Seeing that I've been in the military (Air Force specifically) over 5+ years now and am currently deployed to an undesclosed location at this very moment maybe I can bring a different perspective to this.
I love being military, but be prepared to have certian contestutional rights restricted. For example, artilce 88 of the UCMJ (ask me about that if you don't know) states that you can not speak ill of the president, congress or any other nationally elected official. You can disagree with them, but it will be illegal for you to call them a F****** idiot.
As for homosexuals, I don't have any problems with them. I think they should be allowed civil unions and I have an uncle thst is gay. However the military has a policy against homosexuals for several reasons; I'm not saying that I agree with them but I do at least understand there reasoning:
1) The military dosen't ban homosexuals, just homosexual acts. You can be gay in the military, you just can't say that your gay, do any homosexual acts, and I know gay pornography fits in to just how much I can't say off the top of my head.
2) According the the UCMJ, article 121 I think, sodomy while in the military is still prohibited. So yes, anything sexual outside of the missionary postion is technically prohibited.
3)Gender seperations. In our society it is expected to seperate males from females in different rooms/buildings ect. when it comes to living quaters. In technical schools and most deployed locations, it is against the rules to even be in opposite genders building, much less room. Why do you think these rules exist? Now remove the gender barriers and what do you have? And I do have to apologize in advance, but when I'm living with 2-7 other people in a room, with just one shower room, in a war time enviroment the last thing I'm going to want to worry about is another guy checking me out or something to that extent.
The constitution only restrains the government, not private employers. So if you're saying that this federal law applies to private employers too, it's obviously not a constitutional rule - this is a federal statute or something you're discussing. It's not "due process" that's imposing this rule.
Pssst . . . a Federal Statute would have to fall under the authority of due process.
Pssst . . . a Federal Statute would have to fall under the authority of due process.
If you're saying the federal statute would have to comport with due process, that's obviously true. But I said nothing to the contrary.
If you're saying that the federal statute would need to be authorized by some constitutional provision, that's also obviously true. But it needn't be due process - it could be equal protection or the Commerce Clause or anything else. If there is a statute like this one, I suspect it's justified under the Commerce Clause.
Winter said that the government refusing to hire someone can implicate due process, and cited as an example this statute. Although that may be true in corner cases, and you could probably twist "due process" to mean something like that, my understanding is that courts generally do not do so. These sound like equal protection problems to me.
I mean it gives you such an easy way to duck out it's not even funny.
It gives you an easy way to duck out once you're already in, too. You could be serving overseas, tired of getting shot at in Iraq, and tell your CO, "Sir, I think I want to bugger everyone in my platoon." Chances are, you're getting a ticket home. It doesn't make sense for the military to leave such an easy escape clause. A local radio host was talking about this a couple weeks ago, and one of his guests was a former Army officer who said he knows people who used this tactic to leave the military. I'm not sure how widespread it is, but it apparently happens.
Personally, I couldn't care less about gays in the military. No less a conservative than Barry Goldwater said, "They don't have to be straight, they just have to shoot straight." I work for the Army, and opinions have been divided on the personnel I've informally talked to about it. Younger folks seem not to care as much.
Exactly, but that is why great lenghts are taken for the seperation of men and women; how you purpose a solution for seperation of straight men and homosexual men. I'm not saying gay men can't controll themselves, as I said my uncle is gay and I have zero problems with that; but there is still the basic problem of why men and women don't room together (yes aside from privacy issues I know) And sodomy is technically baned whether your straight or gay, everything else homosexual falls under don't ask/don't tell. Again, I'm not saying I agree with the military's policies, but spend enough time in the military and there is a method to the madness, ie I might not agree, but I do understand. And yes, the military does discrimate; there are still certain career fields women can't apply for, women used to not be able to be on the front lines (that might stil be true I can't confirm nor deny at this moment)
Something else I feel I should point out however is that not all homosexual people are critized withen the military. I know several open lesbians and a couple of gay people withen the military. Its not brodcasted, but people withen their shops and friends know.
At least in the AF, its not that simple to get discharged off just saying your gay; there generally has to be more evidence to support it other than just a claim, and even that can turn into a lenghty discharge generally ended in either an open general-discharge or at worse a less-then-honorable discharge.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Yes, there is reasoning behind what I do; however, my reasons are by far darker than my deads...
If you're saying the federal statute would have to comport with due process, that's obviously true. But I said nothing to the contrary.
If you're saying that the federal statute would need to be authorized by some constitutional provision, that's also obviously true. But it needn't be due process - it could be equal protection or the Commerce Clause or anything else. If there is a statute like this one, I suspect it's justified under the Commerce Clause.
Winter said that the government refusing to hire someone can implicate due process, and cited as an example this statute. Although that may be true in corner cases, and you could probably twist "due process" to mean something like that, my understanding is that courts generally do not do so. These sound like equal protection problems to me.
Well, the entire topic of Due Process can be catastrophically confusing.
Have you read some of the differing opinions justices have had about it?
It can get quite heady and ridiculous.
