stop worry about gays in the military and start worrying about morons in the military. This whole shit-pile seems utterly self-perpetuating, to me. The Army doesn't care if you're a homophobic bigot, and if you are, they'll accommodate you by keeping those damn faggots out of your Army.

Actually, the approved term is not "homophobic bigot". It is "Righteous God-fearing patriot". Get your terminology straight.

[Kamakazie Sith]

A lot of a good points have been raised in this discussion. After doing some research I've found that I can't reasonably defend my position without grasping at straws, which I've probably already done.

Therefore, I concede.

Besides, I wouldn't even care. Hopefully we can look forward to co-ed showers next! (jk)

Be careful what you ask for. The chicks they make you shower with could all be two-baggers. *

Well, I guess if they could choose who you showered with that would take the fun out of it. However, as long as there was occasionally one really hot female soldier then it would be worth it.

[Durandal]

Ala Starship Troopers?

The only bad part about that co-ed shower scene is that Denise Richards wasn't in it.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Ala Starship Troopers?

The only bad part about that co-ed shower scene is that Denise Richards wasn't in it.

Indeed. However, the scene was just so unrealistic in many ways. The number of very attractive women and the fact that none of the men got raging boners as a result.

If I was in that shower room I couldn't allow myself any warm water, period.

[Stormbringer]

Stormbringer, is it that unsettling to be in close proximity to homos? Is this fear or hatred that much more disturbing than it was for a racist cracker from Mississippi to have to bunk next to a black guy years ago?

It has nothing at all to do with homphobia and every thing to do with being forced to live in close proximity who finds you (or at least your gender) sexually attractive. There would be the same problems if men and women were forced to live in a completely co-ed set up with in the military. Like it or not, that will cause a lot of problems. If you think it won't look at the massive and far reaching problems that have resulted in women in the service, and that's with a degree of segration between the sexes. The problem isn't simply a bunch of knuckle draggers, but the inevitable complexities of sexual dynamics.

I don't advocate the discrimination against gays, but there are serious issues that really do need to be addressed. And given that the US military still has trouble with females in the military, I don't see homosexuals being any less a hurdle.

[Durandal]

Stormbringer, is it that unsettling to be in close proximity to homos? Is this fear or hatred that much more disturbing than it was for a racist cracker from Mississippi to have to bunk next to a black guy years ago?

It has nothing at all to do with homphobia and every thing to do with being forced to live in close proximity who finds you (or at least your gender) sexually attractive. There would be the same problems if men and women were forced to live in a completely co-ed set up with in the military. Like it or not, that will cause a lot of problems. If you think it won't look at the massive and far reaching problems that have resulted in women in the service, and that's with a degree of segration between the sexes. The problem isn't simply a bunch of knuckle draggers, but the inevitable complexities of sexual dynamics.

Why is it that everyone assumes that heterosexuals are eminently capable of controlling their sexual desires, but gay men will inevitably start fucking another man up the ass given the opportunity? Get fucking real, Stormbringer. Men and women live together platonically all the time. I lived with two female roommates last Summer, and did I rape both of them because I can't control my sexual impulses? No. I've lived in close proximity with gay men before, and did they sneak into my bed and start fondling me while I was sleeping? No.

This is nothing more than the high schoolish attitude of being uncomfortable with one's sexuality. And sorry, I wasn't aware that the Army was in the business of making recruits comfortable.

Let me ask you this. How does the Army's current policy of "Don't ask, don't tell" approach this issue of the poor, insecure heterosexuals being forced to live in an environment where a gay guy might find them attractive? Oh that's right, it doesn't. The gay guy is there; the only difference is that they don't know he's gay. And does that do a damn thing to change whether or not the gay guy is going to start sexually molesting people? Nope! In other words, these people don't have shit for a legitimate fear of any real harm. It's just ridiculous, ignorant bullshit about the evil gay man, lurking in the shadows amongst our good, God-fearing, hetero soldiers, just waiting to begin plotting the demise of the Army by ... making everyone feel uncomfortable.

