Accommodations at the expense of others? Once again, it sounds like there is an unrealistic expectation that a homosexual is going to break out into the routine from Flashdance and freak everyone the phuk out.
No… I never suggested that. I’m not sure how you would have even come to that conclusion… unless you’re stereotyping the homosexual community.
If you even bothered to read the post regarding the RAND report, then you'll see that homosexuals in the military have had no effect on military operations in other countries.
I trust those so-called analysts and experts behind this RAND report about as much as I trust Obama to improve the economy. It means nothing. There were an awful lot of reports written about Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of them were proven wrong.
It’s a far cry from the military, but I’m managing a fairly large project right now. For the first six months, I had this one resource on the team who did not relate well with the other team members. He seemed to be a nice enough guy, and I tried to integrate him into the team several times. He just had an awkward sense of humor, and his personality was strange. His mannerisms “freaked people out” as many on the team felt it necessary to speak to me about him. Eventually, these differences led to professional issues. They didn’t trust him. They didn’t value his opinion. And sometimes, they would discredit him in front of other team members, and eventually, they started doing this in front of the client team members. I had to let him go. He became a disruptive force on the team, and I could not continue to support him. I’m sure that he was a capable resource, and at times, he impressed me with his work product. But, I could not continue to keep him on the team.
The workplace is more of a social organization than the military. I could afford to take a chance with him by staffing him on a project. Since then, I’ve staffed him on another engagement. The military is different. By design, it’s not meant to be a social organization, and these types of experiments are far more risky and dangerous.
There's this little thing called war. It can happen anywhere and anytime, even on our own soil. Maybe your history books didn't teach you about the World Wars and Vietnam, but there are times when we need every enlisted soldier and draftable person to be able to actively participate in physical combat. It's at those times that a soldier with a life-threatening disease or defect can not be depended upon to protect our country. Let's not forget about the fact that, easy military job or not, you still have to go through basic training, recurring physical training, etc. Those who are more prone to be injured or die during such physical activities aren't going to be of much worth to the military.
You’re a military expert now. Great… It still sounds, smells and tastes like discrimination, no matter how you color it.
Even if you don't buy into this and still think we should have people with Downs Syndrome enlisted so that they can mop floors and walk the major's dog, you still have yet to even compare homosexuality in any way to the physical maladies of which you speak. Other than complaining that it would be interrupting others' military service (which is proven not to be true by the RAND report), you have not set forth some sort of analogous reason as to why a homosexual would be unable to actually perform in the military as heterosexuals do.
I never said that. Are you building one of those straw-tigers to battle? And, as far as capability of a person with Downs Syndrome, I’ve seen some with incredible physical attributes, probably greater than our average GI. So, why would you discriminate against him if he's fully capable of military service?
338 Replies
59796 Views