Poll: Most US troops OK with gays in the military

Jetboogieman said:

Don't you support the patriot act?

Click to expand...

You're totally missing the point and that question proves it.

I'm playing the devil's advocate and asking why the DADT abolitionists demand constitutional rights for some, but not for all.

The hypocrisy has come glaring through, like a 25mm tracer round streaking across a gunnery range, at night.

apdst said:

You're totally missing the point and that question proves it.

I'm playing the devil's advocate and asking why the DADT abolitionists demand constitutional rights for some, but not for all.

The hypocrisy has come glaring through, like a 25mm tracer round streaking across a gunnery range, at night.

Click to expand...

Well said. I'm sick of this liberal reverse discremination. I say let them all in, KKK, gays, Neo-Nazis, Black Panthers, as long as they are American citizens and are willing to die for the man fighting next to them. Any real soldier knows when you're in a fire fight, the real cause you're fighting for is the man standing next to you, and that is about as evident as a 5.56 round that comes spinning out of the barrel of a M4 at 2,900ft per second and then slams through a terrorist forehead.

Johnny DooWop said:

Well said. I'm sick of this liberal reverse discremination. I say let them all in, KKK, gays, Neo-Nazis, Black Panthers, as long as they are American citizens and are willing to die for the man fighting next to them. Any real soldier knows when you're in a fire fight, the real cause you're fighting for is the man standing next to you, and that is about as evident as a 5.56 round that comes spinning out of the barrel of a M4 at 2,900ft per second and then slams through a terrorist forehead.

Click to expand...

They're all brothers in arms, according to the Leftists, that is.

Navy Pride said:

I am sorry DD but the facts just don't show that to be the case.........Its true Bush spent like a drunken soldier but Hussein Obama and his crew has tripled what Bush has spent without any way to pay for it...........Why do you think the massacure of democrats is happening tomorrow? Hussein Obama is just lucky he is not on the ballot to or he would be out the door on his ass where he belongs........

Click to expand...

As usual, you are dead wrong. The numbers of Republicans coming out is not substantially higher than in past elections. The difference is that Democrats are staying home.
So, its not really an embracing of your Republican policies as much as it is showing discontent that the Democrats are not happy with what Democrats have been doing.

In other words, Democrats are staying home because they figure that if Democrats are going to act like Republicans, whats the use in voting?

apdst said:

They're all brothers in arms, according to the Leftists, that is.

Click to expand...

Not really. You have to take into consideration the message being given by the group.

The IKA (official name for the KKK now) website:
Imperial Klans of America International Headquarters
Notice the last paragraph specifically. This group is not tolerant of non-white people at all. It must be assumed that someone who is a member of such a group would also not be tolerant of non-whites.

The military does not allow membership by its members into any group that is connected to criminal activities and/or that advocates intolerance (with or without violence) against others. This would most certainly cause disruptions in morale and good order and discipline. The military insists that all members have tolerance toward all people, no matter race, religion, or sex. This is because all members of the military must work with others in the military of different races, religions, and genders, at one time or another. So how can a military member abide by this rule and still be a member of any group that advocates for intolerance due to any of these traits? It really doesn't work. You can't have trust in someone that you are intolerant of because of a trait that can't be changed, and they certainly are not going to be tolerant of a you if they find out that you don't like them just because of their race, religion, or gender.

Being a homosexual does not make you a member of any "group" that advocates intolerance for any trait, just like just being heterosexual does not, in itself, mean that you a member of a group advocating intolerance for some trait.

Also, this should be obvious, but by "trait", I do not mean the "trait" of intolerance. In order to compare homosexuals to members of the KKK or terrorist organizations, you would have to show how just being homosexual makes a person somehow intolerant of someone else because of that person's race or religion or gender, something along these lines or how they are advocating criminal activity (and sodomy is a) not necessarily practiced by every single person who is homosexual and b) not actually illegal, just against the UCMJ, for now).

disneydude said:

Because closed minds and old attitudes die hard.

Click to expand...

The problem with you is that it doesn't end there. You feel the same way about the Constitution.

American said:

The problem with you is that it doesn't end there. You feel the same way about the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Your post makes Zero sense....perhaps if you care to elablorate a bit, I'd be happy to respond.

roguenuke said:

Not really. You have to take into consideration the message being given by the group.

