I’m sure some would feel relieved to the issue gone.But not forget even after it is lifted, non straights will still feel the aftermath.

I have “stalked” no one on this site. Isaac is the only example you can come up with of me blurring threads. The reason is because he is vocally wrong and unbending in his false beliefs and opinions. He provides no argument, and bloviates ad nauseam about these pernicious meme fueled opinions. I took and gave some lumps in a religion thread. Perhaps that’s what you’re referring to. I will not sit idly by and allow religious and confused gay people to defend the institutions which deny us our basic civil rights and human dignity.

I demand more examples to substantiate your accusation that I”m a bully who has stalked “Several” people on this site. You have no basis for making such a charge, and should consider it disputed. It is more abuse from you; but more, it is LIBEL (and brother, did you pick the wrong person to take your bad day out on). I like a lively debate, and am at least honest about that. If that constitutes bullying to you, then you should have more stimulating conversations.

I have no respect for overly dramatic, name calling dolts who cannot provide EVIDENCE to support their baseless accusations. YOU are like the religionistas who claim most favorable martyrdom whenever their bigotry is called onto the carpet. How dare you compare me to a homophobic bigot! You have no call to do so, and I demand an apology…lol.

OF course this abusive go around is embarrassing. But adjust your diaper, dave, because it’s all over.

I don’t deny it. My attack on you was a result of months of watching you bully your way around this site. You launch unprovoked attacks against people. Take Isaac as an example:

He expressed an opinion others also expressed in response to this article. Identical opinions were expressed both before and after his post. However, you launched into a deeply personal and vicious attack against him – no one else.

And seeing as you constantly demand evidence, here it is:

“Isaac is foolish and extremely naive.”

You launched an attack on an opinion expressed by multiple people here, but targeted one person. When that person requested that you do not address them and said they have no interest in communicating with you, you called them naive and foolish in an attempt to provoke that person into an argument.

And this is not the only time you’ve done it. I’ve seen you stalk people through various articles over the past year, attacking them and only them time and time again until they stop posting. Isaac is just your latest “victim”.

So yes, I launched straight into an attack on you, because I’m sick and tired of seeing you bully, harass and abuse people here. The way you treat them is no different to the way many in the gay community are treated every single day by the small-minded bigots they are forced to face.

You are clearly capable of researching facts. You clearly have knowledge. You just lack the mental maturity to debate an issue without abusing and threatening others.

And Dave W, you’re absolutely right. This is embarrassing. It is embarrassing that a seemingly respectable service like 365Gay would allow a parasite like Tank to continue abusing people here. Fortunately there are other sites he does not appear to have invaded, and so I will take my leave of this one and continue these discussions with mature adults elsewhere.

I apologize if my words upset you in any way, Dave, but I can’t abide bullies, and that is precisely what Tank is.

Jack Henden

PLEASE don’t drag me into your blithering with my comment…I just had to say how appalled I am at the language and behaviour.

Re-read what you have all said, it is embarrassing.

Moderator?????

Ad hominem, and hypocritical (you started the name calling in your exchange with me, POPS). No argument. I am doing no such thing.

“Nonsense. “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” put an end to the witchhunts that were common in the US military at the time, whereby serving men and women would be interrogated by military police if an allegation was made that they were gay or a senior officer had suspicions.”—isaac
I renew my charge that you are a liar, Jack.

“For the sake of others here, I will say this again – I am VIOLENTLY opposed to DADT, it was the ONLY reason I left the military after 23 years of service. I believe that the only good thing about DADT is that it meant the issue of gays in the military had finally made it onto the political agenda, where it has remained ever since (stagnant, but present).”

Nonetheless, calling it an on paper improvement isn’t really condemning, is it?

“DADT was INTENDED to be an improvement on what existed before, and ON PAPER it was just that.”

I disagree that it was even an on paper improvement. Why? An improvement carries over to some aspect of one’s life by making it better…it made no lesbian and gay servicemember’s life better in any way.