At any rate, they way I understand it is that almost anything can be said to "violate" due process if the Federal Government does it.
And, as an aside, it is possible to be both outside the penumbra of Due Process and Equal Protection, at the same time. Breaking one rule doesn't mean you might not be breaking the other.
I am also in the Air Force, and I fell obligated to post something I think maybe overlooked. Now I don't have any personal issues with homosexuals in the military but here is something I haven't seen mentioned yet.
Because the military requires allies to function properly, it is important to realize that the way it presents itself is incredibly important. That is partially why certain outdated rules are still in place. For us to legalize legal drug use, sodomy, or homosexuals in the military; we lose potential allies who believe that said we support them by not outlawing them.
I agree that it is out-dated and needs to be re-worked. Perhaps this point will give a little new insight to the "bigger picture". I wouldn't mind homosexuals in the military, but I know many who would and I believe the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is as close as we are going to get to solving it any time soon.
Finally, I know that females in the military causes a loss for potential allies, but screw any country who doesn't support that! Also, I despise those that attack the individuals who are in the military instead of the government issuing the orders. I fully enjoy serving my country, and I volunteered for it so I accept some of the loss of liberties I must endure to do so.
Is the infamousbearassassin really in the military or is he just using this as an example of something to debate over?
my perspective in regards to this topic is that gays have a huge advantage in the military. they can back down whenever they like. they can even avert drafts. if anything, i feel it would be beneficial to be gay and in the military. i really don't find much prejudice in this issue.
also, i don't find the problem in the scenario. what is assassin suggesting? is being discharged bad? should someone be protected for being gay and in the military?
Finally, I know that females in the military causes a loss for potential allies, but screw any country who doesn't support that! Also, I despise those that attack the individuals who are in the military instead of the government issuing the orders. I fully enjoy serving my country, and I volunteered for it so I accept some of the loss of liberties I must endure to do so.
Well that's that...enjoy!
I don't understand why, in one instance (women having rights), you rightly recognize that we are under no obligation to acknowledge or kowtow to evil prejudices, but in another, you think it's acceptable for US policy.
And frankly, it doesn't matter. Again, our military is roughly as powerful as every other army in the world thrown together. And amongst those nations that do have relatively powerful militaries as well, as many allow homosexuals to serve as would arguably think less of us. And the former are generally more powerful and the nations we want to be allied with anyway. Frankly, I don't think we're going to get China on our side anyway.
Is the infamousbearassassin really in the military or is he just using this as an example of something to debate over?
I'm not in the military, I'm entering the military.
also, i don't find the problem in the scenario. what is assassin suggesting? is being discharged bad? should someone be protected for being gay and in the military?
Yes, being fired from your job is bad. Not being able to freely go about your romantic life without worrying about covering your trail is bad.
Well, joining the military isn't really a "job" from the government's point of view. That's a choice you make, (hopefully) knowing everything about it first.
Not being able to freely go about your romantic life without worrying about covering your trail is bad.
This is true, I would think, for most people.
And, I'm not too up to date on Military Law (which is to say, I know squat), but I imagine that there are already several regulations that would force many heterosexual couples in the military to "cover their trail."
I don't care if they're are gays or women in the military. However, I feel that most countries that would serve alongside us if our forces included women would far outnumber those that would do the same for an openly homosexual individual.
Nonetheless, if you are entertaining the thought of joining the military, allow me to give you a word of advice:
Be willing and ready to follow pointless orders and guidlines. The military is rich in tradition (both good and bad) and above all else those who serve must be ready to accept this.
Now, as for questioning it in general...go for it. But realize that once you join, you sacrifice many of your personal rights (free speech for example) by agreeing to defend them. *Shrugs* Just the way it works...
Seriously. I'll go to the ****ing wall to defend someone's right to say (in any kind of rational, non-harassment way, i.e., not Fred Phelps) that homosexuality is wrong and disgusting and immoral. Please, if someone wants to have a rational discussion about it, I am all ****ing for it. I don't support forcing schools to teach kids that homosexuality is okay (nor that it's wrong... schools making value judgments for students is a sign of what's wrong with our educational system either way). I don't support "hate speech" laws, except where something really is harassment or threatening behavior. I don't want to force anyone to pretend that they think homosexuality is okay if they don't want to. But in return I think I'd like the people that are against homosexuality to at least ball up and show a similar consideration for the rights of others.
Impressive. Seldom do I see a supporter of a liberal agenda make a statement like this.
Someone should be able to say that they're homosexual, without special treatment in their job one way or another, as long as they can do their job.
You make a good point - just like someone with ADD or any other minor mental disorder should also be able to. (NO sarcasm there, please dont take it as such) However, there is a line we have to make - will said person's admission of homosexuality disrupt how well everyone ELSE does their job?