The IKA (official name for the KKK now) website:
Imperial Klans of America International Headquarters
Notice the last paragraph specifically. This group is not tolerant of non-white people at all. It must be assumed that someone who is a member of such a group would also not be tolerant of non-whites.

The military does not allow membership by its members into any group that is connected to criminal activities and/or that advocates intolerance (with or without violence) against others. This would most certainly cause disruptions in morale and good order and discipline. The military insists that all members have tolerance toward all people, no matter race, religion, or sex. This is because all members of the military must work with others in the military of different races, religions, and genders, at one time or another. So how can a military member abide by this rule and still be a member of any group that advocates for intolerance due to any of these traits? It really doesn't work. You can't have trust in someone that you are intolerant of because of a trait that can't be changed, and they certainly are not going to be tolerant of a you if they find out that you don't like them just because of their race, religion, or gender.

Being a homosexual does not make you a member of any "group" that advocates intolerance for any trait, just like just being heterosexual does not, in itself, mean that you a member of a group advocating intolerance for some trait.

Also, this should be obvious, but by "trait", I do not mean the "trait" of intolerance. In order to compare homosexuals to members of the KKK or terrorist organizations, you would have to show how just being homosexual makes a person somehow intolerant of someone else because of that person's race or religion or gender, something along these lines or how they are advocating criminal activity (and sodomy is a) not necessarily practiced by every single person who is homosexual and b) not actually illegal, just against the UCMJ, for now).

Click to expand...

The only thing that should matter to the, "it's the constitutional right of gays to serve openly in the military" Liberals, is that it's their constitutional right to be a a member--while off duty and out of uniform of course--of any orginization they please.

Is this, yet another case of Liberals using the Constitution only when it suits their needs, then cast it aside, when it no longer supports their agenda?

There's also a ban on service members attending political rallies, in uniform. Are you ready to lift that ban, as well?

The military does not allow membership by its members into any group that is connected to criminal activities and/or that advocates intolerance (with or without violence) against others. This would most certainly cause disruptions in morale and good order and discipline.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that our service members aren't mature and professional enough to look past all that crap and soldier on?

apdst said:

The only thing that should matter to the, "it's the constitutional right of gays to serve openly in the military" Liberals, is that it's their constitutional right to be a a member--while off duty and out of uniform of course--of any orginization they please.

Is this, yet another case of Liberals using the Constitution only when it suits their needs, then cast it aside, when it no longer supports their agenda?

There's also a ban on service members attending political rallies, in uniform. Are you ready to lift that ban, as well?



Are you saying that our service members aren't mature and professional enough to look past all that crap and soldier on?

Click to expand...

The "constitutional right" argument comes from the fact that people should be able to join and serve without fearing discharge if their conduct is not actually going to harm the service. When it comes to being a member of certain organizations, such as the KKK, the "harm" comes from a lack of trust and loyalty. A servicemember cannot do his best on the job if he has to work with people he does not trust or believes are inferior to him just because of their skin color or their religion or their gender or something of this nature. And it would be quite hard for those people that work with him that he can't "tolerate" to trust him if they found out that he considers himself to be superior because of his race/religion/beliefs/gender. What if the person with biases becomes a supervisor or in any way has some control over other servicemembers' careers? This would be no different then why there are rules concerning fraternization. These things can be shown to have demonstrable harm on morale, discipline and unit cohesion.

Homosexuality is not the same thing as the above. Saying that you are homosexual is not saying that you believe yourself to be superior to someone of a different race or gender or religion or even sexuality. It is just saying that you are attracted to people of the same sex that you are. The only "harm" to morale, discipline, or unit cohesion that could come from being homosexual is from inappropriate relationships or other actions, which are covered by other rules, or from other servicemembers' intolerance. It would be comparable to a servicemember saying that they are attracted to people of a different race or being attracted to no one at all, and other service members having a problem with this.

The issue with wearing a uniform to a political event is the fact that when a servicemember is in uniform, they are an official representative of the US military. This means that by wearing a uniform to a political event, a servicemember is saying that the US military supports that side of the issue or that cause, even if it isn't true. There is no need for a servicemember to wear a uniform to a political event. And, besides, wearing any clothes is an action, not who someone is.

