As someone said, private military companies will never say they won't employ gays because they will get sued for discrimination. However, these companies only tend to employ ex-military anyway, so someone's comment early on about "choosing" between the government and private sector is a fiction. You go to the military, get trained, then go into private sector. How many merc companies would employ you if you just turned up out of school and said "I wanna be a security contractor"? They'd say, go enlist and see you in 5 years when you have some experience.
Plus the contractors only tend to take ex special forces or specialist troops, or pretty experienced NCOs from regular military. They don't want the dumb grunts or maniacs. They want the hard core professionals with the right attitude. Generally, without engaging in generalisations, those people aren't going to tend to be gay (or open about it).
Having said that, the issue of banning gays from the military tends to be tied to several issues, some of which are now redundant:
1. Gays previously were at times illegal, so it was an explicit policy.
2. There was a fear that male gays in a all male environment would go gah gah like a kid in a candy store. This indulges in the gay stereotyping. Not all gays find all men attractive. Just like not all men find all women attractive and vice versa. This assumes that gays have no self control, which also touches on the old chestnut of fearing all gay men are p@edophiles in waiting, which is also silly.
3. The disruption fear, that straight soldiers would be disturbed at having gays in the showers, dorms, etc with them. See 2 above, although I can understand this. But at the end of the day that is reinforcing bias. Do you take blacks or Jews out of a unit because one or some of the soldiers are racist ...?
4. Fears that a soldier being gay would be used against them via blackmail, including by foreign powers. This ignored the fact that if it was OK,then the blackmail risk would disappear. This problem still arises because of the current US policy.
Overall, the disruption fear is probably the most valid, but is a bit of a damning indictment on the rest of the society/army. I note some comments above that some haven't had problems. I'm sure there are also some that have.
Keep in mind the UK and Netherlands are a lot more liberal on some of these issues than the US. However, I wouldn't be so sure the UK hasn't had some problems.
Put it this way, if the soldier is gay and as good and professional as the next straight person, what's the problem? If they are a raging queer Priscilla Queen of the Desert type who is cracking on to every male CO and being disruptive to discipline, then you have a problem. But the same as any gigolo who sleeps with the CO's wife, or disruptive type generally ("Private Joker!!! You wash up!!!! ...."). You punt them all for the same reason, not one because one's gay and the others for some other reasons.
Personally I am slightly uncomfortable about gays some times, but at the end of the day they have the right to live their lives as they choose (or were born to do). Do unto others, etc etc.
Personally I have more problem with females in front line military units. This PC insistence on women being equal and therefore entitled to fight on the front line is insane, and ignores the realities of war. Most women are physically weaker as a male of the same build, in a job where it is necessary to be strong. I wonder how many female SAW gunners there are ...? Plus there is always the threat of r@pe. Definitely when you are fighting wars against countries or forces that are less "liberal" than Western countries with women in their forces, you have the risk they won't be fighting according the gentleman's rules.
But that's probably a topic for another thread.
Plus the contractors only tend to take ex special forces or specialist troops, or pretty experienced NCOs from regular military. They don't want the dumb grunts or maniacs. They want the hard core professionals with the right attitude. Generally, without engaging in generalisations, those people aren't going to tend to be gay (or open about it).
Having said that, the issue of banning gays from the military tends to be tied to several issues, some of which are now redundant:
1. Gays previously were at times illegal, so it was an explicit policy.
2. There was a fear that male gays in a all male environment would go gah gah like a kid in a candy store. This indulges in the gay stereotyping. Not all gays find all men attractive. Just like not all men find all women attractive and vice versa. This assumes that gays have no self control, which also touches on the old chestnut of fearing all gay men are p@edophiles in waiting, which is also silly.
3. The disruption fear, that straight soldiers would be disturbed at having gays in the showers, dorms, etc with them. See 2 above, although I can understand this. But at the end of the day that is reinforcing bias. Do you take blacks or Jews out of a unit because one or some of the soldiers are racist ...?
4. Fears that a soldier being gay would be used against them via blackmail, including by foreign powers. This ignored the fact that if it was OK,then the blackmail risk would disappear. This problem still arises because of the current US policy.
Overall, the disruption fear is probably the most valid, but is a bit of a damning indictment on the rest of the society/army. I note some comments above that some haven't had problems. I'm sure there are also some that have.
Keep in mind the UK and Netherlands are a lot more liberal on some of these issues than the US. However, I wouldn't be so sure the UK hasn't had some problems.
Put it this way, if the soldier is gay and as good and professional as the next straight person, what's the problem? If they are a raging queer Priscilla Queen of the Desert type who is cracking on to every male CO and being disruptive to discipline, then you have a problem. But the same as any gigolo who sleeps with the CO's wife, or disruptive type generally ("Private Joker!!! You wash up!!!! ...."). You punt them all for the same reason, not one because one's gay and the others for some other reasons.
Personally I am slightly uncomfortable about gays some times, but at the end of the day they have the right to live their lives as they choose (or were born to do). Do unto others, etc etc.
Personally I have more problem with females in front line military units. This PC insistence on women being equal and therefore entitled to fight on the front line is insane, and ignores the realities of war. Most women are physically weaker as a male of the same build, in a job where it is necessary to be strong. I wonder how many female SAW gunners there are ...? Plus there is always the threat of r@pe. Definitely when you are fighting wars against countries or forces that are less "liberal" than Western countries with women in their forces, you have the risk they won't be fighting according the gentleman's rules.
But that's probably a topic for another thread.