I’m fairly certain that once marriage is a protected right for homosexuals across the nation (perhaps before) focus will shift to the US military’s don’t ask don’t tell policy whereby if a soldier is found to be homosexual (by any means, not just through open admission as the policy’s name entails) can be dishonorably discharged.
Unlike the argument over anti-homosexual sodomy laws, or sodomy laws in general, it can’t really be argued that this is a rule which simply isn’t enforced; it is actualy enforced and has a real impact on every homosexual soldier in our armed forces.
That's right, our own armed forces are shooting themselves in the foot by distorting valuable personnel for completely arbitrary reasons.
Now, I don't mean to imply that serving in the military is some sort of inherent right, it is certainly a privilege which should only be available to those who are able to meet the rational standards set forth to be a soldier, however who you enjoy having sex with is entirely irrelevant, and as such it's utterly senseless to get rid of soldiers, especially well trained specialists, just because of who they find attractive.
I have no idea what sort of message this policy is intended to send other than that our armed forces are criplingly homophobic. I could understand a homosexual being discharged for reasons linking back to his sexuality if he were to become some sort of nuisance, sexually harass other soldiers, or the like, but I'd also expect the same from any other soldier. As it stands I can't imagine that openly homosexual servicemen would cause even a fraction of the sexual harassment problems that straight men serving with women causes, and if anything I find that sexual harassment is far more likely to take place with a straight man as the offender, rather than the homosexual.
Uhh right. . . how is that again? If we've got all of these homosexuals already in the army but they aren't telling anyone, and they were somehow a burden to the military's readiness, then wouldn't they be easy to identify and discharge anyhow? The fact is that a homosexual man trained to be a soldier is just as much a boon to military effectiveness and readiness as is the next man in uniform. If you want to go weeping about who's a drag on military readiness why not point fingers at all women in the military, who have specific medical and hygienic needs that men do not, yet somehow the military seems to deal with that burden just fine.
I should certainly hope that all soldiers should be expected to refrain from expressing their sexuality while on active duty, and certainly not to be engaging in sex acts while on the job! By this reasoning any soldier who's still got his balls should be discharged, as they are a potential liability. If they are worried that homosexual soldiers would have sex with one another, then simply apply the same rules that apply to all other soldiers, no sex on the job! If the problem is the stereotype of homosexual men being particularly promiscuous or lustful, then I think it might be appropriate for some of the military brass to sit down and watch 15 minuets of television commercials, in which time they should realize that the entire advertising industry is based upon the axiom that straight men are horny all the time.
Haha, oh wonderful. Is this why we haven't found those WMD yet? I've changed my mind, maybe they ARE there but there's no one in the country qualified to identify them! haha. Remember folks, that's a whole fucking lot of your tax money going to train a bunch of people who are then fired on technicalities. Only in America!
Well there's an enlightened point of view if I've ever heard one. They shouldn't have had their jobs in the first place? How does one qualify that exactly when job performance was not the reason for their discharge? I'd wager that the large majority of them had to be qualified, or they wouldn't have gotten their positions in the first place.
This last bit is particularly amusing, homosexuality is incomparable with military service? Well if she means that in the sense that romancing or fucking isn't the way to get a military ready then she's right, but being that any person with any sexuality engages in this behavior, and none of them should do it in the course of military duty, then I can't see what her point is. Is she trying to say, and stop me if you've heard this one already, that the definition of a soldier is one man and one gun, not one fag and his gun?
Haha, the stunning idiocy of the homophobic reactionary religious right is sometimes so blindingly awful that all I can do is laugh. I’ve got to admit though, the idea of a cabal of disenfranchised homosexual ex-soldiers who feel betrayed by their country going on some sort of domestic terror spree sounds like a really good starting point for a book, so I’ve got to thank the right-wingers for making it such a topically relevant premise.
I put it to you, fellow sciforums members, can you think of a single reason why a homosexual who otherwise meets (and as it seems in many cases exceeds) our armed forces standards for a soldier should be turned away or discharged simply because when his fellow soldiers talk lewdly about the chicks they've banged they reply "Oh I don't swing that way"?
I in no way endorse any service or product advertised in this thread. I have no control over the placement of advertisements on this forum, and never consented to link any service or product with my statements.