Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Repeal coming soon?

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Repeal coming soon? (Page 15)
Thread Tools
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 04:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by kmkkid View Post
I agree with you 100%.

I didn't pull the american card as an insult, because I believe the DADT policy exists in many forms, in many other countries (so this topic really applies to all millitants, of all countries that apply DADT). I just believe that this particular poster believes america, and it's religious foundations apply to the whole world, which they do not.
Well, let's just say that in this country there is a high correspondence between those who believe in American Exceptionalism and those who are overtly religious and want religion to play a role in governance. (In other words, they are often one and the same groups.) Therefore, it is not surprising that those who think the United States is a special country would think that this specialness comes from, or is due to, the religious beliefs held by its citizens.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 09:33 PM
 
People do change, stupendousman's assertions aside. Even Dick Cheney, whom I'm certainly no fan of, realizes that it's time, and he was a Secretary of Defense. I'm sure he realizes that a lot of the silly arguments about people having their privates looked at without their consent (and it is indeed a silly argument) just don't hold water.

Dick Cheney for DADT Repeal | News | Advocate.com
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 10:18 PM
 
clearly he's just positioning for his future in liberal politics.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2010, 10:54 PM
 
Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

"If that guy Don, Mike, whatever, says so, we should look at it."
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 12:03 AM
 
Cheney has favoured a liberal position on gay rights for years. This is not new.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 12:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Cheney has favoured a liberal position on gay rights for years. This is not new.
Partially true; he is still against gay marriage, despite having a lesbian daughter.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 12:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

"If that guy Don, Mike, whatever, says so, we should look at it."
Of course you've never forgotten someone's name, and and Cheney's gaffe somehow overshadows his feelings on the issue, or changes its importance.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 01:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Of course you've never forgotten someone's name, and and Cheney's gaffe somehow overshadows his feelings on the issue, or changes its importance.
They don't. I was poking fun at him about the gaffe.

His feelings are he has to choose his words very carefully so he doesn't actually say he supports it. What he's gone on record as supporting is "taking a look at it".

Which is what I said it was, not a ringing endorsement.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 02:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
But American citizens are "the deciding factor on what is right or wrong in the" United States. As such, if over 50% of American citizens really truly think homosexuality is morally wrong then we need to ask ourselves if we should let this collective opinion determine policies regarding how the government treats homosexuals. If over 50% of American citizens really truly think homosexuality is morally wrong then we need to ask ourselves if it is appropriate to give homosexuals in our country rights equal to our heterosexual citizens. (I for one think it is appropriate to do so as I don't view the government's job an enforcing morality standards.)
I don't think that the government should enforce moral standards either. That's why I didn't think this was directly relevant to the military, and why I've always opposed "sodomy" laws.

Having said that, I don't think it's the government's job to force people to do things a majority thinks is immoral either, which would include giving up their right to discriminate personally against those who engage in immoral behavior.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 02:47 AM
 
Most recent poll.

75% support letting gays serve openly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

Democrats - 82% support
Independents - 77% support
Republicans - 65% support

Men - 65% support
Women - 81% support, we all know most women are bi-sexual.

Young adults under age 30 - 81% support
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2010, 09:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Most recent poll.

75% support letting gays serve openly.

washingtonpost.com

Democrats - 82% support
Independents - 77% support
Republicans - 65% support

Men - 65% support
Women - 81% support, we all know most women are bi-sexual.

Young adults under age 30 - 81% support
Youth is the key. They realize, correctly, that it doesn't matter whether someone is gay. It only matters if they do what they're supposed to do in their professional environment, whether that's retail or the military or wherever it may be. They're not all hung up on projecting gays' private behavior, and they are secure in who they are (they know that gays don't go around "converting" others, including children, as that isn't something that's possible to do). Older people (of my generation) are far more rigid and were brought up differently, and are in many ways more susceptible to falsehoods regarding this issue, simply because they've had it drummed into them since birth, by people who are just plain ignorant of the facts. They believe falsehoods, such as attributing homosexuality to mental illness, simply because some "educated" person or persons classified it as such when the field of psychology was still in its infancy. The time will come when this ignorance too shall pass.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2010, 12:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Youth is the key.
Those crazy kids! The problem is that they eventually grow up. Some even decide to eventually join the military. We know that a HUGE number of people currently serving would not have served or would not re-enlist if the policy changes, based on polling. THAT should be more persuasive than the popularity contest polls several have posted here for those who would never have to actually have their own personal privacy violated in the manner suggested.

