Of course, tonight, NBC played a clip of the marine video last night and the "boo" that followed.
The statement of the thread origin was:

"Last night these "Patriotic Americans" booed a soldier currently serving in Iraq....."

Addressing the thread as presented, there should be no booing. And after watching and listening to the NBC clip one would be hard pressed to determine if there were anymore than one or two...make it three or four. As some have said it is not the number it was the act. However, to state "...these 'Patriotic
Americans' booed a soldier..." asserts a much broader intent....which it definitely was not. Said more accurately on this subject at last nights Republican debate, Patriotic Americans in attendance were disturbed by a handful of disrespectfuls in the audience. This was in fact the reality of the incident!

As far as the criticism of those who did not jab back at the "handful" of those who booed...I learned a long time ago in public speaking to not be swayed from the intent by isolated jeers or commentary. They did exactly what they were supposed to do and not give any recognition/distinction to the isolated three or four.

And given the super microscope and listening devices on every word, in this case not said....if they would have said something then we no doubt would be debating/arguing/wrangling over the Republicans who were stomping on the audiences first amendment rights.....I betcha!!!

No matter how it is painted/presented, the booing did in no way have anything to do with the character of the audience or the debate participants.

Too bad more time was not spent here on the merits/demerits of the content of the debate.

btk

Sorry....

The character of the debate participants was noted when they remained in silence. Now some of them have said they didn't hear the boos or the debate was moving on.

But the character of the people that booed cannot be denied or spun.

Don't you have a grandaughter in the Marines....what if that was your grandaughter who asked some question?

It might be easier than you think....as said before they are already there. Now to be fair I can give you the family military vote on DADT. USMC-Not Happy Navy So What Army Who Cares. Just an FYI

Any homosexual in the Army will most likely be discreet about it. There are still plenty of guys who would be giving the GI Shower or the Blanket Party if any gay soldier tried grabbing at their privates (no pun) or gays had sex in the barracks.

Chances are, I believe, that just as when we were in the Army, there were gays but we did not know for sure, it will mostly the same. Of course, there will be some showing off just to make trouble as with any group.

It has worked for a long time in other countries - it will work here.

On the surface the change in policy seems okay...except that I thought the problem would be one of a sexual relationship going on in the same unit, causing a lot of distraction.

Are male/female lovers allowed to openly display their physical attraction for each other when working together in the same unit??

Is a heterosexual couple, consisting of an officer and a soldier, allowed to display their attraction for each other in the workplace??

If not, why would a homosexual couple be given that opportunity? I don't see why anybody's sex life has to be known in the workplace.

That is an absolutely ridiculous conclusion, that openly gay men will no longer control their actions. They aren't there to pick up men...they are there to defend their country, just like everyone else. I have considered all the angles but I have reached different conclusions then you....just because I don't agree with you does not mean have I not considered them all....

Let me see if I have this right.I am a heterosexual person and if if I took a shower with a bunch of naked women, I would really get excited. Now if a homosexual person took a shower with the same sex, would not he/she get excited?

I am lost, how is this going to play out?

The point I'm trying to make is not the acting out and/or controlling of their actions. Why is everybody go full out crazy on me. If someone is going to live "openly" they're going to live openly, right? If not, whats all this about?

If they're living "openly", it's to be able to live "openly" as the homosexual that they are. Correct?

Now the "homosexual that they are" is going to live in my communal world of complete lack of privacy and I'm supposed to be OK with that.

Why is this okay, but men and women sharing the same lack of privacy is not. I won't accept another "oh, that's just ridiculous" nonsense answer, because that's not an answer.

Well said LadyDoc.

OK, so you two women agree. Why? The answer isn't obvious.

"I don't see why anybody's sex life has to be known in the workplace."

Some just need to puff up and have something to show or brag about. And some will take up a cause just because it is a cause.

Again the need to display, show, play what the sexual bent is, again represents only the few....the majority are quite happy to remain not telling and or being discreet.

This is another minority subject with political implications....VOTES!!! If there were no political gain it would not even make the lawmakers list of considerations.

Not mixing the men and women just shows the inconsistency of the application.
Very typical...because it will not affect the women's vote!!!

btk

How do you know that some aren't there to pick up men?

Aren't they there mainly to have a JOB and possibly a CAREER?? And their workplace happens to be a military base/installation??

In any other workplace, open displays of sexual attraction and intimacy are prohibited in the workplace and often, there is outright prohibition of such relationships between co-workers.

Why should open displays and talk of homosexuals' sex lives be appropriate in the military workplace???

Sex lives should not be talked about or shown in ANY workplace!! Is there no such thing as PRIVACY anymore?

And why should other military co-workers have this thrown in their face at work?

Oh. I forgot. The matter is a POLITICAL platform of a bloc of voters.

I am not being factious here but have you ever been to basic training? Have you been in the service? I still say social experiments do not belong in the military and civilians are wrong to assume anything unless they have been there.

I appears that the issue of homosexuals in the service definitely needs to be ironed out prior to the draft being reinstated...