SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Nine Army linguists, including six trained to speak Arabic, have been dismissed from the military because they are gay.
The soldiers' dismissals come at a time when the military is facing a critical shortage of translators and interpreters for the war on terrorism.
Seven of the soldiers were discharged after telling superiors they are gay, and the two others got in trouble when they were caught together after curfew, said Steve Ralls, spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a group that defends homosexuals in the military.
Six were specializing in Arabic, two were studying Korean and one was studying Mandarin Chinese. All were at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, the military's primary language training center.
The government has aggressively recruited Arabic speakers since the Sept. 11 attacks.
"We face a drastic shortage of linguists, and the direct impact of Arabic speakers is a particular problem," said Donald R. Hamilton, who documented the need for more linguists in a report to Congress as part of the National Commission on Terrorism.
One of the discharged linguists said the military's policy on gays is hurting its cause.
"It's not a gay-rights issue. I'm arguing military proficiency issues — they're throwing out good, quality people," said Alastair Gamble, a former Army specialist.
Harvey Perritt, spokesman for the Army Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe in Tidewater, Va., confirmed the dismissals occurred between October 2001 and September 2002, but declined to comment further on the cases.
He said 516 linguists enrolled in the Arabic course this year at the Monterey institute and 365 graduated.
The military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy allows gays to serve provided they keep quiet about their sexual orientation.
Gamble and former Pfc. Robert Hicks were discovered in Gamble's room during a surprise inspection in April, Gamble said.
After their discharges, Gamble and Hicks applied for other federal jobs where they could use their language skills in the war on terrorism, but neither was hired, Gamble said.
Samsa
11-15-2002, 01:40 AM
supremecourt4u?
FearFactory
11-15-2002, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by Samsa
supremecourt4u?
Yeah, but they'll just use the 'oh, it's a private institution/club/group/etc.' bullshit excuse to get away with it, but I REALLY hope they get the shit sued out of them. It's discouraging to think that our military is more concerned with kicking out those "goddamn faggots" than fighting this so-called "war on terror".
bonsor
11-15-2002, 01:48 AM
...to which Brad belittlingly added 'I hope you get AIDS!'
jared
11-15-2002, 01:50 AM
you always used to call me a faggot as an insult
FearFactory
11-15-2002, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by bittertrance
you always used to call me a faggot as an insult
you are a faggot, and I hope you give ****** AIDS, but that's besides the point.
okay, now if I can be serious for a moment, again: discriminating against people for their sexual preference is ridiculous. Kicking them out of the military when they are going to learn a language that will help decode messages is just plain lunacy. Obviously, it's more important to keep everyone straight and macho in the army than to learn a language that will help in the war on terror, after all, we all know only straight people can shoot guns and fly jets.
Ihaman
11-15-2002, 06:07 AM
with bullshit like this, it's hard to remember how far as a human race we've advanced.
Ihaman
11-15-2002, 06:09 AM
wait...brad, didnt you make fun of me for bieng gay?
FearFactory
11-15-2002, 06:34 AM
Originally posted by Ihaman
wait...brad, didnt you make fun of me for bieng gay?
yeah, but I give everybody shit to some degree. It's the way I am. However, in all seriousness, kicking people out of the military for being gay is, well... gay!
DeviousJ
11-15-2002, 08:26 AM
I heard Bin Laden is gay. And Saddam.
Random Female
11-15-2002, 01:16 PM
The military shouldn't be able to discriminate because it's a federally funded institute. It's NOT a private org, and that's why it's Bullshit. Why do my tax dollars go to a homophobic organization? I want them back, dammit.
Samsa
11-15-2002, 01:20 PM
well maybe these people will appeal to the supreme court as i said mhm. and the supreme court will go :erm yeah gay marriage is legal or something
Random Female
11-15-2002, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Samsa
well maybe these people will appeal to the supreme court as i said mhm. and the supreme court will go :erm yeah gay marriage is legal or something you forget the court's composition. It's a 5-4 conservative majority with o'connor swinging liberal only on women's issues. she doesn't give a damn about gays. however, maybe on the military issue some of the not-so-conserv conservatives like Kennedy would change for it. Cos it's a blatant flouting of the law... federally funded institutes should not make decisions based on sexual orientation. grr it makes me mad.
