Gays in the Military?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Proves my point, the gay marriage debate is not rooted in fact at all, the entire debate is nothing but opinion.

If you have a point, you have yet to state it.

The point is the gay marriage debate is one solely of opinion.  There are no facts suggesting the position way or the other, it is simply a matter of opinion and nothing more

[Alcon]

The point is the gay marriage debate is one solely of opinion.  There are no facts suggesting the position way or the other, it is simply a matter of opinion and nothing more

That's complete crap.  Just because something is emotion-related does not make it not a fact.  There are quantitative facts, but there are also qualitative facts.  They are more subjective, though.  Just because you can't articulate a position solely based on economics and statistics doesn't mean that all opinions on the matter are arbitrarily decided.

[DownWithTheLeft]

The point is the gay marriage debate is one solely of opinion.  There are no facts suggesting the position way or the other, it is simply a matter of opinion and nothing more

That's complete crap.  Just because something is emotion-related does not make it not a fact.  There are quantitative facts, but there are also qualitative facts.  They are more subjective, though.  Just because you can't articulate a position solely based on economics and statistics doesn't mean that all opinions on the matter are arbitrarily decided.

That does not really negate my point.  My point is that it is impossible to tell someone they are right or they are wrong on the gay marriage issue because there is really nothing solid to say someone is right or wrong.  While you may say something you use is a fact, the overall question cannot be decided using fact.  That is why I choose not to debate gay marriage, it is a matter of personal opinion.

[Alcon]

That does not really negate my point.  My point is that it is impossible to tell someone they are right or they are wrong on the gay marriage issue because there is really nothing solid to say someone is right or wrong.  While you may say something you use is a fact, the overall question cannot be decided using fact.  That is why I choose not to debate gay marriage, it is a matter of personal opinion.

Down...here's the deal.  People smarter than you, better human beings than you, disagree with you on issues you think you're objectively right on.  This is something I think you'll realize eventually, and then you'll have license to come down from your high horse and debate with the rest of us.

[DownWithTheLeft]

That does not really negate my point.  My point is that it is impossible to tell someone they are right or they are wrong on the gay marriage issue because there is really nothing solid to say someone is right or wrong.  While you may say something you use is a fact, the overall question cannot be decided using fact.  That is why I choose not to debate gay marriage, it is a matter of personal opinion.

Down...here's the deal.  People smarter than you, better human beings than you, disagree with you on issues you think you're objectively right on.  This is something I think you'll realize eventually, and then you'll have license to come down from your high horse and debate with the rest of us.

The issue is undebateable, where is the factual evidence one way or the other?  A debate on gay marriage leads nowhere

[Verily]

That does not really negate my point.  My point is that it is impossible to tell someone they are right or they are wrong on the gay marriage issue because there is really nothing solid to say someone is right or wrong.  While you may say something you use is a fact, the overall question cannot be decided using fact.  That is why I choose not to debate gay marriage, it is a matter of personal opinion.

Down...here's the deal.  People smarter than you, better human beings than you, disagree with you on issues you think you're objectively right on.  This is something I think you'll realize eventually, and then you'll have license to come down from your high horse and debate with the rest of us.

The issue is undebateable, where is the factual evidence one way or the other?  A debate on gay marriage leads nowhere

You say it is undebatable because you can come up with no evidence for your position. This is an interesting strategy, but it doesn't make the debate impossible. It just makes your position untenable.

[DownWithTheLeft]

That does not really negate my point.  My point is that it is impossible to tell someone they are right or they are wrong on the gay marriage issue because there is really nothing solid to say someone is right or wrong.  While you may say something you use is a fact, the overall question cannot be decided using fact.  That is why I choose not to debate gay marriage, it is a matter of personal opinion.

Down...here's the deal.  People smarter than you, better human beings than you, disagree with you on issues you think you're objectively right on.  This is something I think you'll realize eventually, and then you'll have license to come down from your high horse and debate with the rest of us.

