PDA

View Full Version : DADT Repeal Cloture Passes 63-33




RonPaulFanInGA
12-18-2010, 11:06 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9K6EDGG0

sparebulb
12-18-2010, 11:18 AM
This will give a whole new meaning to the term "foxhole" and "got your buddy's back".

Aratus
12-18-2010, 11:23 AM
we have shortages in terms of keeping people in the military?
this sheer desire for intelligent thinking humans has us overlooking
some of the quibbling minor details in everyone's data~file?

Inkblots
12-18-2010, 11:23 AM
Well, there you go. And as the final vote will certainly go the same way, it looks like the nation will at last be able to stop being distracted by this strange and distracting culture war issue going forward. More mindspace being freed up to consider the real issues of a Constitutional foreign and domestic policy program is definitely a good thing.

sailingaway
12-18-2010, 11:24 AM
Well, there you go. And as the final vote will certainly go the same way, it looks like the nation will at last be able to stop being distracted by this strange and distracting culture war issue going forward. More mindspace being freed up to consider the real issues of a Constitutional foreign and domestic policy program is definitely a good thing.

Surely you jest.

There is always Paris Hilton....

ArmyCowboy
12-18-2010, 11:24 AM
About time

TheDriver
12-18-2010, 11:27 AM
The final vote for DADT is at 3 PM ET.

START Treaty and DADT being debated now...
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Senate-Works-into-the-Weekend-on-Last-Minute-Legislation/10737418303-1/

Aratus
12-18-2010, 11:30 AM
someone, what was senator barry goldwater's classic & precise
comment on "straight shooters" and the art of shooting straight?

Inkblots
12-18-2010, 11:33 AM
Surely you jest.

There is always Paris Hilton....

C'mon, man. Stop trying to quash my optimistic spirit. ;)

Inkblots
12-18-2010, 11:35 AM
Hey, Jim Bunning didn't vote against cloture. Good for him.

Aratus
12-18-2010, 11:40 AM
.


if the good ole marine corp under the old BILL CLINTON regs was being jazzed up
and psyched up to maybe seriously spearpoint an expeditionary incursion into Iran,
can we surmise someone's Bush & Cheney era jing~GO~is$sm is about to be shifted
to a discrete back burner??? again, i repeat --- 2012 as a year thusly looms large!!!

TheState
12-18-2010, 12:14 PM
someone, what was senator barry goldwater's classic & precise
comment on "straight shooters" and the art of shooting straight?

"You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight." - Goldwater

virgil47
12-18-2010, 02:49 PM
Well, there you go. And as the final vote will certainly go the same way, it looks like the nation will at last be able to stop being distracted by this strange and distracting culture war issue going forward. More mindspace being freed up to consider the real issues of a Constitutional foreign and domestic policy program is definitely a good thing.

Yep as we now go down the same deviant road that ancient Rome went down to its destruction we can all rejoice that there is now no behavior in the good old US of A that is wrong. Next man and animal weddings and pedophiles shopping in school yards. But these aren't problems are they. These behaviors are just genetically the way some folks are. Can't discriminate against the genetically challenged now can we. In 20 or 30 years poor people will be auctioning off their children and the pedophiles will be buying. It is a very, very slippery slope we are now on the precipice of and about to go over. This legislation falls nicely in line with the deviant protection act that congress previously passed. I'm so very happy that my children are now adults and won't be subjected to the games the pedophiles will be playing in school.

Depressed Liberator
12-18-2010, 02:58 PM
It's about time. Congratulations gay folks.

Agorism
12-18-2010, 03:02 PM
Al Sharpton speaks out on it


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9IdddtgP2o

TheTyke
12-18-2010, 03:06 PM
Yes, I'm not so sure it's a great thing either. We know Obama is ever the champion of liberty and doing what's best our country, so his support reflects well on this...

I don't fully understand DADT or the new policy, but I wonder what's so bad about keeping your preferences to yourself? I'm not sure I see it as a "liberty issue" since you're voluntarily joining the military. Hmm...

Inkblots
12-18-2010, 03:10 PM
I'm so very happy that my children are now adults and won't be subjected to the games the pedophiles will be playing in school.

I'm quite used to seeing ignorant points made on the Internet, but I frankly expect better than this from a Ron Paul supporter.

Rome didn't collapse due to some sort of 'moral decay' undermining her strength. Rome fell due to constant and endless warfare destroying the Empire's wealth, and sclerotic bureaucracy centralizing too much authority in Rome itself, making responsive administration almost impossible (they attempted to correct this problem, too late, by splitting the Imperial administration in two, between Rome and Constantinople). I would think a Ron Paul supporter would recognize the dangers of over-centralization and constant warfare as far more destructive than any sort of voluntary relationships in civil society. And indeed, your point is almost entirely invalid, as Rome was already well into the Christian age when her final collapse came.

Furthermore, the logic involved in drawing a natural relation between allowing homosexuals already serving in the armed forces to simply be able to admit that they're gay without discharge and introducing pederasty into our public schools is so bizarre I'm not even going to try to understand it.

TheTyke
12-18-2010, 03:15 PM
Rome didn't collapse do to some sort of 'moral decay' undermining her strength. Rome fell due to constant and endless warfare destroying the empires wealth, and sclerotic bureaucracy centralizing too much authority in Rome itself, making responsive administration almost impossible (they attempted to correct this problem, too late, by splitting the Imperial administration in two).

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It seems to go hand in hand... at very least, both patterns match what's occurring here as well. That's why I wouldn't be so quick to hail this as a victory. The same Establishment who supports war is supporting this policy... go figure.

Inkblots
12-18-2010, 03:25 PM
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It seems to go hand in hand... at very least, both patterns match what's occurring here as well. That's why I wouldn't be so quick to hail this as a victory. The same Establishment who supports war is supporting this policy... go figure.

No, this isn't a 'chicken or the egg' argument. Rome was a wretched, oppressive, immoral, and pre-Christian society even from the days of it's Republic! You could make a more persuasive point by saying immorality made the Empire 'strong', and the spread of Christianity contributed to its collapse. And since empires fueled by war, slavery, and oppression are horrible things, that's a good argument for Christianity! It's not very valid, of course, but it makes more sense than the argument virgil47 made.

You're sending a completely mixed message. Is the argument that homosexuals openly serving the the armed forces will make it harder for us to engage in constant warfare? If so, I say good! Is the argument that an army with homosexuals in it won't have the morale to defend our borders? Bull- show me a man who'd willingly let his home and family be overrun by foreign invaders because he doesn't like all the guys in his unit, and I'll show you a rare sociopath of the highest order. For Pete's sake, what's your point?

TheTyke
12-18-2010, 03:47 PM
I'm for an effective military employed only for defense. Since no one is forced to join the military, their rules do not represent an imposition of government force. I believe that the best society will be one where government doesn't use force to coerce people into certain beliefs, but I also believe that voluntarily embraced moral codes are necessary for prosperity.

As has been stated before, there's a difference between being libertarian and being libertine. Many good people in our own movement have grown up being taught by the media and public education that they can't see any behavior as immoral or destructive... but not all of us see it that way. I just want to make the point the whole movement doesn't feel that way. We apparently read different history and have different world views. This issue is a distraction, and causes unnecessary division.

Probably, if we avoided the standing army and used militias, it wouldn't be an issue period.

bill1971
12-18-2010, 03:53 PM
Well said Inkblots, I was going to post but you put everything so concisely already. I personally don't see what someone's sexual preference has to do with fighting.

Fox McCloud
12-18-2010, 04:02 PM
well, one more point in an argument I can use to convince individuals to not sign up for the military.

Inkblots
12-18-2010, 04:14 PM
TheTyke, I agree with you that voluntary, personal moral codes are necessary for prosperity. And I certainly agree that libertarianism and libertinism are different things.

I'm not trying to cause distraction from more important issues, I just think this issue raises an important philosophical point about the role of government, and how government interacts with morality. It is my view that the State, as an entity, does not have a moral character, as it does not have agency - that is, it is not a moral actor. Every individual that works for the government has a moral character, but taken in aggregate as the State, it isn't as if their morality is somehow averaged out - we can't assess the morality, the moral character of the State.

So the metric by which governments and their policies should be judged, in my view, is effectiveness in protecting fundamental human freedom. To take the Army as an example, the extent to which an individual can effectively serve to protect the freedom of the United States against foreign aggression is what the State should consider in allowing them to serve in the armed forces, not their moral character in unrelated areas of life, such as sexual morality or whether they give to charity.

As a Christian, I believe the homosexual sex act is wrong and sinful; but I also believe any act of extramarital sex, whether homosexual or heterosexual, is sinful, and also that any sex act, even within marriage, that employs birth control is also sinful. So if I wanted to be consistent and say people who acknowledge committing sexually immoral acts make unfit troops, I'd want a policy that bars not only openly gay soldiers, but soldiers who openly have sex outside of wedlock and openly use birth control, as well. And I imagine that that will include more than 90% of the people in our armed forces. But the fact is, none of those things, immoral though they are, make someone ineffective as a serviceman or woman. So it shouldn't be part of the government's policy of assessing employment eligibility.

What do you think?

devil21
12-18-2010, 04:22 PM
Draft coming up? The repeal of DADT and the push for the DREAM Act both appear to me to be maneuvering to heavily bolster the (potential) military numbers.

AxisMundi
12-18-2010, 04:31 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9K6EDGG0

Absolutely outstanding.

Any unjustified discrimination in a Nation that supposedly prides herself on Equality and Freedom is a dark stain on our society.

When it is not only forwarded by our government, but enforced by legislation, it is absolutely reprehensible.

Hurray to our Elected Employees for finally dragging the military mentality out of the medieval ages.

AxisMundi
12-18-2010, 04:35 PM
I'm for an effective military employed only for defense. Since no one is forced to join the military, their rules do not represent an imposition of government force. I believe that the best society will be one where government doesn't use force to coerce people into certain beliefs, but I also believe that voluntarily embraced moral codes are necessary for prosperity.

As has been stated before, there's a difference between being libertarian and being libertine. Many good people in our own movement have grown up being taught by the media and public education that they can't see any behavior as immoral or destructive... but not all of us see it that way. I just want to make the point the whole movement doesn't feel that way. We apparently read different history and have different world views. This issue is a distraction, and causes unnecessary division.

Probably, if we avoided the standing army and used militias, it wouldn't be an issue period.

You appear to be stating that homosexuality is somehow "immoral" and/or "destructive"?

Please clarify.

TheTyke
12-18-2010, 05:02 PM
Inkblots: Your post is quite reasonable, and I especially agree that other kinds of immorality, even politically correct ones, need to be addressed too. I also admitted to not knowing the details of how DADT or the new policy works. But even in voluntary associations, whether it be factory work or the military, there do need to be rules to keep order. For example, in jobs I've held, there have been company policies against crude or sexually suggestive talk. In general, the workers didn't want to hear that crap, it was annoying and distracted them from their work.

So what is being "open?" Going around telling everyone what you do or want to do? Asking people about it? Just by the name, DADT sounds like the policy we had at work... why bring it up at all?

I think I am posting more in reaction to everyone posting like it's a great thing. I don't see what it has to do with us. I don't want our movement becoming associated with promoting immorality like that's what freedom is, or especially government defined acceptance of it.


You appear to be stating that homosexuality is somehow "immoral" and/or "destructive"? Please clarify.

Yes, I'm a Catholic. Better call the Hate Crime/Tolerance Police to correct my thinking like in Canada! :)

QueenB4Liberty
12-18-2010, 05:11 PM
I'm glad it was overturned. From what I understand, it was an unfair policy. If you believe the government shouldn't be able to discriminate, then I don't understand why you wouldn't want this repealed.

Inkblots
12-18-2010, 05:14 PM
So what is being "open?" Going around telling everyone what you do or want to do? Asking people about it? Just by the name, DADT sounds like the policy we had at work... why bring it up at all?

Ah, the idea behind DADT is that no one is supposed to ask if any servicemember is homosexual, but if the fact of someone's homosexuality is revealed, even accidentally, they will be discharged. Here's an op-ed, in which one fellow, a very valuable Arabic translator, describes how he came to be discharged:


My story begins almost a year ago when my roommate, who is also gay, was deployed to Falluja. We communicated the only way we could: using the military’s instant-messaging system on monitored government computers. These electronic conversations are lifelines, keeping soldiers sane while mortars land meters away.

Then, last October the annual inspection of my base, Fort Gordon, Ga., included a perusal of the government computer chat system; inspectors identified 70 service members whose use violated policy. The range of violations was broad: people were flagged for everything from profanity to outright discussions of explicit sexual activity. Among those charged were my former roommate and me. Our messages had included references to our social lives — comments that were otherwise unremarkable, except that they indicated we were both gay.

I could have written a statement denying that I was homosexual, but lying did not seem like the right thing to do.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08benjamin.html

It really was a silly system, in which people needed to worry about being accidentally 'outed'. And this is entirely separate from punishing disruptive sexual behavior or harassment, which applies equally to all members, regardless of orientation.

Brett85
12-18-2010, 05:16 PM
You appear to be stating that homosexuality is somehow "immoral" and/or "destructive"?

Please clarify.

Many of us do believe that homosexuality is immoral, but I still don't support forcing my views on other people through government force. I'm glad that DADT got repealed. Every American should have the opportunity to serve in the military. Lifestyle choices should make no difference at all.

AxisMundi
12-18-2010, 05:25 PM
Inkblots: Your post is quite reasonable, and I especially agree that other kinds of immorality, even politically correct ones, need to be addressed too. I also admitted to not knowing the details of how DADT or the new policy works. But even in voluntary associations, whether it be factory work or the military, there do need to be rules to keep order. For example, in jobs I've held, there have been company policies against crude or sexually suggestive talk. In general, the workers didn't want to hear that crap, it was annoying and distracted them from their work.

So what is being "open?" Going around telling everyone what you do or want to do? Asking people about it? Just by the name, DADT sounds like the policy we had at work... why bring it up at all?

I think I am posting more in reaction to everyone posting like it's a great thing. I don't see what it has to do with us. I don't want our movement becoming associated with promoting immorality like that's what freedom is, or especially government defined acceptance of it.

Yes, I'm a Catholic. Better call the Hate Crime/Tolerance Police to correct my thinking like in Canada! :)

Firstly, DADT isn't about "everyone keeping it to themselves". Over 13,000 promising military careers have been utterly destroyed by that policy, and many times just on the rumor of being gay. Hetero service members, within policy guidelines, are permitted to have personal relationships, even marry within the military as well. Not so for gays. ANY homosexual liaison, within or without military guidelines as per rank, etc., or even the rumor thereof, meant instant discharge. Sound fair to you?

Secondly, like many, you confuse social morality with religious laws. Social morals are those found across cultures, across times, and across the globe. They are inherent, found in any prosperous society. The prohibitions against the Big Three, for example (murder, rape, theft) are examples of social morals as they are not specific to any one culture and/or religion, and are found everywhere.

Homosexuality is not destructive in the least. Despite the best efforts of those who have an active agenda against the GLBT community, absolutely no evidence has been proposed to even suggest that homosexuality is destructive in any manner, whether on an individual basis or social one. The only "destructive" behaviors come about due to the oppression and active persecution of gays that has resulted in several young people recently ending their lives at their own hands.

Homosexuality is also not immoral in the least. Two loving people engaged in a committed, monogamous relationship as per their very natures can hardly be said to be immoral. The prohibition against homosexuality is purely religious law. As we are not a Christian theocracy, or even theodemocracy, religious laws have no place within our Nation's laws. Prohibitions against gays are found only within specific religions, or within specific cultures. It is not widespread and inherent to human beings, and is or has been accepted at differing levels of social acceptance.

In pre-Colombian America, gays were an accepted part of society. They married men and conducted the duties of a wife, outside of duties intimate in nature. In ancient China, gays were also accepted as well. As long as offspring were produced to carry on the family linage, little care was given about that man's sexual pursuits.

BTW, there is nothing in the Constitution which states that you are not permitted to "hate", or in the case of many, simply remain willfully ignorant on the matter.

"Hate" on as you wish, just keep it in your home/church and out of our laws.

