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

[TheStinger]

if the draft were ever re-introduced I would suspect being homosexual wouldn't be a problem anymore

[Solly]

Someone has to make a stand.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by ThePantaloonDog
Gee I never knew gays had such an aptitude for languages. Well its just another reason why they are the spawn of Satan and should all be shipped to Vermont.

Well, I'm not so sure about Gays, but I have known quite a few Lesbians who were cunning linguists.

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Sikander


Well, I'm not so sure about Gays, but I have known quite a few Lesbians who were cunning linguists.

Seven of the soldiers were discharged after telling superiors they are gay, and the two others got in trouble when they were caught together after curfew,

Why the seven said anything is beyond me- unless they were asked by the superiors after 'suspicious' behavior (which I thought was against current military policies). But the two I could understand some disciplinary punishment, since they broke curfew.

[red_jon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
BTW, civil rights (legally recognized or otherwise) are standarly subordinated to the military mission - this includes free speech, political and religious rights, not just "gay rights." The military ain't the place for it.

Well what if they didn't let black people into the military? Of course there'd be uproar then.

There's not even the 'they'll be destracted when fighting' excuse (bollocks that it is) - these people were simply linguists.

[SpencerH]

Even if the army allowed gays, they have no hope of any high level security clearance now that their preference is out in open. Therefore there's no point in continuing their education.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Even if the army allowed gays, they have no hope of any high level security clearance now that their preference is out in open. Therefore there's no point in continuing their education.

why would and open homosexual have a problem with security clearnce

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I meant to post earlier, but my Ottoman internet connection was down.

Anyway, regarding the seven wwhoallegedly identified themselves as gay: there has actually been an increase in the number of military dismissals on grounds of sexual orientation ever since "don't ask, don't tell" became policy,and by all reports its because the military has stepped up its investigations, not because people are outing themselves. I suspect these 7 came forward only afer the militaray had gathered evidence against them -- which is in specific violation of the "don't ask" part of the order.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by TheStinger

why would and open homosexual have a problem with security clearnce

There are lots of reasons why you can be denied (or lose) a security clearance. Most of them are arbitrary but anything that is deemed to be a 'risky behaviour' by somebody is grounds for denial.

[TheStinger]

that just seems daft, you are going to lose talented people for stupid reasoning

[Jac de Molay]

Well what if they didn't let black people into the military? Of course there'd be uproar then.

They should just establish all-gay platoons, pilot corps, etc, like they did for black folks. Then, when people finally come to their senses and realize that gays are just as capable, intelligent, patriotic etc., and wont gang-rape anybody in the shower or whatever , this issue might go away once and for all.

[Boris Godunov]

Yeah, SpencerH - Why would an open homosexual be any riskier for security clearance than anyone else?

MtG:

You're essentially saying it's okay to ban gays because it 1) makes some others uncomfortable to be around gays and 2) gays would somehow be more likely to indulge in inappropriate contact and there would be a huge upsurge in sexual couplings in the military.

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.

2) is prejudiced, as it makes an assumption that gay men are more sex-crazed than normal people, which they are not. Under this logic, women would still be excluded. There are plenty of incidents of men and woman having inappropriate contact, and the solution is to handle the cases individually, not ban all women. The same should be done for gays.

All of the armies that have integrated homosexuals have not had any serious problems.

[Amadan]

Originally posted by red_jon
Well what if they didn't let black people into the military? Of course there'd be uproar then.

There's not even the 'they'll be destracted when fighting' excuse (bollocks that it is) - these people were simply linguists.

That was the one thing that got me with C. Powell when he was talking about all the reasons gays should not be allowed to serve. Substitute the word 'black' for 'gay' and you get the exact same arguments that would have been used to keep him out of the military not that long ago.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DetroitDave
They should just establish all-gay platoons, pilot corps, etc, .

There were, supposedly, entire battalions of Greek soldiers in ancient times that consisted of men and their male lovers. They were among the best fighting forces, as they were fighting for the lives of their lovers, not just comrades.

[Amadan]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Even if the army allowed gays, they have no hope of any high level security clearance now that their preference is out in open. Therefore there's no point in continuing their education.

The only reason gays are a security risk is that we can be discharged for that reason. If someone were to find out an individual in a sensitive position was gay, they would have blackmail material. Remove the threat of discharge for being gay, you remove the risk of blackmail.