You still have not demonstrated how being gay can actually cause harm. I can provide proof that just being a member of a terrorist group or the KKK could cause harm to the unit. So, you need to show how being openly gay, not any of the actions such as inappropriate relationships or unwanted advances, can actually cause harm. The no-openly-gay rule is the rule that people find unfair, not the fraternization or sexual harassment rules, which would cover both homosexuals and heterosexuals for performing such actions.

roguenuke said:

The "constitutional right" argument comes from the fact that people should be able to join and serve without fearing discharge if their conduct is not actually going to harm the service. When it comes to being a member of certain organizations, such as the KKK, the "harm" comes from a lack of trust and loyalty. A servicemember cannot do his best on the job if he has to work with people he does not trust or believes are inferior to him just because of their skin color or their religion or their gender or something of this nature. And it would be quite hard for those people that work with him that he can't "tolerate" to trust him if they found out that he considers himself to be superior because of his race/religion/beliefs/gender. What if the person with biases becomes a supervisor or in any way has some control over other servicemembers' careers? This would be no different then why there are rules concerning fraternization. These things can be shown to have demonstrable harm on morale, discipline and unit cohesion.

Click to expand...

That's exactly right and if a soldier's membership in the KKK doesn't harm the service, then he/she should be able to do so.

Homosexuality is not the same thing as the above. Saying that you are homosexual is not saying that you believe yourself to be superior to someone of a different race or gender or religion or even sexuality. It is just saying that you are attracted to people of the same sex that you are. The only "harm" to morale, discipline, or unit cohesion that could come from being homosexual is from inappropriate relationships or other actions, which are covered by other rules, or from other servicemembers' intolerance. It would be comparable to a servicemember saying that they are attracted to people of a different race or being attracted to no one at all, and other service members having a problem with this.

Click to expand...

Some people think that gays in the military would have the same negative effect as membership in a racial hate group. I guess they're all homophobes, racist and bigots?

The issue with wearing a uniform to a political event is the fact that when a servicemember is in uniform, they are an official representative of the US military. This means that by wearing a uniform to a political event, a servicemember is saying that the US military supports that side of the issue or that cause, even if it isn't true. There is no need for a servicemember to wear a uniform to a political event. And, besides, wearing any clothes is an action, not who someone is.

Click to expand...

Right, again. Very good. That's why a service member attending a klan rally, out of uniform, should be ok.

You still have not demonstrated how being gay can actually cause harm. I can provide proof that just being a member of a terrorist group or the KKK could cause harm to the unit. So, you need to show how being openly gay, not any of the actions such as inappropriate relationships or unwanted advances, can actually cause harm. The no-openly-gay rule is the rule that people find unfair, not the fraternization or sexual harassment rules, which would cover both homosexuals and heterosexuals for performing such actions.

Click to expand...

UK Gay News - Gay Soldier Attacked at Fort Huachuca is Discharged From US Army

And, you can prove that, right?

apdst said:

That's exactly right and if a soldier's membership in the KKK doesn't harm the service, then he/she should be able to do so.

Click to expand...

I provided you with where the harm comes from. And just like being gay, at this time, being a KKK member "in the closet" will only get you thrown out if it comes to the attention of others. In fact, there are a lot of guys who are prejudice in the military. The difference is that being a member of the KKK means declaring that you don't like nor trust non-whites. Being homosexual means, and even just declaring it, only means that you like members of the same sex. There is a big difference between the two.

Question. Which would you rather defending you, an openly gay man or an man who has declared that he doesn't like nor trust anyone who isn't the same race as he is, which isn't your race? You must choose one.

apdst said:

Some people think that gays in the military would have the same negative effect as membership in a racial hate group. I guess they're all homophobes, racist and bigots?

Click to expand...

