Comments on: Military Mistakenly Recruits On LGBT Web Site http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/10/18/906 News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:08:43 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Ben in oakland http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/10/18/906/comment-page-1#comment-3574 Ben in oakland Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:48:58 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/10/18/906#comment-3574 Is anyone noticing this? Before, we were unfit to serve and we would adversely affect unit cohesion and morale. It's now that we don't meet their "moral standards." Some points: 1) The last time Gen. Pace spoke on the subject, he made it quite clear his opposition to gay people in the miltary stemmed from his upbringing, and that it was not about ability or fitness to serve. 2) Quite apart from the idea that someone who kills other people for a living is eminently qualified to speak on someone else's moral standards, we have... ...3) a brand new rationale that has nothing to do with military service. And... ...4) they have provided, the last I heard, 25000 'moral waivers' for people who could never have gotten in before: people with criminal records and questionable stability. Which leads me to conclude (not that I hadn't already reached this conclusion) that... ...5) This has never been about gay people's fitness to serve, and more than conctitutional amendments are about marriage or sodomy laws are about virtue. It's about prejudice, same as always. Is anyone noticing this? Before, we were unfit to serve and we would adversely affect unit cohesion and morale. It’s now that we don’t meet their “moral standards.”

Some points:

1) The last time Gen. Pace spoke on the subject, he made it quite clear his opposition to gay people in the miltary stemmed from his upbringing, and that it was not about ability or fitness to serve.

2) Quite apart from the idea that someone who kills other people for a living is eminently qualified to speak on someone else’s moral standards, we have…

…3) a brand new rationale that has nothing to do with military service. And…

…4) they have provided, the last I heard, 25000 ‘moral waivers’ for people who could never have gotten in before: people with criminal records and questionable stability.

Which leads me to conclude (not that I hadn’t already reached this conclusion) that…

…5) This has never been about gay people’s fitness to serve, and more than conctitutional amendments are about marriage or sodomy laws are about virtue.

It’s about prejudice, same as always.

]]> By: David http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/10/18/906/comment-page-1#comment-3573 David Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:36:46 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/10/18/906#comment-3573 Gay people are allowed to serve in the military; they just have to keep quiet about being gay. And GLEE doesn't cater only to homosexuals. Its name stands for "Gays, lesbians, and everyone else." So why doesn't glee.com meet the moral standards of the US military? Gay people are allowed to serve in the military; they just have to keep quiet about being gay. And GLEE doesn’t cater only to homosexuals. Its name stands for “Gays, lesbians, and everyone else.” So why doesn’t glee.com meet the moral standards of the US military?

]]> By: David B. http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/10/18/906/comment-page-1#comment-3558 David B. Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:24:39 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/10/18/906#comment-3558 I LOVE that they're advertising for Arabic translators! Too bad advertising can't be legally scene as an offer. I'd love to see them have to take back the translators that were purged!! www.theskinofmyteeth.com David B. I LOVE that they’re advertising for Arabic translators! Too bad advertising can’t be legally scene as an offer. I’d love to see them have to take back the translators that were purged!!

http://www.theskinofmyteeth.com

David B.

]]>