TheTyke
12-18-2010, 05:30 PM
Inkblots: In light of that, I predict this won't be the end... there will still be calls of discrimination etc. in how the rules are enforced. I kind of have the feeling this is part of a larger agenda. But as described, then no, I didn't like the policy..

Axis: Posted before I did, but proved my point. This goes beyond justice, and into making us accept your world view. And again, joining the military and following the rules are voluntary.

AxisMundi
12-18-2010, 05:43 PM
....
Axis: Posted before I did, but proved my point. This goes beyond justice, and into making us accept your world view. And again, joining the military and following the rules are voluntary.

And promoting discrimination against the GLBT community is not forcing your worldview how?

My "worldview" consists of equality for all.

Discriminating against the GLBT community cannot be justified in any manner.

agar
12-18-2010, 05:48 PM
Should we allow people who sodomize cats and dogs to serve in the military as well?
This country is so far gone morally, I sometimes wonder if it is even worth saving.

Hope some of you enjoy being drafted, because recruitment will surely plummet.

Brett85
12-18-2010, 06:33 PM
And promoting discrimination against the GLBT community is not forcing your worldview how?

My "worldview" consists of equality for all.

Discriminating against the GLBT community cannot be justified in any manner.

So I suppose that means that you're in favor of hate crimes legislation and civil rights legislation that protects gays and lesbians?

virgil47
12-18-2010, 08:20 PM
I'm quite used to seeing ignorant points made on the Internet, but I frankly expect better than this from a Ron Paul supporter.

Rome didn't collapse due to some sort of 'moral decay' undermining her strength. Rome fell due to constant and endless warfare destroying the Empire's wealth, and sclerotic bureaucracy centralizing too much authority in Rome itself, making responsive administration almost impossible (they attempted to correct this problem, too late, by splitting the Imperial administration in two, between Rome and Constantinople). I would think a Ron Paul supporter would recognize the dangers of over-centralization and constant warfare as far more destructive than any sort of voluntary relationships in civil society. And indeed, your point is almost entirely invalid, as Rome was already well into the Christian age when her final collapse came.

Furthermore, the logic involved in drawing a natural relation between allowing homosexuals already serving in the armed forces to simply be able to admit that they're gay without discharge and introducing pederasty into our public schools is so bizarre I'm not even going to try to understand it.

If it were simply a matter of allowing them to admit they were gay if asked that would be acceptable in a military environment. Unfortunately that is not what will happen. The military will require all "straight" personnel to undergo training to force them to be gay compliant. All of the indoctrination that occurs in the school systems times one hundred. Many will leave the service and many will grow to hate gays. There are many ways in which being openly gay in the military will damage your career and I'm afraid that the creedo of leaving no one behind in warfare might be impacted for the worse. Cramming what many feel to be immoral down the throats of Christians and Moslems in the military will cause a major disruption. You may feel otherwise and that is certainly your right however I have been employed in a military environment for 37 years so please believe me when I say these things will happen.

QueenB4Liberty
12-18-2010, 08:29 PM
Should we allow people who sodomize cats and dogs to serve in the military as well?
This country is so far gone morally, I sometimes wonder if it is even worth saving.

Hope some of you enjoy being drafted, because recruitment will surely plummet.

Wow, when people think loving someone is immoral...There is no accurate comparison to sodomizing and animal or marrying an animal. It's like, the same love you share for your wife (or husband if you're a girl). There's nothing immoral about love.

specsaregood
12-18-2010, 08:33 PM
Hope some of you enjoy being drafted, because recruitment will surely plummet.

Good, hopefully we can finally end these wars.

Repealing DADT is the fiscal conservative position.

Brett85
12-18-2010, 09:17 PM
Wow, when people think loving someone is immoral...There is no accurate comparison to sodomizing and animal or marrying an animal. It's like, the same love you share for your wife (or husband if you're a girl). There's nothing immoral about love.

So what if I love my cat and want to get married to my cat? Shouldn't I have that right since there's nothing immoral about love?

libertybrewcity
12-18-2010, 09:21 PM
Well, there you go. And as the final vote will certainly go the same way, it looks like the nation will at last be able to stop being distracted by this strange and distracting culture war issue going forward. More mindspace being freed up to consider the real issues of a Constitutional foreign and domestic policy program is definitely a good thing.

The culture wars have just begun my friend. This is the beginning. Watch for more culture war issues surrounding marriage, homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, etc, etc. Although we elected a bunch of tea partiers, they are social cons to max as well. Get ready for the ride.

QueenB4Liberty
12-18-2010, 09:32 PM
So what if I love my cat and want to get married to my cat? Shouldn't I have that right since there's nothing immoral about love?

I already said it isn't comparable to marrying an animal. Obviously we're talking about human love. The love gay people have is the same love straight people have. We're all humans. Everyone who calls themselves libertarians should agree, or at least agree that it is no one else's business to tell someone they can't marry the person they love/be with the person they love.

Brett85
12-18-2010, 09:44 PM
I already said it isn't comparable to marrying an animal. Obviously we're talking about human love. The love gay people have is the same love straight people have. We're all humans. Everyone who calls themselves libertarians should agree, or at least agree that it is no one else's business to tell someone they can't marry the person they love/be with the person they love.

A gay couple can go have their own private marriage ceremony, and they won't get arrested for it. This isn't any kind of a criminal issue. I just don't think that the government should recognize gay marriages and give out marriage licenses to them, as that would just create an even bigger government and lead to more government involvement in marriage.

QueenB4Liberty
12-18-2010, 09:49 PM
Well I don't think the government should be involved in marriage in the first place either, but if heterosexuals can get marriage licenses then so should homosexuals.

specsaregood
12-18-2010, 09:50 PM
A gay couple can go have their own private marriage ceremony, and they won't get arrested for it. This isn't any kind of a criminal issue. I just don't think that the government should recognize gay marriages and give out marriage licenses to them, as that would just create an even bigger government and lead to more government involvement in marriage.

See, I think most here would say that the government should not have anything to do with any marriages. and pffft to marriage licenses which have a history of being used to promote racism here in the states.

Brett85
12-18-2010, 09:54 PM
Well I would just say that we have so many pressing problems in this country that we shouldn't be worrying about changing our marriage laws. This is really a non issue when you consider the national debt and the growth of the federal government. It shouldn't be something that politicians should focus on at the moment.

specsaregood
12-18-2010, 10:08 PM
Well I would just say that we have so many pressing problems in this country that we shouldn't be worrying about changing our marriage laws. This is really a non issue when you consider the national debt and the growth of the federal government. It shouldn't be something that politicians should focus on at the moment.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it isn't a pressing issue to you; because you are not in fact discriminated against. :)

Brett85
12-18-2010, 10:11 PM
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it isn't a pressing issue to you; because you are not in fact discriminated against. :)

I believe in equal rights for gays, but just not extra rights. Get back to me the next time a gay person gets thrown in jail for living the gay lifestyle. That would be actual discrimination.

bill1971
12-18-2010, 10:56 PM
So what if I love my cat and want to get married to my cat? Shouldn't I have that right since there's nothing immoral about love?

As of now no cats can't get married, however human adults can. I don't see the analogy. Gay marriage doesn't change the people who can get married just who they marry. Personally I agree and think govt should get out of the marriage business.

Lucille
12-19-2010, 09:28 AM
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell — Don’t Go (http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/02/04/dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-go/)


To begin with, there is no “right” to engage in mass murder, and, under the current regime as well as the previous one, that is precisely what the US military is engaged in: unabashedly naked aggression. Today we are fighting three unjust (not to mention unwinnable) wars simultaneously: Iraq, Afghanistan, and the unacknowledged war on Pakistani soil. Hopeful neocons are planning a fourth, and the President’s rhetoric and actions give them ample reason for optimism. Anyone who joins the American armed forces at this point necessarily becomes an accessory to murder on a mass scale.

My position is not derived from pacifism, although I respect those who hold that view: it is, instead, based on a moral evaluation of US foreign policy as it has been conducted at least since September 11, 2001, although the roots of the moral rot precede that date by a few decades. In a normal context — that is, the context of a non-aggressor nation, one that neither seeks to dominate others, nor is willing to submit to domination by a foreign power – a military career would be just another occupation, neither calumniated nor valorized in an unseemly way. In the present context, however, enlisting means being an accomplice to the commission of a crime. To claim the “right" of gays, or anyone else, to join the US military is to claim the “right” to be a war criminal.
[...]
The mobilization of liberals behind a crusade to make the world safe for the American empire is a key goal of the War Party, and one way to accomplish it is to market the conflict as a war to rid the world of political incorrectness. That fits in rather nicely with this “gays in the military” campaign, which is being brought up at a pivotal point in the life of the Empire: the transition from the conservative Bush regime to an administration much more conducive to the left-liberal imagination. Obama is having increasing problems with the “progressive” wing of his party, and throwing them this sop will help inoculate him against criticism of his foreign policy from the left.

ArmyCowboy
12-19-2010, 10:06 AM
Should we allow people who sodomize cats and dogs to serve in the military as well?
This country is so far gone morally, I sometimes wonder if it is even worth saving.

Hope some of you enjoy being drafted, because recruitment will surely plummet.

Homosexuality = Bestiality?

MelissaWV
12-19-2010, 10:50 AM
Homosexuality = Bestiality?

Apparently to some.

* * *

There's also very little distinction on these forums between the idea of allowing an open orgy in the military, and allowing someone to say they have a boyfriend back home waiting for them. I wonder if people just don't realize how "openly heterosexual" people are in their day-to-day lives? That picture of your wife, that wedding ring, that talk about the hot chick you banged before you deployed... why is it okay, but suddenly offensive if someone wants to do things differently? It would be more akin to allowing "blacks" in the military, but if they talk about having a "white" woman back home, they're kicked out. They also can't talk about liking "white" women, ogle "white" women, or even have too many pictures of "white" women which might make them look suspicious. Once upon a time, interracial couples like that were considered abominations and disgusting.

Stop worrying about the "country being so far gone morally" and worry about yourself. If you're so pure and moral, then the rest of us enjoying ourselves should not bother you a bit :)

Incidentally, I don't care if someone marries their favorite recliner (and that would be gay, too, because most recliners are male...). I think it could be done in a private ceremony that caters to such. All marriage should be conducted via religious or secular non-Government ceremonies, without licensure, and without a care in the world. There would be a great need for contracts, and there would be a huge niche for insurance companies and the like to cater to people who can show their "union" is solid enough to merit shared policies. Right now there are some things that are assumed to go to your spouse, or decisions that people turn to them to make, that are not done in the same way if your lover is not your spouse. That goes for unmarried heterosexual couples, too, I might add (though to a lesser extent).

The military's full of people who're in a bad spot. I'm sure a lot will use this as an excuse, if it's allowed, to get the hell out. The draft comment is spot-on. Saying "I'm gay" and acting it out will no longer get you out of service. Perhaps next the military will be forced to flex its rules on medical exemptions, allowing for "armchair" positions within the military for grunts of unusual girth. Ah and women, of course, unless they are pregnant (another baby boom, anyone?). The possibilities are certainly out there.

ArmyCowboy
12-19-2010, 12:04 PM
Should we allow people who sodomize cats and dogs to serve in the military as well?
This country is so far gone morally, I sometimes wonder if it is even worth saving.

Hope some of you enjoy being drafted, because recruitment will surely plummet.

The Army is over strength right now and we've tightened up standards for recruiting and retention.

Recruiting will not plummet.

devil21
12-19-2010, 03:52 PM
I look at gays over all, military or not, the same way I do pretty much everything. Do what you want, just don't involve me and don't make me pay for it. Pretty simple really and I think that sums up libertarian conservatism well.

Is there as much homophobia in the military as some lead on? I have a hard time believing I'd really care if someone is gay while they're next to me in the foxhole. I wonder if it's not more a concern of people not in the service than those that are.

zach
12-19-2010, 04:21 PM
What's a possible immorality in this country is that a different lifestyle from the norm is considered to be the worst thing imaginable. And now that these "deviants" are able to be open about their sexuality, everyone else is going to suffer? Is there a logical cause and effect situation that I'm missing here? For instance, if I'm going to room with a straight man who brags about how much "vagina" that he's getting, will his flamboyant heterosexuality make me think twice about getting to know him, rather than assuming that all straight men get so much of this elusive substance and more? No; however, that's just me. If I'm not willing to accept the fact that he's comfortable with his life and who he's attracted to, then the responsibility is upon me to deal with my own denial of diversity around me.

libertarian4321
12-19-2010, 04:25 PM
So what if I love my cat and want to get married to my cat? Shouldn't I have that right since there's nothing immoral about love?

Folks, use your heads.

This is about two CONSENTING ADULTS forming a relationship. No criminal act is involved.

Making comparisons to pedophilia or sex with animals is just plain stupid, as those are NOT acts between CONSENTING ADULTS, and are criminal acts as well.

zach
12-19-2010, 04:32 PM
See, that's what I don't understand. We go straight from human-human love to human-beast love in order to find the "different" relationship variables while arguing, when humans and beasts can be entirely different in the understandings of consciousness and mental capabilities.

AxisMundi
12-19-2010, 04:34 PM
So I suppose that means that you're in favor of hate crimes legislation and civil rights legislation that protects gays and lesbians?

No, I do not support hate crime legislation at all.

A crime is a crime, no matter what the motivation is.

Now that we got that ad hominem out of the way...

I am for civil rights legislation that protects ANY minority from baseless discrimination. A black women cannot be discriminated against in hiring merely because they are a racial minority and a women. There is also no logical reason to discriminate against a gay man merely because he is gay.

And before you add on another ad hominem, I do not support hiring quotas either.

MelissaWV
12-19-2010, 04:44 PM
Another $0.02: These folks are already there. If they are such awful, hedonistic, terrible people, then there are other grounds to dismiss them. If you have, however, a perfectly good soldier who has served honorably for quite some time... and they finally make mention they are gay or bi... does that negate their service?

I don't know where some folks' heads are on this one, but I don't even like the "repeal" as it gives the Government yet more opportunity to waste money. I'm sure the "classes" to teach people what is or isn't acceptable behavior will not come cheap. This brings to mind the sexual harassment trend. It went from women who had genuine complaints, and were getting just-about-raped at work, to those who found a calendar showing a woman in a bikini to constitute a hostile working environment. I have a feeling that this will go from allowing gays to openly serve, to encouraging gays to serve, or offering "gay scholarships" (they do this already with so many minorities...), or special "homosexual housing" which will be challenged unless it is superior to the regular ole housing, and so on and so on.

The Government doesn't care about anything involved here but the money.

AxisMundi
12-19-2010, 04:45 PM
If it were simply a matter of allowing them to admit they were gay if asked that would be acceptable in a military environment. Unfortunately that is not what will happen. The military will require all "straight" personnel to undergo training to force them to be gay compliant. All of the indoctrination that occurs in the school systems times one hundred. Many will leave the service and many will grow to hate gays. There are many ways in which being openly gay in the military will damage your career and I'm afraid that the creedo of leaving no one behind in warfare might be impacted for the worse. Cramming what many feel to be immoral down the throats of Christians and Moslems in the military will cause a major disruption. You may feel otherwise and that is certainly your right however I have been employed in a military environment for 37 years so please believe me when I say these things will happen.

Unsupported hysteria, I'm afraid.

1. People who already "hate" will hate no matter what the circumstances.
2. This legislation requires the repeal of DADT, not some imagined indoctrination courses. I would imagine "sensitivity training" will be mandatory, just as it is now for men who abuse women and/or are racists.
3. Racists and religious fundamentalists are already "forced" to serve alongside people of other races and religions. We don't see people leaving the military because they are "forced" to serve with "them ni**ers", or mass exodus because people don't want to serve next to atheists, Muslims, pagan,s etc, now do we?

What WILL happen?

1. People's careers won't be destroyed just because of a natural, inherent, unchangeable aspect of themselves that harms no one.
2. Gays will be able to enjoy relationships, within military guidelines, just like heteros.
3. Men and women may serve their nation without fear of discrimination for their sexual orientation, just like straights.

It comes down to simple equality. Gays are NOT seeking "special rights", only equality. And let's face it, just as our government has no business forcing religion down peoples throats, bigotry, especially motivated largely by religion, has no place in our laws or policy.

