Also – are there limits on BEHAVIOR? After all, it may not necessarily be about being gay but about promoting other gays, having a network of lovers, proselytizing vs. militant Christians also proselytizing. Maybe a few Klansmen and Black Panthers can serve too. Could be fun.

To that mix, add the usual “affirmative action” and “sensitivity training” sideshow. Who will fail to promote the black transgendered corporal and risk charges of bias?

However, does it really matter much? Our military budget is that of the rest of the world put together. Most of what the military does is to expand the American Empire, not defending our country. Thus, it is difficult to say whether this sideshow Love Boat circus really matters at all.

This ratcheting process is the reason why the left always wins in the end. Conservatives railed against DADT in 1993. Now, you argue for its preservation. The left never compromises, and none of the left’s advances toward degeneracy is ever reversed.

Needless to say, DADT is just a step on the route to transforming our armed forces into a homosexual haven. As things are, we admit homosexuals, train them, and then kick them out because they’re homosexual. That doesn’t make economic sense, does it? The left’s answer, naturally, is to allow homosexuals to serve openly. Naturally, the left fails to understand that no decent family will then want its sons to serve under homosexuals, no pun intended.

By the way, are you aware of the Army’s policy on HIV-positive members? They’re not discharged, even though the two most common risk factors for HIV infection are cause for discharge. HIV-infected “soldiers” are not depolyable outside the continental U.S. (CONUS), but continue to receive the same pay and benefits as real soldiers. For some reason, this absurdity seems to receive less publicity than DADT.

[I don’t usually post arguments that so blatantly misrepresent mine, but someone is bound to correct you.–IM]