The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
The Marine Corps does not care if a soldier is gay or not. The US Code of Military Justice does. That Code is created by Congress. If you could find some evidence that the Marine Corps has the ability to change this but does not - then by all means throw it on the table and you'll alter my point of view.
That's a fucking cop out. The UCMJ isn't jumping out of the page to dishonorably discharge loyal soldiers. Individual bigots are enacting a campaign of systematic bigotry which is made legal by the UCMJ.
Wrong. DADT requires the discharge of any soldier who demonstrates homosexual behavior or intentions. The fact that you want to attribute the results to bigots in the Marine Corps rather than the body responsible for the UCMJ is a reflection of your stereotypes. There are bigots in the Marine Corps as there are bigots everywhere, but you are essentially blaming the USMC for abiding by standing law. That's retarded.
Question - and I'm not agreeing with Adrien here - does the DADT code, as set out on paper, require dishonorable discharge?
Unless either it can be proven that the person is simply playing the Gay card to get out of service, or if discharging the servicemember would not be in the military's best interests, they will be discharged (I can find nothing requiring Dishonorable, but I believe that's the default unless stated otherwise in the rule)
Interestingly enough, the rules pretty much say "firing gay translators when going to war with another country" would be Against the rules, since it would not be in the best interests of the military to lose said MOS.
kildy on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited February 2008
In those cases, standard operating procedure would be to wait until the very end of the vital servicemember's tour, then discharge them dishonorably so they don't get any benefits, m i rite?
Well, I was a combat engineer, and we're really terrible people all around. No rapes, no orgies. But some way inappropriate physical contact, and some serious sexual harassment on so many terrible levels.
Sweet. What unit?
2nd Engineers out of Castle, and 2-9 Infantry following 2E being dissolved.
Nearly 12,000 troops have been dismissed under the policy approved by President Clinton in 1993. Discharges peaked at 1,273 in 2001 and have fallen sharply since the war began.
...
Eugene Fidell of the National Institute of Military Justice, a group of military legal experts, wonders whether the dwindling number of discharges suggests broader implications for the policy. "Is it dying basically for lack of interest?" he asks. "Military managers may be turning a blind eye because it's a nuisance, and we need these people."
In the article Sergeant Darren Manzella stated on 60 Minutes that he is gay, and nothing has happened.
So it sounds like a lot of people in the military are just ignoring the law anyway.
I can see it two ways, Berkeley is wasting its time on a policy that is dying on its own, or they want to be that final nail in the coffin.
To me it just sounds like a way that the city council can all pat each other on the back while doing nothing substantial.
The protesters are missing the point, this isn't a USMC rule, it is a rule set by the commander and chief. Bill Clinton should be the one being protested. He is the one that put this shit rule in place.
The protesters are missing the point, this isn't a USMC rule, it is a rule set by the commander and chief. Bill Clinton should be the one being protested. He is the one that put this shit rule in place.
So the USMC should just sit by and not even try to overturn it? They aren't even making noise about it being an unfair policy. Protesting Bill Clinton is missing the ball a bit.
So the USMC should just sit by and not even try to overturn it? They aren't even making noise about it being an unfair policy. Protesting Bill Clinton is missing the ball a bit.
I hate to say it, but no. The USMC as an entity shouldn't portest it. Individuals on their own time certainly, but it is important for the military itself to follow the rules set forth by the president.
@Fuzzy: I think being gay in and of itself used to be sexual misconduct. So while it sucks that gays and bis are now classified the same as the mentally ill, at least they're no longer in the same boat as people who sleep with their bosses for favors.
Quid on
0
Saint JusticeMercenaryMah-vel Baybee!!!Registered Userregular
You know, not everyone thinks that a rectum is a sexual organ.
You can draw racial analogies all day, implying that not having gays is like not having blacks, but it is an alternative lifestyle, not something genetic, that would disrupt good order and discipline in the military because it does make people deeply uncomfortable. The military doesn't let nudists, cultists, and members of secretive organizations in either, for that reason.
