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.
Here she is trying to discuss something else and it was others who brought it back up. DADT is bad policy and in this thread she is not pushing that agenda.
As for that other thread, she is in the minority and an immigrant - they don't understand volunteer military and miss the bigger issue imo.
I am back. I see you don’t trust the military to evaluate people.
My point is gays are people and should be evaluated by the military like everybody else (all other people) - if there is one gay that the military evaluates to be able to serve I have no problem with him/her serving.
This is my whole point.
You don’t trust the military - I do.