[Wyatt]

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

They apparently "investigated" the "charges" for eight months before discharging this guy. He's a highly decorated soldier and an Arabic linguist, but none of that matters because he likes to have sex with men. And God knows you can't be a good person/soldier if you're gay.

I know we've had this "Don't ask, don't tell" policy for a long time, but I didn't realize that they would "investigate" at such lengths. Why is it any of the government's business? What exactly is the logic behind this ignorant policy?

"Gee, we thought you were a good soldier, but we must have been wrong because you like to sleep with other men."

When are we ever going to get to the point where it's okay to be gay? What the hell is wrong with this country that we could be in the middle of a war in two Arab nations, but we discharge a decorated Arabic linguist because he's gay?

Here's the most awful part of the article:

Lt. Col. James Zellmer, Copas’ commanding officer in the 313th military intelligence battalion, told the AP that “the evidence clearly indicated that Sgt. Copas had engaged in homosexual acts.”

Wow, what a terrible crime. He gets off on guys. So what?

[Moogs]

Well, the bottom line is the politicians control the military (ultimately), and most politicians are afraid to show any support for gays, even though many probably are / or have people in their lives who they care about who are.

The military logic is that homosexuals will increase the likelihood of fraternization and relationships among people who are serving together, which is generally not desirable. You want soldiers or nurses or whoever to be on friendly terms but you don't want the irrationality and politics that comes with two people who are intimate, serving in difficult situations. Same with workplace romance only multiply it times 100, because lives and not jobs are at stake (in combat anyway).

Back to the politicians -particularly people on the far right- also have religious values tend to equate being gay with willful sin. That is, they are so short-sighted they cannot figure out that the vast majority of gay people do not wake up one day and say, "wow, I'm really attracted to the opposite sex, but I think I'll be homosexual anyway so I can endure lots of scorn and ridicule in my life."

[Brad]

I vote we change this nation's name to The United States of Christians to properly reflect its agenda.


OOOOH. I went there!

[Moogs]

Take it back, take it BACK!

Seriously though the Israel thread has remained relatively calm and useful, but it is indeed a slippery slope we're walking onto, what with all these political and now religious (WAY TO GO, BRAD) threads. All things in moderation, moderators. Don't be afraid to stomp on the wayward politic-religio-sca-midgio threads. It's what made this forum great.

[murbot]

I think they're just pissed that they can't use the "cunninglinguist" line with this guy.

"Fellatiolinguist" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

I don't know, I got nothin'.

[AsLan^]

What's disgusting is the fact that more energies weren't put into finding the person sending the emails who blatantly blackmailed the commander by threatening to reveal this soldiers sexuality to the battalion.

His sexuality should never have been the subject of investigation and whoever was threatening the commander with his/her intent to commit subversion under title 18 of the USC should have been caught and brought to trial.

Originally Posted by The United States Code Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

[Trumpetman]

Originally Posted by Brad I vote we change this nation's name to The United States of Christians to properly reflect its agenda. OOOOH. I went there!

Perhaps you should follow your sigs advice.

Nick

[Luca]

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Trumpetman Perhaps you should follow your sigs advice. Nick

Zing!

Originally Posted by Luca

Pac-Man rules.

[Luca]

Well, okay, maybe we're being a bit harsh here. It's easy to blame Christianity for fostering hate when, in fact, it's just conservative, short-sighted people who foster hate while simultaneously professing their Christianity. It's like saying that Arab terrorists who kill in the name of Allah are representative of the actual religion of Islam.

Still, the things people say in the name of Christianity (or any religion, for that matter) really disgust me, to the point where I no longer feel I can trust organized religions or their members.

[alcimedes]

What bothers me is that odds are this person is better qualified to read through transcripts in Arabic, listen to and translate phone conversations, work within the community etc. to try and actually stop terrorist attacks against our citizens.

Then we fire them for something totally unrelated to how capable they are of doing their job.