I, in the position of a soldier miles away from family or any sexual contact, would not be able to sleep in the same area as a homosexual. Why? Obviously, being away from my fiance for any amount of time leads to both mental and phsyical lonliness - and from that arises sexual desire and frustration. Anyone can easily apply their own mental state to people in a similar situation. So, whether I want to or not, I would at least have a subconcious tendency to assume that every other person in my platoon or whatnot is also somewhat sexually frustrated. Now, here is my predicament - would I rather be in a tent full of men who want to find the nearest woman and do her, or a tent full of men who want to find the nearest man and do him?
Sure, this is an extreme example, but the point remains valid - the known presence of a homosexual can, and most likely will, cause discomfort to at least a few soldiers working with him. This tension will reduce the efficacy of the unit as a whole, and no one will do their job as well as they could. That is why I am a big proponent of dont ask/dont tell - a homosexual isn't pressured into admitting they are gay, while everyone else in the group does not have to deal with that kind of knowledge.
Of course, someone is bound to state that this is treating homosexuals differently. I will argue that it is not doing anything directly to hurt them - the fact of the matter is, they ARE different from a normal person, and in a place that requires total cooperation, they will just have to make a sacrifice for the greater good. Similarly, a guy with ADD would take whatever pill he should be taking, so he doesn't go off running when he sees something shiney on the ground, and a guy with bad vision wears glasses, instead of being comfortable without them.
Anyways, if I have time, I'll come back here and discuss some more.
And for the record - anyone who protests a funeral like that needs to be shot on the spot, not protected.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-THIS IS JUST A LIST- Stax, Sapphire Tri, Set Abominae, {mikeyG}, nan, glurman, JollyTheOctopuss, Sakura, Mad Mat, Johnation, Cell, Goatchunx, VerzenChaos, DarkPhoenix, EvilDuck, echelon_house
Some people are also uncomfortable with the presence of Jews. Some people think that Jews are evil, treacherous and sneaky, simply by nature, and honestly would be unable to trust them. Yet I would think a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy about one's religion and heritage would be obviously abominable. I suspect that you would never condone such a policy. I would also wager that your reasoning would be something along the lines of; it's not the military's job to accommodate unreasonable fears and worries, and that treating them in this way only marginalizes one group while fostering those prejudices in the majority.
No offense, but I notice that every single defense or half-defense of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" falls back upon speculation. It's always, "I would be worried that..." or, "Some might feel that..."
Please, someone, get some research. For the sake of argument, I'm willing to concede that gay and bisexual men might be more prone to rape. I'll consider that they're more prone to assault and murder. Hypothetically I'll assume they could even be [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFvioPxl-2I]acidic bug beasts[/url].
But please, let's move beyond the speculation stage. We ought to have numbers on these things. How much more likely are gay men (i.e., those that seek consensual homosexual relationships) to commit rape than straight men? What are the crime rates? What about bisexuals? A [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service#Countries_that_allow_homosexual_people_to_serve_openly]number of countries have allowed gays to serve openly in the military for years- do rates of rape and violence increase by any noticeable margin after this point? Is there a long-term negative effect on moral? Everytime someone defends this policy, they seem to be swimming around in the dark.
I'm also not actually liberal, or I doubt I'd be joining the Army during a war. I do believe in social and political freedoms that aren't governed by abstract notions of morality.
No offense, but I notice that every single defense or half-defense of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" falls back upon speculation. It's always, "I would be worried that..." or, "Some might feel that..."
Speculation? This is not speculation...it is simple fact. This is why subjects like gay marriage are such a hot button for political candidates. I'm not stating "I think...". I know that it would make a good portion of our military forces cry out in disapproval. It's just the way it is (right or wrong). Many who join the military support our countries values else they wouldn't be ready to die defending them. And, yes I agree that many of those values are out-dated.
However, I am willing to back up my claims that although I feel this issue needs to be addressed, we first have to accept gays in our country before we allow them to defend it.
Here's a link to the number of states/countries that support gay marriage. I simply want to point out that with only a few states allowing marriage, it would be easy to justify why the don't ask/don't tell policy is in place. It obviously is not something we as a nation are ready to accept yet. Likewise, a majority of the rest of the world either don't allow, or make it illegal for gays to marry. So yes, it would dwindle our potential allies.
As a final note, I want to reemphasize the fact that I don't agree with the don't ask/don't tell policy. I think is out-dated and discriminating. But I understand that change comes slowly (esp. in the military) so I will just have to wait until the rest of the country (and the world) learns to accept it as well.
Wasn't "The majority of our soldiers would be uncomfortable" the reason that blacks took so long to actually be fully integrated into the army?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Winner of the SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Jul 26-28, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
Actually, TheInfamousBearAssassin, it gets much better. If you die in the service, Fred Phelps and his crew can protest your funeral and say offensive things. However, if you declare that you are homosexual and have a desire to engage in homosexual acts, you would not be fired. First, you would be made to serve until the military no longer needed you, and then you'd be fired. So, you would be used as a means to an end and then mistreated.