“President Clinton pledged to allow gays to serve openly in the military when he was fighting for election, and he tried, somewhat, to fulfill that promise.”

How did he try, somewhat to fulfill that promise? By attempting to get the ban on gay and lesbians lifted entirely. Why is that? Court case…out of san Francisco, maybe? Dumbass.

“DADT was the “compromise” policy that resulted. He saw it as a “compromise”. The military saw it as a “compromise”. The press and public at the time saw it as a “compromise”.”

But it wasn’t a compromise. I mean , you’re brainwashed if you think so. It was done because the congressional messageboards were flooded by homophobes, dumbass. He changed his tune because of it. It only looks like a compromise to stupid people…apparently, stupid people like you. No positive change occurred in the lives of gay and lesbian servicemembers.

“A compromise, by its very nature, is middle ground between to opposing positions.”

But, it wasn’t. It made into policy what already occurred in the military—serving in the closet. How is that compromise? Doesn’t compromise seek to satisfy at least SOME of one side’s demands? That didn’t. You’re brainwashed. I think years of service have caused you to defend DADT in spite of being against it! That’s what it sounds like to everyone else.

“Thus, the intention was that DADT would be a step towards allowing gays to serve openly. It wasn’t. In theory it should have stopped investigations into individual servicemen and women unless there was evidence of homosexual behavior.”

Not even in principle or theory. Have you any idea how vague and unclear dadt is worded? Have you? It stops nothing as a direct result of that unclear vague wording. Hell, before dadt, investigations into individual servicemembers shouldn’t have occurred unless there was evidence of homosexual behavior…but under both dadt and the previous ban, accusations and rumors constitute evidence.

“In practice it stopped nothing, and there is evidence that DADT has resulted in MORE servicemen and women being forced out of the military.”

In principle it stopped nothing, either. You see, practice of implementing dadt operates within the letter of dadt.

“What Tank cannot get his puny brain around is the fact that there is a difference between intention and reality. The INTENTION of DADT was to improve things for gays and lesbians in the military.”

You’re very naïve and stupid if you think that was the intention behind dadt. The intention behind dadt was to satisfy and appease the bigots opposed to homosexuals serving. It was a political move carried out to salvage political careers due to political fears. It had nothing to do with improving the lives of gays and lesbians—though the token effort was supposed to make stupid gays and lesbians think that the government cared about them with such political buzzwords as “temporary” or “transition policy” as new data was accumulated.

“The REALITY was that it was a token gesture that achieved nothing other than ensuring that the issue remained firmly on the political agenda. As a result, the matter has been raised, discussed and considered repeatedly since DADT was enacted, and is being considered again now – only this time there is a real chance it might be repealed.”

A real chance? Not anytime soon according to Obama.

“Nobody in their right mind would defend the DADT policy itself,”

But, you see, that’s what you’re doing by calling it an improvement of some kind…

“but the intentions behind it and the political ramifications were a step in the right direction,”

The intent of appeasing homophobic bigots to salvage political careers while snowing the queers into thinking that they matter to the democratic party?

“even if the policy was not. That’s my opinion, and if, unlike Tank, you can disagree without becoming threatening or abusive, I look forward to hearing your opinion.”

I don’t think it was even an on paper improvement. An improvement means some positive change occurred in the lives of lesbian and gay servicemembers. That didn’t occur; therefore, a change on paper was just a change on paper codifying previously existing realities within the armed services—serving in the closet.

“As for my assertion that repealing DADT would only be the start of the battle, that is more than backed up by evidence. Public opinion is vastly in favor of allowing gays to serve openly in the military, with three-quarters of the American public saying DADT should be repealed and gays should be allowed to serve openly.
HOWEVER, polls within the military create a very different picture,”

And polls taken of military personnel say that they have no difficulty serving alongside lesbians and gays and that most personnel have no problems with lesbians and gays. The polling data conflicts—you’re obviously referring to the AP poll, and not the military times poll, which indicates a positive change in attitude.