Will we loose a scant few? Perhaps. And to be quite frank, our military will be better off without them.

pcosmar
12-19-2010, 04:48 PM
I have mixed feelings about this. And I could care less about the "gay" issues.

I think it is a lead into a draft.
I would love to see the Army disbanded, but that is not likely. Instead I expect it to be expanded.

Want to beat the draft. Smoke Pot. Smoke lots of pot before the interview and make it clear that you smoke.
It may not end the draft,
But it will get Pot Legalized.;)

akforme
12-19-2010, 04:51 PM
A gay couple can go have their own private marriage ceremony, and they won't get arrested for it. This isn't any kind of a criminal issue. I just don't think that the government should recognize gay marriages and give out marriage licenses to them, as that would just create an even bigger government and lead to more government involvement in marriage.

Couples should be allowed the same legal and tax rights and I don't want the government telling me who I can have as a partner. Now I'm against marriage as a government definition/law/encouragement to live how they want, but since they are, it should be equally bad for everyone.

AxisMundi
12-19-2010, 04:52 PM
So what if I love my cat and want to get married to my cat? Shouldn't I have that right since there's nothing immoral about love?

Can you cat consent?

Can you cat make legally binding contracts?

No?

Then accept your failed argument for what it is, bull-poo.

We speak of consenting, tax-paying adults.

AxisMundi
12-19-2010, 04:56 PM
Should we allow people who sodomize cats and dogs to serve in the military as well?
This country is so far gone morally, I sometimes wonder if it is even worth saving.

Hope some of you enjoy being drafted, because recruitment will surely plummet.

Why not, they serve in Congress (Neil Mulesy... erm Horsely). I also do not believe one is asked if one is into bestiality when one signs up. Feel free to correct me, of course.

We speak of consenting tax-paying adults. leave your non sequiturs and straw men (and fear mongering ghost town military) at the door, please.

MelissaWV
12-19-2010, 04:58 PM
I have mixed feelings about this. And I could care less about the "gay" issues.

I think it is a lead into a draft.
I would love to see the Army disbanded, but that is not likely. Instead I expect it to be expanded.

Want to beat the draft. Smoke Pot. Smoke lots of pot before the interview and make it clear that you smoke.
It may not end the draft,
But it will get Pot Legalized.;)

Truth, sir.

AxisMundi
12-19-2010, 05:11 PM
"Lead into a draft"? Hardly.

The GOP (Got Other Priorities), the welfare child of the military-industrial complex, is no longer in control of all Three Houses, so to speak.

Also, one cannot be required to serve in the military. There are many ways to opt out of military service, the least of which is not stepping over the yellow line.

MelissaWV
12-19-2010, 05:13 PM
"Lead into a draft"? Hardly.

The GOP (Got Other Priorities), the welfare child of the military-industrial complex, is no longer in control of all Three Houses, so to speak.

Also, one cannot be required to serve in the military. There are many ways to opt out of military service, the least of which is not stepping over the yellow line.

Which might be tucked into a bill down the line. I'm probably not as quick to say this is directly related to a draft as some others, but I see how it could be. We'll see what other legislation floats into view as far as closing loopholes. Most of us on this site are aware of multiple ways to opt out, but the "sheep" will often join with little resisting. If the easy avenues are gone, even that bit of fight might go out of some of them. All of this is high-level hypothesis at this point.

pcosmar
12-19-2010, 05:17 PM
"Lead into a draft"? Hardly.

The GOP (Got Other Priorities), the welfare child of the military-industrial complex, is no longer in control of all Three Houses, so to speak.

Also, one cannot be required to serve in the military. There are many ways to opt out of military service, the least of which is not stepping over the yellow line.

It has already been proposed. Several times in fact and not by the GOP but I expect them to get on board when they are told to.
The US will become the enforcement arm of the UN. (look at START)
There is no longer any real production in this country, and all efforts will go into becoming the worlds police.

virgil47
12-19-2010, 05:30 PM
Unsupported hysteria, I'm afraid.

1. People who already "hate" will hate no matter what the circumstances.
2. This legislation requires the repeal of DADT, not some imagined indoctrination courses. I would imagine "sensitivity training" will be mandatory, just as it is now for men who abuse women and/or are racists.
3. Racists and religious fundamentalists are already "forced" to serve alongside people of other races and religions. We don't see people leaving the military because they are "forced" to serve with "them ni**ers", or mass exodus because people don't want to serve next to atheists, Muslims, pagan,s etc, now do we?

What WILL happen?

1. People's careers won't be destroyed just because of a natural, inherent, unchangeable aspect of themselves that harms no one.
2. Gays will be able to enjoy relationships, within military guidelines, just like heteros.
3. Men and women may serve their nation without fear of discrimination for their sexual orientation, just like straights.

It comes down to simple equality. Gays are NOT seeking "special rights", only equality. And let's face it, just as our government has no business forcing religion down peoples throats, bigotry, especially motivated largely by religion, has no place in our laws or policy.

Will we loose a scant few? Perhaps. And to be quite frank, our military will be better off without them.

I'm not concerned about those that already hate. Most of them have been weeded out of the military long ago. I'm concerned about a new crop of haters being created by this legislation. You have obviously not served in the military in recent times or you would realize that your so called "sensitivity" training will be a full blown indoctrination when it takes place. Let's compare some numbers shall we. Right around 75.1% of the population claims to be Christian and about 1.51% claim to be gay. It sure sounds a lot like the tail is wagging the dog. As for damaging careers remember who will be writing performance reports. Gays are not looking for equality they want special privileges! Don't believe that then please tell me when the "sensitivity" training to teach gays to not hate heterosexuals begins. I'll tell you when ... NEVER!

ArmyCowboy
12-19-2010, 06:01 PM
There will be no draft.

Those who believe there will be really don't know what's going on the the military now days.

libertarian4321
12-19-2010, 06:02 PM
Let's compare some numbers shall we. Right around 75.1% of the population claims to be Christian and about 1.51% claim to be gay.

Your numbers, which are way off btw, presume that all Christians hate gays, which is obviously not the case.


As for damaging careers remember who will be writing performance reports. Gays are not looking for equality they want special privileges! Don't believe that then please tell me when the "sensitivity" training to teach gays to not hate heterosexuals begins. I'll tell you when ... NEVER!

What are you babbling about? You make it sound like there is going to be some sort of war between gays and straights, which is utterly absurd.

All this law does is allow gays to CONTINUE to serve, but eliminates the need for them to lie about their sexual preference.

Dozens of other nations allow gays in the military, and have had little or no problem adapting. I'm pretty sure the US can do it if they could.


You have obviously not served in the military in recent times or you would realize that your so called "sensitivity" training will be a full blown indoctrination when it takes place.

I don't know about the other guy, but I've served just under 30 years (so far) in the Army, active and reserve. I'm a military contractor in my civilian job.

I don't see ending DADT as a big deal at all.

AxisMundi
12-19-2010, 07:57 PM
Which might be tucked into a bill down the line. I'm probably not as quick to say this is directly related to a draft as some others, but I see how it could be. We'll see what other legislation floats into view as far as closing loopholes. Most of us on this site are aware of multiple ways to opt out, but the "sheep" will often join with little resisting. If the easy avenues are gone, even that bit of fight might go out of some of them. All of this is high-level hypothesis at this point.

Considering the level of "intelligent thought" and forward thinking exhibited by our g'ment at the moment, I seriously doubt there would be some hidden agenda to force a draft.

There is also one simple question to answer.

"Why?"

Why would the government and/or military, well stocked now with volunteers, seek to circumvent that ideal in favor of forcing a portion of citizens to serve?

AxisMundi
12-19-2010, 08:04 PM
I'm not concerned about those that already hate. Most of them have been weeded out of the military long ago. I'm concerned about a new crop of haters being created by this legislation. You have obviously not served in the military in recent times or you would realize that your so called "sensitivity" training will be a full blown indoctrination when it takes place. Let's compare some numbers shall we. Right around 75.1% of the population claims to be Christian and about 1.51% claim to be gay. It sure sounds a lot like the tail is wagging the dog. As for damaging careers remember who will be writing performance reports. Gays are not looking for equality they want special privileges! Don't believe that then please tell me when the "sensitivity" training to teach gays to not hate heterosexuals begins. I'll tell you when ... NEVER!

Again, unsupported hysteria.

Are their "indoctrination camps" now for gender? Race? If there are why not for sexuality? The klan, for instance, uses it's interpretation of your scriptures as a basis for their hate. Should they be permitted to opt out of "racial sensitivity indoctrination"? And please feel more than free to show where gays are threatening to quit for being "forced" to serve next to heteros, or how many straights have lost their military careers merely for being straight.

Your numbers are also negated by one simply fact. Yes, around three quarters of the population claim to be Christian. Not all support discrimination against the GLBT community. Indeed, there is a significant number who do support Equality in all areas, and many gays themselves are Christians as well.

(ignoring your 1.51% statistic, and it's inaccuracy, for the moment)

virgil47
12-19-2010, 08:38 PM
Your numbers, which are way off btw, presume that all Christians hate gays, which is obviously not the case.



What are you babbling about? You make it sound like there is going to be some sort of war between gays and straights, which is utterly absurd.

All this law does is allow gays to CONTINUE to serve, but eliminates the need for them to lie about their sexual preference.

Dozens of other nations allow gays in the military, and have had little or no problem adapting. I'm pretty sure the US can do it if they could.



I don't know about the other guy, but I've served just under 30 years (so far) in the Army, active and reserve. I'm a military contractor in my civilian job.

I don't see ending DADT as a big deal at all.

I've been working for the military for the last 37 years and you obviously did not read my post very closely. The fact that there are gays in the military is well known. Most do not mind as long as their noses are not rubbed in it and they are not forced to undergo indoctrination. Unfortunately the military mindset is to indoctrinate, belabor and force feed social mandates. If you don't agree then you haven't been paying attention for the last 30 years. The mandate that congress passed WILL be interpreted as an area in which to indoctrinate the troops. This knee jerk reaction by the military will be what causes the troops to have major issues with the gays in the military. If the military does nothing but accept gays there will be minimal problems. However if they choose to mandate that the troops love and respect the gay lifestyle there are going to be many problems none of which are good for our country. If the military pushes the gay agenda hard enough there will be an exodus from the military that will bring back the draft of my youth.

Brett85
12-19-2010, 09:32 PM
Couples should be allowed the same legal and tax rights and I don't want the government telling me who I can have as a partner. Now I'm against marriage as a government definition/law/encouragement to live how they want, but since they are, it should be equally bad for everyone.

The government doesn't tell you who you can have as a partner. We no longer have sodomy laws. But I don't believe that gays and lesbians should get special tax benefits. I don't believe that it's "libertarian" to have people who are morally opposed to homosexuality basically subsidize gay relationships.

Agorism
12-19-2010, 09:35 PM
I believe in attacking traditional culture and institutions to offend cultural conservatives and make them estranged from the government.

Plus it's funny.

spudea
12-19-2010, 10:01 PM
more likely the military will implement policies that continue to discriminate, such as not allowing gay partners to live together in military housing off base. Just like Jim crow laws implemented after slavery. We will be revisiting these issues in 3-5years.

History repeats.

devil21
12-19-2010, 10:17 PM
There will be no draft.

Those who believe there will be really don't know what's going on the the military now days.

How about you enlighten us then?

I saw you posted earlier something about the military being larger than ever so that's what I assume you'll repeat but I don't see how that matters. The pretext for a draft would be the largest war in the history of the world. The current US military isn't even the largest military in world. Not even second largest. If we ever had to go man-to-man with NK and/or China and/or Iran, etc you better believe the draft will be back.

pcosmar
12-19-2010, 10:32 PM
Considering the level of "intelligent thought" and forward thinking exhibited by our g'ment at the moment, I seriously doubt there would be some hidden agenda to force a draft.

Say what?

You obviously forgot the sarcasm tag.

ArmyCowboy
12-20-2010, 06:35 AM
How about you enlighten us then?

I saw you posted earlier something about the military being larger than ever so that's what I assume you'll repeat but I don't see how that matters. The pretext for a draft would be the largest war in the history of the world. The current US military isn't even the largest military in world. Not even second largest. If we ever had to go man-to-man with NK and/or China and/or Iran, etc you better believe the draft will be back.

We don't go "man to man."

Our strategy is based on massive air superiority and technology.

The numbers of boots on the ground is not that important in modern warfare.

pcosmar
12-20-2010, 06:43 AM
We don't go "man to man."

Our strategy is based on massive air superiority and technology.

The numbers of boots on the ground is not that important in modern warfare.

That is failing quite well in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Perhaps it is time to rethink that strategy.

Or better yet disband the army, bring the remaining troops home. and encourage local militia. (you know, like the 2nd amendment)

AxisMundi
12-20-2010, 12:17 PM
The government doesn't tell you who you can have as a partner. We no longer have sodomy laws. But I don't believe that gays and lesbians should get special tax benefits. I don't believe that it's "libertarian" to have people who are morally opposed to homosexuality basically subsidize gay relationships.

What "special tax benefits"?

AxisMundi
12-20-2010, 12:17 PM
Say what?

You obviously forgot the sarcasm tag.

No, I said what I meant to say.

AxisMundi
12-20-2010, 12:21 PM
How about you enlighten us then?

I saw you posted earlier something about the military being larger than ever so that's what I assume you'll repeat but I don't see how that matters. The pretext for a draft would be the largest war in the history of the world. The current US military isn't even the largest military in world. Not even second largest. If we ever had to go man-to-man with NK and/or China and/or Iran, etc you better believe the draft will be back.

Our military is the best in the world for what it has been designed, and trained, to do.

Win wars quickly and efficiently. (Occupation is another debate, and something we are not very good at).

NK, China, etc. could not touch our boys and girls in an all out war.

People need to ween themselves off of the Cold War idea that "bigger is better".

heavenlyboy34
12-20-2010, 12:32 PM
Our military is the best in the world for what it has been designed, and trained, to do.

Win wars quickly and efficiently. (Occupation is another debate, and something we are not very good at).

NK, China, etc. could not touch our boys and girls in an all out war.

People need to ween themselves off of the Cold War idea that "bigger is better".

Efficiently? Have you seen the military budget?

agitator
12-20-2010, 12:52 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20101220/ts_yblog_theticket/harry-reids-first-twitter-message-after-dadt-repeal-was-to-lady-gaga

Is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid secretly a Lady Gaga superfan?

On Saturday, Reid twice messaged the pop star on Twitter — shortly before the Senate voted to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy banning gays from serving openly in the military and immediately after. In fact, his first Twitter message after the vote was to Gaga, who had previously lobbied him and other senators via Twitter to overturn the controversial policy.

"We did it! DADT is a thing of the past," Reid wrote to Gaga. (A Reid spokesman tells The Ticket that though Reid didn't hit send on the message, he asked a staffer to send the note for him.) The singer didn't directly respond, though she did mark the Senate's historic vote in a separate tweet.

But that didn't discourage Reid, who cited Gaga in a Sunday press release trashing Republicans for stalling ratification of the so-called START nuclear arms treaty with Russia.

The statement listed significant events that had happened in the world since President Obama first reached agreement on the pact with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in April. Near the top of the list: Lady Gaga's meat dress, which she wore to the MTV awards in early September.

AxisMundi
12-20-2010, 12:54 PM
Efficiently? Have you seen the military budget?

Much of that budget is for R&D, not to mention NASA's cut of that pie.

However, yes, efficiently.

There is fiscal efficiency, and then there is Ass Kicking efficiency.

I spoke of the latter, of course.

pcosmar
12-20-2010, 12:55 PM
Efficiently? Have you seen the military budget?

I haven't even seen a win.

ArmyCowboy
12-20-2010, 01:03 PM
That is failing quite well in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Perhaps it is time to rethink that strategy.

Or better yet disband the army, bring the remaining troops home. and encourage local militia. (you know, like the 2nd amendment)

You're comparing war fighting on the army level with counterinsurgency.

We defeated the national armies of Iraq and Afghanistan in a matter of days.

Apples do not equal oranges.

But based on your military background, you knew that, right?

ArmyCowboy
12-20-2010, 01:04 PM
Efficiently? Have you seen the military budget?