I don't advocate the discrimination against gays, but there are serious issues that really do need to be addressed. And given that the US military still has trouble with females in the military, I don't see homosexuals being any less a hurdle.

So let the gays bunk with the women. Oh but wait, what if someone is (gasp!) bisexual!? My God, the whole military will come crashing down!

[Stormbringer]

Why is it that everyone assumes that heterosexuals are eminently capable of controlling their sexual desires, but gay men will inevitably start fucking another man up the ass given the opportunity?

When did I ever apply a double standard? Oh wait, never. And in fact I've pointed out the massive problem the military has right now with dealing with straight service personell not keeping their hands to themselves.

This is nothing more than the high schoolish attitude of being uncomfortable with one's sexuality. And sorry, I wasn't aware that the Army was in the business of making recruits comfortable.

News Flash, being comfortable with your sexuality doesn't mean you want to have to deal with living in a close contact with a person for whom you're the object of lust. If everyone could actually behave in a totally platonic manner there wouldn't be the need to seperate men from women or having regulations regarding it, but since we live in the really world we do have to have that.

Let me ask you this. How does the Army's current policy of "Don't ask, don't tell" approach this issue of the poor, insecure heterosexuals being forced to live in an environment where a gay guy might find them attractive? Oh that's right, it doesn't. The gay guy is there; the only difference is that they don't know he's gay.

And that can make a big difference. And might I point out that allowing openly gay personell is not going solve anything, it should in theory actually make it worse.

Either way I don't claim to have the solutions to the problem. But then again neither have I seen you produce any either.

And does that do a damn thing to change whether or not the gay guy is going to start sexually molesting people? Nope!

And point me to where I said that homosexuals would be more likely to engage in that above that of hetrosexuals? Oh wait, I never did. I did say that having openly gay soldiers being forced to live with hetrosexuals will create problems and tensions with in units, problems that will likely exceed those of hetrosexuals because of the living arrangements themselves, not beccause they're homosexuals.

Should I take it that you're totally aware of the continual problems simply with purely hetrosexuals? TailHook, Air Force Academy Scandal, Etc? You might find it interesting to note that the branch with the least amount of compliants regarding sexual harassment, improper fraternization, etc is the Marine Corp which practices the strictest seperation of male and female personell.

So let the gays bunk with the women. Oh but wait, what if someone is (gasp!) bisexual!? My God, the whole military will come crashing down!

No, but considering the major problems that has been caused by the still partial integration of women I don't expect intergrating gays to be any easier.

[Patrick Degan]

My attitude to this issue is pretty much summed up from a line in the movie Dirty Harry: Magnum Force. When his partner points out four sharpshooting uniformed officers who were thought to be queer for one another in the Academy, all Harry Callahan says in reply is "If the rest of you could shoot as straight as they can, I wouldn't care if the whole damn Department was queer."

[Durandal]

When did I ever apply a double standard? Oh wait, never. And in fact I've pointed out the massive problem the military has right now with dealing with straight service personell not keeping their hands to themselves.

And yet, you've expressed no doubts about allowing women in the Army. These are symptoms of the same problem: assholes being allowed to join the service. This isn't some issue about "sexual dynamics" where everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, is uncomfortable sleeping in the same space as others who are sexually attracted to them. It's an issue of a few knuckle-dragging homophobes and perverts creating problems. And if those people are just going to create problems for other soldiers, then they shouldn't be allowed in, period.

News Flash, being comfortable with your sexuality doesn't mean you want to have to deal with living in a close contact with a person for whom you're the object of lust. If everyone could actually behave in a totally platonic manner there wouldn't be the need to seperate men from women or having regulations regarding it, but since we live in the really world we do have to have that.

You're assuming that every gay man will find every straight man attractive. On what do you base this? Can you even conceive of a scenario where a gay man in a platoon will actually ... not find anyone in his platoon attractive? Or if he has a boyfriend back home?

