WESTPOINT, Iraq Veteran,Officer kicked out of military for Announcing "I AM GAY"

[Deicide]

I never said it's relevant to my life, I said that it can affect a military unit performence.
I don't know how exactly the French and British implement this so I can't answer you.

Classified British Government Study Finds No Problem with Gays in Military

Click here to download MS Word version

13 November, 2000 - SANTA BARBARA, CA. A classified report by the British Ministry of Defense is one of two new studies to conclude that London's January, 2000 decision to lift its gay ban has not harmed military performance, cohesion, recruitment, morale, or discipline.

The Ministry of Defense has not yet acknowledged the existence of the report publicly but Ministry officials released a summary of its findings to researchers at the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military (CSSMM) at the University of California, Santa Barbara.


Martin Fuller, Director of Personnel at the Ministry of Defense, told CSSMM researchers that "we've had very few real problems that have emerged, and people seem to have, slightly surprisingly, settled down and accepted the current arrangements. And we don't really have the problems that we thought we'd have."

The Ministry report marks the first comprehensive assessment of the lifting of the gay ban. Commanders from each service were asked to comment on the effects of the policy change and a Whitehall source who had access to the original, unabridged report told University of California researchers that "The report looked at all aspects, operational effectiveness, unit cohesion, and there has been no impact."

Results of the classified report are consistent with a new 70-page University of California study released this week that finds that Britain's decision to lift its gay ban has not harmed the military. The University of California study is based on a review of 101 articles, book chapters, and documents and interviews with 25 academic experts, military officials, soldiers, and journalists.

Both the Ministry report and the University of California study will be addressed at a December 9 conference at the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco. The conference, titled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell; Is the Gay Ban Based on Prejudice or Military Necessity?" will include three experts on the British case: Professor Christopher Dandeker, Chair of the Department of War Studies at King's College, London; Rob Nunn, an openly gay officer on a British submarine; and Steve Johnston, the President of Rank Outsiders, a gay veterans' association.

Twenty-three nations currently allow gay soldiers to serve openly. According to CSSMM director Aaron Belkin, "the new studies of the British military are embarrassing to the U.S. Pentagon. After years of citing the British case to justify its own practice of firing homosexual soldiers, two comprehensive studies now show that the lifting of the British gay ban has not had any of the negative consequences that military leaders predicted."


The Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military (CSSMM) is an official research unit of the University of California, Santa Barbara. The Center is governed by a distinguished board of advisors including the Honorable Lawrence J. Korb of the Council on Foreign Relations, Honorable Coit Blacker of Stanford University and Professor Janet Halley of Harvard Law School. Its mission is to promote the study of gays, lesbians, and other sexual minorities in the armed forces.

[LurkerNoMore]

For homophobes, the only thing that worries them more than the thought of some queer staring at them and finding them is attractive is the fear that the queer will look and find them UNattractive.

Yes, their resentment and fear come from inner securities that they are not attractive enough to appeal to a faggottyish nelly queen while naked.

Life must suck when you have that much low self esteem.

[Hereford]

For homophobes, the only thing that worries them more than the thought of some queer staring at them and finding them is attractive is the fear that the queer will look and find them UNattractive.

Yes, their resentment and fear come from inner securities that they are not attractive enough to appeal to a faggottyish nelly queen while naked.

Life must suck when you have that much low self esteem.

   There it is. That predictible argument.

"If you don't like it, you must be one, or want to be one"

Sung by gays and frat boys worldwide....

[drkaje]

For homophobes, the only thing that worries them more than the thought of some queer staring at them and finding them is attractive is the fear that the queer will look and find them UNattractive.

Yes, their resentment and fear come from inner securities that they are not attractive enough to appeal to a faggottyish nelly queen while naked.

Life must suck when you have that much low self esteem.

What a stupid argument.

[Hereford]

Just think... If this guy would have just kept his mouth shut instead of trying to make a scene and push his gay agenda... He would still have a job with the Army.

Lesson of the story: Keep your mouth shut.

[drkaje]

Just think... If this guy would have just kept his mouth shut instead of trying to make a scene and push his gay agenda... He would still have a job with the Army.

Lesson of the story: Keep your mouth shut.

He must have wanted to get out.

[Dos Equis]

What a stupid argument.

lol.  That about sums it up. 

[IFBBwannaB]

Classified British Government Study Finds No Problem with Gays in Military

Click here to download MS Word version

13 November, 2000 - SANTA BARBARA, CA. A classified report by the British Ministry of Defense is one of two new studies to conclude that London's January, 2000 decision to lift its gay ban has not harmed military performance, cohesion, recruitment, morale, or discipline.

The Ministry of Defense has not yet acknowledged the existence of the report publicly but Ministry officials released a summary of its findings to researchers at the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military (CSSMM) at the University of California, Santa Barbara.


Martin Fuller, Director of Personnel at the Ministry of Defense, told CSSMM researchers that "we've had very few real problems that have emerged, and people seem to have, slightly surprisingly, settled down and accepted the current arrangements. And we don't really have the problems that we thought we'd have."

The Ministry report marks the first comprehensive assessment of the lifting of the gay ban. Commanders from each service were asked to comment on the effects of the policy change and a Whitehall source who had access to the original, unabridged report told University of California researchers that "The report looked at all aspects, operational effectiveness, unit cohesion, and there has been no impact."

