Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sub-Driver

Its a bad question. I’d like to ask if congressmen share a two man tent together, do tick checks on one another, huddle together for warmth, etc.

The bottom line is - the military doesn’t need this distraction. I predict that a year from now, when the NYT tries to do its ‘A Year After the Repeal’ story, they will be hard pressed to find half a dozen soldiers serving as openly gay.

Gay people don’t want to serve openly in the military. Gay people, who aren’t presently in the military, think its a great idea for others to serve openly...but they would never do it themselves.


13 posted on 12/21/2010 2:35:37 PM PST by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: lacrew
Gay people don’t want to serve openly in the military.

First, queer lovers in uniform with guns is a recipe for death. Second queers in uniform professing queer pride is a recipe for death.

The short answer is that proud queers in the military will have a statistically higher rate of death by friendly fire than queers who understand the safety of DADT. Also, queers can no longer be honorably discharged for being queer. How is that a win for the queer world?

75 posted on 12/21/2010 4:08:23 PM PST by Louis Foxwell (pka: Amos the Prophet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson