THe PC Police Again Shut Down Truth Seaking

Ionus has never supported this "argument" with anything more than biased personal anecdotes and generalized fears about having some guy look at him while he's taking a shower.

This would be the same argument where you said what argument

I maintain that you are a coward, unwilling to face the fact that your prejudices do not reflect reality.

I maintain that you are a coward,

unwilling to face the fact that your prejudices do not reflect reality.

Ionus has never supported this "argument" with anything more than biased personal anecdotes and generalized fears about having some guy look at him while he's taking a shower.

Yet integration didn't hurt "unit cohesion" or military effort in the Korean War.

It has already been explained that an expert opinion is not personal bias.

Quote:

Yet integration didn't hurt "unit cohesion" or military effort in the Korean War.

This is from someone who doesnt understand the terminolgy and thinks soldiers are cowards. Do you think a win in a two sided contest is the only measure of efficiency to be applied ? What a fool!

What I think is being said is that it doesn't matter if 95% say No.

If you polled southerners in the mid fifties, I think that you would have gotten a pretty high No vote for desegregation.

The whole point is, civil societies don't allow the ignorant to determine policy that relates to people's rights.

You seem to think the argument is pertinent because there is a vocal group of bigots.

There's always going to be bigots, but there's just no reason to make it easy for them.

There's zero reason that the military can't have the same policy that occurs in civilian life.

it's ludicrous that people should have to serve their country as second class citizens

I think, I could be wrong, that the bad signals sent by DADT have made it possible for more bigots to jack the vote up. Apparently, I wasn't wrong.

It has to be asked. There weren't any efforts made to placate racists during the the civil rights era. They were soundly condemned. Why oh why has there been any effort to placate the ignorance that is so seemingly abundant within the officer rank of the US military.

The military officers could easily put a stop to this nonsense if they so desired.

That further checks had to be put upon them with this don't ask, don't tell, don't harass, don't pursue[/b] is really telling.

Though it's not likely to happen real soon, it's time for criminal prosecutions.

That's not an argument; that's an assertion.

an extensive review ....That review is lengthy....I can summarize its conclusions in a few words

The research data show that there is nothing about lesbians and gay men that makes them inherently unfit for military service, and there is nothing about heterosexuals that makes them inherently unable to work and live with gay people in close quarters.

American Psychological Association states:

He has presented no logic. He has actually fled when asked to engage in some.

Historical examples are easily defeated by other historical examples about segregated units.

His "knowledge of interpersonal relationships in the military" is countered by Mysterman's "knowledge of interpersonal relationships in the military".

You're an anonymous person on the Internet, so that "expert opinion" BS won't fly.

You keep bringing up that there is terminology that we don't understand... yet you don't actually use such terminology.

The presence of a known homosexual in a unit could reduce social cohesion. In extreme cases, it could lead to ostracism or violence. However, both research and the experience of foreign militaries and domestic organizations suggest that a number of factors can minimize social disruption. First, leaders play a key role in promoting and maintaining unit cohesion. Second, military roles, regulations, and norms all enhance the likelihood that heterosexuals will work cooperatively with homosexuals. Third, external threats enhance cohesion, provided that the group members are mutually threatened and there is the possibility that cooperative group action can eliminate the danger.

The RAND study suggests that although the presence of a known homosexual may affect social cohesion, it is unlikely to undermine task cohesion, provided that the individual demonstrates competence and a commitment to the unit's mission. Therefore, researchers conclude that the presence of known homosexuals on the force is not likely to undermine military performance.

Your erratic posts make you sound like a nasty drunk, Ionus.