Efficiently in terms of time and casualties.

pcosmar
12-20-2010, 01:11 PM
You're comparing war fighting on the army level with counterinsurgency.

We defeated the national armies of Iraq and Afghanistan in a matter of days.


What Armies?

And years later,,,,,,,,,,,
Don't even try to spread that Propaganda Bullshit.
And I am talking Korea to present.

What wins?

heavenlyboy34
12-20-2010, 01:13 PM
I haven't even seen a win.

that ^^ is an excellent point, thanks.

heavenlyboy34
12-20-2010, 01:16 PM
What Armies?

And years later,,,,,,,,,,,
Don't even try to spread that Propaganda Bullshit.
And I am talking Korea to present.

What wins?

This ^^ FTW

specsaregood
12-20-2010, 01:20 PM
What wins?

I'm sure they managed to blowup a wedding party or something recently. Does that count?

heavenlyboy34
12-20-2010, 01:22 PM
Efficiently in terms of time and casualties.

Do you know how many people died in the unnecessary firebombing of Dresden? 25,000. Pfhorzheim, 18,000. The other 20th and 21st century wars are also very grim. The military machine may be efficient and killing people and breaking things, but at winning wars efficiently with minimum civilian casualties it is not.

AxisMundi
12-20-2010, 01:37 PM
I haven't even seen a win.

Did we not defeat the national armies of two countries or not?

pcosmar
12-20-2010, 01:45 PM
Did we not defeat the national armies of two countries or not?

What armies?
Afghanistan did not even have an army by third world standards. And the purpose of going there as to get Osama.
So that was a total failure.

Saddam's army was destroyed by bombing and sanctions of the first gulf "war".
There was virtually NO resistance to the invasion. (despite the propaganda)

The last organized army that was engaged was in Viet Nam. Another war based on lies that we did not win.

AxisMundi
12-20-2010, 03:33 PM
What armies?
Afghanistan did not even have an army by third world standards. And the purpose of going there as to get Osama.
So that was a total failure.

Saddam's army was destroyed by bombing and sanctions of the first gulf "war".
There was virtually NO resistance to the invasion. (despite the propaganda)

The last organized army that was engaged was in Viet Nam. Another war based on lies that we did not win.

Everyone loves a pessimist.

BTW, the cause of our loss in VN wasn't the military, but the arm-chair generals in Congress.

TonySutton
12-20-2010, 03:43 PM
You guys should ask the mods to split off this conversation which is unrelated to the OP.

devil21
12-20-2010, 03:43 PM
You're comparing war fighting on the army level with counterinsurgency.

We defeated the national armies of Iraq and Afghanistan in a matter of days.

Apples do not equal oranges.

But based on your military background, you knew that, right?

Surely you're not comparing NK's 1.5 million standing nuclear-capable army with the Iraqi army? Yeah, I know our military loves their toys but if you're suggesting that there would be no need to dramatically increase foot soldiers then I think you put too much faith in the toys. Continuing with the North Korean example, they have thousands of miles of tunnels dug under the country and can literally pop up BEHIND the South's lines undetected. But you knew that, right? Is that really something to compare to the Afghan "army"? You say not to equate apples with oranges yet you somehow equate NK or Chinese military with the Iraqi or Afghan military as if they have anything in common.

oyarde
12-20-2010, 04:00 PM
al sharpton speaks out on it


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9idddtgp2o

ha , ha , ha

oyarde
12-20-2010, 04:04 PM
So what if I love my cat and want to get married to my cat? Shouldn't I have that right since there's nothing immoral about love?

Your killing me man. : )

MelissaWV
12-20-2010, 05:03 PM
You guys should ask the mods to split off this conversation which is unrelated to the OP.

I'm beginning to think this is just a new way of doing things. People are uncomfortable with LGBT, so they start arguing about other shit. It's happening in multiple threads :rolleyes:

ArmyCowboy
12-20-2010, 05:20 PM
What Armies?

And years later,,,,,,,,,,,
Don't even try to spread that Propaganda Bullshit.
And I am talking Korea to present.

What wins?

The armies of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I never said that the invasions were a good idea, I was very much against them and still am.

However, you can't deny history and we did defeat their armies, even though it wasn't the right thing to do.

ArmyCowboy
12-20-2010, 05:21 PM
Surely you're not comparing NK's 1.5 million standing nuclear-capable army with the Iraqi army? Yeah, I know our military loves their toys but if you're suggesting that there would be no need to dramatically increase foot soldiers then I think you put too much faith in the toys. Continuing with the North Korean example, they have thousands of miles of tunnels dug under the country and can literally pop up BEHIND the South's lines undetected. But you knew that, right? Is that really something to compare to the Afghan "army"? You say not to equate apples with oranges yet you somehow equate NK or Chinese military with the Iraqi or Afghan military as if they have anything in common.

Desert Storm.

The Iraqi Army was 1 million plus.

libertarian4321
12-20-2010, 06:09 PM
I've been working for the military for the last 37 years and you obviously did not read my post very closely. The fact that there are gays in the military is well known. Most do not mind as long as their noses are not rubbed in it and they are not forced to undergo indoctrination. Unfortunately the military mindset is to indoctrinate, belabor and force feed social mandates. If you don't agree then you haven't been paying attention for the last 30 years. The mandate that congress passed WILL be interpreted as an area in which to indoctrinate the troops. This knee jerk reaction by the military will be what causes the troops to have major issues with the gays in the military. If the military does nothing but accept gays there will be minimal problems. However if they choose to mandate that the troops love and respect the gay lifestyle there are going to be many problems none of which are good for our country. If the military pushes the gay agenda hard enough there will be an exodus from the military that will bring back the draft of my youth.

Oh horse crap. Don't be so melodramatic.

Yes, they will probably tie this into the standard BS classes that military (and DoD civilian personnel) already take. No big deal.

No one is going to be forced to "love the gay lifestyle" or any such nonsense. About all this will do is end the persecution of gays.

Other than slightly changing the syllabus of the bull shit sensitivity/harassment classes that we already take every year, this change will be minor.

Ten years from now, we'll look back at this moment and wonder "what the Hell was all the hysteria about?"

BTW, I'll bet most gay soldiers will NOT "come out." They will just keep doing their jobs like they do now. However, if they are "caught" and outed, they can now stay in the service- whereas before they would have been tossed out.

libertarian4321
12-20-2010, 06:14 PM
We don't go "man to man."

Our strategy is based on massive air superiority and technology.

The numbers of boots on the ground is not that important in modern warfare.

Yup.

Raw numbers aren't all that important- a bunch of minimally trained "soldiers" with AK-47's are little more than a mob, easily routed by trained, disciplined, soldiers equipped with modern weaponry.

Most people forget that in Desert Storm, Saddam's army vastly outnumbered the coalition forces- more men and more tanks.

That massive army crumbled in a matter of hours.

MelissaWV
12-20-2010, 06:22 PM
Oh horse crap. Don't be so melodramatic.

Yes, they will probably tie this into the standard BS classes that military (and DoD civilian personnel) already take. No big deal.

No one is going to be forced to "love the gay lifestyle" or any such nonsense. About all this will do is end the persecution of gays.

Other than slightly changing the syllabus of the bull shit sensitivity/harassment classes that we already take every year, this change will be minor.

Ten years from now, we'll look back at this moment and wonder "what the Hell was all the hysteria about?"

BTW, I'll bet most gay soldiers will NOT "come out." They will just keep doing their jobs like they do now. However, if they are "caught" and outed, they can now stay in the service- whereas before they would have been tossed out.

They've been advised not to, and rightly so. This could be overturned... and then overturned again, and then... you get the idea. No one knows which face of the coin will actually land up and stay up. No one really wants to be the only one standing up and testing the waters to see if their fellow solders will hate them or get them thrown out of the military after the flipflop for being gay (though I have more faith in the military in general to think that... I wonder why people who supposedly "support the troops" seem to be suggesting the troops are incapable of adaptation?).

libertarian4321
12-20-2010, 06:22 PM
What armies?

Saddam's army was destroyed by bombing and sanctions of the first gulf "war".
There was virtually NO resistance to the invasion. (despite the propaganda)



To the contrary, despite the hellacious pounding they received from our Air Force (which is part of our military, btw), Saddam's army was still largely intact as Desert Storm began.

Most of his armor was still on the field of battle despite the bombing.

They were quickly overwhelmed simply because they had no answer for our superior firepower and technology. Simply put, T-55's, T-62's, and T-72's were no match for M-1's and Bradleys. Our guys blew their tanks away before they even knew we our guys were there.

Yes, they were routed, but it's not because they "had no army" or had given up. They were simply fighting a vastly superior military.

rp08orbust
12-20-2010, 06:35 PM
It's about time. Congratulations gay folks.

Yes, gay folks now get to murder, rape and pillage alongside straight folks.

MelissaWV
12-20-2010, 06:37 PM
Yes, gay folks now get to murder, rape and pillage alongside straight folks.

They already have been. Now they don't have to worry about their fellow "murderers, rapists, and pillagers" getting them kicked out after service but before benefits.

Incidentally, why do people who hate the military so very much visit a site and even name themselves after a man who served in the military and seems to have no problem with it, just how it's used? A site frequented by candidates who served in the military, fellow forum members who served in the military, and many people who harp on and on about individuality and not painting with a broad brush?

Brett85
12-20-2010, 07:02 PM
What "special tax benefits"?

When people get married the government then gives special tax breaks and exemptions to them. If the government recognized gay marriages, people who are morally opposed to homosexuality would be forced to subsidize gay marriages.

libertarian4321
12-21-2010, 01:39 PM
When people get married the government then gives special tax breaks and exemptions to them. If the government recognized gay marriages, people who are morally opposed to homosexuality would be forced to subsidize gay marriages.

Like the way atheists are forced to subsidize religion with all the tax breaks for churches and crap like "faith based initiatives?"

AxisMundi
12-21-2010, 01:41 PM
When people get married the government then gives special tax breaks and exemptions to them. If the government recognized gay marriages, people who are morally opposed to homosexuality would be forced to subsidize gay marriages.

There are still people morally objected towards inter-racial marriages.

There are still people who are morally objected towards marriage conducted outside their churches/religion.

That moral objection, and one's religious rights, cannot be used to force OUR government to discriminate against a minority.

Sorry, but your example is not an example of "special privileges".

AxisMundi
12-21-2010, 01:43 PM
Like the way atheists are forced to subsidize religion with all the tax breaks for churches and crap like "faith based initiatives?"

Good examples, and although I did not want to repeat them in my post, they deserve a quote.

Brett85
12-21-2010, 04:48 PM
Like the way atheists are forced to subsidize religion with all the tax breaks for churches and crap like "faith based initiatives?"

I'm opposed to that as well. I support abolishing the IRS.

Brett85
12-21-2010, 04:52 PM
There are still people morally objected towards inter-racial marriages.

There are still people who are morally objected towards marriage conducted outside their churches/religion.

That moral objection, and one's religious rights, cannot be used to force OUR government to discriminate against a minority.

Sorry, but your example is not an example of "special privileges".

Do we discriminate against child molesters by having laws against them? The fact is that there is no scientific basis to claim that people are born gay, so the whole "civil rights" argument is a false one. Let me just be clear that I'm opposed to criminalizing homosexuality, but there's absolutely no reason why the government should recognize gay marriages. That would simply create more bureaucracy and a bigger government.

oyarde
12-21-2010, 04:54 PM
I'm opposed to that as well. I support abolishing the IRS.

Gets my vote !

jmdrake
12-21-2010, 05:03 PM
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell — Don’t Go (http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/02/04/dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-go/)

^Thread winner

devil21
12-21-2010, 05:44 PM
Yup.

Raw numbers aren't all that important- a bunch of minimally trained "soldiers" with AK-47's are little more than a mob, easily routed by trained, disciplined, soldiers equipped with modern weaponry.

Most people forget that in Desert Storm, Saddam's army vastly outnumbered the coalition forces- more men and more tanks.

That massive army crumbled in a matter of hours.

The difference is that's all they had. Tanks and AK's. China, NK, Iran, Russia all have much more advanced weaponry and even further advanced than back in the 90's. Air superiority in DS was obtained simply because the Iraqi army had no air power and little anti-aircraft capabilities. That's not the case with our likely opponents in the next WW. Our opponents can actually shoot down our planes and drones (eta: and even go head-to-head in dogfights). Once that becomes obvious then sheer manpower forces become necessary and that's where the draft comes in.

AxisMundi
12-21-2010, 08:16 PM
Do we discriminate against child molesters by having laws against them? The fact is that there is no scientific basis to claim that people are born gay, so the whole "civil rights" argument is a false one. Let me just be clear that I'm opposed to criminalizing homosexuality, but there's absolutely no reason why the government should recognize gay marriages. That would simply create more bureaucracy and a bigger government.

Just the simple fact that you people MUST rely on "false flag" analogies totally unrelated to the debate, ie equality for the GLBT community, should show those with some intellectual honesty that their argument is completely and utterly without merit or foundation. We speak of consenting, tax-paying, unrelated adults who harm no one. Not molesters, not people interested in sex with animals, not people wanting to marry their car.

Please stay on topic.

Now, since that is hopefully (but doubtfully) cleared up...

1. Science states that, while the exact mechanisms of human sexuality is unknown, all three major classifications share the SAME origins. Science also states that sexual orientation is unchangeable as well. Therefor, there is indeed a scientific basis for Equality.

2. There is every reason to provide equal access to a government institution for law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adults.

3. No, there would be no "more bureaucracy and a bigger government" as gays would use the current system in place now. Gays would use either willing churches and/or clergy, or, like my wife and I, secular marriage officiants (in our case a Justice of the Peace).

Face it, there is no valid, reasonable rational to keep gays from enjoying the same privileges enjoyed by their fellow citizens.

AxisMundi
12-21-2010, 08:20 PM
The difference is that's all they had. Tanks and AK's. China, NK, Iran, Russia all have much more advanced weaponry and even further advanced than back in the 90's. Air superiority in DS was obtained simply because the Iraqi army had no air power and little anti-aircraft capabilities. That's not the case with our likely opponents in the next WW. Our opponents can actually shoot down our planes and drones. Once that becomes obvious then sheer manpower forces become necessary and that's where the draft comes in.

Saddam had the same type of AA systems that wrecked havoc on our airmen in Vietnam. They were taken out with our fleet of low-radar signature bombers (our "stealth planes") and our precision guided munitions.

Brett85
12-21-2010, 08:32 PM
Just the simple fact that you people MUST rely on "false flag" analogies totally unrelated to the debate, ie equality for the GLBT community, should show those with some intellectual honesty that their argument is completely and utterly without merit or foundation. We speak of consenting, tax-paying, unrelated adults who harm no one. Not molesters, not people interested in sex with animals, not people wanting to marry their car.

Please stay on topic.

Now, since that is hopefully (but doubtfully) cleared up...

1. Science states that, while the exact mechanisms of human sexuality is unknown, all three major classifications share the SAME origins. Science also states that sexual orientation is unchangeable as well. Therefor, there is indeed a scientific basis for Equality.

2. There is every reason to provide equal access to a government institution for law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adults.

3. No, there would be no "more bureaucracy and a bigger government" as gays would use the current system in place now. Gays would use either willing churches and/or clergy, or, like my wife and I, secular marriage officiants (in our case a Justice of the Peace).

Face it, there is no valid, reasonable rational to keep gays from enjoying the same privileges enjoyed by their fellow citizens.

I was staying on topic. The fact is that I and many people believe that homosexuality is just as immoral as sex with animals, sex with children, etc. I'm not arguing that homosexuals should get thrown in jail. I'm just arguing that they shouldn't be granted special rights by the government. Gays already have the right to get married, but the government shouldn't recognize their immoral lifestyle. Sexual orientation is not unchangeable either. There have been many people who converted from homosexuality to being straight. I can provide links for you if you want. And yes, having the government more involved in marriage would create a bigger government then we have right now. But go ahead and take the big government position of having more government involvement in marriage.