Oh wait, that's not the point, is it? The point is that a straight guy in the barracks might assume that he's desirable enough to become the object of lust for the creeping gay man. Oh well, we can't have that now can we? Clearly, gays must be barred completely from serving their country. This is the fucking Army, not the Touchy-Feely, Cater to Poor Hetero Soldier's Ego Service. If some asshole can't live with a gay soldier in his barracks, then he can resign or request a transfer.

This all boils down to paranoid soldiers fearing gay advances. You do realize that there's a difference between informing the Army that you're gay and informing your platoon, right? What's the matter with just letting the recruitment officer know beforehand, but just not mentioning it when you get to boot camp? Why do you think that gays are going to flout their sexuality as soon as they get in the barracks?

And that can make a big difference. And might I point out that allowing openly gay personell is not going solve anything, it should in theory actually make it worse.

Oh no, allowing gay people to serve would only be following the fucking Constitution's protections against discrimination based on gender. I'm still waiting for a good reason to bar gays from military service that doesn't rely on the irrational fears of homophobic bigots uncomfortable with their own sexuality.

Either way I don't claim to have the solutions to the problem. But then again neither have I seen you produce any either.

Sure I have. Don't let assholes join the military.

And point me to where I said that homosexuals would be more likely to engage in that above that of hetrosexuals? Oh wait, I never did. I did say that having openly gay soldiers being forced to live with hetrosexuals will create problems and tensions with in units, problems that will likely exceed those of hetrosexuals because of the living arrangements themselves, not beccause they're homosexuals.

False cause. The cause is being gay, and you know it. Because if they weren't gay, the living arrangements wouldn't matter for shit. The current policy is to openly accommodate homophobic bigots by throwing gays out simply for being gay.

Should I take it that you're totally aware of the continual problems simply with purely hetrosexuals? TailHook, Air Force Academy Scandal, Etc? You might find it interesting to note that the branch with the least amount of compliants regarding sexual harassment, improper fraternization, etc is the Marine Corp which practices the strictest seperation of male and female personell.

And yet ... we put up with it! Oh my God, why haven't we barred females from military service? All they're doing is making males uncomfortable! Maybe because these incidents aren't representative of the service as a whole and are, in fact, isolated?

This same bullshit mentality is what kept segregation around. Shoving your head into the sand and pretending that gays don't exist isn't about to solve anything. The only way change is going to happen is through forced integration. Will it be difficult for soldiers uncomfortable with their own sexuality? Yes, but who gives a fuck? Racial integration was hard on racial bigots, but no one's shedding any tears for them now, are they?

No, but considering the major problems that has been caused by the still partial integration of women I don't expect intergrating gays to be any easier.

No one said it'd be easy. But it's certainly the fair and right thing to do.

[Plekhanov]

Stormbringer I’ll ask you again because you didn’t answer before if the British armed forces can deal with openly gay service men and women why can’t the US?

Britain ended it’s ban in Jan 2000 amongst the same apocalyptic predictions that you are making heres a link to the BBC’s coverage of the story (how many of your arguments can you spot being spouted by alarmist Tory homophobes?) and guess what, our armed forces didn’t collapse there was no exodus of personnel nothing. I’ve been searching a little and this is the only follow up story I can find it would seem that accommodating open gays into the military was so uneventful that not even the right wing homophobic press have an article online detailing the appalling effect gays have had on our armed forces.

The US seems quite keen for Britain’s openly gay soldiers to fight in Iraq, if we did it with so little bother why can’t you?

[Stormbringer]

And yet, you've expressed no doubts about allowing women in the Army. These are symptoms of the same problem: assholes being allowed to join the service. This isn't some issue about "sexual dynamics" where everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, is uncomfortable sleeping in the same space as others who are sexually attracted to them. It's an issue of a few knuckle-dragging homophobes and perverts creating problems. And if those people are just going to create problems for other soldiers, then they shouldn't be allowed in, period.