“ showing that only around a quarter of serving personnel would support allowing gays to serve openly. Only an idiot would believe that simply repealing DADT would change this figure to any substantive degree.”

No. Once the institutional mechanism validating the minority of those who actually are homophobic is stripped away, it creates an environment intolerant of their views and provides an actual incentive for them to change them. This increases both the overt attitude adjustment and implicit one in terms of time.

“History DOES show that when discriminatory legislation is repealed, attitudes begin to change, but it doesn’t follow that merely repealing that legislation results in change.”

No, but it is the best way of going about changing those attitudes. Real punishments for REAL abuse based on real bad beliefs…

“ Change takes place as people adapt, as laws are introduced to protect those previously subject of the discrimination, as people see that the world has not come to an end by granting rights to a minority.”

Right. It creates an environment in which change occurs faster and more efficiently than otherwise could be achieved with the support of the institution behind the bigot.

“Repealing DADT is only the start of the battle.”

No, it’s much much more than that. It’s one of the most significant parts of the “battle”.

“It needs to be followed by legislation and changes in military rules to protect openly gay servicemen and women from bullying and harassment, to ensure that they are not targeted by senior officers, to enable them to serve without fear, without intimidation.”

And there are sexual harassment laws in place, and if ENDA is passed, that will also apply.

”Tank’s attitude that repealing DADT is all that it will take is a dangerous one.”

I didn’t say that. Your attitude that repealing DADT is only a baby step forward is delusional. It is the most significant move in the battle for open integration into the armed services.

“ It’s like finding a man swimming in shark infested waters and throwing him a life jacket. You’ll keep him afloat, but you won’t keep the sharks at bay.”
It’s nothing like that. There are workplace protections that lesbian and gay servicemembers cannot access because they are closeted –like sexual harassment codes.

“Once DADT is repealed there will need to be a lot of work done to change attitudes within the military,”

Right, but this will obviously occur at
a much faster rate without the bureaucracy behind those attitudes endorsing them and protecting them. Further, your numbers are skewed. Go to the military times and see their polling data on this issue.

“ and a lot of rules put in place to protect a group that has, until now, been subject to intense discrimination and abuse. Unless that is done, you may as well leave DADT in place, because the discrimination and abuse will continue. Simply saying that someone is allowed in your club doesn’t mean the other members will let them through the door.”

That is idiotic. If DADT were repealed, these attitudes will change because those who harbor and act upon them will be punished to the fullest extent of the military codes enacted to protect servicemembers from harassment—they will have an incentive to do it, because discrimination of lesbians and gays will no longer be tolerated at the institutional level, and serious complaints with TEETH can be finally be made.

“Well, that’s my opinion, based on 23 years of service and first hand experience of the situation before and after DADT. I am more than happy to hear people out if they disagree, but please try to do so without attacking me, without saying my opinion isn’t valid because you disagree with it, and ideally without resorting to threats. Ultimately, the majority of us want the same thing.”

You began by attacking me. Remember that.

For the sake of others here, I will say this again – I am VIOLENTLY opposed to DADT, it was the ONLY reason I left the military after 23 years of service. I believe that the only good thing about DADT is that it meant the issue of gays in the military had finally made it onto the political agenda, where it has remained ever since (stagnant, but present).

DADT was INTENDED to be an improvement on what existed before, and ON PAPER it was just that. President Clinton pledged to allow gays to serve openly in the military when he was fighting for election, and he tried, somewhat, to fulfill that promise. DADT was the “compromise” policy that resulted. He saw it as a “compromise”. The military saw it as a “compromise”. The press and public at the time saw it as a “compromise”.