Also, for one example of thousands why this is a bad idea, putting a gay dude in a communal shower is like putting a single straight dude in a woman's volleyball team's communal shower. We don't let straight guys shower with chicks or play on their teams, are we discriminating against them because of their sexuality?
No, we're preventing a disrupive influance from destroying a team and wierding out it's members. In the military, a bad team gets people killed and that trumps everything else.
Fuck dying for PC bullshit and social experimentation.
Gays don't belong everywhere for the same reasons straight people don't belong everywhere. People wigged out because the Boy Scouts wouldn't let openly gay guys be scoutmasters, for instance. Now think about how stupid of an idea this potentially is, and it's not hateful twords gays either.
Ever think it's done for the same reason the girl scouts don't let openly straight guys be den mothers?
Sending a bunch of boys alone in the woods with a gay guy is a stupid idea for the same reason that sending a bunch of girls alone in the woods with a straight guy is.
It's not worth the risk of something bad happening.
You, sir, win the thread.
Saint Justice on
Some people play tennis, I erode the human soul. ~ Tycho
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited February 2008
Are you serious? That was simultaneously hateful and retarded.
Yeah, that was seriously one of the least educated statements I've ever read in D&D.
EDIT: Or almost any (serious) debate forum. I say almost because of something I read on another one in which the person stated
"Race doesn't exist, therefore racism doesn't exist."
You know, not everyone thinks that a rectum is a sexual organ.
You can draw racial analogies all day, implying that not having gays is like not having blacks, but it is an alternative lifestyle, not something genetic, that would disrupt good order and discipline in the military because it does make people deeply uncomfortable. The military doesn't let nudists, cultists, and members of secretive organizations in either, for that reason.
Also, for one example of thousands why this is a bad idea, putting a gay dude in a communal shower is like putting a single straight dude in a woman's volleyball team's communal shower. We don't let straight guys shower with chicks or play on their teams, are we discriminating against them because of their sexuality?
No, we're preventing a disrupive influance from destroying a team and wierding out it's members. In the military, a bad team gets people killed and that trumps everything else.
Fuck dying for PC bullshit and social experimentation.
Gays don't belong everywhere for the same reasons straight people don't belong everywhere. People wigged out because the Boy Scouts wouldn't let openly gay guys be scoutmasters, for instance. Now think about how stupid of an idea this potentially is, and it's not hateful twords gays either.
Ever think it's done for the same reason the girl scouts don't let openly straight guys be den mothers?
Sending a bunch of boys alone in the woods with a gay guy is a stupid idea for the same reason that sending a bunch of girls alone in the woods with a straight guy is.
It's not worth the risk of something bad happening.
You, sir, win the thread.
SE++ that way :arrow: but I'm not even sure they would take you.
Are you serious? That was simultaneously hateful and retarded.
So basically, the only way I can be smart and loving is to agree with everything you say concerning my views on sexuality? Interesting. Who's trying to control whom? ;-)
Just because you disagree with a gay person, that doesn't make you stupid or hateful. The insinuation that it does, frankly, is an attempt to force people to think, do, and say what you want concerning homosexuality, to have control over them, because they're afraid of that label.
That's what's insidious about PC; the use of "tolerance" to control people.
I'll just shuffle off to Room 101 since I dared challenge The Party's Orthodoxy and, as we all well know, "The Party is never wrong". :P
No, you just don't get that I can tolerate your way of life without having to like it or think that it's good.
Who a guy sleeps with is his own buisness. But I don't have to applaud it or fawn over it like a scared parent fawns over all the drawings and demands of a spoiled child. I have gay friends, but I don't worship the ground they walk on because of it or act like a yes man to everything they want.
widowson on
-I owe nothing to Women's Lib.
Margaret Thatcher
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Are you serious? That was simultaneously hateful and retarded.
