Military Continues to Discharge Gay Linguists

[LukenDC]

I find it appalling that the military continues to discharge Arabic linguists simply because they are gay or lesbian. We are desperate for Arabic speakers and involved in a war with Islamic extremists, yet the military is more concerned with someone's sexual orientation than saving lives through rapid translation of terrorist texts and transmissions.

I have always opposed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and believe that gay men and lesbians should be able to serve openly in the military. In prior years, we have lost an Army Soldier of the Year, fighter pilots, and numerous officers to this bigoted and ridiculous policy. Now we are losing our few Arabic linguists. How many American lives, both in and out of uniform, have we lost due to a shortage of skilled linguists?

The article below concerns the latest discharge of a gay Arabic linguist, but there have been several others over the past two years.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14052513/

[NewJersey]

I find it really absurd too. Why should it matter if a soldier fighting on the front lines is gay or lesbian. What is Rummy embarassed he has a gay man protect him? :rotfl:

As for linguists who speak Arabic, I would think the military would take all they could get (who could perform their job effectively, that is). :confused3

It should be based on merit and performance (among other things), not on someone's personal life.

This is one of the few things I disagreed with Clinton on.

[TCPluto]

I find it appalling that the military continues to discharge Arabic linguists simply because they are gay or lesbian.

This talks about one linguist's dismissal ,what makes it continuing?

Having principles, and sticking to them, can sometimes be difficult. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't.

[TCPluto]

What is Rummy embarassed he has a gay man protect him?

As a policy instituted by Clinton, where does Rumsfeld come into this?

[cardaway]

As a policy instituted by Clinton, where does Rumsfeld come into this?

Nice try. The policy of dismissing gays from the military was in place long before Clinton was in office.

[RickinNYC]

This talks about one linguist's dismissal ,what makes it continuing?

Having principles, and sticking to them, can sometimes be difficult. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't.

In your self perceived knowledge of the military's principles, please enlighten us as to how being gay or lesbian can effect one's ability to serve in the military.

[TCPluto]

In your self perceived knowledge of the military's principles, please enlighten us as to how being gay or lesbian can effect one's ability to serve in the military.

It really has nothing to do with what I think. It's a military regulation.

You can't pick and choose which policy or rule of law you would like to ignore. To uphold the policy, in the face of apparent or perceived need, takes a great deal of principle.

[RickinNYC]

It really has nothing to do with what I think. It's a military regulation.

You can't pick and choose which policy or rule of law you would like to ignore. To uphold the policy, in the face of apparent or perceived need, takes a great deal of principle.

Oh my God, that is such a cop out answer.

Military regulations, like any other laws, get changed all the time when it is realized that the law is completely idiotic. Women's right to vote? Prohibition? Interracial marriage? Women's right to choose?

Because it seems you are well versed in military policy, please enlighten us as to how this particular law was created and why it is still enforced.

[NewJersey]

Oh my God, that is such a cop out answer.

Military regulations, like any other laws, get changed all the time when it is realized that the law is completely idiotic. Women's right to vote? Prohibition? Interracial marriage? Women's right to choose?

Because it seems you are well versed in military policy, please enlighten us as to how this particular law was created and why it is still enforced.

Rick,
You took the words out of my mouth.

As a policy instituted by Clinton, where does Rumsfeld come into this?

Hence the " :rotfl: " it was meant to be a joke. But this has been in place, like caradaway, said for many years before Clinton.

It seems Britain is now actively recruiting gays and lesbians to join the Royal Navy, since they stopped banning gays and lesbians from joining the military back in 1999. Wow, are we behind or what?

http://www.gaypasg.org/Gaypasg/PressClippings/2005/Feb/New%20Course%20by%20Royal%20Navy-%20A%20Campaign%20to%20Recruit%20Gays.htm

[LK03]

My best friend in college was actually set up to attend the linguistics program in the ARMY and learn Arabic but then she learned she no longer preferred men but women. She would have been really great at it too, but alas her sexual prefrence deemed her inelegible.

[Uncle Remus]

...principles, who you kiddin'? This country continues its' discrimination of gays and lesbians in all areas because of stupidity and a deep religious desire to hate somebody.

[LukenDC]

This talks about one linguist's dismissal ,what makes it continuing?

Having principles, and sticking to them, can sometimes be difficult. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't.


There were at least seven Arabic linguists dismissed last year for homosexuality.

Sorry, bigotry is not an acceptable principle ever.

[jsmith]

wow-this is one touchy subject-homosexuality was considered to be a threat to good order and disipline-i believe the ban came into play earlier in the 20th century-because other soldiers are often homophobic. It is in fact a very very complicated issue-Clinton instituted the "Dont Ask Dont Tell" policy as a way of allowing gay soldiers to continue to serve-before it there were numerous "witch hunts" and good soldiers were discharged on SUSPISION of being homosexual-the change to the dont ask dont tell policy meant that the military could not question a soldiers sexual orientation and as long as they did not do anything to call attention to it-like participating in gay pride events or having an open and notorious affair in the barracks it would be treated like adultery-which can also get you discharged-meaning there had to be proof-like pictures or a sworn statement from one of the parties.
I didnt read the article-so i dont know the specific circumstances here-thats just an over view of how it is in the army today-or is supposed to be.
As for the lingusit-take the discharge-they will rehire him as a contractor at twice the money the day after he outprocesses-cause thats how it works.

[LukenDC]

You can't pick and choose which policy or rule of law you would like to ignore. To uphold the policy, in the face of apparent or perceived need, takes a great deal of principle.


I suppose that it would take a great deal of principle not to leave a crosswalk and illegally jay-walk if a huge truck was barrelling at me. After all, the law is the law.

From your posting, it sounds like adhering to "principle" and discharging a homosexual is much more important than having that person provide life-saving translation to our military forces under fire. That is not "principled," that's asinine.

[mickeyfan2]

I find it appalling that the military continues to discharge Arabic linguists simply because they are gay or lesbian. We are desperate for Arabic speakers and involved in a war with Islamic extremists, yet the military is more concerned with someone's sexual orientation than saving lives through rapid translation of terrorist texts and transmissions.
We so need their skills!!

[NewJersey]

That is not "principled," that's asinine.

Luke,

::yes:: :wave:

I wish I could make that into a T-shirt!!

[mickeyfan2]

In your self perceived knowledge of the military's principles, please enlighten us as to how being gay or lesbian can effect one's ability to serve in the military.
It doesn't.

[TCPluto]

Oh my God, that is such a cop out answer.