I, in the position of a soldier miles away from family or any sexual contact, would not be able to sleep in the same area as a homosexual. Why? Obviously, being away from my fiance for any amount of time leads to both mental and phsyical lonliness - and from that arises sexual desire and frustration. Anyone can easily apply their own mental state to people in a similar situation. So, whether I want to or not, I would at least have a subconcious tendency to assume that every other person in my platoon or whatnot is also somewhat sexually frustrated. Now, here is my predicament - would I rather be in a tent full of men who want to find the nearest woman and do her, or a tent full of men who want to find the nearest man and do him?
First, I must congratulate you for unwittingly breaking through the stereotype of gays as weak people. Obviously, they are strong enough to rape other people in the military. Kudos to them. Second, I'd like to point out that it is not as if gays are somehow lacking in self-control compared to other human beings. I'm pretty sure that given the law, not to mention the retaliation of others, nobody would actually go and do this. Third, on your own grounds, you should advocate taking Iraqi women as "comfort women" to rape. After all, the vast number of heterosexual men are probably sexually frustrated too and could use a good screw. Sure, this is an extreme example, but the point remains valid.
Sure, this is an extreme example, but the point remains valid - the known presence of a homosexual can, and most likely will, cause discomfort to at least a few soldiers working with him. This tension will reduce the efficacy of the unit as a whole, and no one will do their job as well as they could. That is why I am a big proponent of dont ask/dont tell - a homosexual isn't pressured into admitting they are gay, while everyone else in the group does not have to deal with that kind of knowledge.
Except that everybody will suspect someone who is flamboyant anyway. Obviously, his homosexuality is not a published fact, but is has still been established as a probability, and whether or not it's even true, those who suspect it will not be comfortable. In short, your logic doesn't even hold in the status quo.
Of course, someone is bound to state that this is treating homosexuals differently. I will argue that it is not doing anything directly to hurt them - the fact of the matter is, they ARE different from a normal person, and in a place that requires total cooperation, they will just have to make a sacrifice for the greater good. Similarly, a guy with ADD would take whatever pill he should be taking, so he doesn't go off running when he sees something shiney on the ground, and a guy with bad vision wears glasses, instead of being comfortable without them.
Yes. We are different in many ways. Nevertheless, if does not follow that we deserve to be treated differently. You have to do more than demonstrate a difference: you have to show that curtailment of a right facilitates the legitimate exercise of others. Your fallacious and fabricated example does not meet this standard. You and other conservatives will find that liberty wins out in the end. It was after all conservatives who opposed having black people in desegregated units on the same grounds: people with irrational, visceral responses to the Other will be made uncomfortable, and therefore a restriction on liberty is justified. Maybe it did and still does, but on the other hand, our military has great internal efficacy (after all, it is the most violent institution on the face of the planet.)
I think it's worth asking if you have served in the military yourself. It is a common claim that I hear that those who serve in the military defend my freedoms. Although I disagree with this ridiculous claim, it is an interesting touching-off point. Specifically, I hope you've served in the military. Because otherwise it would be a real question how can you advocate a restriction on the rights of those who are prepared to lay their lives on the line to defend yours. That would seem not only disingenuous but pusillanimous.
And for the record - anyone who protests a funeral like that needs to be shot on the spot, not protected.
Although the hyperbole in this statement is palpable, this is an interesting statement for a number of reasons. You are not really saying that people who protest a funeral should be shot: what you're saying is that it should be banned. This means a new law, and with it, the violence of enforcing it. Thus others should use violence for you to prevent people from doing what you don't like. That's the price you pay for liberty. If you let people be free, they will do stuff you don't like. So you can either tolerate it, or stop believing in liberty, because you can't have it both ways.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
IBA was not saying that the prevalence of homophobia was speculation, but rather the reasons behind it. Hodoku said "a tent full of men who want to find the nearest man and do him?", but who's to say that homosexual men are, as a group, generally prepared to rape someone? That's just speculation: there is no proof to back up that statement.
Furthermore, the reasons against gay marriage are somewhat different to those for the DADT policy, but can be simplified to speculation also. Many people believe that gay marriage should not be allowed for religious reasons. Unfortunately, the last time I checked religion was speculation also.
Actually, this is a misconception - what I said is that heterosexual men, such as myself, in absence of sexual contact, tend to desire sexual contact moreso. Similarly, would it not be safe to assume that if a homosexual man is identical to a heterosexual one in everything but preference, wouldn't that man ALSO desire sexual contact in its absence?
In essence, I am saying that all men get horny, and that as a soldier, I would feel more comfortable knowing that all the guys around me are horny for women rather than horny for me. I am not assuming that homosexuals are more prone to anything - just that they are the same as regular people. I'm not even saying that they would ACT on these impulses, but the fact that some guy could be checking me out in the shower is something I'd not want on my mind in the middle of a war.
Additionally, IBA, the argument that some people feel uncomfortable about jews is flawed to a degree. Unlike religion, true homosexuality is a biological condition (as there have been studies showing that a homosexual brain is identifiably different from a heterosexual one), and therefore the two cannot be compared.
