That’s a ridiculous suggestion, and you very well know that. Even if you ignore the fact that what you’re suggesting is segregation, which we stopped doing decades ago because it’s morally repugnant, I seriously doubt you can come up with more than a single instance of armies having all-gay units. I can think of one example of a Greek army that was reputed to have sex with each other before battle, but if I recall correctly, that reputation is without concrete evidence. It’s a rumor.

And, of course, the logistics make no sense. Unless you would like to explain in detail how you think making all-gay units would work in practice, of course. Is there going to be one gay carrier group? Is CENTCOM going to be the gay Combatant Command, or do you think SOUTHCOM makes more sense? What happens when the commander of the gays is deserving of a promotion that would put him in command of non-gay soldiers? Should he just never be promoted?

And, by the way, “homo lovers” is not clear terminology. “Homos” refers unambiguously to gays, while “homo lovers” could include people sympathetic to gays.

The ancients already solved this. Any special group was put into their own segregated units. All women. All homo lovers. All X. Worked out quite well.

You don’t talk about it cause you don’t hear about it. You don’t hear about it, because they don’t really want it to work.

For one thing, you can’t *stop* gay men from being in combat units. Gay men who want to serve in combat units can hide their identity to get into combat units, but that accomplishes nothing other than making those men’s lives worse. Having a closeted man creates a topic of gossip and a source of disunity–having an out gay man doesn’t create any more of an issue than having any other single demographic in a unit. If a gay man is causing issues because of his behavior, punish him, just like you should punish any other man whose behavior is endangering unit morale.

Putting women in combat roles is insane and makes no sense, but it’s a totally different scenario from allowing gay men into combat units.

And for the record, I’m not really sure where I stand vis-a-vis trans soldiers. In principle, I think trans men should be given the opportunity to meet the same physical requirements as men to serve in the same roles, but at the same time, I don’t know enough about sexual realignment to know if bone structure, muscle mass, etc. are affected enough to make trans men as capable as other men. If they’re not as capable of the physical work, then they’re not.

I see no reason to bar trans soldiers from serving in support roles, though. Nobody cares if their dentist used to be a man and is now a woman or intel officer used to be a woman and is now a man.

Resist? They aren’t alive to resist. Most of them the Hussein Regime sent to Afghanistan and got killed intentionally. The rest were fired for one reason or another and replaced with Diversity Caseys and Nidals.

Resist? Based on what criteria would a military chain of command resist their own leadership?

The balance of power changed, the culture is as it was in Vietnam. The Left’s power is not something you should underestimate. It can accomplish many things thought impossible.

Fighting is a man’s job if there ever was one. Most women realize this; the few who don’t are an embarrassment, and as this article points out, they’re even endangering their fellow soldiers if they insist on being in combat roles.

The pilot position makes more sense, but if they’re captured, oh boy. Bad. (Yes, they get raped; with the Islamonazis, they ALL do if caught.)