Don't ask, don't tell, don't let 'em in!

I confess to being at sixes and sevens over the American problem with homosexuals wishing to join the armed forces.  First of all, let me be clear that I really do not bear any animosity to homosexuals, as such, although I do find the activities of some of their more extreme and blatant fringe fraternity disgusting, a feeling I aim with equal fervour at their heterosexual equivalents.  In other words, I am not bothered by what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms but I draw the line at them doing the same thing in public places.  Secondly, I should make clear that I have no doubt that homosexuals possess more or less the same mix of courage and cowardice possessed by heterosexuals.  In the right circumstances I would be happy to serve in war alongside a homosexual.  However, it is precisely those circumstances which need to be carefully appraised.

I am most definitely not in favour of allowing homosexuals to serve in any of the ordinary fighting arms.  For the benefit of the non-military that means the infantry, cavalry and the gunners.  There exists in these outfits a very rough and ready ethos - and I do mean rough!  On the whole, the sort of men who make up your average infantry platoon are not well-educated, nicely brought up chaps au fait with the latest societal sophistications which demand that homesexuals be treated with respect.  On the contrary, most (but not all) of them would consider homosexuals to be the subjects of utter contempt and fair game for sexual predation - and the illogicality of that would never occur to them in a month of Sundays!  The disruptions that would ensue and the harm, to quote an old expression, to 'good order and military discipline' would be immense.

However, it is, I suppose, just possible that homosexuals could serve without too much harm, to themselves or to their formations, if they were confined to service units at HQs.  Also, oddly enough, I think they could probably serve perfectly well (as some do)with special forces.  The only way for anyone to join such outfits is by passing a ferocious test of personal stamina and courage which the vast majority of eager volunteers fail miserably.  Consequently, there is a fellow-feeling (no pun intended!) amongst the elite who do pass.  Also, from everything I have read, such units contain within them a very high percentage of eccentrics, not to say, downright nut-cases!  A few queers here or there, provided they didn't try to spread their cause (so to speak), would hardly be noticed.  From the point of view of their comrades, it would be enough that they, too, had hacked it through the selection course and if they went on to perform with equal determination on operations then no-one would even bother to remark on their sexual preferences.

Of course, it would be almost impossible to devise rules to cover the criteria I have raised, so regretfully, I incline to the view that homosexuals should be kept out of the army altogether.  I cannot speak with authority on the navy but according to that famous 'former naval person' it gets by on the basis of "rum, bum and baccy" so perhaps they are used to it.  As for the RAF, well, they've always been a bunch of pooftahs, as 'everyone do know' - well, everyone in the army does!

 

Comments

[JK]

Since I'm unsure that your use of the term "service units" wouldn't be an equivalent of our American term, "administrative units" or "logistics units" I'll leave the obvious snide remark aside.

I'm also uncertain whether this individual's, er, preferences played any role in this particular set of circumstances - but I do question his motive. If, it turns out, "preferences" played any part, I don't think I could bring myself to allow even the closeted queer admittance to serving in an admin capacity.

http://www.militarycorruption.com/manning.htm

[fallenmonk]

Why not just people be people. If they are tough enough and willing to do the job then let them do it. If there are issues with their mates let them work it out amongst themselves. It really doesn't matter if one is gay or straight. They only thing that matters is performance and I have personally served with gays that I would have much preferred to have at my side when it got tough than any number of straight jerks I have had the displeasure of serving with.

[Peter MacFarlane]

I think the navy phrase was actually "rum, sodomy, and the lash", but never mind.

I've also heard them say that women are all right but it's not like the real thing.

[David Duff]

Alas, JK, treachery for whatever reason is not confined to homosexuals.

FM! What's a nice man like you doing in a place like this? The point I was trying to make is that in your average infantry platoon there is usually a very heavy, in all meanings of the word, element who do care very much if you're queer. Quite apart from the physical risk to the homosexuals concerned, there is also the major disruptions which will, in this very litigious age, erupt with accusations of, at the very least, homophobia. As a result, otherwise excellent soldiers will be punished or dismissed and within platoons personal loyalties will be divided. Hardly the sort of atmosphere you would desire in an FOB up the sharp end of Afghanistan!

Peter, welocme to D&N. As always, Churchill had his own way of saying things! I will not be drawn on your last remark lest my old e-pal, JK, from 'over there' takes umbrage, or even worse, attempts to spell out the difference!

[ortega]

Here I come with my (ridiculously poor) results concerning the 'gugga' word. I do so mainly because I cannot stand the idea of your sleepless nights, with the question pounding again and again in your head, and all by my fault.
So, lets see.
It seems that the allied foreign troups camped in South East England at the beggining of WWII were given acronyms. In this way,and refering to the canadian ones, the British Columbia Dragoons (BCS) were the Better Class Drinkers, the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, the Piss Pot Cleaners and Letrine Inspectors and the Governor General's Horse Guards regiment, the Gugga Huggas.
It also seems that in a Punch of 1917, the word gugga is used in the sense of barmy. But it is 1917 not 1942.
That's all. Of course, nothing of the above answers the initial question.
And, to make it worse, this very little information has been obtained through the internet, wich means that most probably it is all bollocks.
Anyhow, thanks again for your attention. And have a sound sleep.

[David Duff]

Pheeew! Thank God for that, Ortega, and well done for your intrepid searches.

Yes, the British do have a habit of making fun with acronyms - I love the 'Gugga Huggas'! I suppose the current word 'gaga', meaning barmy, might well be derived from 'gugga' although it doesn't say so in my OED which gives the origin as "Early 20th century, from French."

Anyway, I'm off to bed . . .!