Cornflake wrote:
2ukenkerl wrote:
It was a COMPROMISE that said they were allowed as long as they didn't make it an issue or obvious. THEN, they make it sound like DADT was a BAD thing for them and claimed they "repealed" it. It wasn't repealed, the original rule was overturned. This really only allowed the homosexuals to make it an issue.
Being forced to deny who you are should be an issue for everyone, not just gays willing to sacrifice their lives for their country.
You say: "as long as they didn't make it an issue or obvious"
I say: "but that would require me to live a lie".
How would
you set about denying your sexuality, if you were required to?
And how do you think doing that might affect your ability to function?
Think about it for a while...
It wouldn't cause you to live a lie, OR have a problem functioning. They simply shouldn't have applied. If drafted, they could simply say the truth, and be OUT! You are saying that the majority should have problems because the minority wanted to basically break the law. SILLY at best,
NOW, how about the MAJORITY's ability to function?
Even with women, they could simply keep them separate.