"Don't ask, don't tell" cost tops $50,000 per expulsion, study finds

roguenuke said:

All of your arguments are based on your experience in combat units alone. Not based on experience working with openly gay personnel in those combat units. There is a difference between the two. This argument is about what issues will most likely arise from allowing gays to serve openly and how those issues may cause casualties. You guys have no proof for your assertion that these things will happen, especially not they will happen often enough to be an actual problem.

Could allowing gays to serve openly cause deaths? Yes. Will it most likely cause deaths because of a decline of unit cohesion? Not likely, but possible. Can those deaths be blamed on the policy change? Not unless they are widespread.

Most likely the deaths that might occur will be few and far between and due to other unit personnel who disapprove of the gay personnel. This means that those people who are incapable of maintaining professionalism while in a combat situation by putting their feelings toward others aside and doing their are the ones that should be blamed, not the policy change.

Click to expand...

Right!!!



'Fore long, you'll get it.

SheWolf said:

That is messed up. How can you prove your gay?

And isn't the policy designed so if somebody else knows your gay and tells, then you can get kicked out? .. and your playing by the rules, not telling

I think there was a Family Guy episode where Stewie and Brain tried to get kicked out by saying they were gay but it didn't work either... They ended up shooting each other in the foot, so using DADT just to get out has crossed a lot of people's minds. It's in so many movies..

Click to expand...

You don't have to prove you're gay. You only have to get caught performing homosexual acts. "Being gay", isn't was was banned. Performing homosexual acts is.

BCR said:

"Don't ask, don't tell" cost tops $50,000 per expulsion, study finds - CNN.com

Glad to see the GOP and the military were more than willing to spend 50,000 grand per gay just to keep them out. Not to mention many of them were in very skilled positions.

Click to expand...

um... DADT was the democrat's baby. FWIW.

and DADT is one of the stupidest programs the govt has ever come up with. if gays want to serve, then let em serve.

OscarB63 said:

um... DADT was the democrat's baby. FWIW.

and DADT is one of the stupidest programs the govt has ever come up with. if gays want to serve, then let em serve.

Click to expand...

Let us not forget, it was Truman that officially banned gays from serving in the military--another Democrat.

apdst said:

Let us not forget, it was Truman that officially banned gays from serving in the military--another Democrat.

Click to expand...

but, but, but... :2bigcry:

apdst said:

You don't have to prove you're gay. You only have to get caught performing homosexual acts. "Being gay", isn't was was banned. Performing homosexual acts is.

Click to expand...

The policy is call don't ask, don't tell... not don't have gay sex, don't get caught

apdst said:

Let us not forget, it was Truman that officially banned gays from serving in the military--another Democrat.

Click to expand...

And Clinton passed a lot of legislation deemed anti gay, but he doesn't get respect from the right for it... lol

SheWolf said:

The policy is call don't ask, don't tell... not don't have gay sex, don't get caught

Click to expand...

yeah, that falls under a different article... #125

SheWolf said:

The policy is call don't ask, don't tell... not don't have gay sex, don't get caught

Click to expand...

The other part of the regulation is the prohibition of homosexual acts.

roguenuke said:

Which would mean that same sexual tension would exist with DADT in place or not

Click to expand...

perhaps, but it is severely mitigated.

People can be attracted to people and control themselves. It happens all the time.

Click to expand...

and they fail to do so all the time. especially when the people in question are that key 18-22 demographic.

How often are you cuddling with other guys in your unit? Last I checked, you guys get bunks, even in the field, most of the time.

Click to expand...

WTF?! :lamo :lamo :lamo

bunks in the field??? it had to rain for multiple days for us to be allowed to request to get tents!

you get bunks when you are in your barracks. otherwise, your 'bunk' (if you choose to carry one) is a piece of styrofoam padding about a foot and a half wide.

i had a buddy named bernard. let's just say that my first year and a half of marriage, i probably cuddled him more than my wife.

SheWolf said:

I can manage to be professional with people I am even attracted to, can you not do the same?

Click to expand...

i usually can, yes. however, the vast majority of the military - especially the combat arms - are 18 to 22 year old males; who are generally a not a demographic known for their ability to ignore the demands of their private parts.

What is your point?

Click to expand...

i am 27, and married (not that that always makes a difference, either, which is another ball of wax).

How often are you cuddling with other guys in your unit? Last I checked, you guys get bunks, even in the field, most of the time.

Click to expand...