Most are just ignorant. They have heard that gays will negatively affect morale, discipline and unit cohesion so much they believe it. Some might be fueled by personal discomfort with gays and some might be fueled by personal beliefs that being gay is wrong and others just don't like change. There is no proof that gays have any negative effect, and to speak as being for gays can get a guy ostracized. In fact, from what I have observed, most Marines just go along with the group that they hang with on most issues. So, if the more dominant members of the group say they don't care if gays serve openly, as long as they do their job, then the others go along, no matter their own feelings about gays. If the more dominant marines say that they can't stand gays, the others just go along with this too, no matter how they really feel. It is group mentality.

apdst said:

Right, again. Very good. That's why a service member attending a klan rally, out of uniform, should be ok.

Click to expand...

No. If he is in support of the actual klan (not just in support of their existence), then he is declaring that he supports their ideals and principles, which are in contention with good order and discipline. We know from experience that people who support prejudice and distrust of others due to their race, religion, etc. are going to cause actual problems.

apdst said:

UK Gay News - Gay Soldier Attacked at Fort Huachuca is Discharged From US Army

And, you can prove that, right?

Click to expand...

You apparantly missed something. The harm in that case was caused by the other guy and his problems with the gay guy. Which means the other guy is causing the problems, not the gay guy. If you are trying to argue that someone should be kicked out because another person has a problem with them and beats them up, then we would have to kick out everyone who someone else may have an issue with, which would pretty much leave us with one person left in the military. Let's hope this person doesn't have multiple personality disorder, because if they do, our military would be completely gone.

roguenuke said:

I provided you with where the harm comes from. And just like being gay, at this time, being a KKK member "in the closet" will only get you thrown out if it comes to the attention of others. In fact, there are a lot of guys who are prejudice in the military. The difference is that being a member of the KKK means declaring that you don't like nor trust non-whites. Being homosexual means, and even just declaring it, only means that you like members of the same sex. There is a big difference between the two.

Question. Which would you rather defending you, an openly gay man or an man who has declared that he doesn't like nor trust anyone who isn't the same race as he is, which isn't your race? You must choose one.




Most are just ignorant. They have heard that gays will negatively affect morale, discipline and unit cohesion so much they believe it. Some might be fueled by personal discomfort with gays and some might be fueled by personal beliefs that being gay is wrong and others just don't like change. There is no proof that gays have any negative effect, and to speak as being for gays can get a guy ostracized. In fact, from what I have observed, most Marines just go along with the group that they hang with on most issues. So, if the more dominant members of the group say they don't care if gays serve openly, as long as they do their job, then the others go along, no matter their own feelings about gays. If the more dominant marines say that they can't stand gays, the others just go along with this too, no matter how they really feel. It is group mentality.



No. If he is in support of the actual klan (not just in support of their existence), then he is declaring that he supports their ideals and principles, which are in contention with good order and discipline. We know from experience that people who support prejudice and distrust of others due to their race, religion, etc. are going to cause actual problems.



You apparantly missed something. The harm in that case was caused by the other guy and his problems with the gay guy. Which means the other guy is causing the problems, not the gay guy. If you are trying to argue that someone should be kicked out because another person has a problem with them and beats them up, then we would have to kick out everyone who someone else may have an issue with, which would pretty much leave us with one person left in the military. Let's hope this person doesn't have multiple personality disorder, because if they do, our military would be completely gone.

Click to expand...

It's a constitutional right to be a member of the KKK/Black Panthers. Why aren't you supporting those rights, the way you support the right for gays to serve openl?

Is it because you support the rights of those with whom you agree and **** everyone else's rights, with whom you don't agree with?

You seem to be suggesting that our service members aren't grownup enough to ignore what another soldier does while he's off duty. How can you denegrate our veterans that way? Do you think that little of them?

apdst said:

It's a constitutional right to be a member of the KKK/Black Panthers. Why aren't you supporting those rights, the way you support the right for gays to serve openl?

Is it because you support the rights of those with whom you agree and **** everyone else's rights, with whom you don't agree with?

You seem to be suggesting that our service members aren't grownup enough to ignore what another soldier does while he's off duty. How can you denegrate our veterans that way? Do you think that little of them?

Click to expand...

I support everyone's right to join the military. I want what's best for the military as well. I do not support doing things that will actually do harm to the military however. Gays in the military, from my own experience, will not harm the military. You have no proof that they will cause harm. Any kind of bias or unwarranted mistrust against fellow servicemembers does do harm. There is proof from the past and currently even with this current argument. I believe you posted a link that supports this. It is quite simple.

