The fact that many people in the military also feel that homosexuality is equitable to fucking a dog, a fact supported that it shares a term in Websters, is why we should allow those that might be effected the most to decide. I glad you said the dog fucking not me.

And it was rightfully made though considering we were fighting the Japanese. It was a prudent decision.

Gays have never served openly in the U.S.military. What you call paranoia I call maintaining discipline. The same thing that separates women and men billeting.
Not really. Discipline trumps that. Those people were simply replaced. No gay monopoly on learning other languages. It would have been no different if they had gotten killed, gotten sick, or simply completed their contract.

The acts share the term in the dictionary.
Anal or oral intercourse between human beings, or any sexual relations between a human being and an animal, the act of which may be punishable as a criminal offense.
You could be.

Nope, just thinking that when you have a population small enough, and the Asians must have been back then, sometimes "rights" can be suspended to ensure national security. The military can overrule many aspects of life in a time of war. Rationing, curfews, martial law, etc. all are possible during the time of war.
Nope because the military found a reason to do so. I'm sure they would do the same if there were proof of fraternization or adultery as well. Both of which are punishable under the UCMJ. Gays have no monopoly on those jobs. Somebody else will just get promoted into those billets. No one soldier is that important, the military doesn't work like that.

Quote:

What crap. Stay tuned, the end on the ban is coming along with gay marriage. Deal with it.

I will. It's really no big deal. I just disagree with it. I got out of the military 18 years ago, Not my problem.

A fine example of the sputtering I was talking about!

Thanks for the assist in making my point, fx.

Actually, both are institutions. Both have "rules procedures and requirements that don't apply" to people who are not directly involved in the institution in question, respectively.

I disagree, but even if I did not, asking the general public to weigh in on what I call the woman I share my life with is equally ignorant, for precisely the same reasons.

That wasn't your point.

Yeah and people and horse are mammalian carbon based life forms. Yet there are differences. Same as with a marriage vs. the military are both "institutions".

A woman having a mental anomaly that makes her think that sharing her life with another woman is ignorant IMHO. Especially to call that "sharing" marriage is on the agenda.

Thanks, knowuryder, but I feel he's already done more to support my point than any of us could.

And since he included an "IMHO" in his last post, the closest thing I've ever seen to "Sorry, I'm wrong" from him, I was going to just let the matter drop.