Actually I think what people want is a source that supports your position that *** men in a shower with straight men is the same as straight men in a shower with women. So before you change your argument for the 3rd time. Answer my question from page 2.
Wait, so you want a source that says that homosexual men are no different than heterosexual men except for sexual interest? That's interesting. How are you fighting for "Equality" if you're doubting the equality? I'm sure I could whip one up, but as I mentioned in previous threads, those types of sources will be biased to whatever you're trying to prove.
What question from page 2? I'm sure I addressed it.
If you are already serving with *** men, are already living/showering with *** men. What difference does DADT make, outside allowing those *** men to come out, and in retrospect allow you to avoid those men if you feel uncomfortable. So I ask again, what is your issue, either you can tolerate gays, or you can't, either you are a bigot, or you are not.
My issue is people calling men bigots for feeling uncomfortable showering with homosexual men. I already explained the difference with the repeal of DADT. No one is denying the existence of homosexuals. Homosexuals don't walk around with a Scarlett Letter, so ANYONE can be a homosexual. It's all psychological, the same psychological thoughts that women have with men. There's no proof that the man next to her is remotely interested in her, yet he is separated as if he causes an increase of a threat.
Ill repeat this again because I am sure your mind has already tried to skew what I said for your own awkward outlook on things. You already live/shower with *** men, the only thing that is changing is those *** men can say if they are or not. So either you can tolerate being around *** men (like you do now unknowingly) or you can't (knowingly) which means you are either a bigot or you are not.
None that I can think of. I suspect that's one of two things going on there. A stall, to allow the homophobes to adjust or rhetoric, designed to placate the homophobes a bit.
Besides the fact that would contradict the claim that the military welcomes the repeal, the quotes I presented to you stated that he needed time to implement further separation.
Slow moving bureaucracy? Taking X many days to do something doesn't mean that doing something requires X many days.
Read above. If everyone is "for the repeal", then there wouldn't be any slow moving bureaucracy. If the plan is to implement further separation among servicemen and the rewriting of the UCMJ, I'm sure that will take more than 40 days and probably longer than a year.
Hahaha... nice strawman but you still managed to dork it up. Politicians matter because the new regulations will be determined by them. Gates, Mullen & Obama will ultimately decide the new rules, not Casey or Amos or whoever else. But, you know, feel free to keep saying "You only believe them because you think they never lie!" That was truly a cutting remark and stuff.
For that matter, the Chiefs of Staff are politicians. They are political appointees and serve at the pleasure of the president as they serve in a decision-making capacity in his administration. They may not act "political" in your eyes but they are definitely politicians.
I know Mr. Gates, Mr. Mullen and President Obama ultimately decide the new rules, but they aren't the ones that best understand what's going on. That was my point, not who makes the rules, but who is most knowledgeable on the situation. It's the Chiefs of Staff, that's why they advise the President and that's why Mr. Obama is allowing them the time to implement the changes. If the President isn't going to listen to the staff, then there is no point in having a staff.
Of course they are "politicians", that's why they didn't just come out and say that DADT shouldn't be repealed. If they thought the repeal was so necessary, they would have been fighting it all along, not when a new president comes in. FYI: The biggest difference between an officer in the military vs the enlisted, is politics. All Officers are "politicians" on different levels.