Ticomaya wrote:Bella Dea wrote:Ticomaya wrote:
Your head might hurt because you don't like the policy, but there's nothing more to this than that. ... except it makes for a nice story for the media because it involves a soldier who won a purple heart.
I think au1929 hit it on the head...this shouldn't be about this particular case so much as it should be about having gays in the military.
I doubt very much that Au hit it on the head, because I think there is more behind the policy than "bible thumpers." Anyone ever research the reason for the policy, or a ban on gays in the military?
No no, not the bible thumper thing. The part about :
au1929 wrote:Like it or not this thread baits the question whether gays should or should not be allowed to serve in the armed forces. The fact that this individual was discharged because of his being openly gay after being wounded is irrelevant.
It really isn't about this guy. It's about whether gays should be openly accepted in the military.
Actually, Joe, I think the military is more interested in silent homosexuals than honest homosexuals, if the truth be told. I'm fairly certain the military didn't ask Sgt. Stout to promise to never tell anyone about his homosexuality; he was probably instructed just to keep his mouth shut. When he decided to become open about his homosexuality, rather than become a liar, he became a blabbermouth, in violation of the policy.
Bella Dea wrote:No no, not the bible thumper thing. The part about :
au1929 wrote:Like it or not this thread baits the question whether gays should or should not be allowed to serve in the armed forces. The fact that this individual was discharged because of his being openly gay after being wounded is irrelevant.
It really isn't about this guy. It's about whether gays should be openly accepted in the military.
Ah ... okay ... yes, that is the underlying question.
Ticomaya wrote:Bella Dea wrote:No no, not the bible thumper thing. The part about :
au1929 wrote:Like it or not this thread baits the question whether gays should or should not be allowed to serve in the armed forces. The fact that this individual was discharged because of his being openly gay after being wounded is irrelevant.
It really isn't about this guy. It's about whether gays should be openly accepted in the military.
Ah ... okay ... yes, that is the underlying question.
Yup. I just don't get the mentality behind no open gays in the military. Any one wanna elaborate on that?
If I hated homosexuals and felt they were a corrupting influence I would get as many of them into service as possible and then stick 'em on the front lines, so they'd be the first eliminated.
That's the trouble with bigots. Stupid. Don't look at the big picture.
blueveinedthrobber wrote:If I hated homosexuals and felt they were a corrupting influence I would get as many of them into service as possible and then stick 'em on the front lines, so they'd be the first eliminated.
That's the trouble with bigots. Stupid. Don't look at the big picture.
Or perhaps your thesis is not accurate.
If the government decides or is forced to reinstate the draft. I would imagine the homosexual population in the US will increase significantly. Easy way to beat the draft.
That is unless they make you perform to prove it. :wink:
au1929 wrote:If the government decides or is forced to reinstate the draft. I would imagine the homosexual population in the US will increase significantly. Easy way to beat the draft.
That is unless they make you perform to prove it. :wink:
Way to find the silver lining, au. Nice job.
