I'm noticing a strange shift in the GOP base. It was Republicans who brought a legal challenge to DADT, a Republican lawyer who lead the challenge of a same sex marriage ban in California, a Republican judge who is struck down a same sex marriage ban in California, a Republican campaign manager who came out as gay and dedicated himself to fighting for same sex marriage, etc.
If Democrats don't get their act together, then the GOP will be the ones who will claim that they established gay rights in the United States.
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
Where did it ever say, promote for the common defence, and provide the general Welfare..... Please don't mix up the two....We the People of the United States,... provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare....
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Why do we look at the facts:
1) There's no study which looks at how a homosexual person interacts with his hetrosexual counterparts in combat or any military setting.
2) All statements that allowing gays to serve openly will harm combat effectiveness is only assumption because there is no study
3) Gays have been serving in the US military throughout its history.
So we have two models, a military with gay servicemen and a military without them. The latter has never existed in history. So its reasonable to say after 200+ years of gays in the military, that they have no negative affect on the military as a whole.
The issue isn't whether gays can serve, its whether they can serve openly which hasn't happened yet. So lets look at that, everyone who says DADT should remain in place does so by talking about how it'll hurt combat effectiveness and unit cohesion. However all these arguements are based on their assumption of someone ELSE'S reaction. No one is going to say, "I can't/won't work with a gay person" because it makes them look, correctly, like a bigot.
So here's what I need to even consider supporting DADT, a large group of servicemen and former servicemen saying "I cannot or will not work with a homosexual individual because of their lifestyle." Until them all I've seen in hundreds of pages of these arguments from this topic and others is assumptions on other people's reactions.