phixer
Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar
Why ?
I have already said that Im not challenging whether the policy is a good one or a bad one....Is it because you feel that one's military service or lack of, somehow has something to do with their right in voiceing the truth or not ? No. I have not served in a combat unit in the military....so, how does that change the truth....
Now, try to understand. I am now defending '' my intergity ''. You have IMO, basically said that something I have said is not true...If you would piont that out, then I will look at it again....and if that was not your intent then I apologize.
Even the law it's self ( U.S.C. Title 10,. 654 ) from Congress goes on and on explaining why they are makeing the rule before even getting to it....same examples that you may piont out....and I will even state that the Constitution even allows the military to limit and restrict the rights of military personel as they see necessary and Congress agrees. I even agree to a point that the policy may be needed. But I as you are trying to point out, I dont truely feel qualified to know. I can understand your's and Jovial's piont as to the possibilities. Im not saying that I agree, but thats not the piont is it ?
My piont is that it either does or does not discriminate against homosexual's sexual oriantations regaurdless of the reasoning. And that this was the SF school boards feelings as to the ROTC and how this got us to here. Now you may have a different understanding of what discrimination is than what they or I do...IDK. If so, then theres nothing more to discuss.
You may answer my earlier questions or not. Either way, I will let you have the last word as far as the discussion with me regaurding this policy....if you choose to.
Unless some how it becomes a religious reasoning with the policy as in keeping with the topic of the thread.....or becomes a new thread.
Oh , now your saying that the policy either does or does not discriminate, earlier you specifically said it was discriminatory.
Please continue.
Why ?
I have already said that Im not challenging whether the policy is a good one or a bad one....Is it because you feel that one's military service or lack of, somehow has something to do with their right in voiceing the truth or not ? No. I have not served in a combat unit in the military....so, how does that change the truth....
Now, try to understand. I am now defending '' my intergity ''. You have IMO, basically said that something I have said is not true...If you would piont that out, then I will look at it again....and if that was not your intent then I apologize.
Even the law it's self ( U.S.C. Title 10,. 654 ) from Congress goes on and on explaining why they are makeing the rule before even getting to it....same examples that you may piont out....and I will even state that the Constitution even allows the military to limit and restrict the rights of military personel as they see necessary and Congress agrees. I even agree to a point that the policy may be needed. But I as you are trying to point out, I dont truely feel qualified to know. I can understand your's and Jovial's piont as to the possibilities. Im not saying that I agree, but thats not the piont is it ?
My piont is that it either does or does not discriminate against homosexual's sexual oriantations regaurdless of the reasoning. And that this was the SF school boards feelings as to the ROTC and how this got us to here. Now you may have a different understanding of what discrimination is than what they or I do...IDK. If so, then theres nothing more to discuss.
You may answer my earlier questions or not. Either way, I will let you have the last word as far as the discussion with me regaurding this policy....if you choose to.
Unless some how it becomes a religious reasoning with the policy as in keeping with the topic of the thread.....or becomes a new thread.
Oh , now your saying that the policy either does or does not discriminate, earlier you specifically said it was discriminatory.
Please continue.