Of course it's all the knuckle dragging Neanderthals fault.

Nevermind that simple improper fraternizations and the problems it has caused for units morale. Never mind the numerous problems that are simply the result of socially awkward people. Never mind that most people as you aren't so comfortable as you about all thing sexual.

Yeah, any one that doesn't fit your mold must be a knuckle dragging asshole.

You're assuming that every gay man will find every straight man attractive. On what do you base this? Can you even conceive of a scenario where a gay man in a platoon will actually ... not find anyone in his platoon attractive? Or if he has a boyfriend back home?

And of course no guy would ever look at some one unavailable.

Oh wait, that's not the point, is it? The point is that a straight guy in the barracks might assume that he's desirable enough to become the object of lust for the creeping gay man.

And of course you're assuming that ever gay guy will never so much as look at another man unless he's riding a rubber phallus float singing YMCA.

Oh well, we can't have that now can we? Clearly, gays must be barred completely from serving their country. This is the fucking Army, not the Touchy-Feely, Cater to Poor Hetero Soldier's Ego Service. If some asshole can't live with a gay soldier in his barracks, then he can resign or request a transfer.

I never said they shouldn't serve. In fact I've said quite the opposite. However as I said I think you're initial and ongoing assumption that any man that would find living in close quarters with a gay man (or for that matter a woman living with a lesbian) uncomfortable must be a knuckle dragging, homophobic asshole.

This all boils down to paranoid soldiers fearing gay advances.

And of course all that integrating women in the military boiled down to was paranoid women fearing men's advances. Funny how there's continual problems with even innocent intentioned things like improper fraternization and all the consequences that brings.

You do realize that there's a difference between informing the Army that you're gay and informing your platoon, right? What's the matter with just letting the recruitment officer know beforehand, but just not mentioning it when you get to boot camp? Why do you think that gays are going to flout their sexuality as soon as they get in the barracks?

I don't expect all of them to advertise it. But then again if the only way to deal with it while in uniform is to hide it, we're right back at don't ask don't tell except they're still there with all the complications that entails.

Oh no, allowing gay people to serve would only be following the fucking Constitution's protections against discrimination based on gender. I'm still waiting for a good reason to bar gays from military service that doesn't rely on the irrational fears of homophobic bigots uncomfortable with their own sexuality.

And I said I never favor that. I just object to your moronic assumption that any one that has a problem with gays being forced into close quarters living with homosexuals is some knuckle dragging barbarian asshole.

Sure I have. Don't let assholes join the military.

And once again you're back to the assumption that the only reason a person would be uncomfortable around gays is because they're an asshole. Thank you for that brilliant example of simply repeating yourself.

False cause. The cause is being gay, and you know it. Because if they weren't gay, the living arrangements wouldn't matter for shit. The current policy is to openly accommodate homophobic bigots by throwing gays out simply for being gay.

Oh wait, I wasn't aware that homosexual attraction was the result of being gay.

Of course sticking a gay man into a platoon of men is going to cause the problem! If you stuck a man into a platoon of women you'd get the same laundry list of problems: the root cause, he's hetro.

However, you createda strawman assertion that I claimed homosexuals were more likley to commit sexual harrasment, sexual assualt and rape. And I when I pointed that wasn't so you simply go back to the same old broken record/

And yet ... we put up with it! Oh my God, why haven't we barred females from military service? All they're doing is making males uncomfortable! Maybe because these incidents aren't representative of the service as a whole and are, in fact, isolated?

And oh my god, we don't put a man in an all female barracks! And oh my god, we don't call females assholes because they have a problem with how some guys behave. And oh my god, we don't call women or men assholes when unit morale tanks because of he's sleeping with her, she's sleeping with him bullshit.

Yet if you replace woman with gay man, suddenly they're assholes.

This same bullshit mentality is what kept segregation around. Shoving your head into the sand and pretending that gays don't exist isn't about to solve anything. The only way change is going to happen is through forced integration. Will it be difficult for soldiers uncomfortable with their own sexuality? Yes, but who gives a fuck? Racial integration was hard on racial bigots, but no one's shedding any tears for them now, are they?