Military regulations, like any other laws, get changed all the time when it is realized that the law is completely idiotic. Women's right to vote? Prohibition? Interracial marriage? Women's right to choose?

Because it seems you are well versed in military policy, please enlighten us as to how this particular law was created and why it is still enforced.

It seems you may be a bit to close to the issue.... How well versed are you in military policy?

Since this has been a regulation well, forever, and became a "don't ask, don't tell" policy under Clinton, it's not new.

I strongly suspect that those in charge have seen the detriment it can cause in the military, so I would defer to them.

While I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, this sems like an issue better left to those who actually do know.

[TCPluto]

I suppose that it would take a great deal of principle not to leave a crosswalk and illegally jay-walk if a huge truck was barrelling at me. After all, the law is the law.

From your posting, it sounds like adhering to "principle" and discharging a homosexual is much more important than having that person provide life-saving translation to our military forces under fire. That is not "principled," that's asinine.

Instead of taking every printed word for gospel and a recitation of the enitre story, I would defer to the Paul Harvey principle and believe that there is more to the story/incident.

After all, the military didn't release this story, the discharged soldier did. Could he have left out key points that make this more damaging to his position as just a poor linguist trying to do his job? I think it's quite possible...

Not considering that there may be more to this story is asinine, in my opinion. But certainly not cause for outrage....

[eclectics]

While we pretended, briefly, in the 1920's and '60's to be socially progressive, we are not, never were, and probably never will be the world's front runner in embracing social change. This country is too deeply rooted in religious beliefs to ever be that. We crawl along at our own pace and grudgingly accept things slowly. Will Gays ever serve openly in the military? Yes, I'm sure they will. Gonna take some more time though. In the meantime sadly, it's the military's loss.

[Saxsoon]

That is screwed up. I don't care who is in the military or speaking the language, as long they can get the job done. :confused3

Btw, when was this policy with the military actually put into place. :confused3

[freckles and boo]

Homosexuality doesn't threaten military order. It is a ridiculous stereotype that the military likes to perpetuate because it serves their purpose of keeping the image of the fighting branches "manly". Frankly, I would think the military leadership would have bigger fish to fry... say, recruitment quotas, providing adequate equipment and relief to our troops in combat assignments, maintaining morale and discipline, etc.,

[RickinNYC]

It seems you may be a bit to close to the issue.... How well versed are you in military policy?

Since this has been a regulation well, forever, and became a "don't ask, don't tell" policy under Clinton, it's not new.

I strongly suspect that those in charge have seen the detriment it can cause in the military, so I would defer to them.

While I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, this sems like an issue better left to those who actually do know.

And because this has been a "regulation well, forever... blah blah blah...", in your estimation, once again that is acceptable?

I guess because it is a law, it must be right, eh? Are you truly willing to be lead along to believe that? Really? If so, then you must never, ever question anything that our goverhment ever does? YOu would never, ever question a police officer's action? Politicians aren't corrupt?

I know this is a Disney World based website but there is also reality. :rotfl: I wish I could live a life as naive as some people and think that all politicians are infallible and all laws are 100% correct.

[cardaway]

Being gay doesn't cause any more disorder than minority religions do, but of course people are protected from discrimination based on religious choice.

[malificentsman]

I just can't believe we have gotten this far in the thread without a single joke about ******* ********. I guess you guys are more mature than me.

Thought about it, didn't wanna get banned! :rotfl:

[TCPluto]

Homosexuality doesn't threaten military order.

It seems career military people, retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf included, strongly diasgree. I think it's responsible to defer to them.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/january00/gays_military.html

Another article talks about the number of military discharges for homosexuality being at a nine year low.

Sounds like the present case likely has more to the story.....

[RickinNYC]

It seems career military people, retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf included, strongly diasgree. I think it's responsible to defer to them.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/january00/gays_military.html

Another article talks about the number of military discharges for homosexuality being at a nine year low.

Sounds like the present case likely has more to the story.....

So in answer to my question to you, the answer is "yes."

Wow, my own career military officer father is willing to agree that this law is absolutely idiotic and should be changed.

Even he concedes that a soldier should be judged by his/her merits, not by who he/she sleeps with.

Some folks are progressive, others are archaic. Thankfully, the archaic are going the way of the dinosaur and becoming extinct. Thank God we're in the 21st century and this kind of thought process is disappearing with time.

Granted, it's not disappearing fast enough, but it will slowly but surely.

[TCPluto]

So in answer to my question to you, the answer is "yes."


I don't think so...

[RickinNYC]

I don't think so...

Wait, so you DON'T think this law is reasonable or you do?

[TCPluto]

Wait, so you DON'T think this law is reasonable or you do?

I think the policy regulating openly homosexual behavior by military personnel is based on articulable evidence and, therfore, the right call. Based on the opinions of military leaders (and other military members) who have been in a position to manage these troops in combat and staff situations, it's fair and just.

[RickinNYC]

I think the policy regulating openly homosexual behavior by military personnel is based on articulable evidence and, therfore, the right call. Based on the opinions of military leaders (and other military members) who have been in a position to manage these troops in combat and staff situations, it's fair and just.

Ooooohhhh... so the answer to my question is "yes" and not "I don't think so...."

Got it.

Thanks!

[TCPluto]

Ooooohhhh... so the answer to my question is "yes" and not "I don't think so...."

Got it.

Thanks!


As long as you're happy..... I guess????

You asked many questions, I'm not sure which one you were interested in, really....

[eclectics]

Actually the military leaders are going on assumptions only, because since there are no openly gay soldiers to "manage", how can the leaders have any credible hands on (no pun intended) experience to go on? They are merely anticipating what will happen. Wouldn't, at the very least, giving it a trial run be a better way to analyze the potential, if any, problems that might occur?

[Chicago526]

[QUOTE=TCPluto]It seems career military people, retired Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf included, strongly diasgree. I think it's responsible to defer to them.[QUOTE]

Yeah well, de-segregating the troops in the late 40's early 50's probably caused a few problems too. Guess what? They got over it.

That said, the only way for this to change is for the law to change. Because right now, as wrong as it is, the military is just following the law, they don't get to pick and choose what regulations the get to follow and which ones they get to ignore. Congress and the President need to be pushed to get it changed.

[TCPluto]

Actually the military leaders are going on assumptions only, because since there are no openly gay soldiers to "manage", how can the leaders have any credible hands on (no pun intended) experience to go on? They are merely anticipating what will happen. Wouldn't, at the very least, giving it a trial run be a better way to analyze the potential, if any, problems that might occur?

I think they are acting on what they know, not merely what they assume would happen.

