sapphi_snake said:
It's called DADT (couldn't help myself, it was annoying me that you were writting it wrong), and there were actually studies conducted regarding this issue, which showed that there would be no negative effects to gays serving (not to mention the proof provided by countries where they are already able to serve). It's also quite irrelvant if the straight soldiers would feel 'uncomfortable'. If white racist soldiers are uncomfortable with balcks serving, should blacks be banned? If christian soldiers are uncomfortable with non-christian soldiers, should non-christians be banned from serving? It's the army, there isn't really room for such fits. |
In World War 2, blacks were separated from whites in different regiments because of that. It just takes a while for traditional institutions to be overturned. It usually takes "libruls" to pressure people to overturn these kind of institutions.
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY." --Hermann Goering, leading Nazi party member, at the Nuremberg War Crime Trials
Conservatives: Pushing for a small enough government to be a guest in your living room, or even better - your uterus.