You better check again! :lamo

That just goes to show that you have a complete lack of understanding. You have no knowledge, nor comprehension of how things work in a combat arms unit. You've never served in one and you've never received any kind of close quarter combat training. Niether an opinion poll, nor a civilian study is going to fill that void.

You know what, I am really getting tired of being told that my experience working with openly gay men and women, in close quarters, in the military is worth crap because it wasn't in a combat arms position. I never once said that I based my knowledge or how I see things going just off of my experience or even just off of an opinion poll. I will admit that I was using the field wrongly to describe the entire combat zone, not just those times when you are actually off base. I apologize for that. However, the rest of that paragraph still stands. You would still be sharing those tents or trucks with those same gay guys with or without DADT in place. One policy/rule is not more powerful than others. I highly doubt that anyone would truly fear being kicked out more than they would being put in the brig or beat the crap our of or possibly even killed by trying something stupid while you are in those tents or whereever you may be cuddling up to another guy.

And I may not have personal experience with going into combat zones or field training, but my husband and brother both have such experience. And they have told me stuff about their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. From what they have told me, most of that time in those zones, they were not sleeping out in the open or even in a tent. They were sleeping at a base or FOB or in their trucks. Most of their experience in tents was during training. Now maybe you guys experienced something different. I was going off of what I have been told by others in combat units.

The point I was making still stands so how bout you guys address my points instead of attacking me or anyone else. Because neither of you have provided any information that says that your opinion on what might happen has been formed directly from your experience working with openly gays soldiers while in combat units. And without that experience, you honestly don't know how every or even most of the guys in those combat units will honestly feel or react to openly gay guys working with them. You can only speculate.

roguenuke said:

You know what, I am really getting tired of being told that my experience working with openly gay men and women, in close quarters, in the military is worth crap because it wasn't in a combat arms position. I never once said that I based my knowledge or how I see things going just off of my experience or even just off of an opinion poll. I will admit that I was using the field wrongly to describe the entire combat zone, not just those times when you are actually off base. I apologize for that. However, the rest of that paragraph still stands. You would still be sharing those tents or trucks with those same gay guys with or without DADT in place. One policy/rule is not more powerful than others. I highly doubt that anyone would truly fear being kicked out more than they would being put in the brig or beat the crap our of or possibly even killed by trying something stupid while you are in those tents or whereever you may be cuddling up to another guy.


The point I was making still stands so how bout you guys address my points instead of attacking me or anyone else. Because neither of you have provided any information that says that your opinion on what might happen has been formed directly from your experience working with openly gays soldiers while in combat units. And without that experience, you honestly don't know how every or even most of the guys in those combat units will honestly feel or react to openly gay guys working with them. You can only speculate.

Click to expand...

I'm even more tireder of being told that I don't know how things work in a combat arms unit, by people whho have never spent a single day in uniform and, if they did spend time in the service, served in POG jobs and have zero experience working in ground units.

And I may not have personal experience with going into combat zones or field training, but my husband and brother both have such experience. And they have told me stuff about their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan. From what they have told me, most of that time in those zones, they were not sleeping out in the open or even in a tent. They were sleeping at a base or FOB or in their trucks.

Click to expand...

Good thing they weren't in my platoon. I would have Article 15'ed every one of them for sleeping in their vehicles.

When you put 4, or 5, or 8 soldiers in a vehicle, you give the enemy the oppurtunity to take out all those soldiers with one shot. Obviously, your old man andd your brother didn't serve in combat arms units.

Most of their experience in tents was during training. Now maybe you guys experienced something different. I was going off of what I have been told by others in combat units.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah! My experience was much different.

apdst said:

I'm even more tireder of being told that I don't know how things work in a combat arms unit, by people whho have never spent a single day in uniform and, if they did spend time in the service, served in POG jobs and have zero experience working in ground units.

Click to expand...

You are trying to assert that you know something will happen because of your experience. It isn't that easy to assert such a thing. You don't have the necessary experience to assert such a thing. You have your experience, and it does give you some perspective into problems that might come about. But you cannot assert that openly gay personnel will cause problems with unit cohesion with no experience working with openly gay personnel in those units. The only thing that you can assert from such experience is that they might cause issues with unit cohesion. Your use of absolutes is the major thing that I take issue with in these discussions. You expect others to accept what you are saying despite them giving you other evidence that goes against your assertions just because you believe that your experience means more, even when some of that contradictory evidence from other sources have the same combat unit experience as you, along with the experience of working with openly gay personnel in their combat units. I have not attacked your experience from serving in a combat unit. What I attack is your assertion that your opinion means more or others' opinions mean less because you have served in combat units in regards to this debate.

