Duncan Hunter's response at 01:30
..most Americans, most kids, who leave that breakfast table and go out and serve in the military and make that corporate decision with their family, most of them are conservatives, and they have conservative values, and they have Judeo-Christian values, and to force those people to work in a small tight unit with somebody who is openly homosexual, who goes against what they believe to be their principles, and it is their principles, is I think a disservice to them...
Back to Hunter’s statement, specifically, he claimed.
1. Most of the “kids” in the military are conservatives.
2. Conservatives, who have Judeo-Christian values, would be forced to go against their values if they served with homosexuals, and would be a “disservice” to them.
3. Therefore, conservatives in the military have veto power over this question of gays or lesbians in the armed forces.
I’m just curious how many people around here back Hunter’s statement, in particular, on why they should be excluded.
Are these in fact the armed forces of the United States of America? Which presumably would generally coincide with the characteristics of the population at large.
Or should this be renamed the armed forces of Conservatives of America, Republicans of America, or Evangelical Protestants of America?
I am not persuaded by the argument that "we conservatives in the military would consider it a disservice to serve with <insert whichever group, race, class, color, creed, religion here that you don't want to be around>, so they can't." Any others besides gay and lesbians that, like the Irish, Blacks, Jews back in the day, need not apply?
Bookmarks