I'm confident that the issue has reared it's head many times over the course of our militarys' history.

What didn't start out as being "open" has certainly come to be "open" a number of times, and thus, had to be dealt with.

[Saxsoon]

Actually the military leaders are going on assumptions only, because since there are no openly gay soldiers to "manage", how can the leaders have any credible hands on (no pun intended) experience to go on? They are merely anticipating what will happen. Wouldn't, at the very least, giving it a trial run be a better way to analyze the potential, if any, problems that might occur?


I completely agree. Lets do a trial run, and compare the efficiency (I am guessing that is the excuse to keep gays out) between straight and homosexual people.

Linguistics part, there is no excuse, none whatsoever. I didn't realize gay people could not talk in other languages. :rolleyes:

[JennyMominRI]

Actually the military leaders are going on assumptions only, because since there are no openly gay soldiers to "manage", how can the leaders have any credible hands on (no pun intended) experience to go on? They are merely anticipating what will happen. Wouldn't, at the very least, giving it a trial run be a better way tower analyze the potential, if any, problems that might occur?
When I was in,and Mnd you this was in the Marines There were plently of people everyone knew where gay. In fact there was a gay bar near camp Penleton,in Oceanside that they went to.. Balboa Naval Hospital had the HIV ward and believe me there were quite a few people there then..Gay people have served and will continue to serve with distinction..I hope eventually they will be judged by their ability to do their job and not by who they sleep with... The arguements used to force them out are very similar to the ones used to keep women and Black people out of the military for decades and now, both serve with distinction

[eclectics]

I think they are acting on what they know, not merely what they assume would happen.

I'm confident that the issue has reared it's head many times over the course of our militarys' history.

What didn't start out as being "open" has certainly come to be "open" a number of times, and thus, had to be dealt with.


I'm not talking about one or two here and there that were "caught" and the ensuing aftermath. I'm talking about a completely open barracks situation. The only way to see if there is going to be a problem is to give it a try. Anything else is pure conjecture. The leaders do not "know" because an open military hasn't been experinced yet.

[eclectics]

When I was in,and Mnd you this was in the Marines There were plently of people everyone knew where gay. In fact there was a gay bar near camp Penleton,in Oceanside that they went to.. Balboa Naval Hospital had the HIV ward and believe me there were quite a few people there then..Gay people have served and will continue to serve with distinction..I hope eventually they will be judged by their ability to do their job and not by who they sleep with... The arguements used to force them out are very similar to the ones used to keep women and Black people out of the military for decades and now, both serve with distinction


The ones that seem to have the most problems with it are the ones that make the rules. The rank and file probably couldn't care less.

[sajetto]

I just can't believe we have gotten this far in the thread without a single joke about c****** l********. I guess you guys are more mature than me.



OMG!!!!!!! You have NO IDEA how hard that made me laugh. I even snorted :rotfl2: :lmao: :rotfl:

[BuckNaked]

Just a bit of perspective from a military member...

1) When I came into the military, I was asked during recruitment if I was a homosexual. Had I answered yes, the interview would have ended, and I would not have been permitted to join.

2) "Don't ask, don't tell" changed that, only in that recruits are no longer asked. If a homosexual is serving in the military and doesn't let it be known that he or she is gay, then the service member is allowed to serve.

3) Agree with the law or not, it is the law and the military must abide by it. They don't get to choose which gay people will stay and which will be discharged based on career field.

4) Having said all of that, I disagree with the policy. It has nothing to with social engineering, and everything to do with allowing able people that want to serve their country to join the military.

5) IMO, all military members should be given the same speech that members were given in 1947 when the services were integrated, which basically amounted to "If you can't deal with the changes, then good-bye, and thank you for your service".

6) I believe that the current policy actually causes security risks. Any secret that a military member feels could ruin a career poses a potential blackmail risk, and being a gay military member is a huge secret to keep. Better to have it out in the open.

JMO

[LukenDC]

Here is another article, this one from 2005, discussing the discharge of gay linguists. The case referred to in my original posting was not an anomaly.


Report: More Gay Linguists Discharged than First Thought
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6824206/

[RickinNYC]

I think they are acting on what they know, not merely what they assume would happen.

I'm confident that the issue has reared it's head many times over the course of our militarys' history.

What didn't start out as being "open" has certainly come to be "open" a number of times, and thus, had to be dealt with.

What, exactly, do they "know"? Do you know something about being gay that we don't?

Anyway, I digress. I think that, with the "don't ask don't tell" policy, that allows gay soldiers to remain secretive. When they go off to war, they can all jump out and go boogah! boogah! at the enemy. I think, given the warped teachings that al quaeda follows, it'd make them stop dead in their tracks and fall prostrate with fear. War over!

Gay servicemen and women... the REAL secret weapon.

How's that for a catchy recruitment phrase?

[eclectics]

Just a bit of perspective from a military member...

1) When I came into the military, I was asked during recruitment if I was a homosexual. Had I answered yes, the interview would have ended, and I would not have been permitted to join.

2) "Don't ask, don't tell" changed that, only in that recruits are no longer asked. If a homosexual is serving in the military and doesn't let it be known that he or she is gay, then the service member is allowed to serve.

3) Agree with the law or not, it is the law and the military must abide by it. They don't get to choose which gay people will stay and which will be discharged based on career field.

4) Having said all of that, I disagree with the policy. It has nothing to with social engineering, and everything to do with allowing able people that want to serve their country to join the military.

5) IMO, all military members should be given the same speech that members were given in 1947 when the services were integrated, which basically amounted to "If you can't deal with the changes, then good-bye, and thank you for your service".

6) I believe that the current policy actually causes security risks. Any secret that a military member feels could ruin a career poses a potential blackmail risk, and being a gay military member is a huge secret to keep. Better to have it out in the open.

JMO


Excellent post. You are so correct about number 6, especially for a career officer.

[BuckNaked]

Gay servicemen and women... the REAL secret weapon.

How's that for a catchy recruitment phrase?

Awfully reminiscent of "the other white meat" - not sure it would fly... ;)

[RickinNYC]

Just a bit of perspective from a military member...

1) When I came into the military, I was asked during recruitment if I was a homosexual. Had I answered yes, the interview would have ended, and I would not have been permitted to join.

2) "Don't ask, don't tell" changed that, only in that recruits are no longer asked. If a homosexual is serving in the military and doesn't let it be known that he or she is gay, then the service member is allowed to serve.

3) Agree with the law or not, it is the law and the military must abide by it. They don't get to choose which gay people will stay and which will be discharged based on career field.