So basically, the only way I can be smart and loving is to agree with everything you say concerning my views on sexuality? Interesting. Who's trying to control whom? ;-)
Just because you disagree with a gay person, that doesn't make you stupid or hateful. The insinuation that it does, frankly, is an attempt to force people to think, do, and say what you want concerning homosexuality, to have control over them, because they're afraid of that label.
That's what's insidious about PC; the use of "tolerance" to control people.
I'll just shuffle off to Room 101 since I dared challenge The Party's Orthodoxy and, as we all well know, "The Party is never wrong". :P
Yeah, heaven forbid we call you on being an intolerant cockbite.
You can take the PC stance against widowson all you like, but he is entirely correct in a lot of what he says. Up to the part about a bunch of boys in the woods, he is spot on.
I was in the Military for 35 years, and I can tell you now, it would be a disruptive influence. I dont care what your sexual orientation is, but the fact of the matter remains that 90% of soldiers probably do. The Military is not a bastion of tolerance, rainbows and unicorns. It isn't supposed to be. Deal with it.
Are you serious? That was simultaneously hateful and retarded.
So basically, the only way I can be smart and loving is to agree with everything you say concerning my views on sexuality? Interesting. Who's trying to control whom? ;-)
Just because you disagree with a gay person, that doesn't make you stupid or hateful. The insinuation that it does, frankly, is an attempt to force people to think, do, and say what you want concerning homosexuality, to have control over them, because they're afraid of that label.
That's what's insidious about PC; the use of "tolerance" to control people.
I'll just shuffle off to Room 101 since I dared challenge The Party's Orthodoxy and, as we all well know, "The Party is never wrong". :P
Yeah, heaven forbid we call you on being an intolerant cockbite.
I'll disgress here a moment.
One of the reasons a lot of Republicans like Obama is because he isn't a jerk; he tries to convince people his way his right, he doesn't try to ram his beliefs down their throats or resort to labeling people who disagree with him as evil.
You really think calling someone a "cockbite" will make them more or less likely to agree with you?
Have you considered the possibility that the reason many reject liberalism isn't because of the ideology, it's because of the attitude where anyone who doesn't agree with you *has* to be stupid and wrong because you're so certain of your own intellectual superiority and perfection?
I wonder if I'm wrong some days. I often question what I believe.
You can take the PC stance against widowson all you like, but he is entirely correct in a lot of what he says. Up to the part about a bunch of boys in the woods, he is spot on.
I was in the Military for 35 years, and I can tell you now, it would be a disruptive influence. I dont care what your sexual orientation is, but the fact of the matter remains that 90% of soldiers probably do. The Military is not a bastion of tolerance, rainbows and unicorns. It isn't supposed to be. Deal with it.
Wow, good thing we never had to integrate minorities of any type into the armed forces.
That would have been even worse because the military isn't a bastion of tolerance!
And it's obviously not possible to integrate gay people because no one else has done it yet.
Oh hey wait. Everything I just said was provably false.
You can take the PC stance against widowson all you like, but he is entirely correct in a lot of what he says. Up to the part about a bunch of boys in the woods, he is spot on.
I was in the Military for 35 years, and I can tell you now, it would be a disruptive influence. I dont care what your sexual orientation is, but the fact of the matter remains that 90% of soldiers probably do. The Military is not a bastion of tolerance, rainbows and unicorns. It isn't supposed to be. Deal with it.
Wow, good thing we never had to integrate minorities of any type into the armed forces.
That would have been even worse because the military isn't a bastion of tolerance!
And it's obviously not possible to integrate gay people because no one else has done it yet.
Oh hey wait. Everything I just said was provably false.
The Military works perfectly well as it is.
Dont like it? Enlist and "Fight da man" from the inside.
Belketre on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
You can take the PC stance against widowson all you like, but he is entirely correct in a lot of what he says. Up to the part about a bunch of boys in the woods, he is spot on.