The issue is undebateable, where is the factual evidence one way or the other?  A debate on gay marriage leads nowhere

You say it is undebatable because you can come up with no evidence for your position. This is an interesting strategy, but it doesn't make the debate impossible. It just makes your position untenable.

I have tried logic like the slippery slope argument and everyone passes it off as rubbish.  Therefore, I pass off the idea that gay needs to be married as rubbish due to the slippery slope argument.  A circle that never ends

[Alcon]

The issue is undebateable, where is the factual evidence one way or the other?  A debate on gay marriage leads nowhere

Facts potentially involved:

1. Emotional impact on denying rights of marriage
2. Impact on heterosexual marriage if it is legalized
3. Necessity of government involvement in marriage
4. Economic impact of legalization of same-sex marriage
5. Fairness of denying marriage rights to two consenting persons

Etc. etc.

How is this any less of a factual matter than any other?

[Verily]

That does not really negate my point.  My point is that it is impossible to tell someone they are right or they are wrong on the gay marriage issue because there is really nothing solid to say someone is right or wrong.  While you may say something you use is a fact, the overall question cannot be decided using fact.  That is why I choose not to debate gay marriage, it is a matter of personal opinion.

Down...here's the deal.  People smarter than you, better human beings than you, disagree with you on issues you think you're objectively right on.  This is something I think you'll realize eventually, and then you'll have license to come down from your high horse and debate with the rest of us.

The issue is undebateable, where is the factual evidence one way or the other?  A debate on gay marriage leads nowhere

You say it is undebatable because you can come up with no evidence for your position. This is an interesting strategy, but it doesn't make the debate impossible. It just makes your position untenable.

I have tried logic like the slippery slope argument and everyone passes it off as rubbish.  Therefore, I pass off the idea that gay needs to be married as rubbish due to the slippery slope argument.  A circle that never ends

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, not logic. So is circular logic, which you've just admitted to using. Again, if you can't actually make logically valid points about a topic, it doesn't mean the topic is undebatable, it means you stink at debating it.

[Alcon]

I have tried logic like the slippery slope argument and everyone passes it off as rubbish.

That's because the slippery slope is a logical fallacy in the way that you are using it.

Therefore, I pass off the idea that gay needs to be married as rubbish due to the slippery slope argument.  A circle that never ends

...what?

I agree with Verily.  You're just saying this is undebatable because you can't defend your opinion and have no idea what you are talking about.

[DownWithTheLeft]

That does not really negate my point.  My point is that it is impossible to tell someone they are right or they are wrong on the gay marriage issue because there is really nothing solid to say someone is right or wrong.  While you may say something you use is a fact, the overall question cannot be decided using fact.  That is why I choose not to debate gay marriage, it is a matter of personal opinion.

Down...here's the deal.  People smarter than you, better human beings than you, disagree with you on issues you think you're objectively right on.  This is something I think you'll realize eventually, and then you'll have license to come down from your high horse and debate with the rest of us.

The issue is undebateable, where is the factual evidence one way or the other?  A debate on gay marriage leads nowhere

You say it is undebatable because you can come up with no evidence for your position. This is an interesting strategy, but it doesn't make the debate impossible. It just makes your position untenable.

I have tried logic like the slippery slope argument and everyone passes it off as rubbish.  Therefore, I pass off the idea that gay needs to be married as rubbish due to the slippery slope argument.  A circle that never ends

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, not logic. So is circular logic, which you've just admitted to using. Again, if you can't actually make logically valid points about a topic, it doesn't mean the topic is undebatable, it means you stink at debating it.

The topic is undebatable, any point anti-gay marriage people bring up liberals use reason #1, "I'm right, your right"

1.) Degradation of morals in America
2.) An embrace of homosexuality
3.) Forcing others to accept something they do not want to
4.) Constitutional issues
5.) Slap in the face to religion (this is the biggest reason liberals want it legalized)
6.) A large effect on the current tax system
7.) Immigration issues
8.) Adoption and parental rights
9.) Drawing a line on marriage (easily the most important reason)

I'm sure any liberal will blanketly say this is wrong or provide their opinion and say it is better

[Verily]

1.) Degradation of morals in America

You're right, this is not, in itself, a debatable issue. However, we might question why Biblical-literalist morals are particularly important for America, and that is a debatable issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above. This is not really a separate argument from Biblical literalism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is spurious; no one is forcing anyone to get be married, nor is anyone being forced to "accept" it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Only if marriage, generally, is unconstitutional. (Silly strict constructionists.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would say, rather, that it is a slap in the face to gay people that religions want to deny them something. Why should religions care; this doesn't even involve their own members.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Large" is certainly an exaggeration, although Alcon did acknowledge this point above. It is something that can be debated: "How many gay people are there?" "Is the benefit of stabilized relationships worth the cost of tax benefits?" "Is it illegal to offer tax benefits to some people and not others?"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Err... what?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, perfectly debatable, and ultimately a separate but related issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To you, perhaps. Again, this folds into Biblical literalism. Is Biblical literalism good for America?

[Alcon]

Verily has done a good job of addressing your points already, but I figure I'll add.

The topic is undebatable, any point anti-gay marriage people bring up liberals use reason #1, "I'm right, your right"

No, actually, I'll do a perfectly good job of presenting my case without using "I'm right, you're wrong."  It's not hard.  I don't believe this stuff, contrary to what you think, because I want to "slap religion in the face" or just because I'm a liberal ideologue (ha).  I believe it because I think it is right, just, moral and economical.

Anyway...onward:

1.) Degradation of morals in America

There are plenty of "sins" that America allows to be legal, and even provides legal venues for.  Now, outside of the conservative Judeo-Christian context, I doubt anyone has a logically consistent argument for two people of the same sex marrying being "immoral" or damaging to others in any significant way.

2.) An embrace of homosexuality

Again, legality does not equate to embrace.  The only reason that this is seen as an "embrace" in homosexuality is that the status quo is particularly anti-homosexuality.  Besides, as a Christian, aren't you supposed to "embrace" or love those you disagree with?  Maybe you're afraid to get their gay on you?

3.) Forcing others to accept something they do not want to

Private institutions are not, as far as I'm aware, forced to recognize marriage in any real capacity.

4.) Constitutional issues

I assume this is an argument against gay marriage (since your other ones all are - gasp).  Unless you believe that the government has no right to restrict marriage, what Constitutional issues are these?

5.) Slap in the face to religion (this is the biggest reason liberals want it legalized)

Oh, really?  Somehow I thought it was that many of us "liberals" think that denying equal marriage rights to people solely because they were born with a different sexual preference is hugely immoral.

6.) A large effect on the current tax system

I assume you have a study that proves this is "large," considering that you're no expert on the tax system.

7.) Immigration issues

What, anchor marriages?  It happens with heterosexual marriage too.  It's funny how an issue like this ranks above any of the "pros."  Or are you just trying to argue yourself into believing something that logic tells you is wrong?

8.) Adoption and parental rights

I don't understand why this is an argument against.

9.) Drawing a line on marriage (easily the most important reason)

Why not draw the line at "competent, consenting adults" like we do with nearly any other matter of this type?

I'm sure any liberal will blanketly say this is wrong or provide their opinion and say it is better

Actually, I, "liberal," applied salient responses to your points.  I await your response.  And, perhaps when we're done with these, I can list the reasons why I support gay marriage and you can attempt to do the same with those.  If you find my logic more fruitful than your own, you may even change your mind.  See, you can debate this!

[Person Man]

What you guys need to know is that a Soldier is government property - on and off duty. If you are going to do something that us against the rules, then be ready to face punishment under UCMJ.

Personally I don't care what Soldiers does in their off time. As long as they are at formation and do their task to the standard, I got no problem with it. However, with that being said, the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy needs to stay in place for the safety of those Soldiers who are homosexual. This is not the environment where one should flaunt their sexual preference and that's only for a Soldier's protection.