4) Having said all of that, I disagree with the policy. It has nothing to with social engineering, and everything to do with allowing able people that want to serve their country to join the military.

5) IMO, all military members should be given the same speech that members were given in 1947 when the services were integrated, which basically amounted to "If you can't deal with the changes, then good-bye, and thank you for your service".

6) I believe that the current policy actually causes security risks. Any secret that a military member feels could ruin a career poses a potential blackmail risk, and being a gay military member is a huge secret to keep. Better to have it out in the open.

JMO

Holy moly Brenda, you were just channeling my Dad!

Thanks for the post, your opinion is so in line with my own!

[eclectics]

Awfully reminiscent of "the other white meat" - not sure it would fly... ;)


:rotfl:

[LK03]

The other problems associated with don't ask, don't tell is the men and women who have partners always have to be in secret and can't get housing money nor health insurance for them. Most individuals have to get approval to live off post and they are allowed a housing chunk but once you get married you get even more money and don't have to ask. That's not fair

[TCPluto]

Do you know something about being gay that we don't?


I doubt it.



I think the sexual orientation of everyone, including hetero males, should be protected.

Should we quarter male and female soldiers together in the same Baracks? Of course not.

Should we quarter straight males and gay males in the same barracks? And if the answer is to quarter them seperately, does that cause logistic problems on a battlefield?

Do we adopt different standards for different job classifications, re: combat vs staff? Wouldn't this become overwhelmingly cumbersome to administer?

[BuckNaked]

I think the sexual orientation of everyone, including hetero males, should be protected.

What about hetero females? Do we merit protection as well?

Should we quarter male and female soldiers together in the same Baracks? Of course not.

Best write a letter to your Congressman and Senators. Men and women have been living in the same dormitories ever since I came in nearly 20 years ago. In fact, men and women often share the same bathroom (2 rooms to a bathroom).

Should we quarter straight males and gay males in the same barracks?

Why not? Men and women are.

Do we adopt different standards for different job classifications, re: combat vs staff?

OK, you've totally lost me here - why in the world would you need different job standards for homosexuals and heterosexuals. Either the service member can do the job or not. It really isn't complicated.

[DawnCt1]

I think the policy regulating openly homosexual behavior by military personnel is based on articulable evidence and, therfore, the right call. Based on the opinions of military leaders (and other military members) who have been in a position to manage these troops in combat and staff situations, it's fair and just.


Well put and I agree. I think that any situation which creates sexual tension, whether heterosexual or homosexual is detrimental to the structure and discipline of the military. DH, as commander has had more than his share of disciplinary actions to deal with between men and women. It is a major problem. One particular Navy ship had several pregnant women that had to return to port. They didn't leave pregnant. I think once you introduce "men and men" and "women and women" into the mix, it becomes problematic. That doesn't even address how the other enlistees would respond to the situation. The military is the way it is for a reason. The discipline and structure obviously serves them well. Recruitment and relistment has met and exceeded the goals and according to DH, morale has never been higher and he has an almost 30 year history with the Army.

[shrubber]

The military discriminates against all sorts of people. It discriminates against the young and the not-quite-as-young
the army recently increased the maximum age of new recruits to 39, for example. Given height/weight standards that military members have to meet, the military discriminates against the fat. It discriminates against the handicapped--you can't enlist if you're missing certain body parts.

[RickinNYC]

Well put and I agree. I think that any situation which creates sexual tension, whether heterosexual or homosexual is detrimental to the structure and discipline of the military. DH, as commander has had more than his share of disciplinary actions to deal with between men and women. It is a major problem. One particular Navy ship had several pregnant women that had to return to port. They didn't leave pregnant. I think once you introduce "men and men" and "women and women" into the mix, it becomes problematic. That doesn't even address how the other enlistees would respond to the situation. The military is the way it is for a reason. The discipline and structure obviously serves them well. Recruitment and relistment has met and exceeded the goals and according to DH, morale has never been higher and he has an almost 30 year history with the Army.

Here's a tip. Gay men and lesbians don't get pregnant unless they try REALLY hard.

[cardaway]

One particular Navy ship had several pregnant women that had to return to port. They didn't leave pregnant.

That has nothing to do with homosexuals, but sicne you brought it up, are you in favor of not having women serve in the military?

[DawnCt1]

Here's a tip. Gay men and lesbians don't get pregnant unless they try REALLY hard.


And how does that have anything to do with what I said? I am pointing out to you that fraternization between troops has always been a problem that must be dealt with in a consistant manner. Evidence that sexual activity exists are the resultant pregnancies. Adding another group that would violate that prohibition would only be more problematic.

[Keli]

I haven't read all the replies here but to the OP this seems simple to me. We have a 'don't ask, don't tell" policy. If this person wanted to remain in the military they should have kept their behavior within those perimeters.

[RickinNYC]

And how does that have anything to do with what I said? I am pointing out to you that fraternization between troops has always been a problem that must be dealt with in a consistant manner. Evidence that sexual activity exists are the resultant pregnancies. Adding another group that would violate that prohibition would only be more problematic.

It's called a sense of humor, adding levity, having fun.

[BuckNaked]

Well put and I agree. I think that any situation which creates sexual tension, whether heterosexual or homosexual is detrimental to the structure and discipline of the military. DH, as commander has had more than his share of disciplinary actions to deal with between men and women. It is a major problem. One particular Navy ship had several pregnant women that had to return to port. They didn't leave pregnant. I think once you introduce "men and men" and "women and women" into the mix, it becomes problematic. That doesn't even address how the other enlistees would respond to the situation. The military is the way it is for a reason. The discipline and structure obviously serves them well. Recruitment and relistment has met and exceeded the goals and according to DH, morale has never been higher and he has an almost 30 year history with the Army.

Seems to me that there is plenty of sex happening the military with just the heterosexuals - how much worse could the homosexuals be?

[BuckNaked]

I am pointing out to you that fraternization between troops has always been a problem that must be dealt with in a consistant manner.

Oh give me a freakin' break. :rolleyes:

First of all, not all sexual activity constitutes fraternization, as I'm sure you know. Second, there is no reason that homosexual fraternization couldn't be handled in the same way as heterosexual fraternization.

Adding another group that would violate that prohibition would only be more problematic.

How so? The rules would be the exact same as they are now.

[LukenDC]

I haven't read all the replies here but to the OP this seems simple to me. We have a 'don't ask, don't tell" policy. If this person wanted to remain in the military they should have kept their behavior within those perimeters.


What's more important to you? Preventing an al Qaeda visit to your community or a gay Arabic linguist in the military having a sex life?