And racial integration is mostly a problem of ignorant people.

The problem of human sexuality is one that far dwarfs that and might I remind you, simple hetrosexual relationships are still an ongoing headache for the military. Do you really think that trying to use the military to provide therapy is the best way to go about it?

No one said it'd be easy. But it's certainly the fair and right thing to do.

And if you'll note, I don't disagree. However I take issue with the notion that anyone that has a problem with living in close quarters with a homosexual is simply an asshole.

[Stormbringer]

The US seems quite keen for Britain’s openly gay soldiers to fight in Iraq, if we did it with so little bother why can’t you?

I don't know. Then again I don't know exactly why the US military has so many problems with hetrosexual military personell compared to the Britians either.

[Aaron]

It's worth noting that the Canadian Forces hasn't had any problems with gay personall. And our society is very similar to the US. In six and a half years in the military, I never observed one problem with gay troops. Now I don't recall what the Canadian policy is, but I had an obviously gay roomate on my trades course and no one, least of all me had a problem with it.

I think the US military needs to grow up and forcibly intergrate gays into it's organization. I really don't think that it will cause all that many problems. They really can't afford to be discharging highly trained troops for their sexual orientation when they are having such problems filling spots for their deployments.

[Elfdart]

It's worth noting that the Canadian Forces hasn't had any problems with gay personall. And our society is very similar to the US. In six and a half years in the military, I never observed one problem with gay troops. Now I don't recall what the Canadian policy is, but I had an obviously gay roomate on my trades course and no one, least of all me had a problem with it.

I think the US military needs to grow up and forcibly intergrate gays into it's organization. I really don't think that it will cause all that many problems. They really can't afford to be discharging highly trained troops for their sexual orientation when they are having such problems filling spots for their deployments.

That's easy for you to say. Most Canadian men are gay to begin with. US citizens are straight. Jeez. *

[Aaron]

That's easy for you to say. Most Canadian men are gay to begin with. US citizens are straight. Jeez. *

Oh ha ha. Your a regular comedian aren't you? Besides if I recall, the US gay population is huge compared to the Canadian one. In fact there's probably more gays in San Fransico then in all of Canada.

[Elfdart]

That's easy for you to say. Most Canadian men are gay to begin with. US citizens are straight. Jeez. *

Oh ha ha. Your a regular comedian aren't you? Besides if I recall, the US gay population is huge compared to the Canadian one. In fact there's probably more gays in San Fransico then in all of Canada.

There are more people in California than in all of Canuckistan. Besides, gay populations are pretty much the same in most countries and Canada and the US are fairly similar culturally -except Canadians are decent and civilized. *

[Darth Wong]

Re. a few posts back:

I love the way a Republican apologist's pet sociological theories are pitted against contradictory observations, and in his mind, his theories win.

[Elfdart]

Re. a few posts back:

I love the way a Republican apologist's pet sociological theories are pitted against contradictory observations, and in his mind, his theories win.

It's called "Hannitized".

[Plekhanov]

I don't know. Then again I don't know exactly why the US military has so many problems with hetrosexual military personell compared to the Britians either.

I don’t know about that I’ve no idea about the relative levels of misbehaviour but we seem to have plenty of trouble with our forces, US troops rape children in Okinowa ours rape and murder tour guides in Cyprus. The goings on at Deepcut might not have made it onto US news but they’ve been of concern here.

We seem to have our fair share of trouble with our military personnel it’s just that none of it (atleast to my limited knowledge) seems to be concerned with the presence of open homosexuals in the forces.

[Frank Hipper]

I saw a documentary on gay British WWII veterans more than a year ago, their stories were incredibly enlightening.
Like the guy serving on a destroyer who got raped every night by "straight" shipmates, and how his captain laughed at him and asked "Rough night last night?"...

