Why do liberals argue this point?

N

Not Given

New member
On the topic of gays in the military, liberals these days often hit the point that gays are needed for the purpose of translating Arabic and Farsi into English. I've seen this on the talk shows argued by many liberals over the last few years, most recently on Larry King last week. What do they mean by that?

What in the hell does one really have to do with another? Are they saying that Arabs are gay and they need gay men to intemperate what they are saying? Are they saying that that straight men can't learn the Middle Eastern languages? Or are they saying that the communications offices in the military have turned into a San Fransisco bath house?

Please explain the connection with sex with another man and translating Arabic and Farsi.
 
You make a very good point. There is no correlation between sexuality and the ability to learn a language. Sounds like liberals are scraping the bottom of the barrel for all the excuses they can come up with to keep gays in the military.
 
That is quite perplexing. perhaps they simply need more people? I mean the do not talk straight as it is it could just be some round about way of saying it due to wanting to sound intelligent.
 
The point their trying to make is not about language per se. It's about intellectualism. Their inferred assumption is that there are not enough smart people in the straight military to do all the hard jobs that require one to think before they shoot. Therefore you need to utilize gays for their superior intelligence. Translating is just one example.
It is elitist, patronizing, and shamelessly self-serving. Your confusion is understandable, and your being offended is justified. However, a liberal would only grant you the former.
 
it doesn't mean anything other than as an example of staffing issues, especially in areas that are in critical need.

is it wise to 'retire' someone highly trained who can perform a critical MOS solely because of their sexual orientation?
 
By liberal logic that means that everyone that speaks Farsi or Arabic is gay i guess .
 
I have not seen or heard of this until now, but perhaps their point is that there are many critical jobs in the military that do not involve combat, so even if you feel that having gay people in combat situations would be problematic, it is not a valid reason to keep them out of the military.
 
Not a liberal. But I would assume they are pointing out there are a variety of specialty situations that need to be administered to in any operation. The more groups you eliminate, for whatever reason, diminishes the resource pool of qualified personal available to fill the position.
 
Back
Top