It's official: gay men are a geater threat than terrorists

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Yeah, SpencerH - Why would an open homosexual be any riskier for security clearance than anyone else?

Promiscuity is a reason for denial/loss of clearance. Since gays are on average more more promiscuous than hetero's they're a greater risk. But thats not the real answer anyway. The 'real' answer is homophobia.

MtG:

You're essentially saying it's okay to ban gays because it 1) makes some others uncomfortable to be around gays

1) is meaningless, as if someone has a problem with a group of people, that is THEIR problem, not the group's. Homophobes shouldn't be accomodated. If this were a valid reason, then blacks would never have been integrated into the army. Basing the rules on type of person rather than actions is wrong.

It may seem stupid, but its not meaningless. From the perspective of a commander of even an infantry section, would you jeapordize unit cohesion for a philosophical point. Not likely. I've seen the trouble it can cause first-hand, and I'm not even sure that the person in question was gay (but he was percieved to be). The first place to make social change is not the army. Homosexuality has to be more accepted in the general US population before it will ever be tolerated in the military (just as it was with blacks). Until that time, the US military will loose good soldiers who happen to be gay.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Promiscuity is a reason for denial/loss of clearance. Since gays are on average more more promiscuous than hetero's they're a greater risk. But thats not the real answer anyway. The 'real' answer is homophobia.

Promiscuity is rampant among single straight men. I doubt you can produce any accurate statistics on promiscuity levels between the two groups. Again, it is something that should be done on a case-by-case basis, not by generalization. A gay man who isn't promiscuous shouldn't have any issues with security clearance.

It may seem stupid, but its not meaningless. From the perspective of a commander of even an infantry section, would you jeapordize unit cohesion for a philosophical point. Not likely. I've seen the trouble it can cause first-hand, and I'm not even sure that the person in question was gay (but he was percieved to be). The first place to make social change is not the army. Homosexuality has to be more accepted in the general US population before it will ever be tolerated in the military (just as it was with blacks). Until that time, the US military will loose good soldiers who happen to be gay.

You seem to have got history backwards here--blacks were allowed to serve in the army long before there was general recognition of their equal status. Integration also occured before it was accepted in the population--Truman ordered the military to integrate two decades before the Civil Rights movement and desegration occured in the general population.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Promiscuity is rampant among single straight men. I doubt you can produce any accurate statistics on promiscuity levels between the two groups. Again, it is something that should be done on a case-by-case basis, not by generalization. A gay man who isn't promiscuous shouldn't have any issues with security clearance.

I agree that the real stats are difficult to know. You're arguing as if logic is involved. Its not. No reason has to be given, its a members only club and the members get to make the rules.

You seem to have got history backwards here--blacks were allowed to serve in the army long before there was general recognition of their equal status. Integration also occured before it was accepted in the population--Truman ordered the military to integrate two decades before the Civil Rights movement and desegration occured in the general population.

They served in the military, but they were not truly integrated until after the civil rights movement. I'm sure you know better than I that there is less support for gay equality in America today (even in relatively liberal states) than there was (country-wide) for blacks in the 1950-1960's.

[Arrian]

This is madness. Sheer idiocy. It is the army, after all.

-Arrian

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I agree that the real stats are difficult to know. You're arguing as if logic is involved. Its not. No reason has to be given, its a members only club and the members get to make the rules.

So we can exclude blacks, Jews, and women if we want to? There has to be some sort of rational answer for singling out an entire group, and I've yet to see one.

They served in the military, but they were not truly integrated until after the civil rights movement. I'm sure you know better than I that there is less support for gay equality in America today (even in relatively liberal states) than there was (country-wide) for blacks in the 1950-1960's.

Black military service began during the Civil War, and they were at least ALLOWED to be in the army, albeit in segregated groups. No such consideration is as yet afforded to homosexuals.

I would dispute your second point. I think it's pretty clear that homosexuals are more accepted by mainstream society now than Blacks were in the 1950s. We certainly have greater legal status than Blacks did at that point.

Regardless, I don't see a need for a societal litmus test for integrating the army. Policies of membership to the army should be based solely on one's physical and mental abilities to do the jobs required and one's personal behavior. The mere fact of BEING gay or straight is absolutely irrelevant, except to bigots.

[Provost Harrison]

Why should homosexuality be a problem for admission? Let's face it, if people in the military have issues with homosexuality, that is their issue and no one else's.

It is time they moved beyond the dark ages on this one...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
It is time they moved beyond the dark ages on this one...

The UK was only dragged kicking and screaming out of the "dark ages" 3 years ago IIRC. So, I wouldn't get all high and mighty with us.

[Boris Godunov]

Why is it always about nationalism for ya, DD? I don't see anything in PH's post asserting some sort of superiority of Britain in this regard. Unless you're implying he didn't support it until Britain changed...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Why is it always about nationalism for ya, DD?

It's usually the best way to relieve boredom.

PS Do you know where I can find any info on the units you discussed earlier?

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The UK was only dragged kicking and screaming out of the "dark ages" 3 years ago IIRC. So, I wouldn't get all high and mighty with us.

Actually DinoDoc, "they" wasn't referring to the US, "they" was referring to armed forces in general. It is within the same context as the rest of my post. Against the military of any nation...

[MRT144]

my former high school chinese teacher works at the linguistic institute now

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by SpencerH
They served in the military, but they were not truly integrated until after the civil rights movement.

Actually, Truman's executive order to end inequality was in 1948, and all the services were 95% or more desegregated by 1952.

BTW, there has been a civil rights movement since the 13th Amendmant, and it is still ongoing. However, the most significant legislation was passed in the 1870s and 1960s, some 15-20 years after Truman's order.

[chequita guevara]

The real reason that gays aren't allowed in the military is because there's a secret treaty between all countries banning gays. This is because all countries fear gay militaries. Look at the Spartans. They kicked everyone's ass. They were only defeated by Alexander the Great, who was gay himself, and then went on to conquer the known world.

The leaders of the world know that if gay men were allowed to be in the military, they could take over the world. It's for our own protection.

[Boris Godunov]

DD:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/sacredband.html

http://rowan_oak0.tripod.com/thebes.htm

They were Thebian, Che, not Spartan.

And they did indeed kick ass, until another gay boi finally beat them...

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

So we can exclude blacks, Jews, and women if we want to? There has to be some sort of rational answer for singling out an entire group, and I've yet to see one.

I was refering to security clearances, you seem to be refering to gays in the military in general? Those are separate issues.

Black military service began during the Civil War, and they were at least ALLOWED to be in the army, albeit in segregated groups. No such consideration is as yet afforded to homosexuals.

true

I would dispute your second point. I think it's pretty clear that homosexuals are more accepted by mainstream society now than Blacks were in the 1950s. We certainly have greater legal status than Blacks did at that point.

So in how many states are same-sex marriages given the same rights as heterosexual marriages? Wasnt there (at least) two referendums in the recent election that looked at a gay equality issue? In both states that I'm aware of, the pro-gay rights sides were soundly thrashed. Segregation was present in the south, but blacks had legal acceptance in all states and societal acceptance in most.

Regardless, I don't see a need for a societal litmus test for integrating the army. Policies of membership to the army should be based solely on one's physical and mental abilities to do the jobs required and one's personal behavior. The mere fact of BEING gay or straight is absolutely irrelevant, except to bigots.

It should be irrelevant but its not. You can call them bigots all you like but until opinions change in society, openly gay soldiers will disrupt morale (at least in combat units) and therefore it would be foolish to allow it for the sake of 'political correctness'.