Or the absolute heroism displayed by a guy in the army, and his entire squad knowing he was gay and not giving a flying fuck about it. Most of the veterans interviewed said it was hardly a secret that they were gay.

Or how Britain's ban on homosexuals serving was never implemented during WWII (at least among the veterans interviewed), and wasn't made an issue until the late 70's. Further evidence that rightists clamoring for a return to "The Good Old Days" is pure bullshit.

It's also worth noting here that it was the equal treatment conferred to gays in US service during WWII and the feelings of self worth that engendered that led to the nascent gay rights movement of the 50's...

[consequences]

I'd say that part of the reason the Army has so much trouble with the concept is that each service has a default mentality that infects all its members at least a little, and the Army seems to be set to Georgia.

Besides, we have to go to enough Equal Opportunity freaking classes as it is, add any more to it and my intestine is going to throttle my brain.

[Elfdart]

And yet, you've expressed no doubts about allowing women in the Army. These are symptoms of the same problem: assholes being allowed to join the service. This isn't some issue about "sexual dynamics" where everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, is uncomfortable sleeping in the same space as others who are sexually attracted to them. It's an issue of a few knuckle-dragging homophobes and perverts creating problems. And if those people are just going to create problems for other soldiers, then they shouldn't be allowed in, period.

Of course it's all the knuckle dragging Neanderthals fault.

Nevermind that simple improper fraternizations and the problems it has caused for units morale. Never mind the numerous problems that are simply the result of socially awkward people. Never mind that most people as you aren't so comfortable as you about all thing sexual.

Yeah, any one that doesn't fit your mold must be a knuckle dragging asshole.

You're assuming that every gay man will find every straight man attractive. On what do you base this? Can you even conceive of a scenario where a gay man in a platoon will actually ... not find anyone in his platoon attractive? Or if he has a boyfriend back home?

And of course no guy would ever look at some one unavailable.

Oh wait, that's not the point, is it? The point is that a straight guy in the barracks might assume that he's desirable enough to become the object of lust for the creeping gay man.

And of course you're assuming that ever gay guy will never so much as look at another man unless he's riding a rubber phallus float singing YMCA.

Oh well, we can't have that now can we? Clearly, gays must be barred completely from serving their country. This is the fucking Army, not the Touchy-Feely, Cater to Poor Hetero Soldier's Ego Service. If some asshole can't live with a gay soldier in his barracks, then he can resign or request a transfer.

I never said they shouldn't serve. In fact I've said quite the opposite. However as I said I think you're initial and ongoing assumption that any man that would find living in close quarters with a gay man (or for that matter a woman living with a lesbian) uncomfortable must be a knuckle dragging, homophobic asshole.

This all boils down to paranoid soldiers fearing gay advances.

And of course all that integrating women in the military boiled down to was paranoid women fearing men's advances. Funny how there's continual problems with even innocent intentioned things like improper fraternization and all the consequences that brings.

You do realize that there's a difference between informing the Army that you're gay and informing your platoon, right? What's the matter with just letting the recruitment officer know beforehand, but just not mentioning it when you get to boot camp? Why do you think that gays are going to flout their sexuality as soon as they get in the barracks?

I don't expect all of them to advertise it. But then again if the only way to deal with it while in uniform is to hide it, we're right back at don't ask don't tell except they're still there with all the complications that entails.

Oh no, allowing gay people to serve would only be following the fucking Constitution's protections against discrimination based on gender. I'm still waiting for a good reason to bar gays from military service that doesn't rely on the irrational fears of homophobic bigots uncomfortable with their own sexuality.

And I said I never favor that. I just object to your moronic assumption that any one that has a problem with gays being forced into close quarters living with homosexuals is some knuckle dragging barbarian asshole.

Sure I have. Don't let assholes join the military.

And once again you're back to the assumption that the only reason a person would be uncomfortable around gays is because they're an asshole. Thank you for that brilliant example of simply repeating yourself.