They realize, correctly, that it doesn't matter whether someone is gay.
In most instances, no, it doesn't. I've already explained here how in THIS instance it does. I've also already explained how any new policy would likely cause an even more unfair and discriminatory set of circumstances to apply.

It only matters if they do what they're supposed to do in their professional environment, whether that's retail or the military or wherever it may be. They're not all hung up on projecting gays' private behavior, and they are secure in who they are (they know that gays don't go around "converting" others, including children, as that isn't something that's possible to do). Older people (of my generation) are far more rigid and were brought up differently, and are in many ways more susceptible to falsehoods regarding this issue, simply because they've had it drummed into them since birth, by people who are just plain ignorant of the facts. They believe falsehoods, such as attributing homosexuality to mental illness, simply because some "educated" person or persons classified it as such when the field of psychology was still in its infancy. The time will come when this ignorance too shall pass.
This has nothing to do with whether or not someone has a "mental illness" or believes "falsehoods". Every single one of the reasons I've given for my position is 100% factual. You may not believe that the concerns based on those observations warrant the current policies that are in place, but it's really not anything to do with ignorance or some lack of knowledge of the subject at hand.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2010, 01:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Those crazy kids! The problem is that they eventually grow up. Some even decide to eventually join the military. We know that a HUGE number of people currently serving would not have served or would not re-enlist if the policy changes, based on polling. THAT should be more persuasive than the popularity contest polls several have posted here for those who would never have to actually have their own personal privacy violated in the manner suggested.
There you go again, with your ridiculous personal privacy argument. You just can't stop beating a dead horse. If I'm in a communal shower, in the military or a gym, or wherever, I have no reasonable expectation of someone not looking at my genitalia, in a sexual manner or otherwise. It's that simple. You keep bringing this silly argument up, and all it does is continuously reinforce how insecure you are about your manhood.



In most instances, no, it doesn't. I've already explained here how in THIS instance it does. I've also already explained how any new policy would likely cause an even more unfair and discriminatory set of circumstances to apply.
You haven't explained anything, other than to yourself, with your circular "logic."



This has nothing to do with whether or not someone has a "mental illness" or believes "falsehoods". Every single one of the reasons I've given for my position is 100% factual. You may not believe that the concerns based on those observations warrant the current policies that are in place, but it's really not anything to do with ignorance or some lack of knowledge of the subject at hand.
Your opinion is duly noted.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2010, 01:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I don't think that the government should enforce moral standards either. That's why I didn't think this was directly relevant to the military, and why I've always opposed "sodomy" laws.

Having said that, I don't think it's the government's job to force people to do things a majority thinks is immoral either, which would include giving up their right to discriminate personally against those who engage in immoral behavior.
I'm pretty sure we don't have a "right to discriminate" specified anywhere in the Constitution.

Having said that, the government is not forcing "people to do things a majority thinks is immoral". It is simply acting in its capacity to "ensure equality of rights and enforcement of contractual obligations" as I said previously. You notice there is nothing about morality in that description.

The government doesn't say, is it moral to ensure equality of rights for this group of individuals with this other group of individuals? All it says is, does this group of individuals have the same rights as this other group of individuals. And if the answer is No, the government will try to ensure that the two groups of individuals have the same rights. Morality never comes into play as a factor for consideration.


But on a more general, philosophical level, why would you want government leaders and laws to take morality into consideration* when creating legislation? How does including issues of morality help in the process of creating laws? If laws are intended to protect rights and enforce legal obligations how does morality ever come into play? Where is there a role for morality in enforcing contractual obligations? If two parties have a contract and one party reneges on some part of the contract how does morality have any relevance to forcing the reneging party to adhere to the terms of the contract? (I am not being facetious. I would honestly like to know how you think morality would ever come into play with a matter of contractual obligation because I can't see where morality would be relevant.)


