Supporting a policy does not mean one has to become directly involved. A heterosexual who supports gay marriage would not marry someone of the same sex just because he or she supports gay marriage.
The same holds true for those who support the war: Just because one supports the troops does not mean he or she has to enlist.
<...>
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5413359.htmlThat person made an apples and oranges comparison.
It's true that a heterosexual who supports gay marriage wouldn't marry a homosexual. That's because if they did, they would no longer be heterosexual (if they were to begin with).
A better example would be to point out that one doesn't need to be black or latino to support black and latino issues. That's a given.
However, neither of these examples are comparable with giving service to one's country. This is not about supporting a group that is different than you but are sympathetic to. People in the military are not set apart by sexual preference of ethnic makeup; they are people from every walk of life, no different except for the fact they can be authorized to kill when ordered (or be killed, for that matter). With recruitment levels plummeting, enlisting is precisely what a war supporter should be doing to show the courage of their convictions. Actions speak louder than words.
Only to a chickenhawk would the idea of supporting the troops and actually enlisting be seen as being mutually exclusive things. How convenient.
LAB
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(67 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore