Maybe because a closet homo would be vulnerable to blackmail?
Well, so is an adulterer.
There was a gay man that worked in the security part of my old company (TRW). He was great!!! He took security very seriously, and did a great job.
There were plenty of heterosexual men and women that took security very lightly, and the company had some serious problems because of these people.
I'd rather have a gay person that takes security seriously, than a straight person that takes it lightly.
>>>Maybe because a closet homo would be vulnerable to blackmail?<<<
More prone to engage in dangerous behavior?
Correct for $500.
A total non-issue - unless one is more interested in Gay rights than national security.
No it’s not a blackmail thing.
One of the things the old KGB would look for was Homos. Not to blackmail them. But to give them what they wanted. You want a little boy, No problem, Just hand over that
code book.
The KGB figured trying to blackmail them would work against them. The people would turn themselves in more readily.
>>>Maybe because a closet homo would be vulnerable to blackmail?
But the new wording seems to encourage those still in the closet while rejecting those that are out.
-- The new rules say behavior that is "strictly private, consensual and discreet" could "mitigate security concerns."