I think you are the one who has the issues with some of our fellow servicemembers and have zero understanding of what actually causes problems with morale, discipline, and unit cohesion within the ranks.

BTW, are you ever going to address any of my points or just continue to make unfounded and, quite frankly, absolutely insulting accusations against me?

roguenuke said:

I support everyone's right to join the military. I want what's best for the military as well. I do not support doing things that will actually do harm to the military however. Gays in the military, from my own experience, will not harm the military. You have no proof that they will cause harm. Any kind of bias or unwarranted mistrust against fellow servicemembers does do harm. There is proof from the past and currently even with this current argument. I believe you posted a link that supports this. It is quite simple.

I think you are the one who has the issues with some of our fellow servicemembers and have zero understanding of what actually causes problems with morale, discipline, and unit cohesion within the ranks.

BTW, are you ever going to address any of my points or just continue to make unfounded and, quite frankly, absolutely insulting accusations against me?

Click to expand...

So, basically, what you're saying, is that our service members aren't professional enough, to put the mission ahead of their personal feelings about someone else's politics? Or, that they're not professional enough to put their politics aside, in the interest of the mission?

Why do you hold our military in such low regard? It's offensive that you think so little of their ability to be professional soldiers.

I think you are the one who has the issues with some of our fellow servicemembers and have zero understanding of what actually causes problems with morale, discipline, and unit cohesion within the ranks.

Click to expand...

I was an infantryman for 12 years, attaining the Rank of E-7(P). The, "(P)", is for, "promotable". Which means I had completed the First Seargant's course and was waiting to be pegged for a 1SG slot. My resume includes, airborne school, pathfinder school air assault school, jungle warfare school, artic warfare school, the Bradley master gunner's course. Trust me, I know exactly how important morale and unit cohesion are.

Your obvius disregard for the argument I'm making, shows that I've forgotten more about unit cohesion, morale and leadership than you'll ever know.

apdst said:

So, basically, what you're saying, is that our service members aren't professional enough, to put the mission ahead of their personal feelings about someone else's politics? Or, that they're not professional enough to put their politics aside, in the interest of the mission?

Why do you hold our military in such low regard? It's offensive that you think so little of their ability to be professional soldiers.

Click to expand...

Apparently some of them can't, since we still have DADT. This says way more about what feelings some servicemembers cannot put aside.

Besides, if those guys could put those feelings aside to do their job, then they wouldn't feel that it was necessary to violate rules that keep them from declaring themselves a member of such organizations.

However, as far as homosexuals are concerned, they are comparable to how heterosexuals are treated, not people who are violating controversial political club membership rules. Heterosexuals are allowed in the military to have feelings and express those feelings toward people that they find attractive, providing that those feelings are within legal consent rules and fraternization policies along with rules about where these feelings are allowed to be expressed. Homosexuals should be allowed the same thing. Homosexuality is on par with heterosexuality. I am sick of arguing this stupid argument about how DADT compares to policies that prevent servicemembers from joining the KKK or terrorist organizations. They are not the same thing and I have already given you plenty of things to show you why.

apdst said:

I was an infantryman for 12 years, attaining the Rank of E-7(P). The, "(P)", is for, "promotable". Which means I had completed the First Seargant's course and was waiting to be pegged for a 1SG slot. My resume includes, airborne school, pathfinder school air assault school, jungle warfare school, artic warfare school, the Bradley master gunner's course. Trust me, I know exactly how important morale and unit cohesion are.

Your obvius disregard for the argument I'm making, shows that I've forgotten more about unit cohesion, morale and leadership than you'll ever know.

Click to expand...

So you have served with openly gay men, and somehow their being openly gay caused problems with unit cohesion or discipline? I highly doubt it.

BTW, just because you have time in the service and/or military schools does not qualify you to know that openly gay men serving will cause problems. I bet you any amount of money that sometime during your career, you served with gay men that were good soldiers, whether you knew/believed they were gay or not. Because a person's sexuality is not what makes them a good military servicemember. That would be their ability to do their job. And they shouldn't have to hide part of who they are, if no one has proof that that part of them will not actually cause problems.