Actually, this is a misconception - what I said is that heterosexual men, such as myself, in absence of sexual contact, tend to desire sexual contact moreso. Similarly, would it not be safe to assume that if a homosexual man is identical to a heterosexual one in everything but preference, wouldn't that man ALSO desire sexual contact in its absence?
This is a phenomenon better known as the human condition. It is a fair assumption.
In essence, I am saying that all men get horny, and that as a soldier, I would feel more comfortable knowing that all the guys around me are horny for women rather than horny for me. I am not assuming that homosexuals are more prone to anything - just that they are the same as regular people.
I am aware of that, yet what you're saying is that the average person is quite lacking in self-control. And there seems to be no data backing your assumption that has been brought to bear here.
Also, can't I extend your logic and just say that having a bisexual man in the military is okay if he's infatuated with women at the present moment?
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
I'm not even saying that they would ACT on these impulses, but the fact that some guy could be checking me out in the shower is something I'd not want on my mind in the middle of a war.
Why would it be on your mind? Why is being checked out an issue for you, if you aren't concerned that the person checking is going to act inappropriately as a result?
That is, what is it about being a passive recipient of attraction from a male that would cause you undo stress?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"When you really know somebody, you can't hate them...or maybe it's just that you can't really know them until you stop hating them."
Why would it be on your mind? Why is being checked out an issue for you, if you aren't concerned that the person checking is going to act inappropriately as a result?
That is, what is it about being a passive recipient of attraction from a male that would cause you undo stress?
Well, his insecurity allows him to restrict the rights of others. Sounds fair.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
Well, the entire topic of Due Process can be catastrophically confusing. Have you read some of the differing opinions justices have had about it? It can get quite heady and ridiculous.
Yes I have, and yes it can. But if you're talking about procedural due process, then when analyzing the "job" question, I believe it's straightforward.
1. Procedural due process prevents the govenrment from depriving you of life, liberty, or property without due process.
2. Jobs have invariably been analyzed under the "property" prong.
3. It's hard to argue that you have a property right in a job you don't have yet (which is what we were arguing about.)
If you're talking about substantive due process, well, that's probably a horse of a different color. But that's not what I was talking about and I didn't expect anyone to assume that's what I meant by "due process." So my bad if I misled you there.
At any rate, they way I understand it is that almost anything can be said to "violate" due process if the Federal Government does it.
So all federal statutes could be said to "violate" due process? Sweet. I suppose I do not understand it that way.
Additionally, IBA, the argument that some people feel uncomfortable about jews is flawed to a degree. Unlike religion, true homosexuality is a biological condition (as there have been studies showing that a homosexual brain is identifiably different from a heterosexual one), and therefore the two cannot be compared.
Thats even more of any argument for the acceptance of homosexuals. Homosexuality can't be chosen, while a religion can. If homosexuality is grounds for persecution, so should religion, as religion is not a biological function.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Cochese »
Do threads in this forum ever not get hijacked by the magical invisible hand of the market guys?
Approximately six weeks from now I'll be enlisted in the military. A little after I'll go off to basic and then advanced training.
If I die in service, a group of people can come to my funeral and stand outside screaming at my parents, siblings, family and friends that I'm in Hell, that I am a ***, a *** enabler. They can say that God hates me and scream at my mom that she's a demon-mother. They will be protected by the police and their right to do this will be upheld.
If, however, I say that I do find men personally attractive or suggest that I have or would engage in homosexual behavior, I can be discharged, no questions of competence or conduct asked, and the courts will uphold my right to be fired for this.
See if you can spot the problem here.
I understand your viewpoint. However, you are enlisting in the United States military. Now there is no draft so at least you have a choice in doing that.
On the other hand I have practically zero choice in this matter. I must pay your salary so that you can kill or help others to kill because if I do not, I will be kidnapped or murdered myself. Although I wish no conflict with you, I cannot ignore the situation I have been placed in here. When you try to lecture me about what's right and what's wrong, I'm really going to have a hard time taking you seriously.
It's all right, Ljoss, it's called an army, and we chip in to help it because it protects us from the bad guys so we don't all have to do it ourselves.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It's all right, Ljoss, it's called an army, and we chip in to help it because it protects us from the bad guys so we don't all have to do it ourselves.
And now for a note of playful sarcasm: It's all right, Blinking Spirit, it's called anarchism, and we believe in it because we don't like to forced to do immoral things.
Neither Ljossberir or I are much fond of the idea of having to pay for the murder of people living right now, much less the murder of those not even conceived yet (depleted Uranium FTW).
And I must add that I am not fond of being forced to protect people (via tax support for the military) who have expressed a desire to kill me (Fred Phelps).
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I love being military, but be prepared to have certian contestutional rights restricted. For example, artilce 88 of the UCMJ (ask me about that if you don't know) states that you can not speak ill of the president, congress or any other nationally elected official. You can disagree with them, but it will be illegal for you to call them a F****** idiot.