Zap!
12-21-2010, 11:33 PM
I was staying on topic. The fact is that I and many people believe that homosexuality is just as immoral as sex with animals, sex with children, etc. I'm not arguing that homosexuals should get thrown in jail. I'm just arguing that they shouldn't be granted special rights by the government. Gays already have the right to get married, but the government shouldn't recognize their immoral lifestyle. Sexual orientation is not unchangeable either. There have been many people who converted from homosexuality to being straight. I can provide links for you if you want. And yes, having the government more involved in marriage would create a bigger government then we have right now. But go ahead and take the big government position of having more government involvement in marriage.

Exactly. MTV brainwashed an entire generation into thinking it's just another normal alternative lifestyle choice.

silentshout
12-21-2010, 11:36 PM
Exactly. MTV brainwashed an entire generation into thinking it's just another normal alternative lifestyle choice.

.... People have been gay for quite a long time. I just don't get why other people have to care so much about the sex lives of others.

Brett85
12-21-2010, 11:42 PM
.... People have been gay for quite a long time. I just don't get why other people have to care so much about the sex lives of others.

I don't care about what people do in the privacy of their own homes. But the problem is that gay activists are trying to push the homosexual agenda on the rest of us by indoctrinating our kids in school, passing hate crimes legislation making it illegal to speak out against homosexuality, etc.

Zap!
12-21-2010, 11:53 PM
.... People have been gay for quite a long time. I just don't get why other people have to care so much about the sex lives of others.

People have been a lot of things for a long time, that doesn't mean it's right.

bill1971
12-22-2010, 12:17 AM
I don't care about what people do in the privacy of their own homes. But the problem is that gay activists are trying to push the homosexual agenda on the rest of us by indoctrinating our kids in school, passing hate crimes legislation making it illegal to speak out against homosexuality, etc.


The homosexuals have an agenda? Damn, I'll have to tell my brother who is gay, that their secret is out. I don't see what is wrong with them being viewed as equals in the eyes of the govt. As long as marriage is a govt institution, it should extend it to all couples wanting to get married. I do agree with you on hate crimes, I think a crime is a crime no matter who it is done to. I find it ironic that stopping gays from getting married is in the "Liberty" forums. I am glad it is though, discussion and debate are healthy.

TheTyke
12-22-2010, 12:27 AM
A small minority does not get legislation passed and talked about constantly in schools, TV, the news, and politics without having an agenda - and a very, very effective strategy.

Heck, 75% of Americans want an Audit of the Fed, and we can't get that passed. I'm sure we could learn something.

silverhandorder
12-22-2010, 12:51 AM
Agenda or no DADT is wrong. Yes I am against hate crimes (aka double standards) and whole host of things government does in the name of minorities. However what does that have to do with DADT? If anything I kinda view it as a side show distraction my self and even though I am happy for gays I could care less when we are financially collapsing due to devaluing of currency and crippling regulations.

Bothered about gays propagandizing in school? Fight that but why fight over DADT?

Brett85
12-22-2010, 01:04 AM
Agenda or no DADT is wrong. Yes I am against hate crimes (aka double standards) and whole host of things government does in the name of minorities. However what does that have to do with DADT? If anything I kinda view it as a side show distraction my self and even though I am happy for gays I could care less when we are financially collapsing due to devaluing of currency and crippling regulations.

Bothered about gays propagandizing in school? Fight that but why fight over DADT?

I don't have a problem with repealing DADT unless it eventually leads to gay marriage. But just looking at the issue on it's own I don't think that people should get kicked out of the military for living a lifestyle that I happen to disagree with.

Brett85
12-22-2010, 01:10 AM
The homosexuals have an agenda? Damn, I'll have to tell my brother who is gay, that their secret is out. I don't see what is wrong with them being viewed as equals in the eyes of the govt. As long as marriage is a govt institution, it should extend it to all couples wanting to get married. I do agree with you on hate crimes, I think a crime is a crime no matter who it is done to. I find it ironic that stopping gays from getting married is in the "Liberty" forums. I am glad it is though, discussion and debate are healthy.

Well Rand Paul has said that he opposes gay marriage, and he was said to be a "liberty candidate." I believe that Justin Amash opposes it as well. Also, the difference between the gay marriage issue and issues like drug use and prostitution is that those are criminal issues while gay marriage is simply an issue of whether the government should recognize gay marriages and extend the definition of marriage to them. But nobody is physically trying to "stop" gays from getting married. Under our current laws a gay couple can go have their own private marriage ceremony and not get arrested for it. Gay marriage is already decriminalized.

silverhandorder
12-22-2010, 01:14 AM
The thing about gay marriage is that we shouldn't have govt in marriage in the first place. We do now and there is little one can say from a moral stand point against gay marriage unless one advocates removing government from defining marriage and inserting tax incentives.

Issue is muddled and as such its difficult to say what to do since both sides want their point of view satisfied first. Gays demand equality and Christians sanctity of marriage because both sides have elements that are happy with government control of marriage.

reillym
12-22-2010, 01:22 AM
I was staying on topic. The fact is that I and many people believe that homosexuality is just as immoral as sex with animals, sex with children, etc. I'm not arguing that homosexuals should get thrown in jail. I'm just arguing that they shouldn't be granted special rights by the government. Gays already have the right to get married, but the government shouldn't recognize their immoral lifestyle. Sexual orientation is not unchangeable either. There have been many people who converted from homosexuality to being straight. I can provide links for you if you want. And yes, having the government more involved in marriage would create a bigger government then we have right now. But go ahead and take the big government position of having more government involvement in marriage.

1. You're a bigot, and should be ashamed.
2. If people can decide their sexuality, when did you decide to be straight? Can you willingly switch what genders you are attracted to? Because I sure as hell can't.
3. Those people who "converted" (or so you say) are not proof. You fail. (bigots usually do)
4. Animals do gay behavior, are they pushing a gay agenda too? Trying to get gay married to they indoctrinate your kids? HAHAHHAHA you fucking bigot. Get a life.

Brett85
12-22-2010, 01:28 AM
1. You're a bigot, and should be ashamed.
2. If people can decide their sexuality, when did you decide to be straight? Can you willingly switch what genders you are attracted to? Because I sure as hell can't.
3. Those people who "converted" (or so you say) are not proof. You fail. (bigots usually do)
4. Animals do gay behavior, are they pushing a gay agenda too? Trying to get gay married to they indoctrinate your kids? HAHAHHAHA you fucking bigot. Get a life.

You're not going to get anywhere calling people names and throwing f bombs. You're obviously the hateful person here. I expressed my views in a calm and intelligent way. I'm not ashamed of my Christian views. I'll never apologize for believing the teachings of the Bible. It's very obvious that you're bigoted against Christians. I never said that people "choose" to be straight. You're making that up. It's caused by a number of different things. I just said that there's no scientific proof that people are born gay. No, there's lots of people who have converted, but instead of making a rational argument you just want to throw around insults.

http://lovewonout.com/
http://www.exodusinternational.org/content/view/417/180/

bill1971
12-22-2010, 01:38 AM
Well Rand Paul has said that he opposes gay marriage, and he was said to be a "liberty candidate." I believe that Justin Amash opposes it as well. Also, the difference between the gay marriage issue and issues like drug use and prostitution is that those are criminal issues while gay marriage is simply an issue of whether the government should recognize gay marriages and extend the definition of marriage to them. But nobody is physically trying to "stop" gays from getting married. Under our current laws a gay couple can go have their own private marriage ceremony and not get arrested for it. Gay marriage is already decriminalized.


I am not that impressed with Rand Paul. He seems more like a standard republican, while his father is more libertarian and more aligned with my views. Aside that you find it immoral due to your belief in the bible, do you think it would harm other people's marriage if gays were allowed to be recognized as equals in marriage? If you or others think it is immoral to marry a man, then don't do it.

bill1971
12-22-2010, 01:41 AM
You're not going to get anywhere calling people names and throwing f bombs. You're obviously the hateful person here. I expressed my views in a calm and intelligent way. I'm not ashamed of my Christian views. I'll never apologize for believing the teachings of the Bible. It's very obvious that you're bigoted against Christians. I never said that people "choose" to be straight. You're making that up. It's caused by a number of different things. I just said that there's no scientific proof that people are born gay. No, there's lots of people who have converted, but instead of making a rational argument you just want to throw around insults.

http://lovewonout.com/
http://www.exodusinternational.org/content/view/417/180/


I agree about the name calling, my personal take on forum debates is don't type something that you wouldn't say to someones face. If you dont think people choose to be straight, do you think someone would chose to be gay? Could you choose to be gay if you wanted to?

Brett85
12-22-2010, 09:45 AM
I agree about the name calling, my personal take on forum debates is don't type something that you wouldn't say to someones face. If you dont think people choose to be straight, do you think someone would chose to be gay? Could you choose to be gay if you wanted to?

Sorry, that was a typo. I meant that people don't choose to be gay. The only point I made was that there isn't any scientific evidence that people are born gay, so people who make that claim really have no solid proof to back it up. My own personal opinion is that it's a complex issue and may be due to a number of different things. But I don't think that most homosexuals have those feelings when they're two years old. So I don't necessarily think it's something they're "born" with. I think that it's more of a character trait that develops over time.

Brett85
12-22-2010, 09:48 AM
I am not that impressed with Rand Paul. He seems more like a standard republican, while his father is more libertarian and more aligned with my views. Aside that you find it immoral due to your belief in the bible, do you think it would harm other people's marriage if gays were allowed to be recognized as equals in marriage? If you or others think it is immoral to marry a man, then don't do it.

I never claimed that it would harm other people's marriages. The argument that I have made is simply that having the government recognize gay marriages is not a libertarian position, as it would lead to more government involvement in marriage and a bigger government. Ron Paul has also said that he supports the Defense of Marriage Act, so even he doesn't believe that the government should actually recognize gay marriages.

Chieppa1
12-22-2010, 09:59 AM
I never claimed that it would harm other people's marriages. The argument that I have made is simply that having the government recognize gay marriages is not a libertarian position, as it would lead to more government involvement in marriage and a bigger government. Ron Paul has also said that he supports the Defense of Marriage Act, so even he doesn't believe that the government should actually recognize gay marriages.

And what's libertarian about the federal government recognizing straight marriages?

Brett85
12-22-2010, 10:01 AM
And what's libertarian about the federal government recognizing straight marriages?

I think the libertarian position is that it should be a state issue. Marriages are recognized state by state. But there's nothing in the Constitution that says that a state can't determine the kind of union that qualifies for a marriage licence.

Chieppa1
12-22-2010, 10:02 AM
No one should get any benefits/punishment for marrying anyone.

Chieppa1
12-22-2010, 10:03 AM
I think the libertarian position is that it should be a state issue. Marriages are recognized state by state. But there's nothing in the Constitution that says that a state can't determine the kind of union that qualifies for a marriage licence.

I think the libertarian position is that there is no such thing as a "marriage license". Constitutionally I think you're right.

specsaregood
12-22-2010, 10:14 AM
I think the libertarian position is that there is no such thing as a "marriage license". Constitutionally I think you're right.

It amazing anybody supports marriage licenses considering their history as being used to prevent interracial coupling. They have traditionally been about discrimination in the states.....race previously and now based on sexual preference. Isn't it time we just eliminated them?

Brett85
12-22-2010, 10:17 AM
I think the libertarian position is that there is no such thing as a "marriage license". Constitutionally I think you're right.

Maybe so, and I would have less of a problem with that then having legal recognition of same sex marriage. But it's really just a philosophical debate, as no politician other than maybe Ron Paul proposes doing away with marriage licences.

Chieppa1
12-22-2010, 10:19 AM
It amazing anybody supports marriage licenses considering their history as being used to prevent interracial coupling. They have traditionally been about discrimination in the states.....race previously and now based on sexual preference. Isn't it time we just eliminated them?

Any license/permit is used to discriminate and control. Law license, hunting license, firearms license, drivers license, lemonade stand permit, protest permit. Arguments for them from "liberty supporters" always comes off as hypocritical.

Chieppa1
12-22-2010, 10:22 AM
Maybe so, and I would have less of a problem with that then having legal recognition of same sex marriage. But it's really just a philosophical debate, as no politician other than maybe Ron Paul proposes doing away with marriage licences.

Exactly. The homosexual "agenda" I think, would change, if there is one, if the idea that less governmental hands in marriage would actually make them more free was in the mainstream. Or at least got a week or two of light on a MSM station. That view on things is something I find hard to get across to anyone. Straight or gay.

bill1971
12-22-2010, 11:53 AM
I never claimed that it would harm other people's marriages. The argument that I have made is simply that having the government recognize gay marriages is not a libertarian position, as it would lead to more government involvement in marriage and a bigger government. Ron Paul has also said that he supports the Defense of Marriage Act, so even he doesn't believe that the government should actually recognize gay marriages.


The defense of marriage act is basically that one state doesnt have to recognize gay marriage of another state. Which is true to his belief in state control of themselves. He has also said that he has his own definition of what marriage is but that doesnt mean that others should be forced to share it. It was on some youtube interview with a priest or pastor that was trying to bait him into saying homosexuality is a sin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE

Very interesting interview.

AxisMundi
12-22-2010, 12:27 PM
Exactly. MTV brainwashed an entire generation into thinking it's just another normal alternative lifestyle choice.

"Lifestyle" Spoken like a true willful ignorant.

Let us examine the lifestyle of any gay couple,shall we?

AM: Get up, shower, go to work/school.
Lunch: Perhaps together, like hetero couples will, if work/school schedules permits.
Afternoon: Finish work/school, go home.
Evening: Spent together, perhaps a movie or diner.
Night: Go to bed.

So, where is this "gay lifestyle"?

And might I suggest you research the issue (at least) and do so from scientific sources?

You will find that gay is not a choice, but that religion is.

AxisMundi
12-22-2010, 12:37 PM
I don't care about what people do in the privacy of their own homes. But the problem is that gay activists are trying to push the homosexual agenda on the rest of us by indoctrinating our kids in school, passing hate crimes legislation making it illegal to speak out against homosexuality, etc.

This is an over reaction, a "Civil Rights Backlash" as I term it, and one we have seen for many years among racial minorities. Such programs, your "indoctrination in schools" and hate crime legislation, are already in place for racial tolerance.

Why?

Because some people insist on keeping the status quo of discrimination and oppression in place, discrimination often centered around willful ignorance and an unwillingness to change their opinions. Thus the fight for simple Equality becomes like an overloaded semi with bad brakes, unstoppable and unable to stop in a reasonable distance. The cause of these tolerance programs and hate crime legislation is not found among the GLBT community, or we that support them. It is the fault of those who purposely remain willfully ignorant on the matter, and promote discrimination and oppression.

In the case of discrimination against gays, I have noticed a definite trend, one where people do not wish to seem less the Christian, or less the straight, by supporting simple Equality for the gay community.

You don't have to like them to support Equality for this minority. And any unjustified discrimination, especially one routed solely in religious doctrines, in this Nation is a huge brown stain on our social fabric.

AxisMundi
12-22-2010, 12:45 PM
A small minority does not get legislation passed and talked about constantly in schools, TV, the news, and politics without having an agenda - and a very, very effective strategy.

Heck, 75% of Americans want an Audit of the Fed, and we can't get that passed. I'm sure we could learn something.

There are far less profoundly blind people in the United States than gay couples wishing to marry. There are also less handicapped people than gay people to, unless I miss my guess. Yet braille on ATM's is mandatory, and handicapped parking spaces are as well.

So, blind and handicapped must have "an agenda".

The only people with "an agenda" is the religious right (which is neither) who want to impose their religion on everyone else.


People have been a lot of things for a long time, that doesn't mean it's right.

It negates your statement that MTV is the cause of it all.

Brett85
12-22-2010, 12:53 PM
This is an over reaction, a "Civil Rights Backlash" as I term it, and one we have seen for many years among racial minorities. Such programs, your "indoctrination in schools" and hate crime legislation, are already in place for racial tolerance.

Why?

Because some people insist on keeping the status quo of discrimination and oppression in place, discrimination often centered around willful ignorance and an unwillingness to change their opinions. Thus the fight for simple Equality becomes like an overloaded semi with bad brakes, unstoppable and unable to stop in a reasonable distance. The cause of these tolerance programs and hate crime legislation is not found among the GLBT community, or we that support them. It is the fault of those who purposely remain willfully ignorant on the matter, and promote discrimination and oppression.