*This question leaves aside the fact that not everyone has the same view of what is considered moral or immoral and that societal view on morality changes over time. Remember, when the government forced integration of the military and public schools a majority of citizens thought it was wrong and immoral to do so. Do you really want majority rules to decide what constitutes morally acceptable behavior? Do you really want the majority to be able to subjugate the minority simply because they are the majority? I don't.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2010, 01:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Those crazy kids! The problem is that they eventually grow up. Some even decide to eventually join the military. We know that a HUGE number of people currently serving would not have served or would not re-enlist if the policy changes, based on polling. THAT should be more persuasive than the popularity contest polls several have posted here for those who would never have to actually have their own personal privacy violated in the manner suggested.
Haha..

I'm pretty sure that a vast majority of those in basic training camp are from the ages of 18 to 30 year old. You know those recruited from high school, offering tuition for college. You know, those who took the survey and with over 80% supporting gays to serve openly in the military.

Speaking of high school, did you not ever have gym or PE classes?

No gay people in high school? High school gym showers? No grade school camping trips with communal showers at camp?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2010, 07:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
There you go again, with your ridiculous personal privacy argument.
An argument back by laws, court decisions and ingrained in our culture can't really be "ridiculous". As I explained before, when it's legal for me to violate a woman's privacy by watching her shower or go to the bathroom without her permission, you can tell me about "ridiculous."

You just can't stop beating a dead horse. If I'm in a communal shower, in the military or a gym, or wherever, I have no reasonable expectation of someone not looking at my genitalia, in a sexual manner or otherwise.
As it's been explained to you before, those areas are segregated by sex in order to ensure that such a thing won't happen. It's reasonable to assume that probably 99% of the time you WON'T have any reason to believe that's happening, and that's probably the best any reasonable effort to protect privacy would be able to achieve.

It's that simple. You keep bringing this silly argument up, and all it does is continuously reinforce how insecure you are about your manhood.
The argument isn't about me. The laws on the books, the way our facilities are set up - never was I consulted or considered personally.. It's easier to try to make this personal - but it's not personal. It's a matter that's really not up for debate unless you are really stretching to try to find an argument.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2010, 08:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
I'm pretty sure we don't have a "right to discriminate" specified anywhere in the Constitution.
I"m pretty sure we do, unless that discrimination is prohibited by the document itself. We discriminate everyday in our "pursuit of happiness." You can't really pursue it unless you can make discimination based choices. We make decisions about what we like or don't like, what we think is right or wrong, and who we choose to associate with. I'm pretty sure that the government can't take away those rights without some seriously compelling legal reasoning.

Having said that, the government is not forcing "people to do things a majority thinks is immoral". It is simply acting in its capacity to "ensure equality of rights and enforcement of contractual obligations" as I said previously. You notice there is nothing about morality in that description.
There is no compelling legal principle that requires "equality of rights" for things which are not equal. That's why a 5' 2" guy can't sue to get in the NBA.

*This question leaves aside the fact that not everyone has the same view of what is considered moral or immoral and that societal view on morality changes over time. Remember, when the government forced integration of the military and public schools a majority of citizens thought it was wrong and immoral to do so.
I"m pretty sure that a super majority of our representatives voted for an amendment to the Constitution that ensured that a certain segment of the population wasn't discriminated against. Seeing how that happened, you can't really fault courts and institutions for following up on what "the people" said they wanted - even if some of them later decided it might make them uncomfortable. There's been no such action in regards to protection of our sexual choices to be free from discrimination from others.

Do you really want majority rules to decide what constitutes morally acceptable behavior? Do you really want the majority to be able to subjugate the minority simply because they are the majority? I don't.
That's exactly what our laws are based on - morality of the majority. The majority believes that murder is wrong, therefore it's illegal.