As for homosexuals, I don't have any problems with them. I think they should be allowed civil unions and I have an uncle thst is gay. However the military has a policy against homosexuals for several reasons; I'm not saying that I agree with them but I do at least understand there reasoning:
1) The military dosen't ban homosexuals, just homosexual acts. You can be gay in the military, you just can't say that your gay, do any homosexual acts, and I know gay pornography fits in to just how much I can't say off the top of my head.
2) According the the UCMJ, article 121 I think, sodomy while in the military is still prohibited. So yes, anything sexual outside of the missionary postion is technically prohibited.
3)Gender seperations. In our society it is expected to seperate males from females in different rooms/buildings ect. when it comes to living quaters. In technical schools and most deployed locations, it is against the rules to even be in opposite genders building, much less room. Why do you think these rules exist? Now remove the gender barriers and what do you have? And I do have to apologize in advance, but when I'm living with 2-7 other people in a room, with just one shower room, in a war time enviroment the last thing I'm going to want to worry about is another guy checking me out or something to that extent.
Pssst . . . a Federal Statute would have to fall under the authority of due process.
Think about it . . .
If you're saying that the federal statute would need to be authorized by some constitutional provision, that's also obviously true. But it needn't be due process - it could be equal protection or the Commerce Clause or anything else. If there is a statute like this one, I suspect it's justified under the Commerce Clause.
Winter said that the government refusing to hire someone can implicate due process, and cited as an example this statute. Although that may be true in corner cases, and you could probably twist "due process" to mean something like that, my understanding is that courts generally do not do so. These sound like equal protection problems to me.
It gives you an easy way to duck out once you're already in, too. You could be serving overseas, tired of getting shot at in Iraq, and tell your CO, "Sir, I think I want to bugger everyone in my platoon." Chances are, you're getting a ticket home. It doesn't make sense for the military to leave such an easy escape clause. A local radio host was talking about this a couple weeks ago, and one of his guests was a former Army officer who said he knows people who used this tactic to leave the military. I'm not sure how widespread it is, but it apparently happens.
Personally, I couldn't care less about gays in the military. No less a conservative than Barry Goldwater said, "They don't have to be straight, they just have to shoot straight." I work for the Army, and opinions have been divided on the personnel I've informally talked to about it. Younger folks seem not to care as much.
My Eternal Cube on CubeTutor| |My Reject Rare Cube on CubeTutor| |My Peasant Cube on CubeTutor
I used to write for MTGS, including Cranial Insertion and cube articles. Good on you if you can find those after the upgrade.
Something else I feel I should point out however is that not all homosexual people are critized withen the military. I know several open lesbians and a couple of gay people withen the military. Its not brodcasted, but people withen their shops and friends know.
At least in the AF, its not that simple to get discharged off just saying your gay; there generally has to be more evidence to support it other than just a claim, and even that can turn into a lenghty discharge generally ended in either an open general-discharge or at worse a less-then-honorable discharge.
Well, the entire topic of Due Process can be catastrophically confusing.
Have you read some of the differing opinions justices have had about it?
It can get quite heady and ridiculous.
At any rate, they way I understand it is that almost anything can be said to "violate" due process if the Federal Government does it.
And, as an aside, it is possible to be both outside the penumbra of Due Process and Equal Protection, at the same time. Breaking one rule doesn't mean you might not be breaking the other.
Because the military requires allies to function properly, it is important to realize that the way it presents itself is incredibly important. That is partially why certain outdated rules are still in place. For us to legalize legal drug use, sodomy, or homosexuals in the military; we lose potential allies who believe that said we support them by not outlawing them.
I agree that it is out-dated and needs to be re-worked. Perhaps this point will give a little new insight to the "bigger picture". I wouldn't mind homosexuals in the military, but I know many who would and I believe the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is as close as we are going to get to solving it any time soon.
Finally, I know that females in the military causes a loss for potential allies, but screw any country who doesn't support that! Also, I despise those that attack the individuals who are in the military instead of the government issuing the orders. I fully enjoy serving my country, and I volunteered for it so I accept some of the loss of liberties I must endure to do so.
Well that's that...enjoy!
my perspective in regards to this topic is that gays have a huge advantage in the military. they can back down whenever they like. they can even avert drafts. if anything, i feel it would be beneficial to be gay and in the military. i really don't find much prejudice in this issue.
also, i don't find the problem in the scenario. what is assassin suggesting? is being discharged bad? should someone be protected for being gay and in the military?
I don't understand why, in one instance (women having rights), you rightly recognize that we are under no obligation to acknowledge or kowtow to evil prejudices, but in another, you think it's acceptable for US policy.
And frankly, it doesn't matter. Again, our military is roughly as powerful as every other army in the world thrown together. And amongst those nations that do have relatively powerful militaries as well, as many allow homosexuals to serve as would arguably think less of us. And the former are generally more powerful and the nations we want to be allied with anyway. Frankly, I don't think we're going to get China on our side anyway.
I'm not in the military, I'm entering the military.
Yes, being fired from your job is bad. Not being able to freely go about your romantic life without worrying about covering your trail is bad.
Well, joining the military isn't really a "job" from the government's point of view. That's a choice you make, (hopefully) knowing everything about it first.