In the case of discrimination against gays, I have noticed a definite trend, one where people do not wish to seem less the Christian, or less the straight, by supporting simple Equality for the gay community.

You don't have to like them to support Equality for this minority. And any unjustified discrimination, especially one routed solely in religious doctrines, in this Nation is a huge brown stain on our social fabric.

Gays already have equal rights. Being gay is a civil right in this country. We do not persecute gays and throw them in jail in this country. People can live whatever kind of lifestyle they want to live. But that still doesn't mean that the government should give legitimacy to homosexuality by recognizing same sex marriages. That's an example of the government creating an extra right for a special interest group. There's also no evidence at all that homosexuality is a genetic trait, so your claim that this is an "equality" issue is without merit.

Brett85
12-22-2010, 12:55 PM
There are far less profoundly blind people in the United States than gay couples wishing to marry. There are also less handicapped people than gay people to, unless I miss my guess. Yet braille on ATM's is mandatory, and handicapped parking spaces are as well.

So, blind and handicapped must have "an agenda".

So from that I gather that you actually support the Americans With Disabilities Act?

AxisMundi
12-22-2010, 01:04 PM
You're not going to get anywhere calling people names and throwing f bombs. You're obviously the hateful person here. I expressed my views in a calm and intelligent way. I'm not ashamed of my Christian views. I'll never apologize for believing the teachings of the Bible. It's very obvious that you're bigoted against Christians. I never said that people "choose" to be straight. You're making that up. It's caused by a number of different things. I just said that there's no scientific proof that people are born gay. No, there's lots of people who have converted, but instead of making a rational argument you just want to throw around insults.

http://lovewonout.com/
http://www.exodusinternational.org/content/view/417/180/

And we come to the crux of the issue, ladies and gentlemen.

Religion.

Religion is a personal thing, and a varied thing not only in denominations, but in different religions as well.

Our Founders realized this, and strove to keep the institutions of government and religion separated to preserve each institution from the other, and more importantly, preserve a person's right to worship who and how they wished, or even none at all. This concept, clearly seen within our Founding Document, the US Constitution, has been eroded away over the centuries by people who wish to make their religion, and their denomination, superior to all others and force that religion onto everyone else through our laws.

There is simply no right whatsoever to impose one's religious views into law to have OUR government enforce YOUR religious doctrine. Whether one supports this minority or not, that one fact remains. YOUR religion is part of YOUR private life and should never, and cannot legally be, imposed into everyone else's lives through legislation.

AxisMundi
12-22-2010, 01:08 PM
So from that I gather that you actually support the Americans With Disabilities Act?

As usual, you are trying to gather potatoes in a turnip field.

Brett85
12-22-2010, 01:10 PM
As usual, you are trying to gather potatoes in a turnip field.

I just asked a question. I didn't make a statement.

AxisMundi
12-22-2010, 01:12 PM
Gays already have equal rights. Being gay is a civil right in this country. We do not persecute gays and throw them in jail in this country. People can live whatever kind of lifestyle they want to live. But that still doesn't mean that the government should give legitimacy to homosexuality by recognizing same sex marriages. That's an example of the government creating an extra right for a special interest group. There's also no evidence at all that homosexuality is a genetic trait, so your claim that this is an "equality" issue is without merit.

We heteros can choose to marry any consenting adult we wish. As a confirmed and comfortable hetero, I choose a woman to marry.

Gays CANNOT choose any consenting adult they wish to marry. A homosexual would choose as is their nature, consenting adults of the same gender.

That is not equality in the least.

Permitting access to the same exact g'ment institution is in no way, shape, or form a "special rights".

AxisMundi
12-22-2010, 01:12 PM
I just asked a question. I didn't make a statement.

No, you are trying to derail the debate by introducing a straw man.

AxisMundi
12-22-2010, 01:15 PM
It amazing anybody supports marriage licenses considering their history as being used to prevent interracial coupling. They have traditionally been about discrimination in the states.....race previously and now based on sexual preference. Isn't it time we just eliminated them?

Marriage licenses were indeed abused by racists.

However, that is not how they were used when they were first developed.

Licensing also ensures that both of the couple are of legal age, among other reasons.

Brett85
12-22-2010, 01:16 PM
And we come to the crux of the issue, ladies and gentlemen.

Religion.

Religion is a personal thing, and a varied thing not only in denominations, but in different religions as well.

Our Founders realized this, and strove to keep the institutions of government and religion separated to preserve each institution from the other, and more importantly, preserve a person's right to worship who and how they wished, or even none at all. This concept, clearly seen within our Founding Document, the US Constitution, has been eroded away over the centuries by people who wish to make their religion, and their denomination, superior to all others and force that religion onto everyone else through our laws.

There is simply no right whatsoever to impose one's religious views into law to have OUR government enforce YOUR religious doctrine. Whether one supports this minority or not, that one fact remains. YOUR religion is part of YOUR private life and should never, and cannot legally be, imposed into everyone else's lives through legislation.

I have the Constitutional right to speak out on issues like this, and I have the right to vote for politicians who share my values on these issues. The only thing the Constitution forbids is a government sponsored church. It doesn't forbid religous debate in the public square. Also, if I really wanted the government to enforce my religous views, then I would want to actually ban homosexuality, pornography, adultery, etc. But I don't support banning any of those things. I don't even support banning gays in the military. I just made the point that the government shouldn't give legitimacy to the homosexual lifestyle by recognizing gay marriages. I'm simply arguing in favor of not increasing the scope of government in marriage. I'm not arguing in favor of a theocratic society.

Guitarzan
12-22-2010, 01:17 PM
And we come to the crux of the issue, ladies and gentlemen.

Religion.

Religion is a personal thing, and a varied thing not only in denominations, but in different religions as well.

Our Founders realized this, and strove to keep the institutions of government and religion separated to preserve each institution from the other, and more importantly, preserve a person's right to worship who and how they wished, or even none at all. This concept, clearly seen within our Founding Document, the US Constitution, has been eroded away over the centuries by people who wish to make their religion, and their denomination, superior to all others and force that religion onto everyone else through our laws.

There is simply no right whatsoever to impose one's religious views into law to have OUR government enforce YOUR religious doctrine. Whether one supports this minority or not, that one fact remains. YOUR religion is part of YOUR private life and should never, and cannot legally be, imposed into everyone else's lives through legislation.


Yes. +1 for AxisMundi

Brett85
12-22-2010, 01:20 PM
Gays CANNOT choose any consenting adult they wish to marry.

Yes they can. Under our current laws a gay couple can go have their own private marriage ceremony at a church or anywhere else. Gay marriage is decriminalized. The only issue where we disagree is that I don't think that the government should grant marriage licences to them. I'm arguing in favor of less government involvement in marriage or at least the same amount as we have now, and you're arguing in favor of more government involvement in marriage.

virgil47
12-22-2010, 03:36 PM
1. You're a bigot, and should be ashamed.
2. If people can decide their sexuality, when did you decide to be straight? Can you willingly switch what genders you are attracted to? Because I sure as hell can't.
3. Those people who "converted" (or so you say) are not proof. You fail. (bigots usually do)
4. Animals do gay behavior, are they pushing a gay agenda too? Trying to get gay married to they indoctrinate your kids? HAHAHHAHA you fucking bigot. Get a life.

Those that use the bigot card usually do so because they do not have any facts to base their argument on. By the way it has been proven time and time again that animals that exhibit gay behavior only in the absence of the opposite sex. This behavior ceases almost instantly upon the introduction of animals of the opposite sex.

virgil47
12-22-2010, 03:42 PM
"Lifestyle" Spoken like a true willful ignorant.

Let us examine the lifestyle of any gay couple,shall we?

AM: Get up, shower, go to work/school.
Lunch: Perhaps together, like hetero couples will, if work/school schedules permits.
Afternoon: Finish work/school, go home.
Evening: Spent together, perhaps a movie or diner.
Night: Go to bed.

So, where is this "gay lifestyle"?

And might I suggest you research the issue (at least) and do so from scientific sources?

You will find that gay is not a choice, but that religion is.

You appear to have missed the marching in the streets having sex in public during gay pride parades. You also missed demanding that all school age children are indoctrinated in the gay lifestyle. You see if they would simply behave as relatively normal couples there would not be as much controversy.

virgil47
12-22-2010, 03:47 PM
We heteros can choose to marry any consenting adult we wish. As a confirmed and comfortable hetero, I choose a woman to marry.

Gays CANNOT choose any consenting adult they wish to marry. A homosexual would choose as is their nature, consenting adults of the same gender.

That is not equality in the least.

Permitting access to the same exact g'ment institution is in no way, shape, or form a "special rights".

You had better look at the laws governing marriage a bit closer. You can not simply marry any willing female! There are many laws that prevent incest. Of course it sounds as though you would be against them as well. Inbreeding is not good for humanity.

AxisMundi
12-22-2010, 05:43 PM
You had better look at the laws governing marriage a bit closer. You can not simply marry any willing female! There are many laws that prevent incest. Of course it sounds as though you would be against them as well. Inbreeding is not good for humanity.

Sorry, didn't think you would be intellectually dishonest enough to bring incest into this discussion. Like bestiality and pedophilia, it is completely unrelated to the debate for simple Equality of Marriage.

Bringing unrelated matters into this discussion is no better than calling someone a bigot, and also shows a complete and utter lack of a basis for argument.


You appear to have missed the marching in the streets having sex in public during gay pride parades. You also missed demanding that all school age children are indoctrinated in the gay lifestyle. You see if they would simply behave as relatively normal couples there would not be as much controversy.

Your "sex in public during gay pride events" occurred at a fetish festival in California, not during gay pride events. The anti-gays like to trumpet that one time occasion (the festival organizers have since put strict guidelines in place) as if it occurs at every gay pride event. Sorry, but it doesn't.

Your indoctrination distraction is also moot, as racial minorities enjoy that ridiculous waste of valuable learning time. Parents may not remove their children from racially centered programs, but may in fact opt their children out of tolerance programs.


Those that use the bigot card usually do so because they do not have any facts to base their argument on. By the way it has been proven time and time again that animals that exhibit gay behavior only in the absence of the opposite sex. This behavior ceases almost instantly upon the introduction of animals of the opposite sex.

Google is for more than porn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Even in the presence of opposite genders, some animals still exhibit preference for males.

So, any other distractions, non sequiturs, empty rhetoric, and false propaganda you'd like to bring to the table?

AxisMundi
12-22-2010, 05:51 PM
Yes they can. Under our current laws a gay couple can go have their own private marriage ceremony at a church or anywhere else. Gay marriage is decriminalized. The only issue where we disagree is that I don't think that the government should grant marriage licences to them. I'm arguing in favor of less government involvement in marriage or at least the same amount as we have now, and you're arguing in favor of more government involvement in marriage.

More clear distractions.

Hospitals, government institutions/agencies, health/life insurers, etc. are not required to recognize spiritual marriages. They are only required to recognize legally recognized marriages. Your example of "decriminalized" is completely and utterly moot.

And your other example of distraction has also been addressed previously.

Gays would use the same systems in place now. There would be no "bigger government". No more involvement in marriage than the g'ment has now. Gays would utilize either willing churches and/or clergy, or secular marriage officiants.

You keep stating this as if it is fact, yet you simply cannot prove it.

Brett85
12-22-2010, 06:33 PM
Sorry, didn't think you would be intellectually dishonest enough to bring incest into this discussion. Like bestiality and pedophilia, it is completely unrelated to the debate for simple Equality of Marriage.

Why do you want to force your own personal morality on people who support incest? Why should the government not recognize a marriage between two siblings simply because you morally object to it? Why should they not have equal rights if they indeed love each other? Why do you not support civil rights for supporters of incest?

devil21
12-22-2010, 10:07 PM
^^^^
The hyperbole is strong with this one. Will you name every possible sexual "deviation" to compare to homosexuality to try to make your point? Will you compare homosexuality to necrophilia next?

Incest is proven to cause physical and mental genetic mutations when familial DNA is crossed. Very few homosexuals ever reproduce and when they do it's definitely not with a family member and therefore not likely to cause physical and mental genetic mutations in the offspring. You did know that's why incest is generally illegal, right?

agitator
12-22-2010, 10:18 PM
You did know that's why incest is generally illegal, right?

But abotion is not. Irony.

Brett85
12-22-2010, 10:22 PM
^^^^
The hyperbole is strong with this one. Will you name every possible sexual "deviation" to compare to homosexuality to try to make your point? Will you compare homosexuality to necrophilia next?

Incest is proven to cause physical and mental genetic mutations when familial DNA is crossed. Very few homosexuals ever reproduce and when they do it's definitely not with a family member and therefore not likely to cause physical and mental genetic mutations in the offspring. You did know that's why incest is generally illegal, right?

Lol, I don't think that any homosexuals actually reproduce. I believe that would take a miracle. Yeah, I know that's why incest is illegal. The reason why sodomy was illegal for so long is because it spreads disease. I still don't think that's a good enough reason to throw people in jail simply for having consensual sex, but there's certainly more risks that go along with homosexual sex.

bill1971
12-23-2010, 12:17 AM
Yes they can. Under our current laws a gay couple can go have their own private marriage ceremony at a church or anywhere else. Gay marriage is decriminalized. The only issue where we disagree is that I don't think that the government should grant marriage licences to them. I'm arguing in favor of less government involvement in marriage or at least the same amount as we have now, and you're arguing in favor of more government involvement in marriage.


Why do you think allowing gays to get married is more govt involvement? If anything it is less because there is less limits. If we stopped interracial marriage would that decrease govt involvement in marriage?

devil21
12-23-2010, 02:20 AM
Lol, I don't think that any homosexuals actually reproduce.

Really? Your sweeping generalizations are showing your ignorance. Or is it that you only consider men as homosexual?

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/cheneys-lesbian-daughter-has-baby-boy/41373-2.html



US Vice President Dick Cheney is celebrating the birth of a grandson born to his lesbian daughter. Mary Cheney gave birth on Wednesday to her first child, Samuel David Cheney. She will raise the baby with her longtime partner Heather Poe. Mary - who was her father's aide during the presidential campaign in 2004 - has had her relationship with Heather Poe criticised in conservative circles.

I think this is an interesting thought actually. Why is it that the hardcore religious types only envision men when the subject of homesexuality is brought up? I'd bet that even the hardest evangelical gets even "harder" when it's two women getting it on.

Brian4Liberty
12-23-2010, 02:22 AM
Should we allow people who sodomize cats and dogs to serve in the military as well?

No doubt they already do. They probably "don't tell", but if they did, it would result in nothing more than laughes and most fellow soldiers razzing them (and thinking they are damn strange). They would probably not be thrown out.

virgil47
12-23-2010, 07:58 AM
No doubt they already do. They probably "don't tell", but if they did, it would result in nothing more than laughes and most fellow soldiers razzing them (and thinking they are damn strange). They would probably not be thrown out.

Wrong answer bud. They would not only be thrown out they would be prosecuted and do jail time.

AxisMundi
12-23-2010, 11:14 AM
Lol, I don't think that any homosexuals actually reproduce. I believe that would take a miracle. Yeah, I know that's why incest is illegal. The reason why sodomy was illegal for so long is because it spreads disease. I still don't think that's a good enough reason to throw people in jail simply for having consensual sex, but there's certainly more risks that go along with homosexual sex.

Gays and lesbians do indeed reproduce. BY artificial insemination and surrogates if the thought of the opposite sex disgusts them as much as sex with the same gender disgusts us on a personal level. They do this for a few reasons. One of them being the urge t raise a child that is your own. Another is the simple fact that may adoption agencies refuse to consider gay couples. (way to go anti-choice crowd).

Sodomy was illegal for so long simply due to religion creeping into our laws, where it doesn't belong. Anal sex does not cause the spread of disease any more than oral or vaginal sex does. There is simply NO additional dangers in homosexual sex.

Any other bit of misinformation and propaganda you'd like me to help you with?

Brett85
12-23-2010, 11:40 AM
Gays and lesbians do indeed reproduce. BY artificial insemination and surrogates if the thought of the opposite sex disgusts them as much as sex with the same gender disgusts us on a personal level. They do this for a few reasons. One of them being the urge t raise a child that is your own. Another is the simple fact that may adoption agencies refuse to consider gay couples. (way to go anti-choice crowd).