What we are talking about here though isn't a prohibition on behavior or even outlawing something thought to be immoral. We have a situation that would discriminate against one set of people giving extra rights to another, while actively allowing a basic invasion of their privacy. I don't think that's something we want a minority doing to the majority either.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2010, 08:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
I'm pretty sure that a vast majority of those in basic training camp are from the ages of 18 to 30 year old. You know those recruited from high school, offering tuition for college. You know, those who took the survey and with over 80% supporting gays to serve openly in the military.
I'm pretty sure that the vast majority in the military are in that same age bracket, and polling shows a huge contingent who would not serve if the policy was changed.

Speaking of high school, did you not ever have gym or PE classes?

No gay people in high school? High school gym showers? No grade school camping trips with communal showers at camp?
I've never had to knowingly shower, or been forced to be naked in front of a woman or gay man (who was not in a professional position requiring them to do so - Doctor, etc). I have no knowledge of this ever happening, much like a woman who has been secretly spied on by a man via a peephole might not know it happens even though it does.

Like I've said before, I'm guessing that the possibility exists that someone has violated my privacy, but I don't know about it. I can't really worry about stuff that has statistically low chances of happening, that there isn't a reasonable way to avoid. When you can't stop dishonesty from happening 100%, you've got to rely on the "honor system."
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2010, 08:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I"m pretty sure we do, unless that discrimination is prohibited by the document itself. We discriminate everyday in our "pursuit of happiness." You can't really pursue it unless you can make discimination based choices. We make decisions about what we like or don't like, what we think is right or wrong, and who we choose to associate with. I'm pretty sure that the government can't take away those rights without some seriously compelling legal reasoning.
Umm, the government takes away rights to discriminate all the time. Heck, we have a couple amendments to the Constitution specifically limiting citizens right to discriminate based on race or sex. And in the area of enforcing contractual obligations the government takes away the right to discriminate as well. (Try telling a single Mom you won't rent your property to her because she is a single Mom. See how far you get with that.)

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
There is no compelling legal principle that requires "equality of rights" for things which are not equal. That's why a 5' 2" guy can't sue to get in the NBA.
"For things which are not equal", eh? So, homosexuals are "not equal" to heterosexuals? I think this is where you and I will always disagree. You do no think homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals in the rights to which they are guaranteed under the Constitution. I do think homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals in the rights to which they are guaranteed under the Constitution. I do think homosexuals have just as much right to the "pursuit of happiness" as heterosexuals do.


Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I"m pretty sure that a super majority of our representatives voted for an amendment to the Constitution that ensured that a certain segment of the population wasn't discriminated against. Seeing how that happened, you can't really fault courts and institutions for following up on what "the people" said they wanted - even if some of them later decided it might make them uncomfortable. There's been no such action in regards to protection of our sexual choices to be free from discrimination from others.
You are correct. "There [has] been no such action in regards to protection of our sexual choices to be free from discrimination from others." Of course, there has been no Constitutional amendment guaranteeing women equality with men--Th ERA movement failed, remember--but the "courts and institutions" have acted in such a way as if there was an Amendment guaranteeing women equality with men. So, why shouldn't our "courts and institutions" act in such a way as if there was an Amendment guaranteeing equality between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Oh, and you mentioned "protection of our sexual choices". Just as an aside, when did you choose to be heterosexual? (Remember, if sexuality becomes a choice it has to be a choice for all humans. Hence, heterosexuals have to "choose" to be heterosexual just like homosexuals "choose" to be homosexual.)


Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
That's exactly what our laws are based on - morality of the majority. The majority believes that murder is wrong, therefore it's illegal.
Ha! So very wrong it's laughable. Our laws are based on the belief that our rights are inalienable. Morality doesn't determine that "murder is wrong, therefore it's illegal". The belief in an inalienable right to existence is what determines that "murder is wrong, therefore it's illegal". Therefore, murder is wrong not because it is immoral but rather because it deprives someone of their inalienable rights (to live their life).

Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
What we are talking about here though isn't a prohibition on behavior or even outlawing something thought to be immoral. We have a situation that would discriminate against one set of people giving extra rights to another, while actively allowing a basic invasion of their privacy. I don't think that's something we want a minority doing to the majority either.
Being free from discrimination is "giving extra rights to" homosexuals? Really, did blacks get "extra rights" when it was made illegal to discriminate against them? Did women get "extra rights" when it was made illegal to discriminate against them?