Which, btw, my husband did just confirm to me that he did work with openly gay personnel in his combat units. No problems arose from this.

Is it possible that problems could arise from having openly gay personnel in their units? Yes, absolutely. Is it likely to occur? Most likely we will see at least an incident or two because somebody else was not comfortable with serving with openly. And it is even likely that we will see some incidents where some gay person tried to make unwanted advances toward someone else and either causes issues of trust (although if the rules are as enforced as they were with DADT then the gay person should be punished accordingly) or the gay guy/gal will find themselves harmed because of it. What is not likely is that most units will have multiple gay guys in them and those guys will be in relationships with each other or even having sex with each other while on duty. Some might, most won't. What is not likely is that most units will no longer trust the gay guy enough to allow it to affect their ability to do their job. A few might, but this can be taken care of with good leadership. Most units won't see any issues.

And almost every issue that you guys try to claim will occur because of gays or is there because of gays are there with or without DADT. DADT is not a magical law that automatically makes people behave. It is not that great of a law at all. It has led to way more discharges than were necessary to ever ensure good order and discipline. Most of those discharged were not behavior problems that would have caused issues with unit cohesion or discipline. And those that would have caused such issues could have been dealt with by charging them with other rules already in place.

roguenuke said:

You are trying to assert that you know something will happen because of your experience. It isn't that easy to assert such a thing. You don't have the necessary experience to assert such a thing. You have your experience, and it does give you some perspective into problems that might come about. But you cannot assert that openly gay personnel will cause problems with unit cohesion with no experience working with openly gay personnel in those units. The only thing that you can assert from such experience is that they might cause issues with unit cohesion. Your use of absolutes is the major thing that I take issue with in these discussions. You expect others to accept what you are saying despite them giving you other evidence that goes against your assertions just because you believe that your experience means more, even when some of that contradictory evidence from other sources have the same combat unit experience as you, along with the experience of working with openly gay personnel in their combat units. I have not attacked your experience from serving in a combat unit. What I attack is your assertion that your opinion means more or others' opinions mean less because you have served in combat units in regards to this debate.

Click to expand...

You're basing your opinion on an opinion poll. I'm basing mine on real world experience. Let's see...

Which, btw, my husband did just confirm to me that he did work with openly gay personnel in his combat units. No problems arose from this.

Click to expand...

What kind of combat arms unit did your hubby serve in? If he was lseeping in his truck, then it must not have been a combat arms unit.

Is it possible that problems could arise from having openly gay personnel in their units? Yes, absolutely. Is it likely to occur? Most likely we will see at least an incident or two because somebody else was not comfortable with serving with openly. And it is even likely that we will see some incidents where some gay person tried to make unwanted advances toward someone else and either causes issues of trust (although if the rules are as enforced as they were with DADT then the gay person should be punished accordingly) or the gay guy/gal will find themselves harmed because of it. What is not likely is that most units will have multiple gay guys in them and those guys will be in relationships with each other or even having sex with each other while on duty. Some might, most won't. What is not likely is that most units will no longer trust the gay guy enough to allow it to affect their ability to do their job. A few might, but this can be taken care of with good leadership. Most units won't see any issues.

And almost every issue that you guys try to claim will occur because of gays or is there because of gays are there with or without DADT. DADT is not a magical law that automatically makes people behave. It is not that great of a law at all. It has led to way more discharges than were necessary to ever ensure good order and discipline. Most of those discharged were not behavior problems that would have caused issues with unit cohesion or discipline. And those that would have caused such issues could have been dealt with by charging them with other rules already in place.

Click to expand...

You will see problems. Mark my words

apdst said:

You're basing your opinion on an opinion poll. I'm basing mine on real world experience. Let's see...



What kind of combat arms unit did your hubby serve in? If he was lseeping in his truck, then it must not have been a combat arms unit.



You will see problems. Mark my words

Click to expand...

My husband was a tow gunner. He certainly was in a combat unit, in the Marines. My brother was telling me about sleeping in his truck while in training. I honestly don't know if he slept there while in Iraq. Either way, it is not like all of them would have been sleeping at once. To believe that they were, would be ignorant. And if you guys were all in your field tents while in Iraq or Afghanistan combat zones, then you would have also been vulnerable to enemy fire unless you were in a FOB or on an actual base from the way I understand how that stuff works. That comment was being made against the claim that you guys share sleeping spaces often with other men, as in so close that you cuddle.