False cause. The cause is being gay, and you know it. Because if they weren't gay, the living arrangements wouldn't matter for shit. The current policy is to openly accommodate homophobic bigots by throwing gays out simply for being gay.

Oh wait, I wasn't aware that homosexual attraction was the result of being gay.

Of course sticking a gay man into a platoon of men is going to cause the problem! If you stuck a man into a platoon of women you'd get the same laundry list of problems: the root cause, he's hetro.

However, you createda strawman assertion that I claimed homosexuals were more likley to commit sexual harrasment, sexual assualt and rape. And I when I pointed that wasn't so you simply go back to the same old broken record/

And yet ... we put up with it! Oh my God, why haven't we barred females from military service? All they're doing is making males uncomfortable! Maybe because these incidents aren't representative of the service as a whole and are, in fact, isolated?

And oh my god, we don't put a man in an all female barracks! And oh my god, we don't call females assholes because they have a problem with how some guys behave. And oh my god, we don't call women or men assholes when unit morale tanks because of he's sleeping with her, she's sleeping with him bullshit.

Yet if you replace woman with gay man, suddenly they're assholes.

This same bullshit mentality is what kept segregation around. Shoving your head into the sand and pretending that gays don't exist isn't about to solve anything. The only way change is going to happen is through forced integration. Will it be difficult for soldiers uncomfortable with their own sexuality? Yes, but who gives a fuck? Racial integration was hard on racial bigots, but no one's shedding any tears for them now, are they?

And racial integration is mostly a problem of ignorant people.

The problem of human sexuality is one that far dwarfs that and might I remind you, simple hetrosexual relationships are still an ongoing headache for the military. Do you really think that trying to use the military to provide therapy is the best way to go about it?

No one said it'd be easy. But it's certainly the fair and right thing to do.

And if you'll note, I don't disagree. However I take issue with the notion that anyone that has a problem with living in close quarters with a homosexual is simply an asshole.

Well yes, I do think homophobia explains it. What's the big deal? The great fear is that when some gay dude showers with the others, he'll get excited and pop a boner. Even if this is true, SO WHAT? It's a fucking compliment! I think I'd be flattered if some guy looked at my flabby, hairy, chigger-scarred ass in the shower and said "Yeah Baby!" -and I'm not gay. Grow the fuck up, people.

[consequences]

Well yes, I do think homophobia explains it. What's the big deal? The great fear is that when some gay dude showers with the others, he'll get excited and pop a boner. Even if this is true, SO WHAT? It's a fucking compliment! I think I'd be flattered if some guy looked at my flabby, hairy, chigger-scarred ass in the shower and said "Yeah Baby!" -and I'm not gay. Grow the fuck up, people.

No, the fear is that you'll go out drinking and end up date-raped when you weren't even on a date.

[Plekhanov]

I saw a documentary on gay British WWII veterans more than a year ago, their stories were incredibly enlightening.
Like the guy serving on a destroyer who got raped every night by "straight" shipmates, and how his captain laughed at him and asked "Rough night last night?"...

Or the absolute heroism displayed by a guy in the army, and his entire squad knowing he was gay and not giving a flying fuck about it. Most of the veterans interviewed said it was hardly a secret that they were gay.

Or how Britain's ban on homosexuals serving was never implemented during WWII (at least among the veterans interviewed), and wasn't made an issue until the late 70's. Further evidence that rightists clamoring for a return to "The Good Old Days" is pure bullshit.

It's also worth noting here that it was the equal treatment conferred to gays in US service during WWII and the feelings of self worth that engendered that led to the nascent gay rights movement of the 50's...

Many gay soldiers also fought and died for Britain in WW1, many of the war poets were gay (Owen and Sassoon for example) Sassoon was apparently a very good officer and earned the nickname “mad jack” due to his extreme bravery/recklessness and was highly decorated.

It’s amazing how when a little something like a world war comes along everybody suddenly seems to have an equal right to get killed but in peacetime only straights will do.