And, you have been ignoring my argument much more than any part I have ignored from yours. And I have served as well. I have served with openly gay guys. I know that their sexuality was not a problem at all.

roguenuke said:

Apparently some of them can't, since we still have DADT. This says way more about what feelings some servicemembers cannot put aside.

Besides, if those guys could put those feelings aside to do their job, then they wouldn't feel that it was necessary to violate rules that keep them from declaring themselves a member of such organizations.

However, as far as homosexuals are concerned, they are comparable to how heterosexuals are treated, not people who are violating controversial political club membership rules. Heterosexuals are allowed in the military to have feelings and express those feelings toward people that they find attractive, providing that those feelings are within legal consent rules and fraternization policies along with rules about where these feelings are allowed to be expressed. Homosexuals should be allowed the same thing. Homosexuality is on par with heterosexuality. I am sick of arguing this stupid argument about how DADT compares to policies that prevent servicemembers from joining the KKK or terrorist organizations. They are not the same thing and I have already given you plenty of things to show you why.



So you have served with openly gay men, and somehow their being openly gay caused problems with unit cohesion or discipline? I highly doubt it.

BTW, just because you have time in the service and/or military schools does not qualify you to know that openly gay men serving will cause problems. I bet you any amount of money that sometime during your career, you served with gay men that were good soldiers, whether you knew/believed they were gay or not. Because a person's sexuality is not what makes them a good military servicemember. That would be their ability to do their job. And they shouldn't have to hide part of who they are, if no one has proof that that part of them will not actually cause problems.

And, you have been ignoring my argument much more than any part I have ignored from yours. And I have served as well. I have served with openly gay guys. I know that their sexuality was not a problem at all.

Click to expand...

I've served with full blown racists that were good soldiers, too. As a platoon seargant, do you think that I gived a **** if that high speed, low drag heart breakin' life takin' troop hated my guts, because I'm black? One of the best soldiers I ever had under my charge was a full blown nigger hatin' racist. He wore his, "888", tatoo with pride. He was in my platoon when I was with 1/26 in Macedonia and later in Kosovo. You think anyone cared one bit that he was a full bore hater? Hell no!! All we care about was his desire to kill the enemy and win the battle. Trust me, if the **** had hit the fan, he would have been a part of that 5% that inflicted 80% of the casualties upon the enemy.

IMO, if my troops would have had to choose between an outright racist and an openly gay soldier, the racist would have won out.

But, according to you, a solid infantryman like that doesn't have the right to be in the service.

I'm thinking your own personal experience doesn't do **** to support your argument. See much time in the field as a Navy nuke?

Your hypocritical double standard certainly doesn't do anything to bolster your comments.

disneydude said:

Pentagon poll: Most U.S. troops are OK with gays in military | battlecreekenquirer.com | The Enquirer

An internal Pentagon study finds that most U.S. troops and their families don't care whether gays are allowed to serve openly and think the "don't ask, don't tell" policy could be dropped, the Associated Press reports, quoting officials familiar with its findings.

Now that the results of the Pentagon study are known I'm anxious to hear what the anti-gay folk have to say about ending DADT.

I'm particularly interested in hearing what Navy Pride has to say, especially since he has repeatedly said that if the men/women of the military were ok with gays, that he would be ok with gays in the military as well.

Lets hear what you have to say about the results of the Pentagon poll.

Click to expand...

What I have to say is that in no way do I think you actually give a crap about the opinions of those in the military and it would mean nothing to you if they responded differently. So, this challenge to those who disagree with you is facile.

apdst said:

IMO, if my troops would have had to choose between an outright racist and an openly gay soldier, the racist would have won out.

Click to expand...

Somehow I think the black troops might have preferred the openly gay man.

CriticalThought said:

Somehow I think the black troops might have preferred the openly gay man.

Click to expand...

And, from my actual experience in the service, I'll say that you're wrong.