A compromise, by its very nature, is middle ground between to opposing positions. Thus, the intention was that DADT would be a step towards allowing gays to serve openly. It wasn’t. In theory it should have stopped investigations into individual servicemen and women unless there was evidence of homosexual behavior. In practice it stopped nothing, and there is evidence that DADT has resulted in MORE servicemen and women being forced out of the military.

What Tank cannot get his puny brain around is the fact that there is a difference between intention and reality. The INTENTION of DADT was to improve things for gays and lesbians in the military. The REALITY was that it was a token gesture that achieved nothing other than ensuring that the issue remained firmly on the political agenda. As a result, the matter has been raised, discussed and considered repeatedly since DADT was enacted, and is being considered again now – only this time there is a real chance it might be repealed.

Nobody in their right mind would defend the DADT policy itself, but the intentions behind it and the political ramifications were a step in the right direction, even if the policy was not. That’s my opinion, and if, unlike Tank, you can disagree without becoming threatening or abusive, I look forward to hearing your opinion.

As for my assertion that repealing DADT would only be the start of the battle, that is more than backed up by evidence. Public opinion is vastly in favor of allowing gays to serve openly in the military, with three-quarters of the American public saying DADT should be repealed and gays should be allowed to serve openly.

HOWEVER, polls within the military create a very different picture, showing that only around a quarter of serving personnel would support allowing gays to serve openly. Only an idiot would believe that simply repealing DADT would change this figure to any substantive degree.

History DOES show that when discriminatory legislation is repealed, attitudes begin to change, but it doesn’t follow that merely repealing that legislation results in change. Change takes place as people adapt, as laws are introduced to protect those previously subject of the discrimination, as people see that the world has not come to an end by granting rights to a minority.

Repealing DADT is only the start of the battle. It needs to be followed by legislation and changes in military rules to protect openly gay servicemen and women from bullying and harassment, to ensure that they are not targeted by senior officers, to enable them to serve without fear, without intimidation.

Tank’s attitude that repealing DADT is all that it will take is a dangerous one. It’s like finding a man swimming in shark infested waters and throwing him a life jacket. You’ll keep him afloat, but you won’t keep the sharks at bay.

Once DADT is repealed there will need to be a lot of work done to change attitudes within the military, and a lot of rules put in place to protect a group that has, until now, been subject to intense discrimination and abuse. Unless that is done, you may as well leave DADT in place, because the discrimination and abuse will continue. Simply saying that someone is allowed in your club doesn’t mean the other members will let them through the door.

Well, that’s my opinion, based on 23 years of service and first hand experience of the situation before and after DADT. I am more than happy to hear people out if they disagree, but please try to do so without attacking me, without saying my opinion isn’t valid because you disagree with it, and ideally without resorting to threats. Ultimately, the majority of us want the same thing.

Once again, it’s hard to see what you are defending here given your ad hominems and bare assertions.

“That said, I don’t see where Isaac claimed that the witch hunts and interrogations STOPPED. If he did, I would disagree.”

I’m not going to review this, but you should, as he did say just that.

“DADT did change the nature of the witch hunts, in that many were less overt, less obvious, but it did nothing to make homosexual men and women feel any less victimized. If anything, it made us feel more like we had a dirty little secret that must be kept under wraps at all cost.”

It did? I’ve heard testimony from many that it increased the severity and incidents of witch hunts. I’ll not dispute your personal testimony, but I won’t from those who told me that, either. And it really changed nothing, apparently.

“In my EXPERIENCE, DADT made a difference only in that for a brief time gay servicemen like myself saw a glimmer of hope as we waited for our government to take the next step on the road to allowing gays to serve openly. That step still has not been taken.”

So a glimmer of hope. I guess that justifies DADT, huh? I trust you’re not saying that…

“What I’m saying, little man,”

Go to hell. I’m the same height as General George. And the intended sleight is totally off base.

“is that you have threatened and insulted others, but don’t seem to like it when it’s directed at you. If you can’t carry on a civilized discussion without resorting to abuse, you don’t get to bitch when abuse is directed at you.”

