2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

As one who lived during the draft era I find all this concern almost puzzling.  When we were in the Army (1966) most of us didn't want to be there.  We didn't want to go to Viet Nam (a war most of us didn't believe in).  We didn't even think about gays in the military.  All we cared about was believing that the man to our left or right in combat would be there fighting with us and that he would be willing to risk his life to save us should that become necessary.  

Furthermore, I'm concerned about the Army being made up of conservatives and fundamentalist religion men/women.  What the military needs is more liberals in their ranks to counter this almost Right Wing approach to diplomacy.  Perhaps gays allowed to be themselves would be more willing to express their more liberal ideals.

Karl in Milwaukie

posted 3 years, 3 months ago
view in context