Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

770 Specialists Discharged for Being Gay
Yahoo ^ | Sun Jun 20, 7:39 PM ET | BETH FOUHY

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."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; newbieposting; newbiezot; prisoners; vkpac; youagain; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last
To: MikeJ75
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.

</lisp> Closets are for sweaters, silly. </lisp>

61 posted on 06/21/2004 12:48:15 PM PDT by TankerKC (R.I.P. Spc Trevor A. Win'E American Hero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: weegee

Good point. . .as someone once said,

"I'll agree with homosexuals in the service when I can shower with the women."


62 posted on 06/21/2004 1:09:45 PM PDT by Gunrunner2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
We are not British and the British military is having a tough time with the issue.


Regarding your quip about linguists, we have government civilians (GS) that do those types of jobs and being homosexual in GS is a sure way to success. Therefore, if the homosexuals truly cared they would become GS and do the linguist or scientist thing, not whine and slink away, muttering how they are so darned important.
63 posted on 06/21/2004 1:15:19 PM PDT by Gunrunner2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

A text-based discussion can easily escape it's own subject. I'm not certain what you mean by "flip", but let's start over with the assumption that I somehow ended up out in left field.

Going back to the post I responded to:
"You may think the current policy is silly, and the rest of us would probably agree ~ still, allowing gays in the military under any pretext is harmful. You need look no further than the homosexual assaults againts prisoners at Abu Ghraib to see the problem."

Your argument appears to be that the rapes (and the fondling) qualify each man who participated as homosexual. (not speaking of the unwilling victims here)

We could probably each find plenty of things to cite that "prove" that rape is an act of desire or one of power. While I refuse to act like a high-school debater and suggest that "my studies are more valid than your studies", I will submit that perhaps we should ignore studies involving cases of heterosexual rape altogether. Male rape will probably never (other than within prison systems) be a highly documented subject. It has a bit too much of a stomach-turning quality to it. In the end, that aspect of our discussion may be moot.
It still seems highly likely to me that most of these men saw, and still see, themselves as being "heterosexual". If this is the case, how would a "no gays allowed" policy have kept them out of the military?


64 posted on 06/21/2004 1:34:06 PM PDT by EvilEd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Gunrunner2

Bravo!


65 posted on 06/21/2004 1:34:51 PM PDT by EvilEd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Finally_done; scripter; little jeremiah

Ping!


66 posted on 06/21/2004 1:37:45 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...

Homosexual Agenda Ping - Good News! Clean 'em out. Serving in the military is not a right, it is a privilege and a heavy responsibility. They wouldn't take me, for instance! Nor should they.*

I wonder what the slant of this "study" is, btw. Now if only the homosexuals would get the idea that maybe they should just go into a different line of work, become celibate, or perhaps seek treatment or a change of lifestyle.

I pray the military never bends on this one.

Let me *and* scripter know if you want on/off this pinglist.


(*Not because I'm homosexual, which I'm not, in case breakem is reading this! Hi, breakem.)


67 posted on 06/21/2004 2:42:48 PM PDT by little jeremiah (http://www.mikegabbard.com - a REAL conservative running for Congress from Hawaii!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: hellinahandcart

Exactly.

Should make them pay a fine.


68 posted on 06/21/2004 2:47:36 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army and Supporting Bush/Cheney 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
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.

I think you're right about my misinterpreting the statement. Based on a little research, it seems that discharges based on sexual orientation fell at the beginning of the war in Afghanistan.

Despite the fact that I clearly jumped to a conclusion, I'm not sure that I agree with your explanation for the decline in discharges. I suppose you could be right that the decline was due to the military needing more troops and, thus, deciding to look the other way. However, my little bit of research led me to a "stop-loss" order regarding military discharges, which severely limited the military's ability to discharge soldiers before the war. But that stop-loss order specifically excepted discharges based on sexual orientation.

Perhaps there is another explanation. Perhaps because of the war soldiers had fewer opportunities to display their sexual orientation--whether straight or gay--and thus fewer chances of being caught. All work and no play....

