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."
</lisp> Closets are for sweaters, silly. </lisp>
Good point. . .as someone once said,
"I'll agree with homosexuals in the service when I can shower with the women."
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?
Bravo!
Ping!
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.)
Exactly.
Should make them pay a fine.
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....
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.
That made me smile. Every once in a while EdReform will say: "Hi madg" and it makes me smile as well.
Hi, madg!
;-)
Oh, him again. He should have an accompanying screed running any day now, on the the Times' op-ed page.
they say this like itsuh bad thing...
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.
Wait a minute. What about equality. Let's start there.
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.
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.
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.