home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: ba.politics
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!phil
- From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
- Subject: Re: Gays, the military and "privacy"
- Message-ID: <1992Dec29.051533.16249@netcom.com>
- Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.
- References: <44026@zygot.ati.com> <1992Dec28.113059.1409@netcom.com> <1992Dec28.172215.2424@island.COM>
- Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 05:15:33 GMT
- Lines: 28
-
- In article <1992Dec28.172215.2424@island.COM> guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) writes:
- >You realize of course, that is probably the strongest
- >possible argument for abolishing the ban on gays in the
- >military ? We already have enough real security risks without
- >creating them for our adversaries. If there were no ban on
- >gays in the military, this guy would tell "Comrade spy" to
- >take a flying leap.
-
- Sure is. That's why, when a CIA employee has an affair and it is discovered
- by the CIA, both parties AND their spouses have to meet in one office and
- the truth be said. They don't care if you have the affair -- they just don't
- want it know.
-
- On the other hand, the KGB teaches that homosexuals are much more vulnerable
- targets for espionage that hetereosexuals. The KGB teaches that homosexuals
- have much more trouble enaging in emotionally secure relationships, and are
- (hence) much more vulnerable to their handler providing the (apparent)
- secure emotional attachment.
-
- The KGB is often stupid in areas, but they have a pretty good track record
- in understanding people and motivations.
-
-
-
- --
- I believe Gennifer Flowers.
-
- These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
-