Quote:

Its all bullshit. Someone's sexual preference shouldnt be an issue for anything.


"shouldn't be" isn't the same as "never is". Just because it shouldn't be an issue doesn't mean it isn't an issue. It might be a problem, even if it shouldn't be.

The "Warrior" psychology of men in combat is complex, but it's accepted that when the shooting starts an experienced soldier isn't putting his life on the line to defend the constitution, his country, or any particular flag or slogan: he's fighting for his buddies, the others in his unit, and soldiers who don't are, at best, useless.

There is reason to be concerned that if you create a situation where mating hormones compete with the "band of brothers" drive you might hurt performance in combat severely. It's not obvious it would, but how many are you willing to see killed to test the theory, and which battles are you willing to risk losing?

Integrating blacks is not a good analog: prejudice simply isn't as big a problem to overcomes as millions of years of biological impulse might be.

I'm not familiar with any modern military integrating gays and studying carefully the impact on combat psychology (I think some European countries have integrated but with one exception I don't think they have had any meaningful combat in the last 50 years to test the changes).

The Soviets *did* use women in combat roles in WW2 but I don't know if anyone has ever studied how, what affect it had, or what lessons we might learn. It's also unlikely we're going to use Stalin's and Beria's methods of making sure everyone is agreeable to women in combat...

PS. There is an obvious comparison to be made with porn here: would you do a shoot for Falcon studios titled "Three gays and a girl?"
_________________________
"If they can't picture me with a knife, forcing them to strip in an alley, I don't want any part of it. It's humiliating." - windsock