Correct.
He’s not being booed for being a soldier, he is being booed for his behavior. Being a soldier does not indemnify one against their other actions being judged.
Open Gays in the military is the WORST thing that has happened to this country.
Agreed.
LLS
I disagree. When I was in the army, many soldiers behaved poorly. Further, the left has booed our soldiers for decades for doing their duty, and has had no problem doing a heck of a lot worse to our troops than booing one individual.
Booing his sodomy and the forcing of his sin upon me is correct
Incorrect on many levels.
One they booing his homosexuality. Two they booed is defiant public defense of immorality. Three they booed his questionable commitment to duty, for by his appearance and question he brought shame upon all.
Despite the sick fads of current society much of morality is still an absolute. Homosexuality is wrong.
The audience would have likewise booed a UN Soldier defending sex with children that was done so that those children could get food.
The Atlantic article is pecifically about the effect a few boos out of an audience of hundreds, and the effect these few boos might have on the elections, and how bad the few boos make the republicans appear.
But careful examination of the questions reveal each and every one of the questions to be loaded, cleverly-framed gotcha questions that really had no place in the dabate. And it just seemed to me that the boo-bids (probably younger, activist types) were reacting to the inappropriate trap-nature of the questions themselves rather than reacting badly to a 30-year old guy needing health care, the death penalty, and gay people.