http://www.gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=9286#comment-379944

Enjoy.

You are very good at creating strawman arguments to argue against. Unfortunately for you I am good at seeing them for what they are.

The antics of Code Pink and the Folsom Street Fair have nothing whatsoever to do with this the military ban. This is probably why the SLDN has never concerned itself with such nonsense as its sole raison d’etre is to help service members affected by DADT. In any event the behavior of SLDN is itself irrelevant to this discussion.

The military doesn’t exist to provide self-actualization. It exists to defend our country and protect us from some really rotten people, and in the process, it quite often has to tromp all over personal convenience.

This is in no way an answer to my comment, which was a response to Ignatius’ assertion (and your agreement) that gay soldiers who want the ban lifted simply want the ability to “flout their sexuality” in the service.

We all know perfectly well why the armed services exist and that service members must make sacrifices to serve. The question here is why homosexuals must make sacrifices that heterosexuals are not required to make.

To gay liberals, being able to make out with your boyfriend in public is more important than either military efficiency or effectiveness.

That may very well be, but it doesn’t matter in the slightest. All that matters are actual results.

The presence of open homosexuals in the military will either harm its efficiency and effectiveness or it won’t. I’ve honestly seen no good arguments that it will; if you have any please present them. We all know that the current policy costs the military hundreds of capable members.

Furthermore, if open homosexuals in the armed forces does present a problem, why can’t it be dealt with by discharging homophobes instead of gays? In short, why does the need for a capable military provide a moral rational for supporting irrational prejudice? If you are going to support the ban that is the question you must answer.

quite sad.

Yes it would take a CinC to have the testicular fortitude to tell the courts/ACLU to take a flying leap. Something like “This is a volunteer army, everyone agrees to the UCMJ, and to follow it. Check your civilian rights at the door.” And then essentially tell the courts to try to enforce their decision.

ILC, yes, it’s wrong. just shows your mortal. OTOH, we had a successful movie about an idiot savant. If they made one about bob, it would be half as successful.

“I also point out that it’s not up to the military to defend its policy. Rather, it’s incumbent on those of us who wish it changed to show how that change would positively affect the mission.

As long as we insist (and I’m not sure if that’s what you’re doing with your comment, so no offense meant here) that it’s the military that should defend its current policy, we’re fighting from the wrong perspective.

To that end, while your point is valid, it’s not germane. Unless there is evidence that changing the policy would actually improve morale, simply saying it might not hurt isn’t going to cut it.”

Now I can think of a number of civilian reasons, and maybe a few military ones, but I’ll leave that as an exercise for others.

i’d be willing to bet a good sum that NDT is quite troll-ish.

Is it wrong for me to get intellectual and emotional pleasure from my knowledge of how very… extraordinarily… *little*… bob knows? I mean, I truly know *so* much more than bob on this question; as on many other questions. Is it wrong that that gives me a certain kind of enjoyment?

As examples like the Folsom Street Fair make clear to us, liberals consider it “homophobic” to enforce laws that in any way impede upon or limit sexual behavior by gays in public and thus, refuse to do so. What should lead us to believe that they would allow the UCMJ to be enforced against gay soldiers?

One would think, Tom, that, being an organization who supposedly supports all members of the armed services, they would have something to say about an organization like Code Pink that says that all members of the armed services are “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”, “baby-killers”, and “murderers”, or people who badmouth the military in an attempt to get rid of the JROTC program or the donation of a battleship they don’t like.

You’re right, I don’t expect them to care — because, as a leftist gay organization, they must support their leftist anti-military allies first and foremost, no matter how hypocritical it makes them look and how much it makes obvious that gays are anti-military.

and gay or not, i’d be willing to bet a good sum that NDT is quite troll-ish.

And they don’t. All they need do is not enlist in the military, and it won’t be a problem.

Meanwhile, boob, if outing is such an awful thing, why do you and your fellow gay liberals like Mike Rogers fully endorse, support, and justify it?

You apparently assume that the SLDN is a liberal organization. They are concerned with one thing. And one thing only. Repealing DADT. You shouldn’t expect them to care about what goes in Berkeley. Its not on their radar.

Besides, since you think that anyone who dares not hide their orientation apparently deserves to get kicked out of the military, you probably shouldn’t give them advice. You apparently don’t support their agenda (of believing that Gays are not prima facie unfit for military service, even if someone knows that they have a boyfriend)

furthermore, how exactly does a guy seen kissing his boyfriend (anymore than a guy seen kissing his girlfriend) detract from the military’s mission?

The military doesn’t exist to provide self-actualization. It exists to defend our country and protect us from some really rotten people, and in the process, it quite often has to tromp all over personal convenience.

If you want to do all of these things, there’s a whole civilian world out there that lets you do it quite nicely. If you prefer the military world, these are the ground rules, and if you can’t live by them, you shouldn’t be in the military.

To gay liberals, being able to make out with your boyfriend in public is more important than either military efficiency or effectiveness. That’s their opinion, and they’re welcome to it; however, they should be honest that their first priority is setting aside military readiness or concerns in favor of advancing their own agenda.

Somehow, I doubt that would be nearly as popular.

Though he does have an impressive build, and I do like the fight choreography. I prefer Transporter 1 though. The female lead was hot.