Besides, the case mentioned in the OP involved a man who said that he was "outed" by anonymous e-mails and did not tell his superiors about his sexual orientation.

[TCPluto]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCPluto
I think the sexual orientation of everyone.....

What about hetero females? Do we merit protection as well?



Best write a letter to your Congressman and Senators. Men and women have been living in the same dormitories ever since I came in nearly 20 years ago. In fact, men and women often share the same bathroom (2 rooms to a bathroom).


OK, you've totally lost me here - why in the world would you need different job standards for homosexuals and heterosexuals. Either the service member can do the job or not. It really isn't complicated.

I guess you missed where I said EVERYONE. That does include hetero females.

Dormitories and barracks in the battlefield are very different.

Showering and nudity together with members of the opposite sex? While we know it happens, I suspect the military rightfully frowns upon it, particularly when you have one group who would likely be strictly opposed to it.

Sexual harassment exists between men and women to be sure. And between gay and straight of both sexes. Would it cause a significant distraction to interject all of this, knowingly, into the battlefield? I think so.

[DawnCt1]

Seems to me that there is plenty of sex happening the military with just the heterosexuals - how much worse could the homosexuals be?
You are right, there is plenty of sex happening. How much worse? Who knows? Somewhat worse at least. Certainly it has an effect on the morale of others. Sexual relationships are disruptive to the structure, regardless of the sexual orientation of those involved. It can affect the chain of command with lower ranking servicemen or women feeling that they are being treated unfairly while others are getting preferential treatment. Commanders often have to deal with upset spouses who suspect an affair and report it. Its problematic at best.

[Bob Slydell]

Seems to me that there is plenty of sex happening the military with just the heterosexuals - how much worse could the homosexuals be?

Actually, it sounds like it would be an improvement -- no need to return to port for pregnant women if they're all lesbians. :thumbsup2 :thumbsup2

[DawnCt1]

That has nothing to do with homosexuals, but sicne you brought it up, are you in favor of not having women serve in the military?


Not at all. Most women, like most men obey the rules, accept the discipline and the uniform. I am pointing out however when another group is introduced in which sexual tension results, it becomes increasingly problematic. It is problematic now as a result of the behavior of a few. The blame isn't assigned to one gender or another but when men and women are together and away from home, it happens more than it should.

[BuckNaked]

Sexual relationships are disruptive to the structure, regardless of the sexual orientation of those involved. It can affect the chain of command with lower ranking servicemen or women feeling that they are being treated unfairly while others are getting preferential treatment. Commanders often have to deal with upset spouses who suspect an affair and report it. Its problematic at best.

Dawn, I would greatly appreciate it if you didn't talk down to me like I'm an idiot dependent wife of an E-1. Unlike you, I speak not from the experience of being married to a military member, but from actually being a military member myself.

[RickinNYC]

Actually, it sounds like it would be an improvement -- no need to return to port for pregnant women if they're all lesbians. :thumbsup2 :thumbsup2

This is what I'm sayin'!

[TCPluto]

Besides, the case mentioned in the OP involved a man who said that he was "outed" by anonymous e-mails and did not tell his superiors about his sexual orientation.

I guess it caused enough of a distraction that his discharge was warranted.

Also, I think your other link talks about linguists in training being discharged, not linguists. There is a difference.

[LukenDC]

This fear of showering around homosexuals or sleeping in close proximity to them suggests that homosexuals are sexual predators who cannot control themselves. While some people, gay and straight, are predatory, the vast majority are not. It is really a bogus argument.

I think that the real reason people are so adamant against gays in the military is that male homosexual Marines, sailors, airmen, and soldiers do not adhere to the neat stereotypical expectations of society. Gay men are supposed to be lisping sissies. They are fine as long as they are hairdressers and interior designers. But when they are butch killing machines, sacrificing themselves for our freedoms, it shatters the stereotypes. And it makes it harder for Pat Robertson and Dr. Dobson to demonize homosexuals for money.

[eclectics]

You are right, there is plenty of sex happening. How much worse? Who knows? Somewhat worse at least. Certainly it has an effect on the morale of others. Sexual relationships are disruptive to the structure, regardless of the sexual orientation of those involved. It can affect the chain of command with lower ranking servicemen or women feeling that they are being treated unfairly while others are getting preferential treatment. Commanders often have to deal with upset spouses who suspect an affair and report it. Its problematic at best.


"Who knows?" Exactly right. Nobody, because no one has experienced what would happen yet. Let's face it, the only reason most who are opposed to this is because they are morally opposed to homosexuality, plain and simple. All the other reasons are pure conjecture and assumption. Name me one army in the world that has fallen apart because it openly allows gays to serve...... I can't think of one either.

[salmoneous]

Well put and I agree. I think that any situation which creates sexual tension, whether heterosexual or homosexual is detrimental to the structure and discipline of the military. So, what you are saying Dawn, is that you think woman should be kicked out of the miliary. Is that what you want? Or do you just want to kick *gay* people out of the miliary that create sexual tension, but allow *straight* people to stay?

Psss - come on Dawn, you can admit it, you like the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy because it came from Clinton :)

[BuckNaked]

This fear of showering around homosexuals or sleeping in close proximity to them suggests that homosexuals are sexual predators who cannot control themselves. While some people, gay and straight, are predatory, the vast majority are not. It is really a bogus argument.


I think the root of the problem is that many men in the military are afraid that they'll have to deal with the same kind of harassment that they've been inflicting on female military members for decades.

[TCPluto]

Oh give me a freakin' break. :rolleyes:



This certainly appears, by language and smilie, that you were actually talking down here.

Maybe you can keep it above board also.

[DawnCt1]

Dawn, I would greatly appreciate it if you didn't talk down to me like I'm an idiot dependent wife of an E-1. Unlike you, I speak not from the experience of being married to a military member, but from actually being a military member myself.


I responded to your point by adding my opinion and perspective of the situation. I am certainly aware of your military affiliation and I am certain that you are aware as much as anyone of the issues that occur on a regular basis. Since you aren't the only one that reads this reply, it clearly makes sense for me to explain my opinion. Sounds like you are being a tad overly sensitive Brenda. I wasn't talking down to you.

[salmoneous]

This fear of showering around homosexuals or sleeping in close proximity to them suggests that homosexuals are sexual predators who cannot control themselves. Or is the fear that too many straight soldiers will be lured over to the "other team" if surrounded by young, available sweaty soldiers?

[BuckNaked]

This certainly appears, by language and smilie, that you were actually talking down here.

Actually, it's sarcasm, which is different than condescension.

Maybe you can keep it above board also.