So then if I'm wrong, tell me how many days out of say 100 in a combat zone or during training do you guys actually share your 2 man tents? How many days in a year? And is it really such an issue that you could sleep with a straight smelly guy, but not a gay guy just because he comes out as gay? And why only after DADT is repealed? That same gay guy could have been suspected to be gay during DADT. How would that be handled if there was no proof? And what about the fact that many of those gays that are in those units now have been sharing those same tents with those same fellow soldiers, many for years and many tours, yet they were still able to control themselves? I guarantee you that the sole reason that they were able to control themselves was not DADT being in place.

You guys are not addressing everything. You are insisting that you know what will happen, even go so far to assert that there will be casualties in combat just due to a decline in unit cohesion because of allowing gays to serve openly. You have no proof that this will happen. You don't even have any evidence that suggest that it might happen, since the majority of those in combat units who have actually served with openly gay guys have said that they have seen no effect on unit cohesion at all. And no countries that have allowed gays to serve openly have seen this either, despite the fact that a) they had the same fears that you guys have and b) many have seen combat since the time that they allowed gays to serve openly and c) they have the same age groups of soldiers on the front lines that the US does. Maturity of young men is the same whether you are talking about a Brit or American or Australian. Those other countries' soldiers are not more mature than ours.

Also, you still haven't provided even one example of a problem that could happen that wouldn't be covered by another rule. If your contention is that the other rules don't work because they are not enforced often enough or enforced fairly, then why do you believe that DADT could be enforced so well but those other rules can't be?

roguenuke said:

My husband was a tow gunner. He certainly was in a combat unit, in the Marines.

Click to expand...

An 0351? Is that correct?

My brother was telling me about sleeping in his truck while in training. I honestly don't know if he slept there while in Iraq. Either way, it is not like all of them would have been sleeping at once. To believe that they were, would be ignorant.

Click to expand...

Depends on the level of security, which is all MET-TW (mission, enemy, time, terrain, weather), whether it's 25%, 50% or 100% security. If a platoon is at 25% security, that means that 20-odd soldiers are going to sleeping, all at once.

And if you guys were all in your field tents while in Iraq or Afghanistan combat zones, then you would have also been vulnerable to enemy fire unless you were in a FOB or on an actual base from the way I understand how that stuff works.

Click to expand...

You don't sleep in your tent when you're in an assembly area. Probably wouldn't even bring it.

That comment was being made against the claim that you guys share sleeping spaces often with other men, as in so close that you cuddle.

Click to expand...

Well, if it's -30, yeah, soldiers are going to spoon. Been there, done that.

So then if I'm wrong, tell me how many days out of say 100 in a combat zone or during training do you guys actually share your 2 man tents? How many days in a year? And is it really such an issue that you could sleep with a straight smelly guy, but not a gay guy just because he comes out as gay? And why only after DADT is repealed? That same gay guy could have been suspected to be gay during DADT. How would that be handled if there was no proof? And what about the fact that many of those gays that are in those units now have been sharing those same tents with those same fellow soldiers, many for years and many tours, yet they were still able to control themselves? I guarantee you that the sole reason that they were able to control themselves was not DADT being in place.

Click to expand...

In a tent? Probably zero. But, in a 2x3 fighting position, probably 90% of those 100 days. But again, it's all MET-TW.

You guys are not addressing everything. You are insisting that you know what will happen, even go so far to assert that there will be casualties in combat just due to a decline in unit cohesion because of allowing gays to serve openly. You have no proof that this will happen. You don't even have any evidence that suggest that it might happen, since the majority of those in combat units who have actually served with openly gay guys have said that they have seen no effect on unit cohesion at all. And no countries that have allowed gays to serve openly have seen this either, despite the fact that a) they had the same fears that you guys have and b) many have seen combat since the time that they allowed gays to serve openly and c) they have the same age groups of soldiers on the front lines that the US does. Maturity of young men is the same whether you are talking about a Brit or American or Australian. Those other countries' soldiers are not more mature than ours.

Click to expand...

We have addressed everything. One of the points I've brought up is housing. Housing is going to be an issue. You can spout the, "they'll do as they're told and like it", all you want, but it just don't work like that.

Also, you still haven't provided even one example of a problem that could happen that wouldn't be covered by another rule. If your contention is that the other rules don't work because they are not enforced often enough or enforced fairly, then why do you believe that DADT could be enforced so well but those other rules can't be?

Click to expand...

You've blown off every single thing we've said, claiming that we don't know what we're talking about.

apdst said:

An 0351? Is that correct?

Click to expand...

I don't remember, and he is at training right now, so I can't ask him.

apdst said:

Depends on the level of security, which is all MET-TW (mission, enemy, time, terrain, weather), whether it's 25%, 50% or 100% security. If a platoon is at 25% security, that means that 20-odd soldiers are going to sleeping, all at once.

Click to expand...

Since I was specifically talking about them sleeping in their trucks, then no, they would not have all been sleeping at the same time. That would be stupid of them. Most likely they were rotating one or two sleeping, while the others provided lookout, and they most likely didn't stay whereever they were long. And my husband was a Marine. His unit did not have 20 soldiers at a time on the same mission usually.

apdst said:

You don't sleep in your tent when you're in an assembly area. Probably wouldn't even bring it.

Well, if it's -30, yeah, soldiers are going to spoon. Been there, done that.

In a tent? Probably zero. But, in a 2x3 fighting position, probably 90% of those 100 days. But again, it's all MET-TW.

Click to expand...

I was asking specifics because you guys are claiming that I am wrong. So tell me, specifically where I am wrong in saying that in Iraq and Afghanistan, most combat soldiers are not going to be spending most of their time cuddled together?

And addressing the rest of what I ask would go a long way in helping your argument. But you constantly pick little parts or just one sentence that I type and address that, many times taking it out of the context that the sentence was used.

apdst said:

We have addressed everything. One of the points I've brought up is housing. Housing is going to be an issue. You can spout the, "they'll do as they're told and like it", all you want, but it just don't work like that.

Click to expand...

You have said that housing will be an issue because we separate men and women due to harassment issues. It has been explained to you multiple times that gay men are not women. The sexual harassment issue is not the only issue that keeps men and women in separate berthings. And even if it were, it would be because of the high potential for it to happen if 90-95% or more of the berthing is potentially attracted to each other, vice only 1-2% (possibly a little more) potentially being attracted to each other and the others in berthing. And, the average woman is less likely to be able to defend herself from an attack by the average sized man in a unit than a man is.

apdst said:

You've blown off every single thing we've said, claiming that we don't know what we're talking about.

Click to expand...

The only times that I have blown you off is when you make claims that the other rules in place are not adequate to deal with potential issues or when you don't know the rules well. Or that soldiers should not talk about their personal lives on duty. One you have provided nothing to support for it except something about women being treated differently (which would not apply to gay men). The second is unrealistic. And the last one has happened when dealing with unlawful orders and, I believe, fraternization rules.

roguenuke said:

Since I was specifically talking about them sleeping in their trucks, then no, they would not have all been sleeping at the same time. That would be stupid of them. Most likely they were rotating one or two sleeping, while the others provided lookout, and they most likely didn't stay whereever they were long. And my husband was a Marine. His unit did not have 20 soldiers at a time on the same mission usually.

Click to expand...

You're probably wrong there.

I was asking specifics because you guys are claiming that I am wrong. So tell me, specifically where I am wrong in saying that in Iraq and Afghanistan, most combat soldiers are not going to be spending most of their time cuddled together?

Click to expand...

Iraq and Afghanistan are the Alpha amd Omega of ground combat that American soldiers will participate in.

See these two soldiers? I bet they huddled together to stay warm during the Battle of The Bulge.

And addressing the rest of what I ask would go a long way in helping your argument. But you constantly pick little parts or just one sentence that I type and address that, many times taking it out of the context that the sentence was used.

Click to expand...

It's because the rest of the paragraph is irrelevant.

You have said that housing will be an issue because we separate men and women due to harassment issues. It has been explained to you multiple times that gay men are not women.

Click to expand...

It's been explained to you, not only by myself, that you can't force gay and straight soldiers to billet together. It just ain't gonna happen.

The sexual harassment issue is not the only issue that keeps men and women in separate berthings. And even if it were, it would be because of the high potential for it to happen if 90-95% or more of the berthing is potentially attracted to each other, vice only 1-2% (possibly a little more) potentially being attracted to each other and the others in berthing. And, the average woman is less likely to be able to defend herself from an attack by the average sized man in a unit than a man is.

Click to expand...

The prevention of sexual harassment is probably the #1 issue.

The only times that I have blown you off is when you make claims that the other rules in place are not adequate to deal with potential issues or when you don't know the rules well. Or that soldiers should not talk about their personal lives on duty. One you have provided nothing to support for it except something about women being treated differently (which would not apply to gay men). The second is unrealistic. And the last one has happened when dealing with unlawful orders and, I believe, fraternization rules.

Click to expand...