This is true, I would think, for most people.
And, I'm not too up to date on Military Law (which is to say, I know squat), but I imagine that there are already several regulations that would force many heterosexual couples in the military to "cover their trail."
Nonetheless, if you are entertaining the thought of joining the military, allow me to give you a word of advice:
Be willing and ready to follow pointless orders and guidlines. The military is rich in tradition (both good and bad) and above all else those who serve must be ready to accept this.
Now, as for questioning it in general...go for it. But realize that once you join, you sacrifice many of your personal rights (free speech for example) by agreeing to defend them. *Shrugs* Just the way it works...
Impressive. Seldom do I see a supporter of a liberal agenda make a statement like this.
You make a good point - just like someone with ADD or any other minor mental disorder should also be able to. (NO sarcasm there, please dont take it as such) However, there is a line we have to make - will said person's admission of homosexuality disrupt how well everyone ELSE does their job?
I, in the position of a soldier miles away from family or any sexual contact, would not be able to sleep in the same area as a homosexual. Why? Obviously, being away from my fiance for any amount of time leads to both mental and phsyical lonliness - and from that arises sexual desire and frustration. Anyone can easily apply their own mental state to people in a similar situation. So, whether I want to or not, I would at least have a subconcious tendency to assume that every other person in my platoon or whatnot is also somewhat sexually frustrated. Now, here is my predicament - would I rather be in a tent full of men who want to find the nearest woman and do her, or a tent full of men who want to find the nearest man and do him?
Sure, this is an extreme example, but the point remains valid - the known presence of a homosexual can, and most likely will, cause discomfort to at least a few soldiers working with him. This tension will reduce the efficacy of the unit as a whole, and no one will do their job as well as they could. That is why I am a big proponent of dont ask/dont tell - a homosexual isn't pressured into admitting they are gay, while everyone else in the group does not have to deal with that kind of knowledge.
Of course, someone is bound to state that this is treating homosexuals differently. I will argue that it is not doing anything directly to hurt them - the fact of the matter is, they ARE different from a normal person, and in a place that requires total cooperation, they will just have to make a sacrifice for the greater good. Similarly, a guy with ADD would take whatever pill he should be taking, so he doesn't go off running when he sees something shiney on the ground, and a guy with bad vision wears glasses, instead of being comfortable without them.
Anyways, if I have time, I'll come back here and discuss some more.
And for the record - anyone who protests a funeral like that needs to be shot on the spot, not protected.
No offense, but I notice that every single defense or half-defense of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" falls back upon speculation. It's always, "I would be worried that..." or, "Some might feel that..."
Please, someone, get some research. For the sake of argument, I'm willing to concede that gay and bisexual men might be more prone to rape. I'll consider that they're more prone to assault and murder. Hypothetically I'll assume they could even be [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFvioPxl-2I]acidic bug beasts[/url].
But please, let's move beyond the speculation stage. We ought to have numbers on these things. How much more likely are gay men (i.e., those that seek consensual homosexual relationships) to commit rape than straight men? What are the crime rates? What about bisexuals? A [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation_and_military_service#Countries_that_allow_homosexual_people_to_serve_openly]number of countries have allowed gays to serve openly in the military for years- do rates of rape and violence increase by any noticeable margin after this point? Is there a long-term negative effect on moral? Everytime someone defends this policy, they seem to be swimming around in the dark.
I'm also not actually liberal, or I doubt I'd be joining the Army during a war. I do believe in social and political freedoms that aren't governed by abstract notions of morality.
Speculation? This is not speculation...it is simple fact. This is why subjects like gay marriage are such a hot button for political candidates. I'm not stating "I think...". I know that it would make a good portion of our military forces cry out in disapproval. It's just the way it is (right or wrong). Many who join the military support our countries values else they wouldn't be ready to die defending them. And, yes I agree that many of those values are out-dated.
However, I am willing to back up my claims that although I feel this issue needs to be addressed, we first have to accept gays in our country before we allow them to defend it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_homosexuality_laws.png
Here's a link to the number of states/countries that support gay marriage. I simply want to point out that with only a few states allowing marriage, it would be easy to justify why the don't ask/don't tell policy is in place. It obviously is not something we as a nation are ready to accept yet. Likewise, a majority of the rest of the world either don't allow, or make it illegal for gays to marry. So yes, it would dwindle our potential allies.
As a final note, I want to reemphasize the fact that I don't agree with the don't ask/don't tell policy. I think is out-dated and discriminating. But I understand that change comes slowly (esp. in the military) so I will just have to wait until the rest of the country (and the world) learns to accept it as well.
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
twitter
First, I must congratulate you for unwittingly breaking through the stereotype of gays as weak people. Obviously, they are strong enough to rape other people in the military. Kudos to them. Second, I'd like to point out that it is not as if gays are somehow lacking in self-control compared to other human beings. I'm pretty sure that given the law, not to mention the retaliation of others, nobody would actually go and do this. Third, on your own grounds, you should advocate taking Iraqi women as "comfort women" to rape. After all, the vast number of heterosexual men are probably sexually frustrated too and could use a good screw. Sure, this is an extreme example, but the point remains valid.
