The part of a homosexual man's brain which interprets pheromones is identical to a heterosexual woman. The part of a homosexual woman's brain which interprets pheromones is identical to a heterosexual man.
It's been a while but if you would like I could dig up one of the studies I've already read on this. Please keep in mind, though, that I'm really trying to avoid a 'nature of sexuality' discussion.
You don't have to cite studies, I already know about this, but I'm not sure how it's relevant. All it proves is that the attraction exists, but it doesn't address the fact that attractions are manageable with simple human will power. Just because pheromones work that way, doesn't mean gay man will be throwing themselves at straight men in the military. If that were the case it would already be happening.
It's my argument that while Navy's concern is valid, it is just as manageable as having women on the ship.
Yes but the reasons for doing so are different. One is about the right of the woman to be safe and secure from predatory sexuality within a male-dominated unit, and one is about stigmatization of someone for the nature of their sexuality. Gays would most certainly be in the minority in any unit, so removing them is not about group-predatory sexuality (i.e. protecting the gay person from being come onto), but the discomfort of the straight majority who are not even at risk. In addition to that, sexual misconduct is still sexual misconduct in the military, whether it's dealing with heterosexual interactions or homosexual.
If integration proves to be a problem, the military could simply assign homosexuals to bunks specifically for homosexuals only just as they do for women only. I'm not talking about creating special accommodations or even moving a single bunk on a ship, but merely assigning who sleeps where with sexual orientation in mind.
If integration is a problem because of homophobia, then people who have a problem with the gays can simply resign from the military. They are not in the military to be activists anymore than the gays are; they are there to do a service to their country. If they can't work together because of psychological distress over their fellow soldier's sexuality - which is, in fact, irrelevant to their duties - then they need to leave. Likewise, if a gay soldier is unable to control themselves, then they need to be removed. People who put their duties second have no business being in the military.
There is no need to make sweeping segregation policies. It can be dealt with on a case by case basis. Only if it becomes epidemic - and it won't - should general policy be considered.
Every single argument being made here were the same arguments that were made for segregating blacks and whites in the military. It's about the discomfort of the empowered majority, and to that I say, too effing bad.
I think we need to afford people some time to acclimate to change instead of trying to get everything we want all at once. Other militarys have gays integrated with heteros and there's no significant problem, but those militarys have had gays mixed with heteros for a very long time.
As far as I know, in Canada, there were no problems in the beginning, just like there are no problems now. Although, the same arguments were raised by conservatives... that there would be huge issues, the sky would fall, etc. It ended up not being that way whatsoever.
If DADT is lifted, it won't mean that suddenly every gay is out of the closet. The military is still a homophobic, hetero-normalizing, macho environment where people are trained to put their cares for humans on the way side in favor of taking orders. The perceived stereotype of what gays are contradicts that model which is where this fear comes from. The very root of it is lack of awareness that gays can be just as macho as any straight guy.
Once DADT is lifted, this will become plainly obvious.
If I had my way about it I would start with full integration with strict enforcement of rules of conduct, and only if a significant trend developed would I implement a back-up plan of segregating bunks.
This would be a sensible policy. To my knowledge, this was the plan that was implemented in Canada, mostly to appease worried conservatives. There ended up being no need for segregation. I'm not saying the needs of the U.S. will be the same, but I think as long as the military emphasizes the reasons that people are there in the first place, the secondary social issues will be less important.