Wrongness here is really nobody's place to say. If gay people aren't allowed to be in the military, its like saying they are not allowed to be heroes. However, gay people are apparently quite brave by standing up against the world. Paul the Apostle lumped gay folks in with murderers, and whether that was fair or not, it seems the military would be the perfect place for such persons.
In the past, the main fear was that with the militant attitude so many had, they would try to pull that while in the military. The top brass felt that anyone knowing about anyone's sexuality was bad for morale. Would you want to share a foxhole with someone you think wants to rape you? Gay folks don't do that for the most part, but you know how bigots think. Then Bill Clinton put such reasoning into law. Now the biggest problem with that was when the most discrete gay soldiers tried to keep that to themselves but were still investigated and discharged in McCarthy style. If "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," only extended to what was directly expressed, that would be one thing, but it allowed witch hunts too.
No. Wrong yes
I don't know if this is right or wrong but this is what my teacher said to me, That the military strategy each side develop is that they defend there their own home and territory. I don't care if this answer is wrong, I tried my best anyway. - Jennifer
Anytime you hear or read of a country (nation) conquering another (or taking over another country) it's a military conquest. Nations (countries) use militaries to perform that function (right or wrong). Examples: If Germany conquered Poland in 1939, that was a military conquest. If the US conquered Calif during the Mexican War in 1846, that was a military conquest. If North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam in '75, that was a military conquest.
The vast majority of cases were pure fear of the military draft disguised under the more honorable and socially accepted term of "morality."
He has limited role, authorising situations that can make things worse if the go wrong. In a war the defence minister and military command centres make the decisions.
There is no problem of gays in the military, so there is nothing to fix.
If one is interested in finding out information on 'gays in the military', it is recommended to check out the official military site. They offer this information. Also, Spouse Buzz offers information about incentives that gays are provided with.
Night Stand - 1995 Gays in the Military - 2.10 was released on: USA: 1996
Night Stand - 1995 Gays in the Military 2-10 was released on: USA: 1996
"the gays i like to me" The sentence really makes no sense. it was formed wrong, so what i think they meant was "to me i like gays"
In 1992.
Yes. There is nothing wrong with gays marrying even though in the past it was believed to be wrong. Religion does not play a role in government.
Republicans are against gay marriage, allowing gays to adopt, allowing them to serve in the military, and in general anything positive that could happen to gays they're against.
Because of his ninth circuit court of appeals decision on gays in the military.
Teasing a friend is fine, but intentionally trying to hurt someone with words is just wrong.
Yes I think that he talked about militarytraining, and about gays in the military as well. He also talked about a scholarship with people interested in the military. Another thing that he talked about related to the military is ways to try and stop the war in Afghanistan.
If you mean Democratic as in, pertaining to the Democratic party, then the Democratic party has argued that gays should be able to serve in the military. If you mean democratic as in, what the population would vote for in a referrendum, then it depends entirely on the population in question. I think that such a referrendum in the USA today would be very tight between supporters and opponents.