> > * The only possible argument against it I can think of that's the least bit logical relies on facts I have never heard confirmed, denied, or even mentioned, namely, the same argument against women in the military. In combat situations, mixed troops of men and women soldiers tend not to perform as well, because what often happens is the men's protective instincts kick in, and they start taking unwise risks to keep the women safe. Consequently, for purely practical purposes, I am against mixing genders in individual troops. Separate divisions, however, I'm ok with, so I'm not utterly against women in the military. At any rate, I have no clue if gays in the military would trigger this same sort of phenomenon or not (and if it I did, I can't imagine it being as severe anyway).
>
> I have been thinking about this part of your post here for the last 48 hours trying to decide why this didn't quite set right. Do gay men feel protective of other gay men? Maybe. Is this the reason "gays in the military" is such an issue? Hmmm, no. Read Unipeg's post on "silly boys" where she talks about the continuous sexual canvasing by young men. Not to point out the obvious, but men--straight or gay-- are in general more agressive that way than women. I'm not implying that all gay men in the military would or do continually proposition/check out/harrass/whatever you-want-to-call-it *but* I think that straight men are now *concious* of that *possibility* occuring. When even "covert" or "perceived" interest from a gay elicits extreme hostility from some straight men, I can see why command does not want to have to deal with it. The overlay/tension of the sexual marketplace being added to combat situations--where you may be working in close quarters with little privacy many hours of the day--isn't going to focus the troops into that unified and cohesive group that fares best under fire. (And for this same reason, why I agree with you that women should not be in combat).


There are quite a lot of reasons for not mixing men and women in the military, let alone the gay issue. I was interested to find out one reason, a while back, which had never occurred to me before. We have mixed crews in Coastguard (OK, not a combat situation, but one that can involve physical hazard and in worst-case scenarios the risk of serious injury or death) but no couples are allowed to be on the same crew. I assume that if two previously single people on the same crew formed a serious relationship, one would be re-assigned. I always thought this was for two reasons: 1) the protectiveness thing impairing efficiency, and/or 2) the possible trauma to one of the couple if there *was* a bad situation and the other got killed in front of them or something.

Anyway, the subject came up a while back, and we got told that #1 isn't applicable enough to count much, and #2 was not the main reason. The main reason for the "no couples" rule is that couples mean mutual friends and family are connected with those two people. The potential trauma they're sparing is that of *other* people, not the couple themselves. If one partner gets killed, that's not going to be nearly as bad for everybody else concerned as if *both* did.

I have no idea what a combat situation would be like, since I've never been in one, so I can't speak on issues like women and/or gays and/or mixed divisions in combat. But I've noticed the feeling of looking after the others, and knowing they'll look after you, that develops between *everybody* on a crew, men and women alike, and I've never noticed that this was any more marked towards the women, or that it interfered in any way. I think there's also a feeling that if any member of the crew needs or inspires extra protectiveness in a bad situation, that person isn't competent enough to be there in the first place.

This is all just from my own experience of it, I'm not saying it applies anywhere else. Coasties are well known to be a pack of weirdos anyway ;-)