[fml]

Why do you think someone would refuse to answer such a simple yes or no question?

Why should she? She is dealing with the facts as they exist.

You mock that her abiding by the military decisions "as if she has a choice" at the same time accuse her of an agenda as if her disagreeing with you makes any real difference in the situation. As it stands they are allowed by condoned lying. Either let them or don't let them in is what I hear her saying. No personal opinions necessary

First the thread was hijacked because the lot of you think you found someone you could bash as being sympathetic with gays. Then pile on without regard to her valid points that DADT is bad policy.

What does any individual opinion matter except for the purpose of fueling some weird "if you aren't repulsed by gays as much as us you're no conservative" crap?

[wagglebee]

Why should she? She is dealing with the facts as they exist.

You mock that her abiding by the military decisions "as if she has a choice" at the same time accuse her of an agenda as if her disagreeing with you makes any real difference in the situation. As it stands they are allowed by condoned lying. Either let them or don't let them in is what I hear her saying. No personal opinions necessary.

Actually, I was trying to get her to answer a yes or no question.

Based on statements like the ones below I don't think I'm asking too much:

According to Congressional testimonies the US military has over a million gay veterans. Most of them served honorably.

The integration of the gay men and women in the military has similar obstacles with the integration of the women: sexuality and social stereotypes. The Defense Department already has centuries of experience and knowledge about problems that may occur when men and women live, train and serve together.

We did not ban women to be openly women in the military. Thousands of them served honorably, conquering challenge after challenge and guess what: the military still maintains high moral and discipline.

American people allow gays to be treated differently in the military judging them by group stereotypes instead of individual assessment.

Gay men and women who are able and willing to serve honorably should be able to show up at the recruiting station and offer their lives to America with dignity. And America should be able to accept their sacrifice with respect.

The right question for serving in the military is not ‘Do you have legs, penis and citizenship?’, but ‘Can I entrust you with my life?’. And if in front of you is able, honorable and trustworthy human being: Give the Gay a Chance!

So, don't say that I'm "accusing her of an agenda" when her own words clearly demonstrate that she has an agenda.

First the thread was hijacked because the lot of you think you found someone you could bash as being sympathetic with gays. Then pile on without regard to her valid points that DADT is bad policy.

Her "valid points" about the DADT policy are nothing more than an attempt to push a militant homosexual agenda.

What does any individual opinion matter except for the purpose of fueling some weird "if you aren't repulsed by gays as much as us you're no conservative" crap?

I don't know why any sensible person WOULD'T be repulsed by sodomy; however, those that aren't should at least refrain from trying to push it on a conservative forum.

[little jeremiah]

Wagglebee already explained that she evaded answering whether she thought homosexuals in the military were a good thing, and her comments said it without answering directly. There is a history here of an article she posted which was pulled, in which she supported homosexuals in the military.

Many on FR and many who are not are getting fed up to here (hand way above head) with the evil homosexual agenda and will fight it with everything we’ve got.

If you have a problem with that, too bad.

[Big Bureaucracy]

Thank you.

My point is, you cannot answer the question: Do you think all straight should serve in the military?
Military evaluates their applications and denies or approves them.

It should be the same process for all people.
if the military evaluates one gay to be able to serve - I am fine with it.

If somebody is willing to serve - the person should be respected.

DADT is dishonest, disrespectful policy that only dysfunctional Congress can come up with - half gay - half not gay policy.

Every other country either accepts them or does not accept them. Only we have: i don’t see what I see cowardly policy.