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you are arguing that the majority gets the full allotment of rights guaranteed to all of us by the Constitution but for minorities to get the full allotment of rights they have to be considered "extra rights"? If that is what you are arguing I disagree vehemently. I think the Constitution guarantees all US citizens all of our rights regardless if we are white males with a heritage traced back to the Mayflower or an Asian immigrant newly granted citizenship or a black woman with a heritage traced back to the slave trade or a homosexual newly out of the closet. In other words, I don't think the minority in this country gets "extra rights" to be equal to the majority. I think those in the minority and those in the majority have equal rights from the beginning.
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Feb 17, 2010 at 02:18 PM. )
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2010, 03:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Umm, the government takes away rights to discriminate all the time. Heck, we have a couple amendments to the Constitution specifically limiting citizens right to discriminate based on race or sex.
The Constitution did you say?

Oh yeah, I already mentioned that.

Let me know when there's an amendment protecting sexual practices.

It can't be part of a "right to privacy" either, because it's already been explained that we have no such right.

"For things which are not equal", eh? So, homosexuals are "not equal" to heterosexuals?
In some respects, no. I've already pointed out these areas. A homosexual can't join the military and serve in the manner everyone else does, for instance. They either have to be given special rights which violates the rights of others, or not be included.

I think this is where you and I will always disagree.
It's not whether or not we agree. Either they can comply or they can't. It's not a matter of opinion.

You are correct. "There [has] been no such action in regard to protection of our sexual choices to be free from discrimination from others." Of course, there has been no Constitutional amendment guaranteeing women equality with men--Th ERA movement failed, remember--but the "courts and institutions" have acted in such a way as if there was an Amendment guaranteeing women equality with men. So, why shouldn't our "courts and institutions" act in such a way as if there was an Amendment guaranteeing equality between heterosexuals and homosexuals.
It's because of the assumption that "all men are created equal" is the same as "all humans are created equal". It's assumed that such protections are inherent and intended. That still doesn't entitle a woman the right join a "mens only" club, a pro football team or have urinals installed in their restrooms to ensure "equality." Equal opportunity for those who can comply with the standards required does not mean an equal grant of privileges by default.

Oh, and you mentioned "protection of our sexual choices". Just as an aside, when did you choose to be heterosexual? (Remember, if sexuality becomes a choice it has to be a choice for all humans. Hence, heterosexuals have to "choose" to be heterosexual just like homosexuals "choose" to be homosexual.)
I never chose to be heterosexual. I never chose to be attracted to women not my wife either, but that happened naturally as well. I pretty much can't be judged based on emotions and attractions I can't help feeling, unless I decide to act on them. It's quite possible that serial killers don't choose to have the urge to kill either, but we judge them if they act on that urge anyways.

We have freedom of choice. We can be judged based on what we decide to do with the emotions we find ourselves with. That's part of life.

Ha! So very wrong it's laughable. Our laws are based on the belief that our rights are inalienable. Morality doesn't determine that "murder is wrong, therefore it's illegal". The belief in an inalienable right to existence is what determines that "murder is wrong, therefore it's illegal". Therefore, murder is wrong not because it is immoral but rather because it deprives someone of their inalienable rights (to live their life).
What exactly is that "belief" based on if it's not a shared morality that this is important?

Being free from discrimination is "giving extra rights to" homosexuals? Really, did blacks get "extra rights" when it was made illegal to discriminate against them? Did women get "extra rights" when it was made illegal to discriminate against them?
Did removing the discrimination from those two groups in any way allow them to do things that whites or men couldn't?

Dropping DADT would give homosexuals rights that straight people in the military do not get. But of course, you knew the answer to that question, as it's been explained to you, and you keep circling around the issues because you think eventually you'll hit on one that sticks or that the facts will just go away.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2010, 05:11 PM
 
If we're counting "doing ordinary military service for your sex while being gay" as something that straights can't do (as you appear to be), then yes, women's lib introduced lots of things women can do and men can't — they can sue straight men for sexual harassment, they can vote while having a vagina, etc. Your concept of "special rights" is so broad that I don't think any group can be granted the same rights as any other group without it conferring special rights.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2010, 06:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
The Constitution did you say?

