Comments on: ‘WaPo’ Explains Soldier’s Gay Omission http://www.queerty.com/wapo-explains-soldiers-gay-omission-20080331/ Free of an agenda. Except that gay one. Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:19:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: kiltnc http://www.queerty.com/wapo-explains-soldiers-gay-omission-20080331/#comment-47429 kiltnc Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:37:20 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/wapo-explains-soldiers-gay-omission-20080331/#comment-47429 DADT is more that our right to serve and fight. It's about human rights. How can the Repugs tell us we are not worthy to have equal rights after we have served this country as service members? In reference to the Major, it should be notated that he was was working to remove DADT. They should make note of that on his OBIT. DADT is more that our right to serve and fight. It’s about human rights. How can the Repugs tell us we are not worthy to have equal rights after we have served this country as service members?

In reference to the Major, it should be notated that he was was working to remove DADT. They should make note of that on his OBIT.

]]> By: Peter Pan http://www.queerty.com/wapo-explains-soldiers-gay-omission-20080331/#comment-47411 Peter Pan Tue, 01 Apr 2008 06:25:58 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/wapo-explains-soldiers-gay-omission-20080331/#comment-47411 Should Slain Soldier's Sexuality Have Been Published? No! No need to state whether he was gay, straight or whatever. The man is dead. Let him rest! Should Slain Soldier’s Sexuality Have Been Published?

No! No need to state whether he was gay, straight or whatever. The man is dead. Let him rest!

]]> By: Jaroslaw http://www.queerty.com/wapo-explains-soldiers-gay-omission-20080331/#comment-47406 Jaroslaw Tue, 01 Apr 2008 04:24:08 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/wapo-explains-soldiers-gay-omission-20080331/#comment-47406 M Shane - if you're replying to me, thanks, but I have no clue what you're trying to say. "not enforced as such?" OK, they don't check each and every servicemember on a weekly basis but the military certainly does investigations and spends gobs on money on them and drums out people that have been invested in heavily then turns the tables and asks these same people to pay back their training. Yes, the law is reprehensible - I think anyone on this blog would concur with that. And your last sentence "can you imagine if they made that a qualification for employment DADT." What are you trying to say there? Thanks. M Shane – if you’re replying to me, thanks, but I have no clue what you’re trying to say. “not enforced as such?” OK, they don’t check each and every servicemember on a weekly basis but the military certainly does investigations and spends gobs on money on them and drums out people that have been invested in heavily then turns the tables and asks these same people to pay back their training. Yes, the law is reprehensible – I think anyone on this blog would concur with that. And your last sentence “can you imagine if they made that a qualification for employment DADT.” What are you trying to say there? Thanks.

]]> By: M Shane http://www.queerty.com/wapo-explains-soldiers-gay-omission-20080331/#comment-47369 M Shane Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:07:50 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/wapo-explains-soldiers-gay-omission-20080331/#comment-47369 DADT is not 'enforced as such. It only tells people that if they want to fight they have to lie well. It's a morally reprehensable law if anything. The real story is that to fight in the American Army the guy had to lie about who he was. Although the war is criminal, and he didn't belong there in the first place, the principle should be pointed out-on top of lieing he ended up dying . Can you imagine if they made that a qualification for employment DADT. DADT is not ‘enforced as such. It only tells people that if they want to fight they have to lie well. It’s a morally reprehensable law if anything. The real story is that to fight in the American Army the guy had to lie about who he was. Although the war is criminal, and he didn’t belong there in the first place, the principle should be pointed out-on top of lieing he ended up dying .
Can you imagine if they made that a qualification for employment DADT.

]]> By: Jaroslaw http://www.queerty.com/wapo-explains-soldiers-gay-omission-20080331/#comment-47367 Jaroslaw Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:42:19 +0000 http://www.queerty.com/wapo-explains-soldiers-gay-omission-20080331/#comment-47367 I thought he was an activist working to overturn the DADT policy. If so, then put that in. You don't have to be Gay to oppose DADT. It is a huge waste of time, money and talent to enforce. I thought he was an activist working to overturn the DADT policy. If so, then put that in. You don’t have to be Gay to oppose DADT. It is a huge waste of time, money and talent to enforce.

]]>