[Wyatt]

Originally Posted by alcimedes What bothers me is that odds are this person is better qualified to read through transcripts in Arabic, listen to and translate phone conversations, work within the community etc. to try and actually stop terrorist attacks against our citizens. Then we fire them for something totally unrelated to how capable they are of doing their job.

That pretty much sums it up for me right there. Our military is practically tripping over itself to hire Arabic linguists, and then we get a good one and fire him because he's gay. Great policy.

Originally Posted by Moogs The military logic is that homosexuals will increase the likelihood of fraternization and relationships among people who are serving together, which is generally not desirable. You want soldiers or nurses or whoever to be on friendly terms but you don't want the irrationality and politics that comes with two people who are intimate, serving in difficult situations. Same with workplace romance only multiply it times 100, because lives and not jobs are at stake (in combat anyway).

That logic isn't valid any more, though. Women are on the front lines now, so they can just as easily get entangled with the straight men. This policy was antiquated before it was even implemented.

[Trumpetman]

Originally Posted by Luca Well, okay, maybe we're being a bit harsh here. It's easy to blame Christianity for fostering hate when, in fact, it's just conservative, short-sighted people who foster hate while simultaneously professing their Christianity. It's like saying that Arab terrorists who kill in the name of Allah are representative of the actual religion of Islam. Still, the things people say in the name of Christianity (or any religion, for that matter) really disgust me, to the point where I no longer feel I can trust organized religions or their members.

It's especially easy to blame Christianity when no one has linked it as exclusively being the cause of this. If Clinton were so "religious" when he started "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" then why did he still veto partial birth abortion bans??

Honestly I can understand people being upset, but labeling so you can avoid thought is just not acceptable.

Do you think the only straight people who might feel uncomfortable sharing close quarters with someone who is homosexual are those who are Christian? Are you telling me Luca, that if you don't care to strip down daily and shower in front of someone who is homosexual, that the causes are organized religion?

Finally is there no biological or evolutionary possibilities for people feeling strong opposition to same sex attraction? If people are repulsed at doing their mom do we just rant away at that damn organized religion instead of thinking "Hmmm... maybe biology creates this to insure the best results."

Stop labeling, start thinking.

Nick

[Fahrenheit]

haha, gay man discharged.

[alcimedes]

Along those lines, when stationed in Iraq husbands and wives weren't supposed to have sex with each other. Yeah, that's going to happen.

Sorry, but sex is happening constantly in the military now. If gay people are qualified get them in and get them working. Last I checked there wasn't a line of people being turned away for military service, let alone highly qualified ones.

[Luca]

I mostly agree with you, Trumpetman, but I do think that the conservative Christian right wing is the main reason we have a ban on gays in the military at all. Like I said, I don't believe all Christians are homophobes, but there are enough homophobes who hide behind the flag of Christianity to enact laws that unfairly discriminate against gays.

It seems clear that in this case, this man was wrongly kicked out because of the general homophobia of our nation and its leaders, and I think that homophobia is more than tangentially related to the overwhelming majority of Christians we have here.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Brad I vote we change this nation's name to The United States of Christians to properly reflect its agenda. OOOOH. I went there!

Insulting a religion because of a military policy?

You're more intelligent than that. Don't reduce yourself to the stupidity of those you are upset with.

[Brad]

Man, you guys need to lighten up.

This is why we have a general policy against political/religious threads. People take everything too seriously and literally and make everything into an attack.

I'll save everyone the trouble and just lock this thread now.

[alcimedes]

Or we could just avoid posting inflamatory things about inflamatory subject.

Unless you're murbot. Then you can do anything.

[murbot]

Just to clarify, it wasn't Brad who locked this thread. It was the ghost of Phyllis Diller's still-virgin pussy (circa 1933), which travelled forward in time vowing to slop vaginal fluid on any political discussions at AppleNova by channelling itself through Brad.

Don't shoot the messenger!

[Phyllis Diller]

*slop slop!*