Posted on 10/21/2010 10:13:12 AM PDT by Big Bureaucracy
Homosexuals should be evaluated like everybody else - they apply honestly if found able to serve - they serve - if found not able - not serve.
They can turn you around for so many reasons - physical, psychological. There are plenty of tools that weeds the bad.
Thousands of those served already - apparently some of them are able to serve.
I left Europe because of the big bureaucracy that produces nonsense and suffocates any opportunity and I created my blog to do my part in preventing America from going on that path.
So, you support allowing sodomites in the military.
Thousands of those served already - apparently some of them are able to serve.
There is no shortage of people who can serve and serve well, there is NO REASON to allow those who destroy the morale of the men and women who are in harm's way.
Answer the question.
I agree that DADT is bad. But allowing "open" homosexuals in the military is infinitely worse. The military should be a "homosexual-free" zone - NO TOLERANCE WHATSOEVER!
‘There is no shortage of people who can serve and serve well, there is NO REASON to allow those who destroy the morale of the men and women who are in harm’s way.’
I have no problem if what you say is the official policy, however DADT is like closing eyes and allowing them to serve - this is why the policy is wrong.
If they are not able - they shouldn’t be allowed in.
Homosexuals should be evaluated like everybody else - they apply honestly if found able to serve - they serve - if found not able - not serve.
I believe homosexuals should not be allowed to serve secretly - it is creepy. This is why I think DADT is wrong.
If the military finds them able serve - I wouldn’t mind. If the military finds them not able to serve - I wouldn’t mind. Ban them or accept them - don’t sneak them in.
You should be working for Myth Romney because that's who you sound like.
Here is what you wrote in post #22:
Homosexuals should be evaluated like everybody else - they apply honestly if found able to serve - they serve - if found not able - not serve.
Now you come back with a flip-flop answer. Why don't you quit trying to figure out the answer that I want to hear and tell me what YOU think:
Do YOU think homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the United States Military? YES or NO (I'll give you a hint, conservatives seldom have problems with yes or no questions.)
I like Breitbart. When I made Big Bureaucracy there was only Big Government. With my life behind the iron curtain (the biggest government that there ever was)- I have personal beef with government officials sitting behind desks (bureaus) burning tax-payer money creating nonsense.
"They see me trollin', they hatin'"
Homosexuality is creepy. It is an abnormal behavior practiced by 2% or less of the population. It is a deviant behavior and should not be allowed in the military.
There is no flip flop. They should not serve secretly.
As far as openly - they should be evaluated like everybody else - they probably will be found not able to serve by the psychologists - application denied - problem solved
And with open homosexuals serving comes a whole regiment of offices to see that they are being celebrated with a special pride month, not being offended, not being passed over, not able to socialize with fellow homosexuals at their own officer’s clubs...
But I don’t want to rehash old threads across off topic threads. Just pointing out that it opens a pandora’s box and increases the red tape.
If a man and a woman are both serving, right now they have to keep their love relationship secret. Should that also be public?
There will be a breakdown in order and focus.
There are a lot more gay journalists crying for this than heterosexual (or even adulterous) journalists.
If you support DADT - does it mean that you are OK with them serving secretly?
I am against DADT - they should not be allowed to serve secretly.
They shouldn’t serve at all.
If a man and a woman are both serving, right now they have to keep their love relationship secret. Should that also be public?
The UCMJ is the same for everybody.
‘They shouldn’t serve at all’
DADT helps them serve secretly - it is dishonest - it is all I am saying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.