According to whom? You? You know nothing. You aren’t my peer or even close to it. Far from my superior, even. Yes, I’m an elitist. I insult people WHILE providing arguments against them. I do not just insult people with no provocation and without argument. You do. Contrary to cliché, elitism is a good thing.

“My point wasn’t that hard to grasp.”

And I grasped it…you have no real point.

“You attacked Isaac”

Exactly. You have no point.

“because he offered an opinion that you decided wasn’t legitimate because he lacked direct experience with the military.”

Not just because of that, dimwit! Read again. I haven’t the energy to repeat myself, especially to the likes of you.

“Ignoring the hypocrisy of that argument, as you have no direct experience either,”

So what? My argument against his position that DADT was an improvement to the previous policy was far more than just that he had no experience in the u.s. military, asshat! Read again.

“I came along, having served for 23 years, and offered an opinion based on my experience – and you decided that opinion wasn’t valid either.

Why?

Please explain to me why my opinion is not valid, because the only reason I can see for your claim that it’s not is because you disagree with it.”

No. I simply stated that your opinion that DADT was an on paper improvement was incorrect. I justified it, too, by providing criterion. The end. Your assertions that I’m a bully, etc. are completely without merit. I criticize opinion that are false and arguments that are invalid. Period.

“But ok – it was a step in the right direction in that it acknowledged our status. It acknowledged we existed.”

So did the out and out ban on lesbians and gays serving. I didn’t consider that a step in the right direction, either.

“You stated that you can “see both sides of it being that DADT is an improvement over preexisting policy and that it is not.
Where did I say that?”

“I can see Isaac’s point about DADT being an improvement on what existed before,”–that’s where.

“You have defended Isaac’s assertions in saying that, for example, witch hunts based on DADT no longer occur and that interrogations don’t occur, either.
Where did I do that?”

See above.

“I said I could see Isaac’s point of view, but that I did not agree that there had been any actual improvement in the situation for gays and lesbians.”
No, but you did above. Inconsistent.

“You attack, abuse and even threaten people who disagree with you. I’ve been a visitor here for over a year and have seen you attack people repeatedly in that time, even driving some away with your aggressive and abusive behavior. You are entitled to disagree with people, but not to threaten and abuse them for having a different view to yours. You may consider yourself passionate, but to most reasonable people you appear to be nothing more than a bully.”

Evidence? You’ve got none.

“You see, I don’t think you have. “

It hardly matters. You don’t think.

“I think you are of the opinion that if you shout loud enough that constitutes “providing an argument”.”

You’re of the wrong opinion. Read what I wrote.

“Do you think you can take the time to read what I actually said?”

I have. You’ve said nothing relevant.

“I said that these things will follow the repeal of DADT and we shouldn’t see repealing DADT as our goal,”

But we should. You’ve provided no reasoned argument for why we shouldn’t.

“but rather changing attitudes within the military machine.”

The attitudes have changed since it was enacted. See surveys. Visit the SLDN.

“Repealing DADT will be a victory, but it will not be the end of the battle. That was my point, not that we shouldn’t try. Do you understand now or do you need me to write it in crayon?”

You fail to comprehend.

“And that battle will be easier to win than continuing to allow a discriminatory baseless policy which is founded upon and perpetuates injustice.

NO! MORON!

Repealing DADT is the easy part. Once it is repealed we need regulations protecting gay and lesbian soldiers from discrimination, we need drastic measures to change attitudes within the military and we need ongoing monitoring to ensure that those gay servicemen and women who choose to serve openly are protected from mistreatment.”

Attitudes have changed. But that is not the point. These attitudes will change faster in the absence of institutional discrimination validating them than not. This is the historical fact. See desegregation of the armed services.

“Repealing DADT is only the start of the battle, and it is the easiest part of it. You really are thick if you don’t get that.”