Results of the classified report are consistent with a new 70-page University of California study released this week that finds that Britain's decision to lift its gay ban has not harmed the military. The University of California study is based on a review of 101 articles, book chapters, and documents and interviews with 25 academic experts, military officials, soldiers, and journalists.

Both the Ministry report and the University of California study will be addressed at a December 9 conference at the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco. The conference, titled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell; Is the Gay Ban Based on Prejudice or Military Necessity?" will include three experts on the British case: Professor Christopher Dandeker, Chair of the Department of War Studies at King's College, London; Rob Nunn, an openly gay officer on a British submarine; and Steve Johnston, the President of Rank Outsiders, a gay veterans' association.

Twenty-three nations currently allow gay soldiers to serve openly. According to CSSMM director Aaron Belkin, "the new studies of the British military are embarrassing to the U.S. Pentagon. After years of citing the British case to justify its own practice of firing homosexual soldiers, two comprehensive studies now show that the lifting of the British gay ban has not had any of the negative consequences that military leaders predicted."


The Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military (CSSMM) is an official research unit of the University of California, Santa Barbara. The Center is governed by a distinguished board of advisors including the Honorable Lawrence J. Korb of the Council on Foreign Relations, Honorable Coit Blacker of Stanford University and Professor Janet Halley of Harvard Law School. Its mission is to promote the study of gays, lesbians, and other sexual minorities in the armed forces.

Do you honestly don't see how many weak points this post have?

[Deicide]

Do you honestly don't see how many weak points this post have?

Sure it isn't perfect but neither is the other camp's. Eh, unimportant shit...

[IFBBwannaB]

Sure it isn't perfect but neither is the other camp's. Eh, unimportant shit...

I'm talking about two major points.

1.This report was not confirmed to exist, from my brief browsing of your post (I'm a little busy now).

2.Studies like that are mostly BS, always take a sociology studies are a very loose description of reality at best.

[Deicide]

I'm talking about two major points.

1.This report was not confirmed to exist, from my brief browsing of your post (I'm a little busy now).

2.Studies like that are mostly BS, always take a sociology studies are a very loose description of reality at best.

I get it, you don't like gay people. That's fine.

[headhuntersix]

He is being fired for either being too dumb, or too arrogant and confrontational. He knows full well what the rules are. The rule is "Don't ask, don't tell". There is no rational reason why he could not have answered the inquiry with saying that was non of the interviewer's business. He could have said that he didn't care/intend to address that question/policy. In that way, he does not deny, untruthfully, his own sexual orientation, AND he does not make it a confrontational issue that he obviously has an agenda to have changed. What Choi did was, purposely, out himself, knowing full well what this would result in. I don't give a rat's azz what his orientation is. I do give a rat's azz about someone aggressively trying to rub their orientation in my face. The current policy deals with behaviour, not orientation. It seems to me that is the best way to deal with this contentious issue. Long answer short, Choi CHOSE to fire himself. He could have served 20 years and never said a word.

[Deicide]

He is being fired for either being too dumb, or too arrogant and confrontational. He knows full well what the rules are. The rule is "Don't ask, don't tell". There is no rational reason why he could not have answered the inquiry with saying that was non of the interviewer's business. He could have said that he didn't care/intend to address that question/policy. In that way, he does not deny, untruthfully, his own sexual orientation, AND he does not make it a confrontational issue that he obviously has an agenda to have changed. What Choi did was, purposely, out himself, knowing full well what this would result in. I don't give a rat's azz what his orientation is. I do give a rat's azz about someone aggressively trying to rub their orientation in my face. The current policy deals with behaviour, not orientation. It seems to me that is the best way to deal with this contentious issue. Long answer short, Choi CHOSE to fire himself. He could have served 20 years and never said a word.

Koreans...

[Hereford]

Koreans...

Ya, the're all f*ing nuts.

And some are fat too.... 

[headhuntersix]

Hey GI..u buy me drink...fuck no!!!!

[Deicide]

Ya, the're all f*ing nuts.

And some are fat too.... 

Good food though...

[Hereford]

Hey HH,

You ever get that extra egg?

[headhuntersix]

HUh?

[LurkerNoMore]

What a stupid argument.

So says the people too insecure with their own sexuality that they have to worry about the sexuality of others.

Reality must sting at times.

[Hereford]

Isn't that wat you were bellyachin' about in Korea?

[drkaje]

So says the people too insecure with their own sexuality that they have to worry about the sexuality of others.

Reality must sting at times.

You really can't be that stupid in real life.

[headhuntersix]

Hhahah yeah....I got em to give me 3 eggs a day. They gave up arguing about it. Koreans are notoriously cheap, even when ur supposed to get something free or its Uncle Sams' stuff...good friggen luck. Our hotel had an amazing buffet that came with our room rate. The koreans were dismayed at all the food we'd choke down..30 plus guys every night.

[Deicide]

Hhahah yeah....I got em to give me 3 eggs a day. They gave up arguing about it. Koreans are notoriously cheap, even when ur supposed to get something free or its Uncle Sams' stuff...good friggen luck. Our hotel had an amazing buffet that came with our room rate. The koreans were dismayed at all the food we'd choke down..30 plus guys every night.

[LurkerNoMore]

You really can't be that stupid in real life.

If so, at least not stupid enough to worry about what some queer is going to think of me should I ever have to share a common shower with him.

[drkaje]

If so, at least not stupid enough to worry about what some queer is going to think of me should I ever have to share a common shower with him.

Coming to the conclusion that I care about "some queer" proves you just can't get the point so I won't waste the time.