Samsa
11-15-2002, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Random Female
you forget the court's composition. It's a 5-4 conservative majority with o'connor swinging liberal only on women's issues. she doesn't give a damn about gays. however, maybe on the military issue some of the not-so-conserv conservatives like Kennedy would change for it. Cos it's a blatant flouting of the law... federally funded institutes should not make decisions based on sexual orientation. grr it makes me mad.
well i tend to be optimistic about things like that. like....even though they're conservative they're sill highly competent and knowledgeable people...and more or less fair. yeah. eh maybe it's not right to be optimistic :-/
Random Female
11-15-2002, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by Samsa
well i tend to be optimistic about things like that. like....even though they're conservative they're sill highly competent and knowledgeable people...and more or less fair. yeah. eh maybe it's not right to be optimistic :-/ just look at the voting record of Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas. They vote with the conservative whether or not it's constitutional. the other two guys are more moderate i think... i hope. anyway. optimistic thinking is good, I guess.
scouse_dave
11-15-2002, 03:11 PM
someone might need to correct me here, but...
the army are perfectly entitled to kick someone out for being gay, in the sense that that person has proven to be dishonest. in the recruitment process, candidates will almost certainly be asked about their sexuality, to which they MUST have answered 'hetero' (otherwise they wouldn't have been employed).
hence, the issue isn't that they were kicked out for being gay, but that the army doesn't recruit gays in the first place. WHICH EVERYONE KNEW ANYWAY. why is anyone surprised by this?
sawdust restaurants
11-15-2002, 04:03 PM
The official policy is called "don't ASK, don't tell" for a reason, Dave.
scouse_dave
11-15-2002, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by sawdust restaurants
The official policy is called "don't ASK, don't tell" for a reason, Dave. oh, okay...well, fair enough...i did say i was waiting to be corrected...
i am from another country remember :p
sawdust restaurants
11-15-2002, 04:14 PM
Yeah, shut up, faggot.
scouse_dave
11-15-2002, 04:15 PM
k
Random Female
11-15-2002, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by scouse_dave
oh, okay...well, fair enough...i did say i was waiting to be corrected...
i am from another country remember :p the bottom line is that a Federally funded institution is discriminating based on sexual orientation.
The thing I must ask, as much as I do support the universal acceptance of gays in the military, is what hte ideal situation would be. Although I have no sympathy for conservative, homophobic fuckwits who over-dramatize the consequences of having to share housing with them, I do understand that the uber-ignorant might find it uneasy to have to share a close living quarter with someone who is flamboyantly homosexual. This is an extreme and rare example, of course, but it's bound to occur. And probably has already occurred. Would the solution be, then, for hte homophobic dude just to deal with it and not be so insecure? This is what I would advocate, but maybe it's not so easy for some people to do. dunno.
Samsa
11-15-2002, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Random Female
just look at the voting record of Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas. They vote with the conservative whether or not it's constitutional. the other two guys are more moderate i think... i hope. anyway. optimistic thinking is good, I guess.
are any of the issues as obviously unconstitutional as this? the problem with this is the american people don't really want gays in the military either so maybe change will only come when it's desired.
scouse_dave
11-15-2002, 04:36 PM
thing is tho, someone that's 'flamboyantly homosexual' is unlikely to get in the army in the first place. i know this plays to a stereotype but the overly camp gays don't tend to be army-types...they're more likely to wanna be a fashion designer or summat. i can't see a big gay al type wanting to be in the front-line of the military.
besides, just cos a person is gay doesn't mean they SHOULD be employed, only that they should be considered for employment. i don't think anyone's talking about positive discrmination here.
if someone would piss off the other soldiers, whether it's cos they're overtly gay, mentally unstable, tedious...whatever...they're likely to be weeded out in the lengthy selection process...
Samsa
11-15-2002, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by Random Female
the bottom line is that a Federally funded institution is discriminating based on sexual orientation.
The thing I must ask, as much as I do support the universal acceptance of gays in the military, is what hte ideal situation would be. Although I have no sympathy for conservative, homophobic fuckwits who over-dramatize the consequences of having to share housing with them, I do understand that the uber-ignorant might find it uneasy to have to share a close living quarter with someone who is flamboyantly homosexual. This is an extreme and rare example, of course, but it's bound to occur. And probably has already occurred. Would the solution be, then, for hte homophobic dude just to deal with it and not be so insecure? This is what I would advocate, but maybe it's not so easy for some people to do. dunno.
haven't sailors been fucking each other since the beginning of time?
