I guess they weren't cunning enough

[Jason_McCullough]

Anyone have a link to all the things they can revoke your security clearence for?

[Nick_Walter]

@Pace

[quote=Nick Walter]So you are seriously of the opinion that being a homosexual in the military does not expose one to a greater risk of pressure? That the military just cleverly slipped that into the rules to persecute gays?

That’s not actually what I said. What I said was, they put it in place to JUSTIFY the persecution of gays. Rather than dealing with the issue, they put rules in place that allow them to sweep it under the carpet. “Pay no attention to the fundamentalist values behind our honorable band of liberators.”

I think that if the military was as honorable, not to mention as desperate for warm bodies, as you claim else-thread, they’d certainly not let a little thing like cornholing or getting cornholed disqualify someone from service. If soldiers followed orders and respected the CoC as you claim they do and should do, then certainly they wouldn’t, say, beat the shit out of someone with bars of soap in pillowcases. Certainly that never happens. Surely if a gay soldier stands up and announces that he’s being blackmailed, he’ll recieve fair treatment and support, and not be drubbed out of the military he enlisted to help.

Your hypocrisy is astounding. Color me boggled.[/quote]

Congratulations, through a combination of hyperbole, poor reasoning, misrepresenting my views from this thread, and misrepresenting my views from other uncited threads in this thread, you have become too incoherent to converse with.

I concede, you win. Whatever your point was, it must have been right.

[Nick_Walter]

@Jason_McCullough1

Anyone have a link to all the things they can revoke your security clearence for?

http://www.dss.mil/nf/adr/adjguid/adjguidF.htm

I have a list of things to be considered when granting security clearances. I imagine it’s the same list they would use to revoke one.

Interestingly, they say that sexual orientation isn’t a factor, but then a paragraph or so later the document states:

@Long Winded Govt Document

Sexual behavior is relevant to security if it:

* involves a criminal offense;
* is compulsive or out-of-control;
* indicates a personality or emotional disorder;
* subjects the individual to undue influence or coercion;
* reflects lack of judgment or discretion.

Rather an interesting document overall. Obviously the bit about “subjects the individual to undue influence or coercion” is the relevant one to the discussion we are having.

[Pace]

@Nick_Walter

Congratulations, through a combination of hyperbole, poor reasoning, misrepresenting my views from this thread, and misrepresenting my views from other uncited threads in this thread, you have become too incoherent to converse with.

I concede, you win. Whatever your point was, it must have been right.

Whoo hoo! I win!

Seriously, though. I don’t think what I’ve said is that hard to parse. Let me know where I’m missing the point or misrepresenting you:

1. You claim that the army is justified in removing gays because they can be blackmailed.

2. I claim that the gays wouldn’t be open for blackmail if the army didn’t condone persecution of them, primarily through “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, which intimates that once people know a person is gay, any persecution of said person is justified, since they don’t belong in the army anyway.

3. In the 5,500 thread, you (and those who shared your stances) made various claims on the honor of our military, the cowardice of people who disagree and leave it, and the support available to members of the military who disagree with their situation and wish to speak out.

4. I claim that if the claims from 3 are true, then a gay person in the army would have recourse if and when they were blackmailed. Since the actuality of the situation is that confirmed homosexuals are summarily dismissed from service, the claims from 3 are unsupported, and more than likely fabrications.

Let me know where it stops making sense.

[shift6]

@Jason_McCullough1

Back in the 1950s, yes, I can see how that made sense as a security clearance issue. But it’s not the 1950s anymore, and it’s generally not a blackmailable category anymore.

Right. American society has been accepting and open to homosexuality ever since the 50s. Good call, J.

[wildpokerman]

@extarbags

[quote=Derek Meister]Actually, yes they do.

In fact, you can spend time in the brig over it.

o rly

Well do they have a rule that says you can’t be an intelligence officer if you have an illegitimate child from before your marriage that you don’t want your family to know about?[/quote]

Can you be an intelligence officer if you like playing Pokemon?

[Bren]

@yurislave

Can you be an intelligence officer if you like playing Pokemon?

I believe that’s considered “Extra curricular research in game theory”.

[Jason_McCullough]

@shift6

[quote=Jason McCullough]Back in the 1950s, yes, I can see how that made sense as a security clearance issue. But it’s not the 1950s anymore, and it’s generally not a blackmailable category anymore.

Right. American society has been accepting and open to homosexuality ever since the 50s. Good call, J.[/quote]

Huh?

[shift6]

You said that you don’t believe homosexuality to be a “blackmailable category” anymore, and you implied probably not since the 1950s. The argumentation here suggest that it is listed precisely because it is something that can easily be cause of embarassment to a person, even one who is “openly gay”. So since you believe that homosexuality isn’t blackmail worthy material, therefore you appear to be claiming that homosexuality has been more or less socially acceptable and not cause for embarassment since the 1950s.

The fact is that until homosexuality becomes socially acceptable, it will be categorized in the same way as things like money problems, super huge egos, and addictions (physical like drugs and social like drinking or sex) when it comes to conservative (lower case “c”) thinking and judgement calls.

[Jason_McCullough]

Where did I imply that it stopped in the 1950s? I said it doesn’t apply today to out homosexuals.