Sodomy was illegal for so long simply due to religion creeping into our laws, where it doesn't belong. Anal sex does not cause the spread of disease any more than oral or vaginal sex does. There is simply NO additional dangers in homosexual sex.

Any other bit of misinformation and propaganda you'd like me to help you with?

That's simply false. Gay sex has always been proven to spread more disease than sex between straight people. That's why you see so many gay people dying of aids.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

Also, why would you want the government to force a private adoption agency to allow gays to adopt? That doesn't sound very libertarian to me.

AxisMundi
12-23-2010, 11:40 AM
Why do you want to force your own personal morality on people who support incest? Why should the government not recognize a marriage between two siblings simply because you morally object to it? Why should they not have equal rights if they indeed love each other? Why do you not support civil rights for supporters of incest?

Marriage, for legal purposes, creates a familial bond stronger than any other, even that between offspring and parent.

Only genetic familial bonds are second to that created by marriage.

As siblings already have a familial bond, the pre-existing legal aspects of their relationship take precedence.

Besides the genetic mutation concern, there is simply already a familial bond and attempting to create another is simple redundancy.

AxisMundi
12-23-2010, 11:57 AM
That's simply false. Gay sex has always been proven to spread more disease than sex between straight people. That's why you see so many gay people dying of aids.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

Also, why would you want the government to force a private adoption agency to allow gays to adopt? That doesn't sound very libertarian to me.

Try using a scientific source, and not one who has an active and self-admitted anti-gay agenda. The Catholic Church.

The simple fact that the physician cannot differentiate between homosexual sex and homosexuality should raise the red flag in anyone who has bothered to become knowledgeable in this area. The fact that he must also use studies that are either unrelated to his proposal, or have long been debunked as the biased examples of bad clinical research that has withered under peer review is another obvious red flag.

Not all gays are promiscuous, not all who engage in homosexual behaviors are homosexual. The underground culture this intellectually dishonest medical doctor uses cites the underground club scene (think Club 64), where promiscuity, drug use, and alcohol abuse were common place. A natural subculture for AIDs to spread into from the FIRST demographic that suffered from the disease in this country, intravenous drug users.

Also, I am not a libertarian, I am a Social Moderate and Fiscal Conservative. I do not support, nor did I even hint, that private adoption agencies should be forced to adopt to anyone.

Brett85
12-23-2010, 12:04 PM
Try using a scientific source, and not one who has an active and self-admitted anti-gay agenda. The Catholic Church.

The simple fact that the physician cannot differentiate between homosexual sex and homosexuality should raise the red flag in anyone who has bothered to become knowledgeable in this area. The fact that he must also use studies that are either unrelated to his proposal, or have long been debunked as the biased examples of bad clinical research that has withered under peer review is another obvious red flag.

Not all gays are promiscuous, not all who engage in homosexual behaviors are homosexual. The underground culture this intellectually dishonest medical doctor uses cites the underground club scene (think Club 64), where promiscuity, drug use, and alcohol abuse were common place. A natural subculture for AIDs to spread into from the FIRST demographic that suffered from the disease in this country, intravenous drug users.

Also, I am not a libertarian, I am a Social Moderate and Fiscal Conservative. I do not support, nor did I even hint, that private adoption agencies should be forced to adopt to anyone.

Well it's a moot point since I don't believe that gays should get thrown in jail for having sex. Interestingly enough, I consider myself to be somewhat of a social moderate and fiscal conservative. I'm pro life and against gay marriage, but I also support legalizing drugs and prostitution. I have mixed views on social issues.

Brian4Liberty
12-23-2010, 12:49 PM
Gays and lesbians do indeed reproduce.

Probably the single biggest factor that causes homosexuals to reproduce is society forcing them to be "normal". Kind of ironic, eh? :)

AxisMundi
12-23-2010, 01:11 PM
Well it's a moot point since I don't believe that gays should get thrown in jail for having sex. Interestingly enough, I consider myself to be somewhat of a social moderate and fiscal conservative. I'm pro life and against gay marriage, but I also support legalizing drugs and prostitution. I have mixed views on social issues.

Then might I suggest that you at least research the subject before mindlessly repeating the empty rhetoric you have forwarded?

MelissaWV
12-23-2010, 06:25 PM
Those that use the bigot card usually do so because they do not have any facts to base their argument on. By the way it has been proven time and time again that animals that exhibit gay behavior only in the absence of the opposite sex. This behavior ceases almost instantly upon the introduction of animals of the opposite sex.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9FNhgdiieY

Of course it does.


You appear to have missed the marching in the streets having sex in public during gay pride parades. You also missed demanding that all school age children are indoctrinated in the gay lifestyle. You see if they would simply behave as relatively normal couples there would not be as much controversy.

"Relatively normal" couples get treated differently based on whether or not they are married, or have children. It's part of a bigger picture which involves the Government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. Most of the "gay rights" people have it absolutely backwards: they should not be arguing for the Government to grant them the same or special treatment... but for the Government to stop "granting" things related to marital status at all.

I have seen more than my fair share of heterosexual public displays of affection up to and including public sex, by the way, so that's a piss poor example. Anyone on the streets during Mardi Gras and aware of how a woman gets beads should avoid the argument that gay pride parades are vile and promote lewd behavior.

The guy asked you what the gay lifestyle was, and you answered it by saying that the gay lifestyle includes demanding children be indoctrinated into the gay lifestyle. Do you understand how ridiculous that is, on various levels?


You had better look at the laws governing marriage a bit closer. You can not simply marry any willing female! There are many laws that prevent incest. Of course it sounds as though you would be against them as well. Inbreeding is not good for humanity.

I actually would be against the "incest" laws. They reinforce, in some cases, laws already on the books regarding rape and sexual assault of various sorts. In cases where it's willing, who the hell cares? Inbreeding is not good for humanity, but not every marriage is about "breeding." How interesting you seem to think of that so quickly, and tip your hand at knowing what's best as far as who "breeds" with whom.


Lol, I don't think that any homosexuals actually reproduce. I believe that would take a miracle. Yeah, I know that's why incest is illegal. The reason why sodomy was illegal for so long is because it spreads disease. I still don't think that's a good enough reason to throw people in jail simply for having consensual sex, but there's certainly more risks that go along with homosexual sex.

Ignorance: it's amazing!

You can reproduce without direct sexual contact nowadays. Hell, it wouldn't be too far-fetched to actually create a baby for a pair of lesbians with genetic material from both, but for now I mean surrogates and donors. You can even get your partner's family member to donate, which would increase the odds of the baby having traits of both parents.

The "more risks" that go along with homosexual sex... where precisely do you get that? Or is it that you simply mean anal sex is risky? I ask, because an awful lot of heterosexuals engage in anal sex, so the distinction seems to be needed. There are these funny little things called condoms, though, and I wasn't aware that oral sex was somehow riskier between people of the same gender than it would be between people of opposed genders. I'm quite sure that sexual behavior involving toys and harnesses between women is much safer for a woman than engaging in the same behavior with a man who could get her pregnant or give her a number of diseases.


Wrong answer bud. They would not only be thrown out they would be prosecuted and do jail time.

I'm sure you are just brimming with examples.

* * *

Yes, I know some of this was already covered... but meh. Some folks are just plain stupid and I'd be remiss not to type it all up anyhow. I feel better.

virgil47
12-24-2010, 12:28 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9FNhgdiieY

Of course it does.



"Relatively normal" couples get treated differently based on whether or not they are married, or have children. It's part of a bigger picture which involves the Government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. Most of the "gay rights" people have it absolutely backwards: they should not be arguing for the Government to grant them the same or special treatment... but for the Government to stop "granting" things related to marital status at all.

I have seen more than my fair share of heterosexual public displays of affection up to and including public sex, by the way, so that's a piss poor example. Anyone on the streets during Mardi Gras and aware of how a woman gets beads should avoid the argument that gay pride parades are vile and promote lewd behavior.

The guy asked you what the gay lifestyle was, and you answered it by saying that the gay lifestyle includes demanding children be indoctrinated into the gay lifestyle. Do you understand how ridiculous that is, on various levels?



I actually would be against the "incest" laws. They reinforce, in some cases, laws already on the books regarding rape and sexual assault of various sorts. In cases where it's willing, who the hell cares? Inbreeding is not good for humanity, but not every marriage is about "breeding." How interesting you seem to think of that so quickly, and tip your hand at knowing what's best as far as who "breeds" with whom.



Ignorance: it's amazing!

You can reproduce without direct sexual contact nowadays. Hell, it wouldn't be too far-fetched to actually create a baby for a pair of lesbians with genetic material from both, but for now I mean surrogates and donors. You can even get your partner's family member to donate, which would increase the odds of the baby having traits of both parents.

The "more risks" that go along with homosexual sex... where precisely do you get that? Or is it that you simply mean anal sex is risky? I ask, because an awful lot of heterosexuals engage in anal sex, so the distinction seems to be needed. There are these funny little things called condoms, though, and I wasn't aware that oral sex was somehow riskier between people of the same gender than it would be between people of opposed genders. I'm quite sure that sexual behavior involving toys and harnesses between women is much safer for a woman than engaging in the same behavior with a man who could get her pregnant or give her a number of diseases.



I'm sure you are just brimming with examples.

* * *

Yes, I know some of this was already covered... but meh. Some folks are just plain stupid and I'd be remiss not to type it all up anyhow. I feel better.

What most of you fail to understand is that government involvement in marriage came about for a number of reasons. The first being to protect what society decided was what it considered to be the "norm". Many in society have condemned and still do condemn homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia and of course marriage plurality. The second was to protect those that chose violate societies "norms" from violence. Those that chose to violate what society decided was "normal" human behavior were severely dealt with. We see this happening in other countries today and I believe most of us here do not condone these reactions and punishments. It really makes no difference why or what causes a society to choose what it wants for "norms" just that all human societies do this. So government involvement in our country is a double edged sword. It tends to protect societies desires but it also protects those that oppose society. Without government involvement gay marriage would not be an issue as gays would most likely be treated as criminals or even worse as vermin to be hunted down. What is apparent is many here want a civilized society but are unwilling to have anyone other than themselves decide what is civilized and they certainly don"t want anyone enforcing societies edicts.

silverhandorder
12-24-2010, 12:54 PM
Fuck society norms. Wtf does that even mean? How about we mind our business as long as the person is not harming anyone? I can respect a social conservative in this movement but I will never agree on social issues.

edit: I find it despicable when people presume that using violence on peaceful people to be somehow good or righteous. I think the idea that a group of people in majority/power get to arbitrarily shape how everyone else must behave socially will always lead to degeneration of culture. It sends the message to everyone not in the in crowd to try and either join the in crowd or make your own in crowd. Instead of everyone living their life peacefully we have a nation at each other throats trying to enforce their morals.

AxisMundi
12-24-2010, 12:54 PM
What most of you fail to understand is that government involvement in marriage came about for a number of reasons. The first being to protect what society decided was what it considered to be the "norm". Many in society have condemned and still do condemn homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia and of course marriage plurality. The second was to protect those that chose violate societies "norms" from violence. Those that chose to violate what society decided was "normal" human behavior were severely dealt with. We see this happening in other countries today and I believe most of us here do not condone these reactions and punishments. It really makes no difference why or what causes a society to choose what it wants for "norms" just that all human societies do this. So government involvement in our country is a double edged sword. It tends to protect societies desires but it also protects those that oppose society. Without government involvement gay marriage would not be an issue as gays would most likely be treated as criminals or even worse as vermin to be hunted down. What is apparent is many here want a civilized society but are unwilling to have anyone other than themselves decide what is civilized and they certainly don"t want anyone enforcing societies edicts.

Societies evolve, thank the gods, and become enlightened. Societies evolve to understand and accept the natural rights inherent in the human race.

In America, our society evolved to understand the abhorrent nature of slavery, and to understand that people are not somehow sub-human because they have darker skin. Thus slavery (though still practiced in certain underground societies) is absolutely illegal, and when found today, the perpetrators face severe punishments.

Our early society, specifically the ideas you propose as "unacceptable" was driven not by natural social evolution, but by religious doctrine and superstition, the "Christian Culture" so to speak. Earlier cultures, well before modern clinical research and sciences, understood that homosexuality was a completely natural, and inherent, part of some members of their societies and cultures. Therefor, to differing degrees, homosexuals where a readily accepted part of society.

In the First Nations people of pre-colonial America, gay men would marry straight men. And although most times said husband and "wife" would not engage in sexual relationships, it was in fact a marriage of convenience and the gay man would perform each and every other duty of a wife. In ancient China, for another example, as long as a gay man produced prodigy to carry on the family name, no one cared who he slept with.

American society is FINALLY evolving to recognize what ancient people knew long ago, and what science is now only rediscovering. That homosexuality is absolutely NO different from heterosexuality, differing ONLY in the target gender of affections and attraction. American society is finally dragging itself out of the Dark Ages mentalities that have seen this segment of society murdered, assaulted, oppressed and discriminated against for most of the two plus centuries of this Nation's life.

Huzzah for society evolving!

Brett85
12-24-2010, 01:36 PM
Fuck society norms. Wtf does that even mean? How about we mind our business as long as the person is not harming anyone? I can respect a social conservative in this movement but I will never agree on social issues.

edit: I find it despicable when people presume that using violence on peaceful people to be somehow good or righteous. I think the idea that a group of people in majority/power get to arbitrarily shape how everyone else must behave socially will always lead to degeneration of culture. It sends the message to everyone not in the in crowd to try and either join the in crowd or make your own in crowd. Instead of everyone living their life peacefully we have a nation at each other throats trying to enforce their morals.

Nobody here supports criminalizing homosexuality and throwing gays in jail. We all believe that gays should be allowed to live whatever kind of lifestyle they want to live. However, many of us simply believe that the government should not become more involved in marriage then it is now and actually recognize gay marriages. Right now gays have the right to have their own private marriage ceremony. They will not get arrested for doing this. The government does not discriminate against gays as the laws stand now.

Feeding the Abscess
12-24-2010, 01:39 PM
There are two options for a consistent position on marriage and government. Legalize gay marriage, or get out of the marriage business outright. Everything else is inconsistent.

Brett85
12-24-2010, 01:44 PM
There are two options for a consistent position on marriage and government. Legalize gay marriage, or get out of the marriage business outright. Everything else is inconsistent.

Legal recognition of gay marriage would not be a consistent position, as you would still be "discriminating" against polygamists, Nambla types, bestiality supporters, etc. Society can never please every single special interest group.

silverhandorder
12-24-2010, 01:48 PM
Nobody here supports criminalizing homosexuality and throwing gays in jail. We all believe that gays should be allowed to live whatever kind of lifestyle they want to live. However, many of us simply believe that the government should not become more involved in marriage then it is now and actually recognize gay marriages. Right now gays have the right to have their own private marriage ceremony. They will not get arrested for doing this. The government does not discriminate against gays as the laws stand now.

You should then probably read the guy arguing with Mellisa and the things I said in the past.

Because you just quoted me telling him that no one here supports criminalizing homosexuality. He on other hand does sound like he would since he talks about society making laws against homosexuals.

AxisMundi
12-24-2010, 01:50 PM
Nobody here supports criminalizing homosexuality and throwing gays in jail. We all believe that gays should be allowed to live whatever kind of lifestyle they want to live. However, many of us simply believe that the government should not become more involved in marriage then it is now and actually recognize gay marriages. Right now gays have the right to have their own private marriage ceremony. They will not get arrested for doing this. The government does not discriminate against gays as the laws stand now.

TC, I have asked you to substantiate the "more g'ment" idea you forward.

Shall it be forthcoming anytime soon?


There are two options for a consistent position on marriage and government. Legalize gay marriage, or get out of the marriage business outright. Everything else is inconsistent.

I happen to like the protection, rights, and tax breaks provided by g'ment being involved with my marriage, thank you.

And those who claim they want marriage out of g'ment aren't thinking things through, they are merely parroting party lines.