FearFactory
11-15-2002, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by scouse_dave
besides, just cos a person is gay doesn't mean they SHOULD be employed, only that they should be considered for employment. i don't think anyone's talking about positive discrmination here.
yeah, but these people were already hired.
scouse_dave
11-15-2002, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by FearFactory
yeah, but these people were already hired. yeah, i know...i've already admitted as i was wrong on that score
i was assuming candidates were asked about their sexuality in the interview stage...
i THINK that's how it in in britain
FearFactory
11-15-2002, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by scouse_dave
yeah, i know...i've already admitted as i was wrong on that score
i was assuming candidates were asked about their sexuality in the interview stage...
i THINK that's how it in in britain
Well, they can't specifically ask them their sexuality...
and on top of that, I don't understand what race or sexuality have to do with your ability to do a job - unless it's gay porn, of course!
Homerpalooza
11-15-2002, 05:38 PM
Completely ridiculous. Let's see, what's more important: keeping terrorists from killing us, or keeping gays out of the military. Tough choice.
I understand why they were kicked out, but that "policy" is just bullshit, especially at a time like this. Priority check.
Well, they can't specifically ask them their sexuality...
and on top of that, I don't understand what race or sexuality have to do with your ability to do a job - unless it's gay porn, of course! yeah that's the point. although, lesbian porn is notorious for not using lesbians. Gay porn, on the other hand... you just CAN'T use a straight man. :D
FearFactory
11-15-2002, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by Random Female
yeah that's the point. although, lesbian porn is notorious for not using lesbians. Gay porn, on the other hand... you just CAN'T use a straight man. :D
"oh, no *teehee* I'm a real lesbian!"
If real lesbians did porn, not many men would watch it.
spa ced
11-15-2002, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by Random Female
yeah that's the point. although, lesbian porn is notorious for not using lesbians. Gay porn, on the other hand... you just CAN'T use a straight man. :D
I'm going to burst your bubble.
Taken from http://www.sexuality.org/l/reviews/rvsp.html
"Another topic which was discussed at length was the issue of straight men in the gay porn industry (i.e. "gay for pay"). One of the featured actors self-identified as straight, as apparently do many others actors in the industry (it's apparently not unheard of to film a sex scene where all of the actors involved personally identify as straight). Many of the gay actors in Shooting Porn had mixed feelings about what "straight" really means in this context, and one was pretty skeptical that any gay porn actors are REALLY straight. His frank summary of the matter: "I don't buy it at all - I've worked with so many guys who claim they're striaght, and stress they're straight, and frankly they're the best cocksuckers around."
BeautifulLoser
11-15-2002, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by scouse_dave
thing is tho, someone that's 'flamboyantly homosexual' is unlikely to get in the army in the first place. i know this plays to a stereotype but the overly camp gays don't tend to be army-types...they're more likely to wanna be a fashion designer or summat. i can't see a big gay al type wanting to be in the front-line of the military.
besides, just cos a person is gay doesn't mean they SHOULD be employed, only that they should be considered for employment. i don't think anyone's talking about positive discrmination here.
if someone would piss off the other soldiers, whether it's cos they're overtly gay, mentally unstable, tedious...whatever...they're likely to be weeded out in the lengthy selection process...
I know a VERY flamoyantly homosexual man in the Army. VERY. I called him Sgt Queenie for a reason, dammit. :D And as long as he didn't tell anyone in a leadership position and nobody asked him, he could stay there. There are ALOT of gay people in the military. And I'm not poking fun, but seriously, most of them are in the Air Force.
But I read all this, and I was THIS CLOSE to telling everyone I was gay today. *sigh*
I believe the main reason they don't want gays in the military is for the same reason they don't want women in the infantry. When there's a mission, and you're out getting shot at and such, you're more likely to make a bad snap judgement if someone you "love" gets shot. Instead of moving ahead with the mission, you'd freak out and start wailing and crying and such. At least that's what I guess.
BeautifulLoser
11-15-2002, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by FearFactory
Well, they can't specifically ask them their sexuality...
and on top of that, I don't understand what race or sexuality have to do with your ability to do a job - unless it's gay porn, of course!