No. Without the institutional machinery validating bigotry, the attitudes will go with disciplinary action that would attend discrimination in the absence of DADT. You are an ass.

As hard as this might be for you to grasp, I defend what I said, not what other people say. All I said about Isaac is that I could see his point, not that I agreed with him.

That said, I don’t see where Isaac claimed that the witch hunts and interrogations STOPPED. If he did, I would disagree. DADT did change the nature of the witch hunts, in that many were less overt, less obvious, but it did nothing to make homosexual men and women feel any less victimized. If anything, it made us feel more like we had a dirty little secret that must be kept under wraps at all cost.

In my EXPERIENCE, DADT made a difference only in that for a brief time gay servicemen like myself saw a glimmer of hope as we waited for our government to take the next step on the road to allowing gays to serve openly. That step still has not been taken.

“I’m stating a fact that you’ve offered no argument and have threatened and name called without any justification. Additionally, I don’t respond well to baseless threats and name calling. That means a lot of things, none of which translate to me not being able to take it.”

What I’m saying, little man, is that you have threatened and insulted others, but don’t seem to like it when it’s directed at you. If you can’t carry on a civilized discussion without resorting to abuse, you don’t get to bitch when abuse is directed at you.

“What is your point? You don’t seem to have one. You’ve wasted a good portion of this thread personally attacking me and defending isaac’s claim that DADT was an improvement on preexisting policy”

My point wasn’t that hard to grasp. You attacked Isaac because he offered an opinion that you decided wasn’t legitimate because he lacked direct experience with the military. Ignoring the hypocrisy of that argument, as you have no direct experience either, I came along, having served for 23 years, and offered an opinion based on my experience – and you decided that opinion wasn’t valid either.

Why?

Please explain to me why my opinion is not valid, because the only reason I can see for your claim that it’s not is because you disagree with it.

As for me defending Isaac’s opinion – I haven’t. I’ve kicked your backside for acting like a brat. I will let Isaac fight his own battles while I offer my own opinion.

“If you can’t, then your defense of a “move in the right direction” and on paper improvement is simply absurd and not worth considering.”

In your opinion, for what little it’s worth.

But ok – it was a step in the right direction in that it acknowledged our status. It acknowledged we existed. It meant that the issue was being considered. It changed little, if anything, but at last the issue of gays in the military was getting serious political attention.

If you don’t consider that a step in the right direction you don’t even qualify for the title “halfwit”.

“You stated that you can “see both sides of it” being that DADT is an improvement over preexisting policy and that it is not.”

Where did I say that?

“You have defended Isaac’s assertions in saying that, for example, witch hunts based on DADT no longer occur and that interrogations don’t occur, either.”

Where did I do that?

Go on – actually read what I’ve said in my three previous posts. You’ll find I did not say I could “see both sides”. You’ll find I did not defend Isaac’s argument. In fact, if you bothered to read what other people say, you’ll see I did the exact OPPOSITE.

I said I could see Isaac’s point of view, but that I did not agree that there had been any actual improvement in the situation for gays and lesbians. As I’ve said here, it offered a glimmer of hope, it meant that gays in the military had finally made it onto the political agenda after so many years of politicians deciding that it was a military decision and they had no business getting involved, but it made not practical changes other than making the victimization a little less obvious at times.

I certainly did not claim that witch hunts no longer occur and I did not claim that interrogations no longer occur. Please read what other people say – it stops you from looking like such an ass when you falsely accuse them of saying things they didn’t.

“For you to suggest that it is an improvement on previous policy because it no longer causes people to suffer witch hunts and interrogations (you have aligned yourself with isaac’s defense of it as an improvement, keep in mind), you are discouraging the critical analysis of the policy required to reverse it.”

As I’ve said above – I did not defend Isaac’s position, nor did I align myself with him. I offered my own opinion which was quite different from Isaac’s, and said that DADT made no practical improvements.