69 posted on 06/21/2004 2:47:47 PM PDT by MikeJ75 (Get the Big Spenders out of government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Finally_done; GATOR NAVY
Freeper GATOR NAVY made some comments worth reading in this thread:
Yeah nobody ever gives a s**t if something makes us straight guys uncomfortable, we have to just put with being called bigots. You work with gay people, big f-ing deal, after which you can go to your own home and associate with whom ever you wish. The fact that I work, eat, sleep, s**t, shower and shave 24/7 with no privacy when my ship is underway doesn't count for anything with you.

Tell me why have to share a berthing compartment with someone who finds men sexual attractive? Don't bring out the old "nobody finds everybody attractive" arguement. Men and women don't find everyone of the opposite sex attractive and yet they berth seperately. Why? Because of the potential for sexual problems.


70 posted on 06/21/2004 2:58:09 PM PDT by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; EdReform
(*Not because I'm homosexual, which I'm not, in case breakem is reading this! Hi, breakem.)

That made me smile. Every once in a while EdReform will say: "Hi madg" and it makes me smile as well.

71 posted on 06/21/2004 3:00:33 PM PDT by scripter (Thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: scripter

Hi, madg!

;-)


72 posted on 06/21/2004 3:07:30 PM PDT by little jeremiah (http://www.mikegabbard.com - a REAL conservative running for Congress from Hawaii!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
"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."

Oh, him again. He should have an accompanying screed running any day now, on the the Times' op-ed page.

73 posted on 06/21/2004 3:29:13 PM PDT by mrustow ("And when Moses saw the golden calf, he shouted out to the heavens, 'Jesus, Mary, and Joseph!'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Finally_done
770 Specialists Discharged for Being Gay?

they say this like itsuh bad thing...

74 posted on 06/21/2004 3:56:10 PM PDT by g'nad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrustow

You've seen this dude before? Anyone who works for an outfit such as "Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military" located at the University of California, Santa Barbara has got to be very, very suspect in their worldview.


75 posted on 06/21/2004 3:57:54 PM PDT by little jeremiah (http://www.mikegabbard.com - a REAL conservative running for Congress from Hawaii!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Finally_done

Wait a minute. What about equality. Let's start there.


76 posted on 06/21/2004 3:59:28 PM PDT by television is just wrong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell

My personal experience has been there are way more of them than there are Jews, who make up 3% of the population. No racial slurs intended, its just that Everywhere I go, I run into these people, both gays, and lesbians. I think there are a lot more than we can imagine.


77 posted on 06/21/2004 4:01:39 PM PDT by television is just wrong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: television is just wrong
My personal experience has been there are way more of them than there are Jews, who make up 3% of the population. No racial slurs intended, its just that Everywhere I go, I run into these people, both gays, and lesbians. I think there are a lot more than we can imagine.

3% means about 168,000 in each state. Last study of sexual demographics in the US put homosexuals at between 2% and 3%. Canada just ran one that put them at 1%.

Maybe one or some of your activities is or are popular with homosexuals.

78 posted on 06/21/2004 4:09:44 PM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: MikeJ75
The number of those types of discharges fluctuates all the time, and going to war is not a factor.

"The brass," policy makers, commanders, NCO's, whatever, they understand the rules and regs and enforce them. The reason for the rule/reg is clear and is not situational, and in fact, the argument for the discharge of homosexuals is precisely because of their negative affect on morale, unit cohesion and combat effectiveness of a unit. Therefore, given the reason for the rule/reg in the first place, it would be better argued that the number of discharges for homosexuality should increase in time of war.
79 posted on 06/21/2004 4:25:41 PM PDT by Gunrunner2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: EvilEd
No doubt they've played a rather aggressive game of "grabass" in the past, and that would raise everyone's suspicions.

These guys may think they are heterosexual, but I'm sure a thorough investigation would reveal they "deviate" often enough to be considered by others as being in the homosexual camp.

The current policy of "don't ask, don't tell" prohibits investigations. All that does is let these yahoos in!

We are all better off with them out.

Remember the kid who got murdered out in Wyoming by those two guys he supposedly tried to pick up? Now why do you suppose he thought they were suitible targets? Why did they play along with him? Any real heterosexual man would have abandoned Sheppard's game long before they all decided to leave together for whatever.

A sufficient investigation would undoubtedly have revealed a history of questionable, and most likely homosexual, behavior all around. It's the same with the military. The guards at Abu Ghraib needed to be "outed" long before they had a chance to play their game.

80 posted on 06/21/2004 4:33:56 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson