15-11-2002 20:22									#31
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Yeah, SpencerH - Why would an open homosexual be any riskier for security clearance than anyone else?

Promiscuity is a reason for denial/loss of clearance. Since gays are on average more more promiscuous than hetero's they're a greater risk. But thats not the real answer anyway. The 'real' answer is homophobia.

quote: MtG: You're essentially saying it's okay to ban gays because it 1) makes some others uncomfortable to be around gays 1) is meaningless, as if someone has a problem with a group of people, that is THEIR problem, not the group's. Homophobes shouldn't be accomodated. If this were a valid reason, then blacks would never have been integrated into the army. Basing the rules on type of person rather than actions is wrong.

It may seem stupid, but its not meaningless. From the perspective of a commander of even an infantry section, would you jeapordize unit cohesion for a philosophical point. Not likely. I've seen the trouble it can cause first-hand, and I'm not even sure that the person in question was gay (but he was percieved to be). The first place to make social change is not the army. Homosexuality has to be more accepted in the general US population before it will ever be tolerated in the military (just as it was with blacks). Until that time, the US military will loose good soldiers who happen to be gay.

	15-11-2002 20:38									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH Promiscuity is a reason for denial/loss of clearance. Since gays are on average more more promiscuous than hetero's they're a greater risk. But thats not the real answer anyway. The 'real' answer is homophobia.

Promiscuity is rampant among single straight men. I doubt you can produce any accurate statistics on promiscuity levels between the two groups. Again, it is something that should be done on a case-by-case basis, not by generalization. A gay man who isn't promiscuous shouldn't have any issues with security clearance.

quote: It may seem stupid, but its not meaningless. From the perspective of a commander of even an infantry section, would you jeapordize unit cohesion for a philosophical point. Not likely. I've seen the trouble it can cause first-hand, and I'm not even sure that the person in question was gay (but he was percieved to be). The first place to make social change is not the army. Homosexuality has to be more accepted in the general US population before it will ever be tolerated in the military (just as it was with blacks). Until that time, the US military will loose good soldiers who happen to be gay.

You seem to have got history backwards here--blacks were allowed to serve in the army long before there was general recognition of their equal status. Integration also occured before it was accepted in the population--Truman ordered the military to integrate two decades before the Civil Rights movement and desegration occured in the general population.

	15-11-2002 21:14									#33
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Promiscuity is rampant among single straight men. I doubt you can produce any accurate statistics on promiscuity levels between the two groups. Again, it is something that should be done on a case-by-case basis, not by generalization. A gay man who isn't promiscuous shouldn't have any issues with security clearance.

I agree that the real stats are difficult to know. You're arguing as if logic is involved. Its not. No reason has to be given, its a members only club and the members get to make the rules.

quote: You seem to have got history backwards here--blacks were allowed to serve in the army long before there was general recognition of their equal status. Integration also occured before it was accepted in the population--Truman ordered the military to integrate two decades before the Civil Rights movement and desegration occured in the general population.

They served in the military, but they were not truly integrated until after the civil rights movement. I'm sure you know better than I that there is less support for gay equality in America today (even in relatively liberal states) than there was (country-wide) for blacks in the 1950-1960's.

	15-11-2002 22:45									#34
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

This is madness. Sheer idiocy. It is the army, after all.

-Arrian

	15-11-2002 23:24									#35
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH I agree that the real stats are difficult to know. You're arguing as if logic is involved. Its not. No reason has to be given, its a members only club and the members get to make the rules.

So we can exclude blacks, Jews, and women if we want to? There has to be some sort of rational answer for singling out an entire group, and I've yet to see one.

quote: They served in the military, but they were not truly integrated until after the civil rights movement. I'm sure you know better than I that there is less support for gay equality in America today (even in relatively liberal states) than there was (country-wide) for blacks in the 1950-1960's.

Black military service began during the Civil War, and they were at least ALLOWED to be in the army, albeit in segregated groups. No such consideration is as yet afforded to homosexuals.

I would dispute your second point. I think it's pretty clear that homosexuals are more accepted by mainstream society now than Blacks were in the 1950s. We certainly have greater legal status than Blacks did at that point.

Regardless, I don't see a need for a societal litmus test for integrating the army. Policies of membership to the army should be based solely on one's physical and mental abilities to do the jobs required and one's personal behavior. The mere fact of BEING gay or straight is absolutely irrelevant, except to bigots.

