Well, yeah. No suprise there. The military has been discharging soldiers and sailors with special skills or special training because they were gay for a long time.
I’m no fan of the policy, but the seven who told their superiors they were gay pretty much left them no choice but dismissal.
Man, that’s just fucking stupid.
And with that landmark decision the US Army zooms into the …
18th century? The only thing the article doesn’t say is whether or not the discharge was honorable or not. I’m guessing the latter.
They’re still hung up about that whole “In The Navy” thing that the Village People did.
God damn, but there’s an awful lot of idiocy in the world.
If you read Conduct Unbecoming by Randy Shilts, you’ll find that during the Gulf war, the armed forces were handicapped by the fact that they had discharged an awful lot of excellent Middle-Eastern linguists…because they were gay.
So apparently there’s precedent. U-S-A! U-S-A!!
Who knew we could be such cunning linguists?
Here is a thought. If you were an arabic speaking military translator, looking at being sent to Iraq when Shrub’s war goes down, and the thought of choking on poisin gas was making you a little nervous, How could you get out of serving?
Now consider cher3’s post.
Gee, I guess the military’s policies on homosexuality aren’t explicit enough?
I’m not saying that they deserved it, but they knew the deal up front, so what’s with this recrimination stuff? This is old news, rehashed over and over again with no satisfctory solution yet and none forthcoming.
The rules aren’t gonna change anytime soon, folks. I think they’re stupid, but that’s the way it is.
groan
You know, that is really, REALLY bad! 
It doesn’t seem right to me. But it happens all the time in civilian life, but it’s more discreet. The military is just more upfront about it.
Congress makes the laws, the military carries them out. Some people in the military favor it, some don’t, but it’s irrelevant either way.
As mentioned, the seven who admitted being homosexual to their superiors guaranteed their own discharge. They apparently wanted out, or they wouldn’t have done it.
Bullshit. The brass has a choice.
http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/877/877_dontgo.asp
[quote]
But after years of witnessing homophobic slurs and threats—including hearing “officers saying that gays should be imprisoned…shot and…tortured”—Nguyen no longer felt safe and concluded he had no choice but to get out.
In his letter he detailed his experiences and expressed his fear that by staying closeted in the military he would always be “at risk of investigation, involuntary discharge, and even criminal prosecution.” Reluctantly, he requested to be discharged.
The request, to Nguyen’s surprise, was denied. A letter from his commanding officer explained that Nguyen’s simply stating his sexual orientation, without providing evidence that he is likely to engage in “homosexual acts,” did not constitute a reason for separation.
[quote]
Hmmmm… the article makes it appear that a failure to dismiss means that the brass thinks you’re lying about your orientation in order to avoid service:
Kafka is laughing.
Maybe, I dunno, the fact that it’s utter bullshit?
How did the armed forces respond to forced desegregation? Why not just enact that plan again? Granted it won’t be easy in the beginning, but what the hell is?
Why won’t they allow Gays in the military?
General discharge is also an option and doesn’t carry the stigma of a dishonorable discharge.
Marc
No, they’re sufficiently explicit.
At least judging from the thread title, this seems to be about the military shooting itself in the foot with its decision, not about injustice against gays.
Six Arabic translators, two Korean translators (North Korea is a charter Axis of Evil member, and now with nukes), and one Chinese translator. We might need some of those guys.
What’s even scarier is this part:
Don’t tell me the CIA, NSA, etc. aren’t short of people who speak Arabic and Korean. By now, they should be well over the notion that being gay is in and of itself a security risk. You can’t blackmail someone over something they’re not keeping as a secret.
I’m surprised that you’re suprised that the consideration is not ethics, but politics.