From what I've read, it seems as though most of us particpating in this thread support repealing DADT, even the more typically conservative posters. Some concerns and challanges have been discussed but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are being used as "excuses" for why openly gay individuals shouldn't be allowed to serve. Most of us have said some variation or another of exactly what you stated above. If anything, I thought that this discussion was actually going pretty well considering that most of us agree that DADT should, and eventually will, be repealed and that the military will have to adjust and imo, be stronger
>>I am rather amazed at what I see justified here as excusable conduct - ok to discharge people from their profession because someone else can't adapt and learn to get over their discomfort,<<
Because this is exactly what happened to the poor guy who was joking around on the radio.
What I can't figure out is why there is a need to share for anyone to share their sexual preferences with others. Whatever happened to those things being private out of simply courtesy to the feelings of others? That's not a question directed at you specifically, just something I wonder about.
What I can't figure out is why there is a need to share for anyone to share their sexual preferences with others. Whatever happened to those things being private out of simply courtesy to the feelings of others?
I would assume that people stationed away from their families talk about their spouses or significant others and/or have pictures displayed.
But why would you want to talk about your personal life to someone who didn't want to hear about it? When it's about demanding people listen whether they want to or not then it's agenda based and shows disrespect for the feelings of others.
So while it might hurt one's feelings that others may disapprove or reject their choices I don't think forcing them to listen has an positive purpose at all.
There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance.
~What I can't figure out is why there is a need to share for anyone to share their sexual preferences with others. Whatever happened to those things being private out of simply courtesy to the feelings of others? That's not a question directed at you specifically, just something I wonder about~
My understanding is that US military provides things like housing assistance, family support, etc., to the spouses of their heterosexual members.
Pages
< >>
From what I've read, it seems as though most of us particpating in this thread support repealing DADT, even the more typically conservative posters. Some concerns and challanges have been discussed but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are being used as "excuses" for why openly gay individuals shouldn't be allowed to serve. Most of us have said some variation or another of exactly what you stated above. If anything, I thought that this discussion was actually going pretty well considering that most of us agree that DADT should, and eventually will, be repealed and that the military will have to adjust and imo, be stronger
Chrissy
<<It takes time but I have a feeling most people can reach that point of dealing with their own turmoils over things they are not used to or have a
Chrissy
You know this part of your post really jumps out:
>>I am rather amazed at what I see justified here as excusable conduct - ok to discharge people from their profession because someone else can't adapt and learn to get over their discomfort,<<
Because this is exactly what happened to the poor guy who was joking around on the radio.
What I can't figure out is why there is a need to share for anyone to share their sexual preferences with others. Whatever happened to those things being private out of simply courtesy to the feelings of others? That's not a question directed at you specifically, just something I wonder about.
What I can't figure out is why there is a need to share for anyone to share their sexual preferences with others. Whatever happened to those things being private out of simply courtesy to the feelings of others?
I would assume that people stationed away from their families talk about their spouses or significant others and/or have pictures displayed.
But why would you want to talk about your personal life to someone who didn't want to hear about it? When it's about demanding people listen whether they want to or not then it's agenda based and shows disrespect for the feelings of others.
So while it might hurt one's feelings that others may disapprove or reject their choices I don't think forcing them to listen has an positive purpose at all.
There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance.
But why would you want to talk about your personal life to someone who didn't want to hear about it?
That could go both ways.
~if you could offer any input as to how Canada's military handled allowing gays to openly serve~
Until 1991 they could serve as long as they weren't outed or came out (in which case they
~What I can't figure out is why there is a need to share for anyone to share their sexual preferences with others. Whatever happened to those things being private out of simply courtesy to the feelings of others? That's not a question directed at you specifically, just something I wonder about~
My understanding is that US military provides things like housing assistance, family support, etc., to the spouses of their heterosexual members.
~talk about your personal life to someone who didn't want to hear about it?~
~demanding people listen whether they want to or not~
Who does that knowingly, gay or straight?
Lots of people are fine re: hearing about it, or noticing a call home to their spouse, etc..
<>
Presently, the stakes for gay people in the military are high.
Pages