	15-11-2002 23:30									#36
	Increase Your PM Length

Why should homosexuality be a problem for admission? Let's face it, if people in the military have issues with homosexuality, that is their issue and no one else's.

It is time they moved beyond the dark ages on this one...

	15-11-2002 23:33									#37
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Provost Harrison It is time they moved beyond the dark ages on this one...

The UK was only dragged kicking and screaming out of the "dark ages" 3 years ago IIRC. So, I wouldn't get all high and mighty with us.

	15-11-2002 23:35									#38
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Why is it always about nationalism for ya, DD? I don't see anything in PH's post asserting some sort of superiority of Britain in this regard. Unless you're implying he didn't support it until Britain changed...

	15-11-2002 23:42									#39
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Why is it always about nationalism for ya, DD?

It's usually the best way to relieve boredom.

PS Do you know where I can find any info on the units you discussed earlier?

	15-11-2002 23:44									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc The UK was only dragged kicking and screaming out of the "dark ages" 3 years ago IIRC. So, I wouldn't get all high and mighty with us.

Actually DinoDoc, "they" wasn't referring to the US, "they" was referring to armed forces in general. It is within the same context as the rest of my post. Against the military of any nation...

	15-11-2002 23:56									#41
	Tired of ads?

my former high school chinese teacher works at the linguistic institute now

	16-11-2002 00:01									#42
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH They served in the military, but they were not truly integrated until after the civil rights movement.

Actually, Truman's executive order to end inequality was in 1948, and all the services were 95% or more desegregated by 1952.

BTW, there has been a civil rights movement since the 13th Amendmant, and it is still ongoing. However, the most significant legislation was passed in the 1870s and 1960s, some 15-20 years after Truman's order.

	16-11-2002 00:11									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The real reason that gays aren't allowed in the military is because there's a secret treaty between all countries banning gays. This is because all countries fear gay militaries. Look at the Spartans. They kicked everyone's ass. They were only defeated by Alexander the Great, who was gay himself, and then went on to conquer the known world.

The leaders of the world know that if gay men were allowed to be in the military, they could take over the world. It's for our own protection.

	16-11-2002 00:17									#44
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

DD:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/sacredband.html
http://rowan_oak0.tripod.com/thebes.htm

They were Thebian, Che, not Spartan.

And they did indeed kick ass, until another gay boi finally beat them...

	16-11-2002 00:23									#45
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov So we can exclude blacks, Jews, and women if we want to? There has to be some sort of rational answer for singling out an entire group, and I've yet to see one.

I was refering to security clearances, you seem to be refering to gays in the military in general? Those are separate issues.

quote: Black military service began during the Civil War, and they were at least ALLOWED to be in the army, albeit in segregated groups. No such consideration is as yet afforded to homosexuals.

true

quote: I would dispute your second point. I think it's pretty clear that homosexuals are more accepted by mainstream society now than Blacks were in the 1950s. We certainly have greater legal status than Blacks did at that point.

So in how many states are same-sex marriages given the same rights as heterosexual marriages? Wasnt there (at least) two referendums in the recent election that looked at a gay equality issue? In both states that I'm aware of, the pro-gay rights sides were soundly thrashed. Segregation was present in the south, but blacks had legal acceptance in all states and societal acceptance in most.

quote: Regardless, I don't see a need for a societal litmus test for integrating the army. Policies of membership to the army should be based solely on one's physical and mental abilities to do the jobs required and one's personal behavior. The mere fact of BEING gay or straight is absolutely irrelevant, except to bigots.

It should be irrelevant but its not. You can call them bigots all you like but until opinions change in society, openly gay soldiers will disrupt morale (at least in combat units) and therefore it would be foolish to allow it for the sake of 'political correctness'.

	16-11-2002 00:36									#46
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov They were Thebian, Che, not Spartan. And they did indeed kick ass, until another gay boi finally beat them...

The Sacred Band of Thebes is a merely one group of gay soldiers. The entire Spartan army was gay, however (bi, actually, since they still had to procreate). The idea was that lovers would fight more viciously for their partner. It's a well established fact, Boris.