I was in the Military for 35 years, and I can tell you now, it would be a disruptive influence. I dont care what your sexual orientation is, but the fact of the matter remains that 90% of soldiers probably do. The Military is not a bastion of tolerance, rainbows and unicorns. It isn't supposed to be. Deal with it.
Wow, good thing we never had to integrate minorities of any type into the armed forces.
That would have been even worse because the military isn't a bastion of tolerance!
And it's obviously not possible to integrate gay people because no one else has done it yet.
Oh hey wait. Everything I just said was provably false.
The Military works perfectly well as it is.
Dont like it? Enlist and "Fight da man" from the inside.
Also see: getting stomped.
I don't think that the military should be an institution of social change, but I also believe it needs to adequetly represent the society it defends. I don't think there should be pink Humvees or that the USMC should start singing songs from "Rent" at mess, but like it or not there are gays in all the services. I knew some, they performed well, and I could give a shit less if they pitched or catched. They now more flaunted their homosexuality in my face than threw my heterosexuality in theirs. We did our job. The end.
You can take the PC stance against widowson all you like, but he is entirely correct in a lot of what he says. Up to the part about a bunch of boys in the woods, he is spot on.
I was in the Military for 35 years, and I can tell you now, it would be a disruptive influence. I dont care what your sexual orientation is, but the fact of the matter remains that 90% of soldiers probably do. The Military is not a bastion of tolerance, rainbows and unicorns. It isn't supposed to be. Deal with it.
Wow, good thing we never had to integrate minorities of any type into the armed forces.
That would have been even worse because the military isn't a bastion of tolerance!
And it's obviously not possible to integrate gay people because no one else has done it yet.
Oh hey wait. Everything I just said was provably false.
The Military works perfectly well as it is.
Dont like it? Enlist and "Fight da man" from the inside.
Can I enlist in the British Military? They're smart enough not to drop essential personnel for silly reasons during wartime.
The military doesn't have to be lovey-dovey, it has to be effective. In the interest of being effective, we integrated the military before the start of the civil rights movement, because we needed the soldiers. In fact, it's probably one of the major causes of the movement.
Right now, we've demonstrably lowered the effectiveness of our military by dismissing soldiers that could prove useful.
The Military works perfectly well as it is.
Dont like it? Enlist and "Fight da man" from the inside.
Can I enlist in the British Military? They're smart enough not to drop essential personnel for silly reasons during wartime.
The military doesn't have to be lovey-dovey, it has to be effective. In the interest of being effective, we integrated the military before the start of the civil rights movement, because we needed the soldiers. In fact, it's probably one of the major causes of the movement.
Right now, we've demonstrably lowered the effectiveness of our military by dismissing soldiers that were nigh-essential.
i.e. Translators in occupied countries where the majority do not speak English.
This whole thread reminds me of an experience a friend of mine had in Catholic School. (And no, it doesn't involve pedastric sodomy for all you anti-papists. :P ) He basically had a Catholic Jesuit teacher argue for an hour that God doesn't exist. In Catholic school. There were two reactions the students had:
1. Essentially putting their hands over their ears and screaming HERETIC, HERETIC, HERETIC.
2. Engaging him as to why he was wrong.
#2 was his point, because to truly understand your beliefs you have to at least consider or know the counterargument against it. He also demonstrated how #1 was thereby intelectually useless.
I think it's beneficial that conservatives should consider that God may not exist, Jesus might have been a nut, and that war may never be the answer. Many do. Even mother Teresa did. Even Peter the Apostle did. You can ask these questions in most churches and get answers.
I think it's beneficial that liberals should consider that abortion may be murder, that homosexuality may be abberant sexual behavior, and that government might not be the answer to every problem. Very few do. You ask these questions in many colleges, these alleged temples of free thought, and you get fired or labled a heretic...er..."intolerant".
It's almost like there's this liberal orthodoxy, this progressive commandmant: THOU SHALT NOT QUESTION THE NORMALCY AND BENEFICIAL NATURE OF SODOMY, ABORTION, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, AND MASSIVE GOVERNMENT.
