Posted on 06/21/2004 2:03:44 AM PDT by Finally_done
SAN FRANCISCO - Even with concerns growing about military troop strength, 770 people were discharged for homosexuality last year under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, a new study shows.
The figure, however, is significantly lower than the record 1,227 discharges in 2001 — just before the invasions of Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq (news - web sites). Since "don't ask, don't tell" was adopted in 1994, nearly 10,000 military personnel have been discharged — including linguists, nuclear warfare experts and other key specialists.
The statistics, obtained from the Defense Manpower Data Center and analyzed by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California, Santa Barbara, offers a detailed profile of those discharged, including job specialty, rank and years spent in the service.
"The justification for the policy is that allowing gays and lesbians to serve would undermine military readiness," said Aaron Belkin, author of the study, which will be released Monday. "For the first time, we can see how it has impacted every corner of the military and goes to the heart of the military readiness argument."
So a lot of people have gotten out of military service by "telling", eh?
Sorta like female soldiers getting pregnant.
If locker rooms are segregated by sex (men and women), it means that only men are taking photos of nude men and boys. The fox is in the hen house, so to speak.
This is not to say that every homosexual male is a peeping Tom but then again, it flies directly in the face of the homosexual's explanation that "gay men aren't attracted to straight men".
Let's go ahead and make all of the showers, toilets, bunks, unisex. It isn't as radical as it sounds. You are putting your life on the line with these people. College kids at some schools already have unisex bathrooms. Maybe it would again make people reconsider the idea of putting women on the frontline.
This has got to be one weird office. :D
The 'Rainbow Discharge', though, is still a reality. Decide that you can't hack it? Don't like the long deployments? Think your boss is a jerk? Suddenly discovering your gay side gets you a general discharge under honorable conditions, which isn't a bad deal. The veteran's benefits shrink, but if you're ready to claim that you like man-ass just to get out, you probably don't care. Freedom is just a Chaplain's visit away.
I've seen several people get out under the rainbow discharge. I believe that one was honestly gay, but all of them were just working the system.
Sounds like a completely good waste of cannon fodder to me.
They are not discharged for being gay. They are discharged for not keeping it to themselves. That's what "don't ask don't tell" means. It is a stupid law that Bill Clinton signed then and it's stupid now. They shouldn't be in the military AT ALL, IMNSHO. But I don't think that women who can't perform at the same level of their fellow men soldiers should be there either. I don't think it should be a social club. It should be for PROTECTING OUR FREEDOMS.
Not really. I, for one, don't need to hear anyone talking about their sexuality.
It's flat out rude, and borders on insecurities that we won't talk about.
And if I was in a foxhole with some fellow, I would hope he would be trying to save our lives because of mom and pop and apple pie, not because he thinks I'm cute.
I'm getting very tired of hearing all the bullshit. Does everybody have some sort of agenda?
It just seems we spend so much time catering to those who whine the most.
So what?
This is a completely ridiculous policy. I can't see why we cling so tightly to such an antiquated policy. The British military scrapped this policy years ago and haven't seen one blip of repercussions from it.
At a cost of thousands of dollars and many training hours each, we're dismissing some highly valuable military personnel, ostensibly because they hurt morale. Well, when al-Qaeda detonates a nuke in New York City because we had one too few linguists to defuse the plan, I think that will hurt a little bit more than just morale.
This is silly.
"How come the army can do it but civilians are not able to? Why are civilians compelled to entertain and coddle individuals with a well documented mental illness? How come they aren't compelled to get therapy before entering society? Why do we allow them to roam freely and prey upon our innocents?"
Because the lying crooked liberals now are the ones who "give" rights and "take" rights. The perverts of the Supremes made "sodomy" a civil right.
"The figure, however, is significantly lower than the record 1,227 discharges in 2001 — just before the invasions of Afghanistan"
1,227 cowards got out so they didn't have go to war. Of course, there are straight cowards as well.
Uh, td, not all the people leaving are linguists and 770 out of a military force of 1.5 million is appx. 0.005% of the force.
And those who do leave can easily be made up, and has been stated before some use the system to get out of their obligation.
You may continue on with your doom and gloom propaganda.
Why would discharges increase just before a war? The only reasons I can think of are (1) gay men who previously adhered to "don't tell" decided to tell in order to get out of a war, or (2) straight men decided to lie about their sexual orientation to get out of war. It's probably some combination of the two.
Should just saying that you are gay without any proof (having entered into a civil union with someone of the same gender, for example) be enough to get you out of a war? If a person is discharged for being gay, does he get to keep all of his benefits and previous pay?
It said seven linguists. I know that, thanks.
The policy is still silly.
I think you're misinterpreting that data. The higher number is the norm. When it's time to go to war, and more personnel are needed, the brass decides it doesn't have to be quite so zealous in kicking out the gays.
Also going along with your doom and gloom scenario, what would happen if a linguist is killed in a car accident and that linguist was the person who could have prevented your scenario, would you say cars are silly?
Of course. Some are like the founding fathers, others, it's all about mememememememememememe. If we didn't have agendas how would you recognize who was with you and who was against you?
And how many linguists are there in a force of 1.5 million? My best guess would be 7,000 or even if there are 700, 7 of 700 is 1%.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.