Was your experience in the service any different? Oh, wait...

apdst said:

I've served with full blown racists that were good soldiers, too. As a platoon seargant, do you think that I gived a **** if that high speed, low drag heart breakin' life takin' troop hated my guts, because I'm black? One of the best soldiers I ever had under my charge was a full blown nigger hatin' racist. He wore his, "888", tatoo with pride. He was in my platoon when I was with 1/26 in Macedonia and later in Kosovo. You think anyone cared one bit that he was a full bore hater? Hell no!! All we care about was his desire to kill the enemy and win the battle. Trust me, if the **** had hit the fan, he would have been a part of that 5% that inflicted 80% of the casualties upon the enemy.

IMO, if my troops would have had to choose between an outright racist and an openly gay soldier, the racist would have won out.

But, according to you, a solid infantryman like that doesn't have the right to be in the service.

I'm thinking your own personal experience doesn't do **** to support your argument. See much time in the field as a Navy nuke?

Your hypocritical double standard certainly doesn't do anything to bolster your comments.

Click to expand...

I never actually said I had a problem with racists serving, as long as they can do their job. However, I definitely see where they are a bigger problem then gays serving openly. An openly gay man is not causing any harm to you or your soldiers whatsoever.

It is your responsibility to show how a gay man serving openly would cause problems, that are not actually problems that are due to the intolerance of the other personnel. I have pointed out how a racist can cause problems. Where is your proof?

You haven't actually addressed any of my comments. You have simply tried to insult me and repeated your own argument, with little to support it, over and over again.

apdst said:

And, from my actual experience in the service, I'll say that you're wrong.

Click to expand...

I'm sure it must have been very common for you to come across black troops who had to choose between working with racists and openly gay soldiers.

Was your experience in the service any different? Oh, wait...

Click to expand...

Well I guess I could take the word of the over 100,000 servicemen and women who replied to the Pentagon study survey. Or should I discount their thousands of opinions for your 1 opinion? Wow that is a difficult decision. Let me ponder that one a bit...

roguenuke said:

ever actually said I had a problem with racists serving, as long as they can do their job.wever, I definitely see where they are a bigger problem then gays serving openly. An openly gay man is not causing any harm to you or your soldiers whatsoever.

It is your responsibility to show how a gay man serving openly would cause problems, that are not actually problems that are due to the intolerance of the other personnel. I have pointed out how a racist can cause problems. Where is your proof?

You haven't actually addressed any of my comments. You have simply tried to insult me and repeated your own argument, with little to support it, over and over again.

Click to expand...

Oohhhhhhh, ok. Is that it?

You agree with lifting the ban on illegal membership in an extremist orginization, as long as that person can do their job?

Some of the hypocrisy is gone, if that's the case.

CriticalThought said:

I'm sure it must have been very common for you to come across black troops who had to choose between working with racists and openly gay soldiers.

Well I guess I could take the word of the over 100,000 servicemen and women who replied to the Pentagon study survey. Or should I discount their thousands of opinions for your 1 opinoin? Wow that is a difficult decision. Let me ponder that one a bit...

Click to expand...

What's that have to do with the opinionated post that you just made?

Nice try at triangulating, but...


MASSIVE FAIL!

apdst said:

What's that have to do with the opinionated post that you just made?

Nice try at triangulating, but...


MASSIVE FAIL!

Click to expand...

Indeed. There was nothing opionated about your comment that black soldiers would choose to work with racists over openly gay soldiers. But boy oh boy, when I dared cite the Pentagon study which indicates that most soldiers simply don't care about serving with gay troops, that was really trippy. I'm sorry for confusing you with my evidenc...er...opinoin.

apdst said:

Oohhhhhhh, ok. Is that it?

You agree with lifting the ban on illegal membership in an extremist orginization, as long as that person can do their job?

Some of the hypocrisy is gone, if that's the case.

Click to expand...

No, I don't. I can absolutely see the issue with someone declaring their membership, and therefore their adherence, of the values and beliefs of a bigoted, racist organization. It is not good. And if they aren't completely dedicated to those values or beliefs, then there is no need for them to be a member of such an organization.

Being homosexual is not declaring biases or prejudices. It is doing exactly what heterosexuals are allowed to do now and has never been shown to cause harm to morale, discipline or unit cohesion. You show me some proof, and I'll change my position, otherwise you will have to just deal with what you see as hypocrisy. Eventhough it isn't. I have valid reasons for wanting certain people to not be able to serve. You don't.