Other great gay warriors:

Julius Caeaser
Richard the Lionheart

	16-11-2002 01:02									#47
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

.

Attachment: panousis02.jpg
This has been downloaded 107 time(s).

	16-11-2002 01:05									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Is that your boyfriend paiktis?

	16-11-2002 01:07									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

BTW you overexagerate of course.

You just do all your focus on what looks "weird" enough for you.

Homosexuality in ancient Greece was frowned upon and was in a minor part of the population as clearly depicted in Plato's Symposium and other sources.


Also in Sparta homosexuality was punished with death. But I guess you overlooked that one to.

But it is more "hype" for people to think and fcus on what they want. What the hell.

PH, he dumped me.

	16-11-2002 01:08									#50
	Got spare money?

That sucks

	16-11-2002 01:57									#51
	Got spare money?

RFOTFLMAO!!! @Panousis!!!

quote: I meant to post earlier, but my Ottoman internet connection was down.

Looks like your Ottoman internet connection is really sensitive concerning homosexuality? Now, why would this be?

	16-11-2002 03:33									#52
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by red_jon Well what if they didn't let black people into the military? Of course there'd be uproar then.

Skin color doesn't involve behavior of any particular kind, positive or negative. Sex does, speech does, religion does. (see Parker v. Levy, somewhere around 1986, for a SCOTUS ruling on mainstream religious practice in a military context)

quote: There's not even the 'they'll be destracted when fighting' excuse (bollocks that it is) - these people were simply linguists.

Being distracted when fighting has never been an issue - you're the first person who's mentioned it that I've ever heard. When you have a bunch of organized people trying to kill your ass in a highly efficient, coordinated manner, I don't think anyone would be trying to think of the next place he'd like to plant his Cheney. Not getting blown away takes precedence. The issues are more about expected on-base and general military life behavior.

As far as the seven goes, it could very well be that they were offered the opportunity to "tell" in lieu of court martial for various offenses. It sounds like the two "violating curfew" were almost caught with their pants down but not quite enough so to charge them with anything else. There's more to this than seven guys just decided to out themselves.

"Don't ask, don't tell" is a misnomer - it's "don't ask if there's no obvious indicator, and don't make a point of making sure we know which way you swing"

	16-11-2002 03:43									#53
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Actually, the Spartans carried on sexual relationships with the other men in their groups and if anything it made them a much more efficient killing force. If your willing to fight furiously to protect your friend in arms, what about your lover? The closeness of the Spartan soldiers was one of the greatest factors of their military effectiveness.

	16-11-2002 04:08									#54
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

{troll}Wonder if I should post the lyrics to "The Queen Berets?"{/troll}

	16-11-2002 05:08									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Oh come on MtG. Surely by the same logic heterosexual men wouldn't be able to fight in battle effectively because they would be distracted by the thought of sex with women, the sheer length of time it has been since they last saw their girlfriends and wives, which would be driving them to distraction.

Come on, pull the other one, that line is pure bullsh*t and you know it!

	16-11-2002 05:35									#56
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Being distracted when fighting has never been an issue - you're the first person who's mentioned it that I've ever heard.

Well then you're obviously in a very odd minority or never seen any debate on the issue - I and many people have heard this argument many times, in fact it seems to be one of the main points in the homophobic arguments in regards to the military.

	16-11-2002 05:52									#57
	Inflate your Upload Space

Firts , all the arguments against Gays in the military are idiotic. They are simply based on prejudice. After all, the big Macho men of the army just don't want to deal with the tought of getting involved in homoerotic situaions. that is not a reason to ban men who want to serve from serving, but to get rid of those men who fear it.

The main point is that we are told that this war on terror is key, and that it is so vital that X and Y freedom must be supressed to fight it,. yert at the same time the army must fight to keep its prejudiced policies even when it actively hurts that same war...

	16-11-2002 16:10									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

If you allow queers into the service, the number of straight applicants would fall dramatically. We need to keep our army numbers high so I recommend keeping them out.

I'm sure they can find jobs as hairdressers. Being a soldier is too tough a job for a gay.

	16-11-2002 19:25									#59
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly I meant to post earlier, but my Ottoman internet connection was down.

Have you considered upgrading to a Divan?

	16-11-2002 20:24									#60
	Got spare money?

I think a lot of people are more afraid of homos than of terrorists.