And if anyone ever *does*, because we're so certain in the purity and perfection of our ideology, we put our hands over our ears and scream HOMOPHOBE-RACIST-INTOLERANT-SEXIST-BIGOT (option #1) rather than consider that the opposition may very well just be thinking differently and engage them (option #2).
But what do I know? I'm an "intolerant cockbite" who refuses to recant....er repent....er..."keep an open mind" by thinking *exactly* the way Party Orthodoxy says I'm supposed to. ;-)
widowson on
-I owe nothing to Women's Lib.
Margaret Thatcher
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited February 2008
Well, you've demonstrated quite well you have no idea what you're talking about. So you share that in common with most religious people.
You also have no idea what the arguments against homosexuality are besides "it's icky", and you don't seem to know any for it. so maybe you should follow your own godsdamned advice
tl;dr you're a fucking hypocrite and you need to practice what you preach.
Also, don't act so put upon just because people expect you to treat people who are different than you with respect, and like human beings. Poor you, being so oppressed because they're so icky.
And if anyone ever *does*, because we're so certain in the purity and perfection of our ideology, we put our hands over our ears and scream HOMOPHOBE-RACIST-INTOLERANT-SEXIST-BIGOT (option #1) rather than consider that the opposition may very well just be thinking differently and engage them (option #2).
But what do I know? I'm an "intolerant cockbite" who refuses to recant....er repent....er..."keep an open mind" by thinking *exactly* the way Party Orthodoxy says I'm supposed to. ;-)
I like how you've set it up so noone could ever actually call you on being a homophobe/racist/intolerant/sexist/bigot without instantly being dismissed as close-minded.
Please consider that it is possible, even likely, for someone to perfectly understand and accept your arguments and still call you one of those things, if your argument is founded on homophobic/etc principles and ignorance. This is a position of engaging you as to why you are wrong. It's just that you likely won't listen, at all, and will continue to flounder on thinking you have made some breathtakingly brave move against your oppressors.
You can take the PC stance against widowson all you like, but he is entirely correct in a lot of what he says. Up to the part about a bunch of boys in the woods, he is spot on.
I was in the Military for 35 years, and I can tell you now, it would be a disruptive influence. I dont care what your sexual orientation is, but the fact of the matter remains that 90% of soldiers probably do. The Military is not a bastion of tolerance, rainbows and unicorns. It isn't supposed to be. Deal with it.
I've been in the military all of nearly four years and the several blatantly gay people I saw caused no problems outside of the occasional jackass who'd talk about them behind their back.
And you don't join the military to change the policy from the inside. That's idiotic. The personnel don't set the policy, the politicians do.
You can take the PC stance against widowson all you like, but he is entirely correct in a lot of what he says. Up to the part about a bunch of boys in the woods, he is spot on.
I was in the Military for 35 years, and I can tell you now, it would be a disruptive influence. I dont care what your sexual orientation is, but the fact of the matter remains that 90% of soldiers probably do. The Military is not a bastion of tolerance, rainbows and unicorns. It isn't supposed to be. Deal with it.
May I ask what the American Armed Forces' deficiency is that they can't handle gay comrades in arms like so many other militaries can?
You can take the PC stance against widowson all you like, but he is entirely correct in a lot of what he says. Up to the part about a bunch of boys in the woods, he is spot on.
I was in the Military for 35 years, and I can tell you now, it would be a disruptive influence. I dont care what your sexual orientation is, but the fact of the matter remains that 90% of soldiers probably do. The Military is not a bastion of tolerance, rainbows and unicorns. It isn't supposed to be. Deal with it.
May I ask what the American Armed Forces' deficiency is that they can't handle gay comrades in arms like so many other militaries can?
You can take the PC stance against widowson all you like, but he is entirely correct in a lot of what he says. Up to the part about a bunch of boys in the woods, he is spot on.
