FinalEvangelion on 19 September 2011
osamanobama said:
FinalEvangelion said:
osamanobama said:
FinalEvangelion said:
sapphi_snake said:
Player1x3 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Player1x3 said:
Sapphi, there is a reason for that. Most gays arent army material. They dont fit there. Lots of men in the army are tough, masculine, high on y chromosome soldiers. Gays usually are feminine, gentle, extra x chromosome guys who aren't into violence. Most of them wouldn't fit ther and would most certainly have problems with their fellow soldiers, which is highly dangerous in the army. Thats why there is DADN. It allows gays to serve the army if they want, and its in both in their best interest and the army's.
And banned in 3....2......1
BAM
Oh well
|
Not only are you stereotyping and being offensive (I'm quite curious how many gay people you even know), but your entire post doesn't even make sense. The underlined part is in no way a logical solution to the part in italics.
|
Wow, if you really think what i am saying is offensive, than, with all due respect, you need to grow a pair of you know what. I mean, i heard you make literally 1000 worse statements about people you dislike. And DADN is helping gays out a lot. I am not sure how many straight people would feel ok to be in a squad with a gay person, its better if they dont know the person 's sexuality just to be sure
|
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.
|
actually it was woodrow wilson who resegragated the military... just to let you know
|
Back then, the Democratic Party was the racially conservative party. That took a while for the party to align themselves as they are now days.
|
woodrow wilson has/had nothing in common with consevatives.
in fact you is often looked up to (by progressives/ liberals) as the first true great progressive
|
Still, the political landscape was alot different back then. The same way Eisenhower had 91% tax rates for the wealthiest even though he was a conservative.
"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.