My bad, I missed the memo where you made a moderator - congrats! :thumbsup2

[LukenDC]

Well, judging by the lawsuits and scandal at the Air Force Academy, it appears that evangelical Christians are harming the morale of military personnel and causing a distraction with their bullying and proselytizing. They have made their non-Christian and less theologically conservative peers uncomfortable. Should we discharge them as well?

[TCPluto]

This fear of showering around homosexuals or sleeping in close proximity to them suggests that homosexuals are sexual predators who cannot control themselves. While some people, gay and straight, are predatory, the vast majority are not. It is really a bogus argument.



By your logic, we should just have the men and woman shower and bunk toghther side by side, because very few are the predators you speak of, right?

[DawnCt1]

So, what you are saying Dawn, is that you think woman should be kicked out of the miliary. Is that what you want? Or do you just want to kick *gay* people out of the miliary that create sexual tension, but allow *straight* people to stay?

Psss - come on Dawn, you can admit it, you like the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy because it came from Clinton :)

Yup, that's just what I said. :rolleyes: Don't Ask, Don't Tell works for a great number of servicemen and women. If it works and allows them to serve, its a workable compromise. I don't think you can anticipate however, gay men or women serving openly in the United States Armed Forces. I could be wrong but I would bet the rent on it.

[JennyMominRI]

By your logic, we should just have the men and woman shower and bunk toghther side by side, because very few are the predators you speak of, right?
They already bunk together in many cases

[BuckNaked]

By your logic, we should just have the men and woman shower and bunk toghther side by side, because very few are the predators you speak of, right?

There is not reason whatsoever why men and women should not be able to shower in the same room (curtains??) and bunk down next to each other.

Am I the only straight person on this thread that doesn't feel the need to hop into the sack with every male that has the misfortune of strolling by me? Do people really hold military members in such low esteem that they believe they can fight and win any war but can't keep their pants on?

How insulting.

[TCPluto]

My bad, I missed the memo where you made a moderator - congrats! :thumbsup2

Interesting, someone responds in kind as you did (Dawn), and you take offense. But it's ok for you... I thought you didn't like these double standards?

Did you at least see where I included all the hetero females in those that deserved their privacy rights being worthy of protection? You accused me of leaving them (you) out and I just wanted to make sure you knew that I included you/them.

[BuckNaked]

Interesting, someone responds in kind as you did (Dawn), and you take offense.

Offense? I said congrats and gave you a thumbs up...what do you want, candy and flowers? :rotfl:

[TCPluto]

Offense? I said congrats and gave you a thumbs up...what do you want, candy and flowers? :rotfl:

I'm sorry, you need to read more closely. I was referring to your condescending response to Dawn, that's why I put her name in my response so you would be clear.

While your "board mod" response and smilie to me was clearly sarcastic, I don't particularly care. I was just pointing out the absurdity of you complaining about someone else's post, becasue you post the same way. That's all.

[eclectics]

By your logic, we should just have the men and woman shower and bunk toghther side by side, because very few are the predators you speak of, right?


:confused3 Not the same at all. 10% (being very generous with the percentage) gay men vs. 90% straight men showering and bunking together.

Your slippery slope logic is 90% straight men and 90% straight women showering and bunking together. Show me how your logic could even be remotely considered the same?

[BuckNaked]

I'm sorry, you need to read more closely. I was referring to your condescending response to Dawn, that's why I put her name in my response so you would be clear.

I certainly hope you are confusing yourself as much as you are confusing me. :lmao:

OK kids, let's hit rewind. I made the mod comment, then you quoted it and responded by saying I had taken offense. I'm wondering where you got the idea I had taken offense at your comment? And if you weren't referring to the mod comment vis a vis me taking offense, then why did you quote it?

I think if we keep this up long enough, you'll be so confused that you'll be marching at the next "gays in the military now" parade. :lmao:

While your "board mod" response and smilie to me was clearly sarcastic, I don't particularly care. I was just pointing out the absurdity of you complaining about someone else's post, becasue you post the same way. That's all.

Again, being sarcastic and being condescending are not the same at all.

[TheBellhop]

I'm confused and have a question RE: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". If it's 'Don't Ask', then why is the military asking what your sexual preference is?

[JennyMominRI]

I'm confused and have a question RE: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". If it's 'Don't Ask', then why is the military asking what your sexual preference is?

Pre Clinton you were asked as part of the enlistment process...You are no longer asked

[TheBellhop]

Pre Clinton you were asked as part of the enlistment process...You are no longer asked

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. :thumbsup2

[cardaway]

Not at all. Most women, like most men obey the rules, accept the discipline and the uniform. I am pointing out however when another group is introduced in which sexual tension results, it becomes increasingly problematic. It is problematic now as a result of the behavior of a few. The blame isn't assigned to one gender or another but when men and women are together and away from home, it happens more than it should.

Pretty hypocritcal to use what you used as an argument but not extend it to heterosexuals as well.

[DawnCt1]

Pretty hypocritcal to use what you used as an argument but not extend it to heterosexuals as well.

There are other arguements as well. That is only one. Which arguement would you support? None apparently. You don't agree with the policy. That is your choice. I would suggest that you don't enlist.

[NewJersey]

I haven't read all the replies here but to the OP this seems simple to me. We have a 'don't ask, don't tell" policy. If this person wanted to remain in the military they should have kept their behavior within those perimeters.

I think the debate is over the necessity of the policy.

[Keli]

What's more important to you? Preventing an al Qaeda visit to your community or a gay Arabic linguist in the military having a sex life?



I don't believe I need to make a choice here. I have full confidence that the military will be able to retain an ample supply of arabic linguists willing to live within the 'don't ask, don't tell' requirements.

[LukenDC]

I don't believe I need to make a choice here. I have full confidence that the military will be able to retain an ample supply of arabic linguists willing to live within the 'don't ask, don't tell' requirements.


I'm afraid that your confidence is misguided. By all accounts there is a serious nationwide shortage of linguists in the military, diplomatic corps, and intelligence agencies. Arabic is one of the most difficult languages in the world and not commonly taught in the United States. Many of the native Arabic speakers in the United States cannot get the necessary security clearances to work for the government.

[cardaway]

There are other arguements as well. That is only one. Which arguement would you support?

It's about the people who support keeping out gays coming up with an argument that is not hypocriitical and is beyond "because the person in command says so". I haven't seen one yet.

[yeartolate]

Here's a tip. Gay men and lesbians don't get pregnant unless they try REALLY hard.