Oh yeah, I already mentioned that.

Let me know when there's an amendment protecting sexual practices.
Well, I would like to think that as a society we have learned that discrimination against others is detrimental to society as a whole. And that those, like yourself, who wish to discriminate against homosexuals will realize homosexuals are guaranteed the same protections as heterosexuals. However, if you and those of your ilk don't come to this realization then someday in the future we will have a Constitutional amendment protecting sexual orientation.


Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
In some respects, no. I've already pointed out these areas.
In what other areas do you think homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals besides the area of military service?


Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
It's not whether or not we agree. Either they can comply or they can't. It's not a matter of opinion.
Where in my comment did I say anything about "complying" with something. I was talking about fundamental precepts of equality. Here, I'll quote for you what I said.
"You do no think homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals in the rights to which they are guaranteed under the Constitution. I do think homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals in the rights to which they are guaranteed under the Constitution. I do think homosexuals have just as much right to the "pursuit of happiness" as heterosexuals do."
So do you stupendousman think "homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals in the rights to which they are guaranteed under the Constitution"?


Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I never chose to be heterosexual.
Really?!? If sexuality isn't a choice then why did you say in your post "There's been no such action in regards to protection of our sexual choices to be free from discrimination from others." If sexuality isn't a choice--people don't choose to be heterosexual or homosexual--why would you talk about Constitutional "protection of our sexual choices"?


Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
What exactly is that "belief" based on if it's not a shared morality that this is important?
Umm, does this really need explaining? This is History/Civics 101 material we are talking about here. It's a "belief" in the fundamental principles of law and that the rule of law trumps any personal desires on the part of citizens and our leaders. Again, morality has nothing to do with this belief in the fundamental principle of the primacy of rules of law.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2010, 07:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Well, I would like to think that as a society we have learned that discrimination against others is detrimental to society as a whole.
Irrational discrimination, yes. Rational discrimination on the other hand is the basis for most choices we make. A job interview for instance is one big exercise in discrimination. Discriminating against those who have shown poor work ethic, discriminating against those with less education in favor of those with greater education, etc.

So do you stupendousman think "homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals in the rights to which they are guaranteed under the Constitution"?
Yes, and they are currently granted those rights. As I explained though, we have no Constitutional right to be granted benefits bestowed upon people whose skills, abilities or mental status allows them to comply with standards required to get those benefits. I don't get to be a physician and make a physician's salary just because I have equal rights for instance. I also don't get to be a bank security guard if I have a record of robbing banks.

Really?!? If sexuality isn't a choice then why did you say in your post "There's been no such action in regards to protection of our sexual choices to be free from discrimination from others." If sexuality isn't a choice--people don't choose to be heterosexual or homosexual--why would you talk about Constitutional "protection of our sexual choices"?
A person can't discriminate against me for how I feel in regards to sex unless I choose to let it be known. A child molester can't go to jail because he desires children unless he makes a choice. I can't be called to divorce court for desiring women not my wife unless I make a choice. Homosexuals can't be discriminated against for doing what a majority of the country feels is immoral unless they make a choice. I've already explained how our actions that do not have direct constitutional protections are free to be used to discriminate. Otherwise, my desire to steal would not prohibit me from being a security guard.

Umm, does this really need explaining? This is History/Civics 101 material we are talking about here. It's a "belief" in the fundamental principles of law and that the rule of law trumps any personal desires on the part of citizens and our leaders. Again, morality has nothing to do with this belief in the fundamental principle of the primacy of rules of law.
What are those principles based on? What are the "rules of law" based on? I didn't think I'd have to break out the dictionary, but I guess it's necessary now:

mor·al   [mawr-uhl]
–adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong;ethical: moral attitudes.

