LTTE in our local newspaper about DADT

[Archae]

Latest strawman the anti-gay ditwits are propping up:

Letters: Taxpayers will pay for the repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell'
December 23, 2010

Whether you agree with the original 'don't ask, don't tell" policy or not, the repeal is a bad decision.

This is one policy that should stand. Among other issues, what's going to happen the first time an openly gay service member tragically dies during combat duty? Will it be a lawsuit by their partner in the U.S. alleging the departed soldier's fellow mates didn't do enough to save them because they were openly gay?
Will it be another protest coming from the same gay activist movement supporting the decision to overturn "don't ask don't tell?"
Either way it opens the door for a hefty settlement to a partner or family member who may not be seeking the judgment for all the wrong reasons.
I feel that a vast majority of the American public is tired of this type of lawsuit that is nothing more than a get-rich-quick scheme.
Is there a place for lawsuits in gross negligence cases? Absolutely.
However, in hopes of "advancement" for our culture, politicians turn a blind eye to the consequences of the laws they pass. Ask a health-care professional, a company or small business owner about one of their largest costs of doing business. I guarantee that malpractice insurance or liability insurance is at the top of the list.
I do not "throw" my heterosexuality in other people's faces; why push homosexuality in others or my face?
Is it acceptable to tell a homeless person that you make $60,000 a year and then essentially laugh in their face? Most friends/soldiers have people that are close to them and those persons will in all likelihood know in the end.
Why open Pandora's box yet again? Who should the taxpayers make the blank check out to?

Nathan Arentsen

http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/20101223/SHE0601/12230353/1111/SHE06/Letters--Taxpayers-will-pay-for-the-repeal-of--don-t-ask--don-t-tell-

[Mojorabbit]

1. That is really reaching! nt

[tjwash]

2. Holy shit...that has to be the longest single sentence I have ever seen.

The Sheboygan press must be happy that their standards for printing letters are so high. I look forward to this guy getting his own AM radio talk show soon.

[ejpoeta]

3. lawsuits? really? and i love how people claim they don't throw their

(fill in the blank) in other people's faces but somehow someone wanting equal treatment and rights is throwing their (fill in the blank) in everyone's faces. give me a break.

[xxqqqzme]

4. 'Nathan' is stoooopid.

[racaulk]

5. By God, I think he's figured out our scheme!

That's exactly what I want! I want my partner to die in the line of fire just so I can sue the military under some "get-rich-quick scheme." And now that can finally happen. Oh happy day!

:eyes:

Idiot.

And I'm so sick of this "I don't push my heterosexuality in your face" bullshit. Every time you talk about your wife or kids, or wear a wedding ring, or display pictures of your family, it's perfectly common and normal behavior to you. However, if I do any of those exact same things, you would accuse me of "pushing my homosexuality" on you? How is that not a double standard?

[KeepItReal]

6. Yeah! Like when Black folks sued the Founding Fathers after the Boston Massacre?

You know... for not keeping Crispus Attucks from being the first Black person killed in the Revolution?

Oh wait - that didn't happen...

[Guilded Lilly]

7. The sound of ping pong balls hitting the wall in this article

is deafening.

[sinkingfeeling]

8. Nathan doesn't even make sense.

[keopeli]

9. Me thinks he doth protest too much. n/t

[Arkana]

10. No matter how it's written, all I see is "blah blah blah I'm a horrible bigot".

No one is "pushing" homosexuality in this guy's face unless there are gay guys physically wrestling him to the floor and having sex with him.

[Loudmxr]

11. That person does not understand what it means to be in the military. Soldiers are "Property".

I was not in the military. My friend who was in the Army came back from training in Boston and she and her friends took a tour in civvies of the sights. They went to the USS Constitution and when they asked to go below they were refused because of insurance reasons. Then they told the Navy officers they were Army and the Navy said "Why didn't you say you were "Property? Hell We can take you anywhere and you can't sue us. You are property of the United States Government just like we are."

It would be hard to sue for abuse of "property" that you own. It is really a hard case to prove.

This is a real non issue for the right.

Though it is an issue for wacko right wing soldiers who will abuse gay service members. That is why there are regulations that must be enforced that ensure equal justice for all.