I was in the Military for 35 years, and I can tell you now, it would be a disruptive influence. I dont care what your sexual orientation is, but the fact of the matter remains that 90% of soldiers probably do. The Military is not a bastion of tolerance, rainbows and unicorns. It isn't supposed to be. Deal with it.
May I ask what the American Armed Forces' deficiency is that they can't handle gay comrades in arms like so many other militaries can?
Does anyone else really not want to answer that?
I know Belketre doesn't. Trying to back up his argument with facts would probably cause it to fall apart.
Posts
From page 3
Unless either it can be proven that the person is simply playing the Gay card to get out of service, or if discharging the servicemember would not be in the military's best interests, they will be discharged (I can find nothing requiring Dishonorable, but I believe that's the default unless stated otherwise in the rule)
Interestingly enough, the rules pretty much say "firing gay translators when going to war with another country" would be Against the rules, since it would not be in the best interests of the military to lose said MOS.
2nd Engineers out of Castle, and 2-9 Infantry following 2E being dissolved.
Apologies if this has already been posted
In the article Sergeant Darren Manzella stated on 60 Minutes that he is gay, and nothing has happened.
So it sounds like a lot of people in the military are just ignoring the law anyway.
I can see it two ways, Berkeley is wasting its time on a policy that is dying on its own, or they want to be that final nail in the coffin.
To me it just sounds like a way that the city council can all pat each other on the back while doing nothing substantial.
LINK: http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=41464
"Excuse me, let me out... some of us have jobs."
@Fuzzy: I think being gay in and of itself used to be sexual misconduct. So while it sucks that gays and bis are now classified the same as the mentally ill, at least they're no longer in the same boat as people who sleep with their bosses for favors.
You, sir, win the thread.
EDIT: Or almost any (serious) debate forum. I say almost because of something I read on another one in which the person stated
"Race doesn't exist, therefore racism doesn't exist."
It's damn close though.
So basically, the only way I can be smart and loving is to agree with everything you say concerning my views on sexuality? Interesting. Who's trying to control whom? ;-)
Just because you disagree with a gay person, that doesn't make you stupid or hateful. The insinuation that it does, frankly, is an attempt to force people to think, do, and say what you want concerning homosexuality, to have control over them, because they're afraid of that label.
That's what's insidious about PC; the use of "tolerance" to control people.
I'll just shuffle off to Room 101 since I dared challenge The Party's Orthodoxy and, as we all well know, "The Party is never wrong". :P
Margaret Thatcher
Are we intolerant...
of intolerance?!
No, you just don't get that I can tolerate your way of life without having to like it or think that it's good.
Who a guy sleeps with is his own buisness. But I don't have to applaud it or fawn over it like a scared parent fawns over all the drawings and demands of a spoiled child. I have gay friends, but I don't worship the ground they walk on because of it or act like a yes man to everything they want.
Margaret Thatcher
I was in the Military for 35 years, and I can tell you now, it would be a disruptive influence. I dont care what your sexual orientation is, but the fact of the matter remains that 90% of soldiers probably do. The Military is not a bastion of tolerance, rainbows and unicorns. It isn't supposed to be. Deal with it.
I'll disgress here a moment.
One of the reasons a lot of Republicans like Obama is because he isn't a jerk; he tries to convince people his way his right, he doesn't try to ram his beliefs down their throats or resort to labeling people who disagree with him as evil.
You really think calling someone a "cockbite" will make them more or less likely to agree with you?
Have you considered the possibility that the reason many reject liberalism isn't because of the ideology, it's because of the attitude where anyone who doesn't agree with you *has* to be stupid and wrong because you're so certain of your own intellectual superiority and perfection?
I wonder if I'm wrong some days. I often question what I believe.
Do you?
Margaret Thatcher
That would have been even worse because the military isn't a bastion of tolerance!
And it's obviously not possible to integrate gay people because no one else has done it yet.
Oh hey wait. Everything I just said was provably false.
The Military works perfectly well as it is.
