I equate them all because they're all the same. Bullshxt, nothing more and nothing less. Letting gays serve openly doesn't change anything regarding rape and other untoward behavior. It is already taking place. Whether or not someone is openly gay has no bearing on the quantity of this behavior. You've got just as much cause and effect shown as I have stating that sitting on park benches and feeding pigeons peanuts makes you age because you never see young people doing it.My gosh!!! Four blondes in a row!
Please explain the specific similarity between denying blacks the right to serve and my reasoning for not mixing orientation attraction in a military setting.
So far, all you did was a partial quote with an ad homoan attack. I'll be real interested to see my hallucinations and non-rationality exposed Marsha.
We already know that there is a huge problem with heterosexual abuse and rape in the military. This is WITH the genders separated.
Now we add homosexuals NOT separated. And you assert there is no rational basis for concern.
Moreover, you equate my reasoning to blacks will revolt, woman will rule (they already did), blacks will rape whites(some do) and gays will convert boys (gay pedophiles do). I have asserted none of these things.
On the other hand, you asserted that butch lesbians dress and act like men to be 'comfortable'. Another denial of human mating behavior. The same behavior you deny would/is occurring in the military.
You are not in a bubble, you are simply gay twirling no matter how utterly idiotic it becomes.
Here is the simple reality. You claim that two gays serving in closer quarters than heterosexuals are allowed to will never be attracted. Really.
The Greeks recognized the implications of that situation and used it in limited measures. Placing two sexually bonded men in a life and death situation incurred extreme commitment to protect their lover. You deny that tendency in this situation. Why? Because you know it undermines the more important requirement of obedience to leadership in a modern army.
You are supporting the weakening of our military. That is point blank traitorous.
You go on to make the spurious claim (a reflection of the claims made by some 1000+ officials before the repeal of DADT) that the military will be weakened.
Amazingly enough:Repeal would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all levels, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force.
March 2009 statement signed by
1,167 retired admirals and generals
The flag and general officers for the military, 1,167 to date, 51 of them former four-stars, said that this law, if repealed, could indeed break the All-Volunteer Force. They chose that word very carefully. They have a lot of military experience and they know what theyre talking about.
Elaine Donnelly, Center for Military
Readiness, May 2010.
Based on the substantial evidence we gathered in our research, we conclude that, during the one-year period following implementation of the policy change, DADT repeal has had no negative impact on overall military readiness or its component parts: unit cohesion, recruitment, retention, assaults, harassment or morale. While repeal produced a few downsides for some military membersmostly those who personally opposed the policy changewe identified important upsides as well, and in no case did negative consequences outweigh advantages. On balance, DADT repeal appears to have slightly enhanced the militarys ability to do its job by clearing away unnecessary obstacles to the development of trust and bonding.
1 year post repeal don't reflect what you claim. A group of people much more versed in the matter disagree with you.