Sexual harasssment and fraternization policies don't prevent sexual harassment and fraternization 100%. One instance of fraternization in a combat arms unit, could spell real trouble. You have to consider that, currently, fraternization and improper relations aren't a problem within combat arms units. In the future, they will become a problem.

roguenuke said:

Also, you need to actually prove that a) sexual tension causes a significant reduction in cohesion, b) the sexual tension between sexualities is comparable to that between opposite sexes in a mostly heterosexual environment with mixed genders, and c) there are not other rules/policies in place that deal with any tension that some may face that could significantly affect unit cohesion.

So far, everyone has speculation, no one has proof.

Click to expand...

No.....there is already proof. Cohesion in a unit with mixed genders, when compared to units with one gender (infantry), is almost absent of cohesion. The mixture of the genders creates sexual tension and a date scene. Males tend to behave differently around females. Often females get lighter discipline and are allowed to get away with far more than their male counterparts. Some compete with each other to get the attention of the females and this relates to unit performaces. In the end, unit cohesion is broken and individualism reigns.

When it comes to homosexuals, the one homosexual that comes clean in a Marine Infantry unit will be ostricized and humiliated quite often. A Fire Team consists of 4 people. If one is gay, then this fire team is void of the very important cohesion it needs to perform. This carries on into larger units.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if men have a superior attitude towards women in the work place (because they lack the manly penis of the boys club), then certainly they have an even bigger superiority complex towards the man who has a penis and desires to use it with other peni. There is a certain amount of common sense that one should apply to assuming the probabilities rather than pretending that walking around in the dark is the only way to go.

The biggest problem people have with this is that they think about flambouyant gays when they think about "serving openly." But flambouyancy is a joke for Hollywood and the Air Force, not the ground forces. Most gays (virtually all in the Corps) will choose to remain private in their sexual abnormalities just for the sake of making a life in the military easier.

A lack of unit cohesion can cause a breakdown in discipline. A break down in discipline is what caused the My Lai massacre.

No.....there is already proof. Cohesion in a unit with mixed genders, when compared to units with one gender (infantry), is almost absent of cohesion. The mixture of the genders creates sexual tension and a date scene. Males tend to behave differently around females. Often females get lighter discipline and are allowed to get away with far more than their male counterparts. Some compete with each other to get the attention of the females and this relates to unit performaces. In the end, unit cohesion is broken and individualism reigns.

Click to expand...

Not a lot of disagreement here. I don't know a lot about this subject, but I'm curious to know about the social dynamics and unit cohesion in coed units of the IDF (of which there are A LOT).

EDIT: Correction, the only unisex infantry unit in the IDF seems to be the Caracal Battalion. My question about unit cohesion still stands though.

When it comes to homosexuals, the one homosexual that comes clean in a Marine Infantry unit will be ostricized and humiliated quite often.

Click to expand...

Is this the fault of the gay Marine? Or his unprofessional teammates? It seems NCOs and officers should be enforcing discipline among the ranks in order to prevent such a scenario?

A Fire Team consists of 4 people. If one is gay, then this fire team is void of the very important cohesion it needs to perform. This carries on into larger units.

Click to expand...

Could it not be argued that because a Gay Marine can't be honest with his brothers-in-arms (the issue of him hiding his own identity is always in the back of his mind), a psycho-social wall is built up between him and his teammates because of this, and that this secrecy results in an erosion of unit cohesion? In which case perhaps allowing gays to open themselves up would enable other Marines to eventually be more accepting?

StillBallin75 said:

Not a lot of disagreement here. I don't know a lot about this subject, but I'm curious to know about the social dynamics and unit cohesion in coed units of the IDF (of which there are A LOT).

EDIT: Correction, the only unisex infantry unit in the IDF seems to be the Caracal Battalion. My question about unit cohesion still stands though.



Is this the fault of the gay Marine? Or his unprofessional teammates? It seems NCOs and officers should be enforcing discipline among the ranks in order to prevent such a scenario?



Could it not be argued that because a Gay Marine can't be honest with his brothers-in-arms (the issue of him hiding his own identity is always in the back of his mind), a psycho-social wall is built up between him and his teammates because of this, and that this secrecy results in an erosion of unit cohesion? In which case perhaps allowing gays to open themselves up would enable other Marines to eventually be more accepting?

Click to expand...

You're making a great case why gays shouldn't be allowed to serve openly.

apdst said:

Are you saying we should stop discharging everyone that is unfit for service?

Click to expand...

How does being gay make one unfit to serve?