I respect your professional opinion, but what he is inadvertently discovered to be gay?

Give me an example please.

Like, if he is found with homosexual paraphamilia or got a letter from a homosexual partner from home...

There has to be hard evidence. I actually knew of a situation where a Soldier was using another Soldier's personal computer. Anyhow, he found pics of this Soldier having a foursome (guys and girls) and that Soldier was clearly committing homosexual acts. I never saw the photos but my friend had to do the investigation and she saw outright homosexual acts in those photos. Anyhow he got an honerable discharge in a semi plea bargin. I don't know all of the details.

Again, I would need hard evidence. Say I saw a Soldier using a dildo in his ass. Does that mean he's gay? I know straight guys who like anal simulation so it's not hard evidence there. It's a very hard line to determine.

You mean Goa Tse practitioners? Anyways, would it simply be easier to punish disruptive behavior instead of one's attributes. It appears to be a very grey area and this policy seems to cause discord amongst those who are members of the military and those who use the military for protection. Maybe hold gay troops to the same standard of straight troops? Would it be a good policy to try to accomodate troops that do not believe in homosexuals are people and allow homosexuals to serve so long as they do not commit homosexual behavior on duty than to have this really cryptic policy?  Could we just have another compromise policy, like "No Inappropriate Touching on Duty". It appears that seems to be the main issue, regardless of what a soldier is.



 Anyways, are you a JAG? I am considering that, I am pretty strong and pretty well winded to go through the training but I think the culture would basically be the end of me.  (Then again, I am only half considering this. My resume can be interpreted as anti-military (ACLU, but I did business club) and I have psychiatric problems and some benign cardio problems as an infant, but the Atlantic says that people with worse can get health waivers) ...then again, public service is a passion of mine...

[angus]

I recently thought about this.  I had always been against it, but it remained one those list of issues I had never thought about in great detail.  I have changed mind and now support gays in the military.  I think, however, there should be strong penalties if they are found guilty of making sexual advances while on active duty to members of the same sex.  Opinions?

what if you had incontrovertible evidence that a well and recently blown man is a better fighting machine than a repressed, unsatisfied man?  Would you still object to homosexual activity in the military?  if you still do, then I respectfully submit that you seem to be missing the point of sustaining a military.

[Josh/Devilman88]

I still don't see how me getting married to a guy chances anyones life. I mean if I marry a guy how does that change your life? As what I can see this is just a bunch of people trying to controll my life and what I do with it. Can we say Hilter?

[jokerman]

Can we say Hilter?

You could......but it wouldn't have any relevance to the debate.

[Person Man]

It's the military, but it still is about equality.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Can we say Hilter?

You could......but it wouldn't have any relevance to the debate.

My point was that Hilter tried to controll other and make them think like him, like many of the people who oppose gay rights.

[Person Man]

I think we are begining to get into the role of the military. Is it supposed to be a government-funded perservation peice for our cherished victorian values or is it supposed to be our public protection against invaders and insurgents?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I think we are begining to get into the role of the military. Is it supposed to be a government-funded perservation peice for our cherished victorian values or is it supposed to be our public protection against invaders and insurgents?

I think of our military as an institution created for our protection and welfare.

[Stranger in a strange land]

I think it's silly: the British allow gays in their military, and American and British forces share living quarters in Afghanistan.

[Person Man]

I think it's silly: the British allow gays in their military, and American and British forces share living quarters in Afghanistan.

Of course it isn't silly if you want the Military to be a museum of "proper" gentlemen.

[Frodo]

What does everyone think of the idea of creating an elite unit in the U.S. military, composed entirely of gay male couples, modeled on the Sacred Band of Thebes?

[Mechaman]

What does everyone think of the idea of creating an elite unit in the U.S. military, composed entirely of gay male couples, modeled on the Sacred Band of Thebes?

Also,
http://www.gettingit.com/article/56