MasterP said:
The military isn’t about sexuality, it’s about creating cookie-cutter soldiers. The second you allow sexuality or sexual preference to enter into the equation you instantly create differences between soldiers that no amount of training can compensate for.
If you REALLY care about serving, and that’s the sole reason you’re there, why does it matter that you can’t be openly *edited*. All they want to do is prove a point or show the world they’re *edited*, those making a big deal over this have no interest in serving this country. Being a soldier is a secondary concern to forcing their sexual choices and ideals on the rest of us.
they aren’t forcing anything on us. If anything we are forcing them to be silent. If they say anything, they get the boot. How is that fair? I have a cousin who is openly *edited*, and serves in the Spanish Military. He holds an officer position. He could probably kick the majority of straight tards against this. And he is married (Spain, one of the most catholic countries, allows *edited* marriage lol). Now if he were in the US military, he couldn’t have pictures of his loved one (much less get legally married). He is risking his life and would have to write, view, and communicate back to his family in total seclusion. Any suspicion of someone being *edited* in the army mind you can still lead to an investigation. So how is that fair agian?
oh and the whole cookie cutter soldiers thing is all fine and nice, except…WE LET WOMEN JOIN THE MILITARY. Unlike a *edited* guy, a woman is genetically different than a man. Now I’m no sexist, but by the whole cookie cutter theory, we shouldn’t allow women to fight because they are “inferior to men” in strength and stamina and blah blah.
and contrary to what most republitards think, most military dudes could give a rats *edited* if someone serves openly *edited*. Like you said they are there to fight.