Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadsword2004
Okay, well I just watched the debate, I thought this debate was really interesting.
What really was interesting was that General who was a Special Forces officer course graduate, but openly homosexual? One thing I am wondering is, all of you QPs on here mention about the problems that homosexuals in the military would cause (or do cause), but this man spent 40+ years in the military, but says the military members are professional enough to deal with this.
My question why would he say this, if so many other combat soldiers claim otherwise? I'd imagine say for things like showers, or say for checking for ticks in private areas out in the field, and other such things, that being gay would cause problems unforseeable (for example might be bad if a Private became sexually attracted to his Sergeant or something).
Also, from what I understand from reading multiple conversations between military members (including here), when women were forced on the military, that it caused a lot of problems that the military hadn't forseen. If members of the military were not professional enough to stop problems from happening resulting from women (which many of which weren't even the women's fault from what I've read, they just were unforscene results of women being in the military), what would make this General think that such problems would not happen with openly homosexual people allowed into the military?
|
I disagree with the premise (unstated assumption) of your question,
which is that because he is a General officer, he is intelligent.
As for being SF, IF he is in fact he did graduate the SF Course, there's a good chance he did it during the years where some were able to get a "paper tab."