However, I don’t see how Isaac’s comments discourage anything when it comes to discussing DADT. I see where he says repeatedly that he is opposed to DADT. I’ve seen other posts in the past where he’s said he’s opposed to DADT. I seem to remember him posting something last year about how repealing DADT should be Obama’s biggest priority. Still, that’s his battle to fight.

Mine doesn’t need fighting. You are accusing me of saying things I haven’t said and thinking things I don’t think. You are a liar and a fool.

“How have I not allowed anyone to have an opinion other than my own?”

You attack, abuse and even threaten people who disagree with you. I’ve been a visitor here for over a year and have seen you attack people repeatedly in that time, even driving some away with your aggressive and abusive behavior. You are entitled to disagree with people, but not to threaten and abuse them for having a different view to yours. You may consider yourself passionate, but to most reasonable people you appear to be nothing more than a bully.

“I have, in addition to asserting my opinion, provided an argument for it. This is something that neither you nor Isaac have done.”

You see, I don’t think you have. I think you are of the opinion that if you shout loud enough that constitutes “providing an argument”. It doesn’t. You’ve offered an opinion based on your knowledge and experience, as I have, as Isaac has, as everyone here has. At times the knowledge people have based their opinion on has been wrong. At times people’s experiences have been different. However, it makes their opinions no less valid and does not give you the right to ridicule them.

I believe Isaac’s opinion is based on his understanding of DADT and his limited experience of it. He is voicing an opinion a lot of people have, that DADT made a difference. In practical terms, it didn’t. It shook things up a little as the military wasn’t accustomed to politicians involving themselves in such matters, but it made no real difference.

That is my opinion based on experience. Other than citing specific evidence and examples I can do no more to “provide an argument”, but then you haven’t cited evidence or examples either. You’ve offered an opinion based on your knowledge and experience, and belittled anyone who feels differently.

“So does that justify DADT to you? No? So what purpose does including these beliefs of yours serve but to defend discrimination under DADT?”

Do you think you can take the time to read what I actually said? I said that these things will follow the repeal of DADT and we shouldn’t see repealing DADT as our goal, but rather changing attitudes within the military machine. Repealing DADT will be a victory, but it will not be the end of the battle. That was my point, not that we shouldn’t try. Do you understand now or do you need me to write it in crayon?

“And that battle will be easier to win than continuing to allow a discriminatory baseless policy which is founded upon and perpetuates injustice.”

NO! MORON!

Repealing DADT is the easy part. Once it is repealed we need regulations protecting gay and lesbian soldiers from discrimination, we need drastic measures to change attitudes within the military and we need ongoing monitoring to ensure that those gay servicemen and women who choose to serve openly are protected from mistreatment.

Repealing DADT is only the start of the battle, and it is the easiest part of it. You really are thick if you don’t get that.

“You also suggest that I’m an enemy of free speech. How? Because I’m critical of unethical beliefs that people have ever right to believe and express?”

No – because you have appointed yourself judge, jury and executioner when it comes to determining what is and what isn’t ethical. That’s a dangerous path to go down, and it is one of the reasons why you’re being compared to Christian Fundamentalists. They also feel they have the right to act as moral guardians of the world.

Ethics, by their very nature, are not black and white. You don’t get to dictate them for everyone, particularly when you clearly don’t take the time to hear what people are saying. If you did, you wouldn’t have repeatedly accused me of defending Isaac’s position when all I’ve said is that I could see his point. There is a difference between seeing someone’s point and agreeing with it, and a difference between agreeing with it and defending it.

I have attacked you for acting like a thug. I have defended no one’s opinion other than my own, and it is not the opinion you have stated I have.

Now, if you are willing to actually READ what I have said and not ASSUME you know what I’m thinking, perhaps you will see what a complete ASS you have been in accusing me of things I haven’t done and abusing me for more or less holding the same opinion as you on this matter – the only difference being that mine is based on actual experience and not second hand accounts from one night stands.

Jack Henden