http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/us/05reenlist.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

Don't Ask Don't Tell was flat-out wrong. The veterans who were thrown out because of this should be able to re-enlist without any problems and at their former rank.

FairwoodKing;884348 wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/us/05reenlist.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

Don't Ask Don't Tell was flat-out wrong. The veterans who were thrown out because of this should be able to re-enlist without any problems and at their former rank.

they can sign up just like everyone else. the article says that. they will get no special treatment, which is what gays have been fighting for right?

FairwoodKing;884348 wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/us/05reenlist.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

Don't Ask Don't Tell was flat-out wrong. The veterans who were thrown out because of this should be able to re-enlist without any problems and at their former rank.

While I agree with the restoration in principle, I do still think they should have to be in physical fitness necessary, as well as any other requirements that apply to any re-enlistee.

Glory Days;885530 wrote:they can sign up just like everyone else. the article says that. they will get no special treatment, which is what gays have been fighting for right?

They got "special treatment" when they were thrown out. Now they should be reinstated at their former rank.

Nobody should re-enlist. If they do, they have a screw loose.

FairwoodKing;885735 wrote:They got "special treatment" when they were thrown out. Now they should be reinstated at their former rank.

Doing what, desk duty if their fat rear isn't in shape. They knew the rules when they joined, if I join a company that only allows 21 year olds and older to work there and I work when I'm 19, am found out and let go, does that mean when they change the rules when 18 year olds and older are allowed that I'm 30 they should let me back in?

Two words: Special treatment. Don't kid yourself, you know this.

FairwoodKing;885735 wrote:They got "special treatment" when they were thrown out. Now they should be reinstated at their former rank.

Again, as much as this matters in principle, physical and mental fitness, as well as other preparedness, are a prerequisite for being in the military at all, and are requirements for the purpose of ensuring that those who fight on our behalf (whether we like and agree with what they're commanded to do or not) are the best they can be at doing so.

I'm okay with them being reinstated to their former rank if (a) they display that they have maintained the physical and mental fitness required of everyone else in that position, and (b) they display that they have maintained an aptitude for the actual functions and responsibilities of the position, complete with knowledge of any updated technology with which they would be interacting. Otherwise, however, I would not suggest that they should be restored to their former rank, because they would not have displayed the skills necessary to perform at that rank any longer.

Footwedge;885799 wrote:Nobody should re-enlist. If they do, they have a screw loose.

That's so gay.

FairwoodKing;884348 wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/us/05reenlist.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

Don't Ask Don't Tell was flat-out wrong. The veterans who were thrown out because of this should be able to re-enlist without any problems and at their former rank.

Can I ask why this is "wrong" but the lifestyle isn't?

cruiser_96;885922 wrote:Can I ask why this is "wrong" but the lifestyle isn't?

That opens a whole different can of worms. Perhaps a whole new thread would be in order, even though it's been discussed ad nausea before on this site.

Ok.

But this militant mantra that there is nothing "wrong" with this lifestyle will not stop, nor should my opposition to it. And, I suppose, the great part of it all is, those telling me that there is no wrong have no bases to tell me I'm wrong for opposing such a lifestyle!

Toodles.

cruiser_96;886269 wrote:Ok.

But this militant mantra that there is nothing "wrong" with this lifestyle will not stop, nor should my opposition to it.

How does the lifestyle of someone else affect you?

Oh. I see. So the argument isn't is it right or wrong. The argument has shifted to how does it effect me?

Is the lifestyle right or wrong?

cruiser_96;886351 wrote:Oh. I see. So the argument isn't is it right or wrong. The argument has shifted to how does it effect me?

Is the lifestyle right or wrong?

I see nothing wrong with it.

You do realize that there are THOUSANDS of people charged with rape who are currently behind bars that use the same reasoning, no?

Now don't go shifting the argument again.

cruiser_96;886375 wrote:You do realize that there are THOUSANDS of people charged with rape who are currently behind bars that use the same reasoning, no?

Now don't go shifting the argument again.

What reasoning is that? Please explain.

believer;885874 wrote:That's so gay.

RE-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-PS

They saw nothing wrong with it so they did it!!! The reasoning as you. So this begs te question: who determines right and wrong? If you say the individual, then why is anything anyone does "wrong"?

cruiser_96;886411 wrote:They saw nothing wrong with it so they did it!!! The reasoning as you. So this begs te question: who determines right and wrong? If you say the individual, then why is anything anyone does "wrong"?

Did you really equate being gay with being a rapist?

Did you really just change the argument again?

Simpler terms: person A wants to do something. They do it. This equals not wrong.

cruiser_96;886415 wrote:Did you really just change the argument again?

No, asking a question is not making an argument. I'm looking for an answer to what I believed to be a simple question.

queencitybuckeye;886414 wrote:Did you really equate being gay with being a rapist?

He did and it's a stupid analogy. Rapists violate someone else's person, and they tend to do it violently. How violence against another human being equates to two people of the same gender loving one another, having sex or whatever they're doing escapes all logic and reason of most reasoned people.

cruiser_96;886420 wrote:Simpler terms: person A wants to do something. They do it. This equals not wrong.

Incomplete. More correct is: person A wants to do something. That something is not done against the will or the rights of any other person. This equals not wrong.

Who says it's wrong?

Writer: I did not. Person a wanted to do something so they did it. You weigh the result. I identified the motives. To which was my point.