Vegeta wrote:
Complete & utter bullsh*t. If this is what you're afraid of, you must have no experience being around homosexuals as "Richards Simmons" type homosexuals are A) Never Going to Join & B) Even if they tried they'd never make it out of basic.
The gays that have served, are serving, & will serve are the kind of gays that would call Richard Simmons a ******.
There is no regulation against wearing short shorts, skinny jeans, walking with a twist, talking with a lisp or any other stereotypical homosexual action. Once you're an E5 or above, you may run into some unwritten rules of appearing a certain way, but in no way is it unauthorized.
I'm sorry if you have a hard time accepting the truth.
Vegeta wrote:
You're not stating any reason because you're a god damn coward and/or a bigot. Which is sad, as I'd prefer those serving in the armed forces were brave men & woman, like those brave homosexuals that now serve openly.
I'm not stating a reason because I don't have a reason under DADT. That does not make anyone a coward and/or a bigot. It means, under DADT, I have no problem with a homosexual serving.
Once again, I'm sorry if you have an hard time accepting reality.
Duke Lub wrote:
So a step in the right direction is a bad thing? That's good to know.
It's only a "step in the right direction" if that's the direction the military was in. Since the foundation of the military is based on service members having limited freedoms of expression, that is contrary to the direction of how the military operates.
If your personal goal is to "end discrimination", then your argument must include ways to "end discrimination", not just "repeal DADT". Just because you're focusing on one thing at a time, that doesn't prevent you from addressing all discrimination. Since no one seems to care about any other form of discrimination other than "DADT", then your goal isn't "ending discrimination", but "repealing DADT", which means it isn't a "step in the right direction", because you have no more direction to take.