Except that everybody will suspect someone who is flamboyant anyway. Obviously, his homosexuality is not a published fact, but is has still been established as a probability, and whether or not it's even true, those who suspect it will not be comfortable. In short, your logic doesn't even hold in the status quo.
Yes. We are different in many ways. Nevertheless, if does not follow that we deserve to be treated differently. You have to do more than demonstrate a difference: you have to show that curtailment of a right facilitates the legitimate exercise of others. Your fallacious and fabricated example does not meet this standard. You and other conservatives will find that liberty wins out in the end. It was after all conservatives who opposed having black people in desegregated units on the same grounds: people with irrational, visceral responses to the Other will be made uncomfortable, and therefore a restriction on liberty is justified. Maybe it did and still does, but on the other hand, our military has great internal efficacy (after all, it is the most violent institution on the face of the planet.)
I think it's worth asking if you have served in the military yourself. It is a common claim that I hear that those who serve in the military defend my freedoms. Although I disagree with this ridiculous claim, it is an interesting touching-off point. Specifically, I hope you've served in the military. Because otherwise it would be a real question how can you advocate a restriction on the rights of those who are prepared to lay their lives on the line to defend yours. That would seem not only disingenuous but pusillanimous.
Although the hyperbole in this statement is palpable, this is an interesting statement for a number of reasons. You are not really saying that people who protest a funeral should be shot: what you're saying is that it should be banned. This means a new law, and with it, the violence of enforcing it. Thus others should use violence for you to prevent people from doing what you don't like. That's the price you pay for liberty. If you let people be free, they will do stuff you don't like. So you can either tolerate it, or stop believing in liberty, because you can't have it both ways.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
Actually, this is a misconception - what I said is that heterosexual men, such as myself, in absence of sexual contact, tend to desire sexual contact moreso. Similarly, would it not be safe to assume that if a homosexual man is identical to a heterosexual one in everything but preference, wouldn't that man ALSO desire sexual contact in its absence?
In essence, I am saying that all men get horny, and that as a soldier, I would feel more comfortable knowing that all the guys around me are horny for women rather than horny for me. I am not assuming that homosexuals are more prone to anything - just that they are the same as regular people. I'm not even saying that they would ACT on these impulses, but the fact that some guy could be checking me out in the shower is something I'd not want on my mind in the middle of a war.
Additionally, IBA, the argument that some people feel uncomfortable about jews is flawed to a degree. Unlike religion, true homosexuality is a biological condition (as there have been studies showing that a homosexual brain is identifiably different from a heterosexual one), and therefore the two cannot be compared.
This is a phenomenon better known as the human condition. It is a fair assumption.
I am aware of that, yet what you're saying is that the average person is quite lacking in self-control. And there seems to be no data backing your assumption that has been brought to bear here.
Also, can't I extend your logic and just say that having a bisexual man in the military is okay if he's infatuated with women at the present moment?
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
That is, what is it about being a passive recipient of attraction from a male that would cause you undo stress?
Well, his insecurity allows him to restrict the rights of others. Sounds fair.
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}
1. Procedural due process prevents the govenrment from depriving you of life, liberty, or property without due process.
2. Jobs have invariably been analyzed under the "property" prong.
3. It's hard to argue that you have a property right in a job you don't have yet (which is what we were arguing about.)
If you're talking about substantive due process, well, that's probably a horse of a different color. But that's not what I was talking about and I didn't expect anyone to assume that's what I meant by "due process." So my bad if I misled you there.
So all federal statutes could be said to "violate" due process? Sweet. I suppose I do not understand it that way.
Thats even more of any argument for the acceptance of homosexuals. Homosexuality can't be chosen, while a religion can. If homosexuality is grounds for persecution, so should religion, as religion is not a biological function.
I understand your viewpoint. However, you are enlisting in the United States military. Now there is no draft so at least you have a choice in doing that.
On the other hand I have practically zero choice in this matter. I must pay your salary so that you can kill or help others to kill because if I do not, I will be kidnapped or murdered myself. Although I wish no conflict with you, I cannot ignore the situation I have been placed in here. When you try to lecture me about what's right and what's wrong, I'm really going to have a hard time taking you seriously.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And now for a note of playful sarcasm: It's all right, Blinking Spirit, it's called anarchism, and we believe in it because we don't like to forced to do immoral things.
Neither Ljossberir or I are much fond of the idea of having to pay for the murder of people living right now, much less the murder of those not even conceived yet (depleted Uranium FTW).
And I must add that I am not fond of being forced to protect people (via tax support for the military) who have expressed a desire to kill me (Fred Phelps).
Help has come in the form of a bit of basic algebra. I feel that it'll shed some light on your problem here.
Basically:
S + T = W
...S in this case stands for 'spam' and the T stands for 'light trolling'. And the W? That stands for 'Warning'. I love math. -- {mikeyG}