Dont like it? Enlist and "Fight da man" from the inside.
Also see: getting stomped.
I don't think that the military should be an institution of social change, but I also believe it needs to adequetly represent the society it defends. I don't think there should be pink Humvees or that the USMC should start singing songs from "Rent" at mess, but like it or not there are gays in all the services. I knew some, they performed well, and I could give a shit less if they pitched or catched. They now more flaunted their homosexuality in my face than threw my heterosexuality in theirs. We did our job. The end.
Can I enlist in the British Military? They're smart enough not to drop essential personnel for silly reasons during wartime.
The military doesn't have to be lovey-dovey, it has to be effective. In the interest of being effective, we integrated the military before the start of the civil rights movement, because we needed the soldiers. In fact, it's probably one of the major causes of the movement.
Right now, we've demonstrably lowered the effectiveness of our military by dismissing soldiers that could prove useful.
i.e. Translators in occupied countries where the majority do not speak English.
This whole thread reminds me of an experience a friend of mine had in Catholic School. (And no, it doesn't involve pedastric sodomy for all you anti-papists. :P ) He basically had a Catholic Jesuit teacher argue for an hour that God doesn't exist. In Catholic school. There were two reactions the students had:
1. Essentially putting their hands over their ears and screaming HERETIC, HERETIC, HERETIC.
2. Engaging him as to why he was wrong.
#2 was his point, because to truly understand your beliefs you have to at least consider or know the counterargument against it. He also demonstrated how #1 was thereby intelectually useless.
I think it's beneficial that conservatives should consider that God may not exist, Jesus might have been a nut, and that war may never be the answer. Many do. Even mother Teresa did. Even Peter the Apostle did. You can ask these questions in most churches and get answers.
I think it's beneficial that liberals should consider that abortion may be murder, that homosexuality may be abberant sexual behavior, and that government might not be the answer to every problem. Very few do. You ask these questions in many colleges, these alleged temples of free thought, and you get fired or labled a heretic...er..."intolerant".
It's almost like there's this liberal orthodoxy, this progressive commandmant: THOU SHALT NOT QUESTION THE NORMALCY AND BENEFICIAL NATURE OF SODOMY, ABORTION, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, AND MASSIVE GOVERNMENT.
And if anyone ever *does*, because we're so certain in the purity and perfection of our ideology, we put our hands over our ears and scream HOMOPHOBE-RACIST-INTOLERANT-SEXIST-BIGOT (option #1) rather than consider that the opposition may very well just be thinking differently and engage them (option #2).
But what do I know? I'm an "intolerant cockbite" who refuses to recant....er repent....er..."keep an open mind" by thinking *exactly* the way Party Orthodoxy says I'm supposed to. ;-)
Margaret Thatcher
You also have no idea what the arguments against homosexuality are besides "it's icky", and you don't seem to know any for it. so maybe you should follow your own godsdamned advice
tl;dr you're a fucking hypocrite and you need to practice what you preach.
Also, don't act so put upon just because people expect you to treat people who are different than you with respect, and like human beings. Poor you, being so oppressed because they're so icky.
I like how you've set it up so noone could ever actually call you on being a homophobe/racist/intolerant/sexist/bigot without instantly being dismissed as close-minded.
Please consider that it is possible, even likely, for someone to perfectly understand and accept your arguments and still call you one of those things, if your argument is founded on homophobic/etc principles and ignorance. This is a position of engaging you as to why you are wrong. It's just that you likely won't listen, at all, and will continue to flounder on thinking you have made some breathtakingly brave move against your oppressors.
Is bigotry really that bad?
And you don't join the military to change the policy from the inside. That's idiotic. The personnel don't set the policy, the politicians do.
May I ask what the American Armed Forces' deficiency is that they can't handle gay comrades in arms like so many other militaries can?
Does anyone else really not want to answer that?
I know Belketre doesn't. Trying to back up his argument with facts would probably cause it to fall apart.