Our "rules of law" are based on shared values of what is right and wrong. In other words, our collective morals.
( Last edited by stupendousman; Feb 23, 2010 at 08:52 AM. )
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2010, 01:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Irrational discrimination, yes. Rational discrimination on the other hand is the basis for most choices we make. A job interview for instance is one big exercise in discrimination. Discriminating against those who have shown poor work ethic, discriminating against those with less education in favor of those with greater education, etc.
There is no rationality in denying one military service simply because they're gay.



{quote]Yes, and they are currently granted those rights. As I explained though, we have no Constitutional right to be granted benefits bestowed upon people whose skills, abilities or mental status allows them to comply with standards required to get those benefits. I don't get to be a physician and make a physician's salary just because I have equal rights for instance. I also don't get to be a bank security guard if I have a record of robbing banks.



A person can't discriminate against me for how I feel in regards to sex unless I choose to let it be known. A child molester can't go to jail because he desires children unless he makes a choice. I can't be called to divorce court for desiring women not my wife unless I make a choice. Homosexuals can't be discriminated against for doing what a majority of the country feels is immoral unless they make a choice. I've already explained how our actions that do not have direct constitutional protections are free to be used to discriminate. Otherwise, my desire to steal would not prohibit me from being a security guard.[/quote]

Yet a service member who is gay can be thrown simply because they're gay, even if they make the choice not to engage in homosexual behavior. It happens all the time.



What are those principles based on? What are the "rules of law" based on? I didn't think I'd have to break out the dictionary, but I guess it's necessary now:

mor·al   [mawr-uhl]
–adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong;ethical: moral attitudes.

Our "rules of law" are based on shared values of what is right and wrong. In other words, our collective morals.
Morals don't necessarily apply to all, depending on their beliefs. The U. S. Supreme Court has said so, as they've thrown out laws making homosexual behavior illegal.

Keep grasping at straws.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2010, 02:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Yet a service member who is gay can be thrown simply because they're gay, even if they make the choice not to engage in homosexual behavior. It happens all the time.
Please describe for us the methods of brain scanning the military uses in order to read the minds of gay soldiers to know they would like to have sex with their fellow soldiers? Or, is there some new blood test you can take which lets them know what it is that's in the heads of gay soldiers?

Seriously, there's really no way for the military to know that someone is gay unless the person in question has made the choice to do something to let it be known. Until mind reading methods are perfected at least.

Morals don't necessarily apply to all, depending on their beliefs. The U. S. Supreme Court has said so, as they've thrown out laws making homosexual behavior illegal.

Keep grasping at straws.
I'm not saying that everything a majority feels is immoral is something that is fit for making illegal. Nice strawman.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 23, 2010, 04:02 PM
 
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2010, 11:20 PM
 
Here is an interesting article I found online tonight.

Marine Corps leader stands against gays in military - latimes.com


After reading the article, do you think that this senior officer is "speaking his mind" or "being political" with his statements?
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2010, 12:13 AM
 
^^ It's quite obvious. He's speaking his mind because he's against it, whereas those in high places, who say they're for ending the ban, are speaking politically, because they're really only placating the President.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2010, 12:18 AM
 
Those who agree with stupendousman are speaking their minds.
Those who disagree with stupendousman can only be speaking politically.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2010, 12:20 AM
 
stupendousman, what do you feel about gay people in general?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2010, 12:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Please describe for us the methods of brain scanning the military uses in order to read the minds of gay soldiers to know they would like to have sex with their fellow soldiers?
You've already told us! Gays are the ones who are peeking at their fellow soldiers in the showers, leering at them while they're asleep and aren't effective in combat (*everyone* knows that gays are wussies). Since their existence is so disruptive, they must be extremely easy to spot.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2010, 01:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
You've already told us! Gays are the ones who are peeking at their fellow soldiers in the showers, leering at them while they're asleep and aren't effective in combat (*everyone* knows that gays are wussies).
I'd agree that if someone was doing that in the military, they probably are gay.

Since their existence is so disruptive, they must be extremely easy to spot.
Not really. Again, unless they choose to make it known, or do something that makes it known, I don't think most people can tell.

Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
stupendousman, what do you feel about gay people in general?
In general, the same way I feel about straight people.
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2010, 11:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Not really. Again, unless they choose to make it known, or do something that makes it known, I don't think most people can tell.
This is faulty logic.

You can't claim something is disruptive to the functioning of the military but then claim it is only disruptive when others know/find out about it. Something that is inherently disruptive to the functioning of the military will be disruptive even if no one finds out about it. That's the whole basis for asserting a claim of inherent incompatibility for a given behavior and service with the military: the behavior, in and of itself, is disruptive to the optimal functioning of the military.

If you want to talk about a behavior that is inherently disruptive to the functioning of the military, talk about alcohol or drug abuse. Alcohol and/or drug abuse by a soldier is disruptive to the individual soldier's performance, and thus detrimental to the overall performance of that soldier's unit, even if no one has found out yet about the substance abuse. The detrimental effects of alcohol and/or drug abuse by a soldier don't suddenly become known when the abuse is discovered; The detrimental effects are present in the soldier's everyday ability to perform (alertness, reaction-times, mental focus, mission-focus, etc.) before anyone notices that "Private Henderson isn't performing up to par".

So, explain to me how something becomes disruptive to the functioning of a soldier, and to the military overall, but only after someone finds out about the disruptive behavior. If a soldier's homosexuality is inherently disruptive to the functioning of the military, that disruption should be present even if the soldier never makes known his/her homosexuality. In other words, the mere presence of a homosexual soldier should cause the soldier, and others, to perform below par even if no one has found out yet about the soldier's homosexuality. By this logic you are using, a superior officer should be able to ascertain a sub-par performance within a unit and then investigate and find out that sub-par performance is due to the presence of a homosexual solider within the unit even if the homosexual soldier never makes known his/her homosexuality.
( Last edited by dcmacdaddy; Feb 27, 2010 at 12:03 PM. )
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 08:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
This is faulty logic.

You can't claim something is disruptive to the functioning of the military but then claim it is only disruptive when others know/find out about it. Something that is inherently disruptive to the functioning of the military will be disruptive even if no one finds out about it.
I've already given clear examples to show how this isn't the case. Something, if held in check and not acted upon, can often times cause no disruption where a disruption would otherwise occur.

As I stated, someone who has an unnatural attraction to children won't be disruptive as a teacher of those children if that person (due to personal discipline) chooses not to act on the feelings he has for them. If no one knows and that person chooses not to engage in the behavior which would satisfy his desires, there really can't be a reason for disruption. It's pretty simple really.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 10:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I've already given clear examples to show how this isn't the case. Something, if held in check and not acted upon, can often times cause no disruption where a disruption would otherwise occur.

As I stated, someone who has an unnatural attraction to children won't be disruptive as a teacher of those children if that person (due to personal discipline) chooses not to act on the feelings he has for them. If no one knows and that person chooses not to engage in the behavior which would satisfy his desires, there really can't be a reason for disruption. It's pretty simple really.
I hope you're never involved in hiring personnel for schools or day care centres.

People who have psychological issues cannot just "hold them in check." You've elevated free will and personal discipline into supernatural powers that overcome mental or neurological illness. Replace "pedophilia" with "cancer" and explain how personal discipline can overcome that disease.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2010, 02:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I hope you're never involved in hiring personnel for schools or day care centres.
Why? Am I going to be able to read some guy's mind and find out he's a pedophile? Absent of that, or a record that shows that the person broken laws or revealed his feelings to anyone else, I'm not sure how my argument could be questioned.

People who have psychological issues cannot just "hold them in check."
Totally false.

They may not be able to control having those issues, feelings or emotions, but they can keep them in check. I have an unquestionable and uncontrollable desire to have sex with the attractive secretary who works down the hall. Despite my inability to control having that desire, I keep it in check. Many pedophiles do the same. Many don't.

You've elevated free will and personal discipline into supernatural powers that overcome mental or neurological illness. Replace "pedophilia" with "cancer" and explain how personal discipline can overcome that disease.
You can keep cancer in check as well with chemotheropy. Sometimes people die old and only later is it found out that they've been slowing consumed by the disease.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:20 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,