Perhaps they better steer clear of target practice then. :rotfl2:

[yeartolate]

Actually, it sounds like it would be an improvement -- no need to return to port for pregnant women if they're all lesbians. :thumbsup2 :thumbsup2

Keep them away from turkey basters. ;)

[Psychometrika]

Call it what it is - a prejudicial policy without foundation or merit. Clinton sold out on his promise to GLBT people. It is a shameful policy at odds with our Constitution, but then tyranny of the majority is nothing new to democracy.

"Because it works for many" ... is that an argument? There were African American regiments back to revolutionary days because although they would be allowed to spill their blood like everyone else, integration "would cause too much trouble." These tired arguments have been used for centuries to exclude and suggest that we're "compromising". In fact, the FIRST person to die in the revolution was an African American slave. He died for what we celebrate on July 4th. He died a slave in a country that rarely ever mentions his name in its history books.

Just like African Americans before, and women more recently - closeted GL military are supposed to die for a country that believes they are worth less than a full person, with fewer rights and less acceptance. They come home from abroad still a second class citizen. It is a disgrace and sickening. Anyone who supports this policy as a compromise should take a class in diversity - perhaps even read our own Constitution. This policy works for the majority who believe homosexuals are disruptive, sick, etc. etc.

I suppose as a gay man I should he happy I don't HAVE to wear a pink triangle on my lapel everywhere I go. Hate takes many forms. Some obviously vile... others, dressed in fancy garments to look like something it isn't. But at its root - it's spelled the same. :furious:

[cardaway]

Clinton sold out on his promise to GLBT people.

Previous posters who support the policy seem to have totally forgot that very few people liked that Clinton signed it. Total cop out and didn't do much to change things.

[DawnCt1]

Previous posters who support the policy seem to have totally forgot that very few people liked that Clinton signed it. Total cop out and didn't do much to change things.

Its not going to change. Accept it.

[Psychometrika]

Ok. We'll accept it. And as long as we're at it. You women folk, get back in the house. You aren't capable of voting anyway. You're just women and should be barefoot and pregnant. You African Americans - best get your jeans washed cause honey, it's back to the fields.

Don't let the pavement scrape up your knuckles too badly on your way to the cave tonight.

[eclectics]

Its not going to change. Accept it.


Oh, it will change. Not tomorrow, not next year, not next President, maybe not even the President after that, but it will change. It's just a matter of time. And I will do my little bit by helping elect candidates that will help it along.

[LukenDC]

Oh, it will change. Not tomorrow, not next year, not next President, maybe not even the President after that, but it will change. It's just a matter of time. And I will do my little bit by helping elect candidates that will help it along.


I agree. It will change.

[salmoneous]

But Dawn, earlier you suggesting that anything that caused sexual tension in the military was a bad thing. Now you are saying that having straight women in the military causing sexual tenion is AOK with you. But having gay people in the military causing sexual tenion is bad.

Doesn't that seem discriminitory to you?

[BuckNaked]

But Dawn, earlier you suggesting that anything that caused sexual tension in the military was a bad thing. Now you are saying that having straight women in the military causing sexual tenion is AOK with you. But having gay people in the military causing sexual tenion is bad.

Doesn't that seem discriminitory to you?


Good question. My guess is that it could have something to do with that fact that women make up approximately 15% of the active duty force. That's quite a bit to lose if one decides that we hussies make it too hard for the poor men to keep their marriage vows.

[katerkat]

I don't want gays in the military. My husband so far has not been tempted by the straight women in the military, so obviously he's secretly gay and will cheat on me with the first gay man he's deployed with.

[BuckNaked]

I don't want gays in the military. My husband so far has not been tempted by the straight women in the military, so obviously he's secretly gay and will cheat on me with the first gay man he's deployed with.

Uh-oh.

What goes TDY stays TDY... ;)

[smartestnumber5]

I have a slightly OT question. Do they enforce the no gay policy during times of draft? I'm guessing they do, but I can't understand how they had anyone left to actually serve if they do. I mean, as far as I understand during Vietnam people were shooting off feet and fleeing the country to avoid being drafted, yet no one thought of simply saying "I'm gay"?!?!

I once asked my father (who served in Germany during Vietnam and was very unhappy about it). He didn't really have an answer. So anyone? I mean, come on. Wouldn't that have been a great ticket out? Hey, if it were me I'd have had sex right in front of the draft board if needed!

[LukenDC]

I don't want gays in the military. My husband so far has not been tempted by the straight women in the military, so obviously he's secretly gay and will cheat on me with the first gay man he's deployed with.


He would be a fool to cheat when he has such a beautiful family.

[MrVisible]

You know what?

I'm glad this country has a 'no gays in the military' policy. I may be beyond draft age, but my boyfriend is not. And I sure as hell don't want him to risk his life for a country where he's not considered a real citizen.

It's the one tangible benefit to being gay in this country right now. "You sleep with people of the same gender? Sorry, you can't get blown up by an IED on a backstreet in a wretched city where everybody hates you. Next!"

You all go off and fight your idiotic imperialist wars. Send your sons and daughters off to die for the corporate interests that are bankrupting you. Incite the wrath of an entire subcontinent, an entire religion, in the name of spreading democracy, and watch democracy deteriorate under your feet because of it. And tally up the profits that each of those coffins coming home brings to the oil companies and their government cronies.

Meanwhile, ask any of the troops in combat right now if he'd like more men deployed along with them, and I bet they wouldn't give a great ******* whether they were straight or gay. Ask them if they care that the intelligence they're getting comes from a gay linguist or a straight one, and they'd just care that it was good intel. They'd just like a better chance of getting home alive.

How many of those coffins are the price you pay for prejudice?

[MrVisible]

I have a slightly OT question. Do they enforce the no gay policy during times of draft? I'm guessing they do, but I can't understand how they had anyone left to actually serve if they do. I mean, as far as I understand during Vietnam people were shooting off feet and fleeing the country to avoid being drafted, yet no one thought of simply saying "I'm gay"?!?!

I once asked my father (who served in Germany during Vietnam and was very unhappy about it). He didn't really have an answer. So anyone? I mean, come on. Wouldn't that have been a great ticket out? Hey, if it were me I'd have had sex right in front of the draft board if needed!

From an article on the subject (http://www.planetout.com/pno/news/history/archive/08301999.html)Stateside, other gay men did everything in their power to avoid military service. Rey Rivera (a.k.a. Sylvia Rivera, one of the transvestites arrested at the Stonewall riots) was drafted in 1967 at 18 and decided to report to the local draft board in full drag - high heels, miniskirt, and red nails. The sergeants in charge assumed Rivera was a woman. But Rivera corrected them and was promptly sent to the psychiatrist, who asked if there was a problem with his sexuality. "I don't know. I know I like men," Rivera replied. "I know I like to wear dresses. But I don't know what any (problem) is." The doctor quickly stamped "HOMOSEXUAL" in red across Rivera's draft notice.

