cowpunk12
01-01-2011, 09:48 AM
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=243145
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2647090/posts
Alan Keyes says in this article that allowing open homosexuals to serve in the military violates the liberty of conscience of those who are opposed to homosexuality. Thus, by voting to allow it, Ron Paul has violated the Constitution. This is an example of a big problem with how conservatives define liberty. I'm going to go through a few arguments and refute them.
Right in the first sentence, he says members of the military are being forced to accept homosexuality as legal. He also refers to a "de facto" tolerance of homosexual acts. This is of course, absurd, as homosexuality is a "de jure" legal act in this country. Now what is this forced tolerance of which he speaks? Are we not regularly forced to accept actions we find immoral all the time? Many religions believe that is immoral to follow a different religion. Yet we have freedom of religion. Many believe that drinking is immoral. Some of them are surely in the military. We don't kick drinkers out. If, as the conservative argument goes, homosexuality is merely an act, and we are not being intolerant of homosexuals, but people who commit those acts, even completely restricted to legal circumstances and not while deployed, then we are, in fact, imposing drinking on those military members who object to it in the exact same fashion. This is the conservative definition of liberty. For one group (conservative Christians, of course) to be able to remove from a government institution those people who do not follow the same moral code that they do.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2647090/posts
Alan Keyes says in this article that allowing open homosexuals to serve in the military violates the liberty of conscience of those who are opposed to homosexuality. Thus, by voting to allow it, Ron Paul has violated the Constitution. This is an example of a big problem with how conservatives define liberty. I'm going to go through a few arguments and refute them.
Right in the first sentence, he says members of the military are being forced to accept homosexuality as legal. He also refers to a "de facto" tolerance of homosexual acts. This is of course, absurd, as homosexuality is a "de jure" legal act in this country. Now what is this forced tolerance of which he speaks? Are we not regularly forced to accept actions we find immoral all the time? Many religions believe that is immoral to follow a different religion. Yet we have freedom of religion. Many believe that drinking is immoral. Some of them are surely in the military. We don't kick drinkers out. If, as the conservative argument goes, homosexuality is merely an act, and we are not being intolerant of homosexuals, but people who commit those acts, even completely restricted to legal circumstances and not while deployed, then we are, in fact, imposing drinking on those military members who object to it in the exact same fashion. This is the conservative definition of liberty. For one group (conservative Christians, of course) to be able to remove from a government institution those people who do not follow the same moral code that they do.