Feeding the Abscess
12-24-2010, 01:51 PM
Legal recognition of gay marriage would not be a consistent position, as you would still be "discriminating" against polygamists, Nambla types, bestiality supporters, etc. Society can never please every single special interest group.

If two consenting adults is the standard by which marriage is to be judged, the other groups you brought up are not being discriminated against.

Brett85
12-24-2010, 01:53 PM
You should then probably read the guy arguing with Mellisa and the things I said in the past.

Because you just quoted me telling him that no one here supports criminalizing homosexuality. He on other hand does sound like he would since he talks about society making laws against homosexuals.

My interpretation of what he said was that the government has the right to determine what type of union qualifies for a marriage licence. I don't believe he was saying that homosexuality should be criminalized.

AxisMundi
12-24-2010, 01:53 PM
Legal recognition of gay marriage would not be a consistent position, as you would still be "discriminating" against polygamists, Nambla types, bestiality supporters, etc. Society can never please every single special interest group.

Animals cannot consent. End of that fallacy.
Pedophiles harm children on every single level of their being. End of that fallacy.
Multi-spouse arrangements are in the works, but still unrelated to this debate. End of that fallacy.

Gay harm no one, and neither would same-gendered marriages.

Feeding the Abscess
12-24-2010, 01:54 PM
I happen to like the protection, rights, and tax breaks provided by g'ment being involved with my marriage, thank you.

And those who claim they want marriage out of g'ment aren't thinking things through, they are merely parroting party lines.

Legalizing gay marriage wouldn't penalize your tax breaks.

Of course, ideally, income tax would be kaput anyway, so the marriage tax break would be moot.

Brett85
12-24-2010, 01:55 PM
If two consenting adults is the standard by which marriage is to be judged, the other groups you brought up are not being discriminated against.

Why should two consenting adults be the standard by which marriage is judged? Why not 10 consenting adults? A few months ago John Stossel was arguing on his show in favor of government recognition of polygamist marriage, so it's not really true that nobody advocates government recognition of polygamist marriage. And also, two adults of the opposite sex has been the traditional standard by which marriage has been judged.

MelissaWV
12-24-2010, 01:55 PM
...I happen to like the protection, rights, and tax breaks provided by g'ment being involved with my marriage, thank you.

And those who claim they want marriage out of g'ment aren't thinking things through, they are merely parroting party lines.

Nah, I'd enjoy having Government out of marriage, but that's all theoretical nonsense. It will never happen, because there's simply too much profit in it. I've always scratched my head about the entire thing, seeing as marriage in general is becoming less and less important to all kinds of couples, so you'd think you'd see a movement coming forth to end all the bonuses or penalties based strictly on marital status. It still doesn't happen.

What folks do, ceremonywise, in private is their own business and the arising contracts would be solved in court for sure. When the Government decides to "bless" this union or that one, and not the other, there are two things at play. First off, the groups being "blessed" enjoy that blessing and want to protect it to the exclusion of those other groups, of course. Second, though, people that want the continuation are saying the Government is the important blessing in their union.

Those that are religious should be seeking God's (gods') blessings. Those that are not, are usually just declaring their intentions to one another before witnesses (often friends and family). Maybe some still seal bargains and business dealings with a marriage in-name-only. Who cares until the Government gets into it and starts tossing tax dollars around?

* * *

Moreover, what's it all got to do with DADT :p

Brett85
12-24-2010, 01:58 PM
[QUOTE=AxisMundi;3041075]Pedophiles harm children on every single level of their being.QUOTE]

I agree with that, but that's still an opinion on your part. There's some people who would argue that there should be no age of consent and that anybody should be allowed to marry. They would argue that you're trying to force your morals on them.

Feeding the Abscess
12-24-2010, 01:59 PM
Why should two consenting adults be the standard by which marriage is judged? Why not 10 consenting adults? A few months ago John Stossel was arguing on his show in favor of government recognition of polygamist marriage, so it's not really true that nobody advocates government recognition of polygamist marriage. And also, two adults of the opposite sex has been the traditional standard by which marriage has been judged.

Why not? I don't disagree. Make it simply consenting adults agree to enter into a contract.

Also, the church no longer controls the definition of marriage. If you would like that control to be returned, work to get the government out of marriage altogether, and fight with other religions and cultures over the true definition of marriage.

Feeding the Abscess
12-24-2010, 01:59 PM
Pedophiles harm children on every single level of their being.

I agree with that, but that's still an opinion on your part. There's some people who would argue that there should be no age of consent and that anybody should be allowed to marry. They would argue that you're trying to force your morals on them.

There are people who argue that theft and murder aren't wrong either - what's your point?

Brett85
12-24-2010, 02:02 PM
There are people who argue that theft and murder aren't wrong either - what's your point?

My point is that all of our laws are based on morality to some extent or another. So those who accuse social conservatives of "imposing their beliefs on others" do the exact same thing to a lesser extent.

AxisMundi
12-24-2010, 02:02 PM
Why should two consenting adults be the standard by which marriage is judged? Why not 10 consenting adults? A few months ago John Stossel was arguing on his show in favor of government recognition of polygamist marriage, so it's not really true that nobody advocates government recognition of polygamist marriage. And also, two adults of the opposite sex has been the traditional standard by which marriage has been judged.

Firstly, multi-spousal marriages (polygamy is a term reserved for a single husband with multiple wives) is a separate issue. But to be frank, I see no reason to disallow it.

Secondly, slavery was a traditional value. We evolved past that, and now our society will evolve past discriminating against gays.

AxisMundi
12-24-2010, 02:03 PM
My point is that all of our laws are based on morality to some extent or another. So those who accuse social conservatives of "imposing their beliefs on others" do the exact same thing to a lesser extent.

Please don't confuse morality with religious law. They are two separate concerns, even if religion has absorbed social morals into it's religious laws.

Feeding the Abscess
12-24-2010, 02:04 PM
My point is that all of our laws are based on morality to some extent or another. So those who accuse social conservatives of "imposing their beliefs on others" do the exact same thing to a lesser extent.

Theft and murder actively take something from another person. Consenting adults entering into a relationship does not. Sorry man, there's no equivalency there.

AxisMundi
12-24-2010, 02:06 PM
I agree with that, but that's still an opinion on your part. There's some people who would argue that there should be no age of consent and that anybody should be allowed to marry. They would argue that you're trying to force your morals on them.

Beats having your religion shoved down our throats any day.

BTW, those who argue against an age of consent also do not have a rational leg to stand on.

Children cannot make legally binding contracts. End of debate.

AxisMundi
12-24-2010, 02:15 PM
Nah, I'd enjoy having Government out of marriage, but that's all theoretical nonsense. It will never happen, because there's simply too much profit in it. I've always scratched my head about the entire thing, seeing as marriage in general is becoming less and less important to all kinds of couples, so you'd think you'd see a movement coming forth to end all the bonuses or penalties based strictly on marital status. It still doesn't happen.

What folks do, ceremonywise, in private is their own business and the arising contracts would be solved in court for sure. When the Government decides to "bless" this union or that one, and not the other, there are two things at play. First off, the groups being "blessed" enjoy that blessing and want to protect it to the exclusion of those other groups, of course. Second, though, people that want the continuation are saying the Government is the important blessing in their union.

Those that are religious should be seeking God's (gods') blessings. Those that are not, are usually just declaring their intentions to one another before witnesses (often friends and family). Maybe some still seal bargains and business dealings with a marriage in-name-only. Who cares until the Government gets into it and starts tossing tax dollars around?

* * *

Were you aware that today's divorce rate isn't nearly as high as that seen during the late 1940's into the early 1950's?

Also, g'ment does provide instant, and without cost and/or legal expense, certain rights that my wife and I have actively used in the past.

I was injured while on duty as a vol. fire fighter. My wife has instant and all encompassing power-of-attorney while I was incapacitated. Very handy, and one that people/corporations/hospitals would not be required to recognize without g'ment protecting that right. My wife also directed my health care as well, another factor.

Thanks to g'ment, our marriage is recognized, and protected, across state lines, and internationally as well with those countries we have treaties with.


Moreover, what's it all got to do with DADT :p

Meh, any thread dealing with politicized issues is like a run-a-way freight train. It goes where it wants.

Or maybe more like a B-movie radiation monster I guess, evolving as it will. :p

Brett85
12-24-2010, 02:18 PM
Children cannot make legally binding contracts.

That's only because the government has placed that restriction on them. It's just another example of you forcing your moral views on others.

Brett85
12-24-2010, 02:22 PM
Theft and murder actively take something from another person. Consenting adults entering into a relationship does not. Sorry man, there's no equivalency there.

First of all, I'm not saying that consenting adults cannot "enter into a relationship." Being gay is a civil right in this country, but there's no point in granting marriage licences to gay couples and giving a special interest group special rights.

Also, age of consent laws have nothing to do with "taking something from another person." So how can any pure libertarian argue in favor of restricting the age at which you can have sex? Doesn't every living person have ownership over their own body? So that is an issue where the government forces morality on others.

Brett85
12-24-2010, 02:26 PM
Beats having your religion shoved down our throats any day.

It has nothing to do with my religion. If I wanted to force my religion down your throat, I would advocate banning pornography, sex outside of marriage, lying, cheating, coveting, working on Sundays, adultery, etc. But I don't support banning any of those things, and I would also legalize victimless crimes like drug use and prostitution. But I certainly don't share your big government view of increasing the government's involvement in marriage.

Feeding the Abscess
12-24-2010, 02:31 PM
First of all, I'm not saying that consenting adults cannot "enter into a relationship." Being gay is a civil right in this country, but there's no point in granting marriage licences to gay couples and giving a special interest group special rights.

Also, age of consent laws have nothing to do with "taking something from another person." So how can any pure libertarian argue in favor of restricting the age at which you can have sex? Doesn't every living person have ownership over their own body? So that is an issue where the government forces morality on others.

You're just creating strawmen everywhere.

You were the one who brought up some people believing that theft and murder are okay, and used that as a comparison to people believing gay marriage should be legalized. Not me. If heterosexual marriage is granted an exclusive tax break, would that not make it a special interest benefit or right by definition?

Furthermore, forcing a child to do something that they cannot consent to is not a contradiction of libertarian philosophy.

You aren't being honest.

AxisMundi
12-24-2010, 03:10 PM
That's only because the government has placed that restriction on them. It's just another example of you forcing your moral views on others.

So are you suggesting that a 12 year old has the legal experience/knowledge, and life experience to make a legally binding contract?

At no time in our history has a young person been considered able to make such contracts, by either g'ment nor society.


It has nothing to do with my religion. If I wanted to force my religion down your throat, I would advocate banning pornography, sex outside of marriage, lying, cheating, coveting, working on Sundays, adultery, etc. But I don't support banning any of those things, and I would also legalize victimless crimes like drug use and prostitution. But I certainly don't share your big government view of increasing the government's involvement in marriage.

Firstly, you have made the same statement countless times. "More g'ment involvement". Yet you have failed consistently to substantiate that remark. There would be no more g'ment involvement than there is now, period.

Secondly, whether atheists or theists are promoting this discrimination, it all boils down to religious doctrines, i.e. the false biblical notions concerning homosexuality, and the absorption of that flawed ideal into our American culture. So yes, whether you promote those things you listed above or not, the very idea of discriminating against gays is purely religious in origin, and nature.

Not only is any unjustified discrimination an ugly brown stain on the fabric of a Nation that supposedly prides herself on the ideals of Equality and Freedom, it is patently illegal to force religious doctrine into the laws of the United States. This hasn't stopped it from occurring, of course. Constitutional Republic or not, we still operate on the principles of democracy and mob rule has over-ridden our Constitution numerous times. Our current, replacement Motto and Pledge, both circa 1950's, are prime examples. The political expediency of the DADT policy itself is, excuse me, was, another example of the cancer that is religious doctrines in US laws.

There is simply no valid, secular reason to discriminate against homosexuals, therefor it should not be permitted.

virgil47
12-24-2010, 10:57 PM
Animals cannot consent. End of that fallacy.
Pedophiles harm children on every single level of their being. End of that fallacy.
Multi-spouse arrangements are in the works, but still unrelated to this debate. End of that fallacy.

Gay harm no one, and neither would same-gendered marriages.

Perhaps we should also end that fallacy!

AxisMundi
12-25-2010, 12:30 PM
Perhaps we should also end that fallacy!

If you are speaking about this sentence...

"Gay harm no one, and neither would same-gendered marriages."

Feel free to try and prove it is a fallacy.

bill1971
12-25-2010, 03:05 PM
If you are speaking about this sentence...

"Gay harm no one, and neither would same-gendered marriages."

Feel free to try and prove it is a fallacy.


Many church goers says it shows kids that homosexuality is accepted and might influence kids into chosing that lifestyle. :confused:

Give me a break....

MelissaWV
12-25-2010, 05:54 PM
Were you aware that today's divorce rate isn't nearly as high as that seen during the late 1940's into the early 1950's?

Also, g'ment does provide instant, and without cost and/or legal expense, certain rights that my wife and I have actively used in the past.

I was injured while on duty as a vol. fire fighter. My wife has instant and all encompassing power-of-attorney while I was incapacitated. Very handy, and one that people/corporations/hospitals would not be required to recognize without g'ment protecting that right. My wife also directed my health care as well, another factor.

Thanks to g'ment, our marriage is recognized, and protected, across state lines, and internationally as well with those countries we have treaties with.

...

I am aware of a great many things, that being one of them ;)

As for the rest, my point is that at some point you were not husband and wife. Consider things happening in a slightly different light. Let's suppose you were not on good terms with your parents, or were obviously old enough by that point to not want them in charge of your care and medical decisions. Let's also suppose that you were just as in love with your lady as ever, but you had financial and life setbacks that had prevented you from marrying. The injuries happen just as they did.

Your lady would not have those rights, would not be able to swoop in to make decisions, and what's worse someone who you had little or a negative relationship with would swoop in to try to make those decisions.

It's a complicated matter. I don't think Government is necessary to recognize you as a couple, or anyone else as a couple; ultimately it should be up to the hospital to dictate their policy on the matter. There will be some that require a living will or other legal document, and there will be other instances where someone's assurance they are a spouse, relative, or friend is enough to begin to ask what the patient's wishes are.

If I were to take up with a woman for 20 years, and was in a terrible accident at the end of those 20 years, she would not be automatically granted the assumption of my best wishes unless something changed, or the hospital allowed for such. Do you know what's chilling about that? The guy I was "wife" to for many years would have been assumed to have my best interests at heart, even though he was responsible for more than an injury or two to my person. There's something absolutely sickly about that.

I don't think the fix is to hoist up marital rights via the Government, but to allow the businesses involved (insurance companies, hospitals, etc.) to make their policies and decide what constitutes a relationship for the purposes of their product/services.

$0.02

AxisMundi
12-25-2010, 09:00 PM
I am aware of a great many things, that being one of them ;)

As for the rest, my point is that at some point you were not husband and wife. Consider things happening in a slightly different light. Let's suppose you were not on good terms with your parents, or were obviously old enough by that point to not want them in charge of your care and medical decisions. Let's also suppose that you were just as in love with your lady as ever, but you had financial and life setbacks that had prevented you from marrying. The injuries happen just as they did.

Your lady would not have those rights, would not be able to swoop in to make decisions, and what's worse someone who you had little or a negative relationship with would swoop in to try to make those decisions.

It's a complicated matter. I don't think Government is necessary to recognize you as a couple, or anyone else as a couple; ultimately it should be up to the hospital to dictate their policy on the matter. There will be some that require a living will or other legal document, and there will be other instances where someone's assurance they are a spouse, relative, or friend is enough to begin to ask what the patient's wishes are.

If I were to take up with a woman for 20 years, and was in a terrible accident at the end of those 20 years, she would not be automatically granted the assumption of my best wishes unless something changed, or the hospital allowed for such. Do you know what's chilling about that? The guy I was "wife" to for many years would have been assumed to have my best interests at heart, even though he was responsible for more than an injury or two to my person. There's something absolutely sickly about that.

I don't think the fix is to hoist up marital rights via the Government, but to allow the businesses involved (insurance companies, hospitals, etc.) to make their policies and decide what constitutes a relationship for the purposes of their product/services.

$0.02

A well written response, though I cannot agree with the premise you suggest.