Claiming to be gay became a popular way for straight men to avoid the draft. One draft resisters' manual from 1968 dispensed stereotypes and epithets along with advice: "Act like a man under tight control. Deny you're a ***, deny it again quickly, then stop, as if buttoning your lip.... And maybe twice, no more than three times over a half-hour interview, just the slightest little flick of the wrist."
At that time, it was much less socially acceptable to be gay. Nowadays, when gay people are much more open and the prejudice in society springs from fewer bigots every year, nobody's going to mind having to claim to be gay to get out of the draft.

So the government has a stake in keeping prejudice alive. Interesting, huh?

[bsmcneil]

And how does that have anything to do with what I said? I am pointing out to you that fraternization between troops has always been a problem that must be dealt with in a consistant manner. Evidence that sexual activity exists are the resultant pregnancies. Adding another group that would violate that prohibition would only be more problematic.

Do the things you say make sense in your head? Men and women sleeping together is a problem - but one we'll get over. But allowing gay men and women - which does not necessarily equal them having sex with other enlisted folks - is a bad idea. Logically, you've gone awry. First, there are already gay men and women in the military. Some sleep with enlisted men and women, some do not. That's the exact same as straight men and women. Second, allowing gay members does not mean condoning anything - just as allowing straight military men and women does not condone fraternization. Third, you assume that these people will add even more problems. What about the problems of morale that some people deal with because they are forced to stay in the closet? Couldn't this potentially even out? Ya know, you conservatives can think whatever you want. But I'd much rather you people say that you don't want ___ for the honest reason than some stupid, illogical reason. Simply say, or write, the words, "I don't want out gays in the military because I think what they do is wrong." It's okay, it's okay. We really do understand that some people refuse to try to accept others.

[bsmcneil]

...principles, who you kiddin'? This country continues its' discrimination of gays and lesbians in all areas because of stupidity and a deep religious desire to hate somebody.
I don't know you - so you may have a totally legit reason for this. But I have to get this off my chest. How ironic is it that you comment on a desire to hate someone and your screenname is Uncle Remus. Now, I know I know - Song of the South isn't about hate. And, for all I know, you could be taking back the idea of Uncle Remus and celebrating it. But it just throws me off a little bit...

[bsmcneil]

Its not going to change. Accept it.
Lots of people said this already, but I'll echo. Of course it'll change. Anyone who thinks otherwise is blinded by both the past and the future. Do you really think that the world will continue to discriminate against a people? "The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice" (MLK/Theodore Parker). I really wish you could see beyond now and really understand that the prejudices we hold will seem stupid and benign to people 10, 30, 50, 100 years from now.

[cardaway]

But Dawn, earlier you suggesting that anything that caused sexual tension in the military was a bad thing. Now you are saying that having straight women in the military causing sexual tenion is AOK with you. But having gay people in the military causing sexual tenion is bad.

Doesn't that seem discriminitory to you?

And very hypocritical.

[Uncle Remus]

I don't know you - so you may have a totally legit reason for this. But I have to get this off my chest. How ironic is it that you comment on a desire to hate someone and your screenname is Uncle Remus. Now, I know I know - Song of the South isn't about hate. And, for all I know, you could be taking back the idea of Uncle Remus and celebrating it. But it just throws me off a little bit...

Funny, you don't make sense to me either! Obviously you haven't read Uncle Remus' Stories of the Old Plantation or you lack the ability of critical thought.

[bsmcneil]

Funny, you don't make sense to me either! Obviously you haven't read Uncle Remus' Stories of the Old Plantation or you lack the ability of critical thought.
Because I have a problem with caricutures of slaves, ex-slaves and those held on plantations by "share"cropping I lack the ability of critical thought? Right. Since you didnt engage my actual comment, I suspect this conversation is done.

[Uncle Remus]

Like I said, you don't make much sense in your original post that I referenced. I'm too old and too experienced with others' ignorance and quick but limited judgment to bother with you. We agree the conversation is done.

[Psychometrika]

I'm not jumping into this enlightened dialogue (?) but I wanted to mention that there is a difference between the Uncle Remus stories and his/their portrayals in the Disney movie. The Uncle Remus stories themselves stand as one of many testiments to the robustness, creativity and determination of African slaves held under the vilest of conditions. The stories, far from shameful exhibitions of degrading stereotypes, are part of the oral histories of the time and should be celebrated, not feared or rejected.

Personally, I believe the movie is well done overall. The portrayal of the "happy slave" is unfortunate (many would argue more than unfortunate), but the character of Remus during the storytelling was splendid. Further, the portrayals in the film are no different than others of that era in film and race relations. If anything, the film should be released and become part of the conversation on how minorities have been portrayed over the years and how we can understand the roots of stereotyping and racism through them.

All that being said, Disney released the film years back across Europe and Asia. While it has since been pulled, it seems clear they are concerned with offending African Americans, but not really concerned with the greater conversation of race in society. Money talks, as usual. Sorry to be off topic, but there you go.

[ntsammy5]

There were at least seven Arabic linguists dismissed last year for homosexuality.

Sorry, bigotry is not an acceptable principle ever.

I wonder who checks? By the way the correct terminology for "military regulations" is UCMJ -- Uniform Code of Military Justice. After having served for 36 years in the US Army, mostly in infantry units, I couldn't honestly say what the UCMJ has to say about gay/lesbian soldiers. In all that time it never came up. No pun intended.

:dance3: :dance3: :dance3: :dance3: :dance3:

[Viki]

Hi, friends, I just want to assure everyone that I am monitoring this thread closely and am so far fine with way this conversation is progressing.

I say that as a lesbian, as the mother of two African-American children and as a Dis board mod.

I appreciate that this discussion calls up passion on all sides and has also invited keen intellectual debate. As such, it's all good.

Please proceed.

[BuckNaked]

I wonder who checks? By the way the correct terminology for "military regulations" is UCMJ -- Uniform Code of Military Justice. After having served for 36 years in the US Army, mostly in infantry units, I couldn't honestly say what the UCMJ has to say about gay/lesbian soldiers. In all that time it never came up. No pun intended.

:dance3: :dance3: :dance3: :dance3: :dance3:

As far as I know, there are no prohibitions in the UCMJ against homosexuality, but there are in military regulations.