[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I don't think you bother to read the links I've posted.

There have been gender integrated basic training since the 1970s. Gender integrated basic training exist in the Navy, Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force.

Gender integrated basic training exist in Fort Sill, Fort Leonard Wood, Fort Jackson, and Fort Hood for instance.

Gender-integrated basic training returns to Fort Sill - KSWO, Lawton, OK- Wichita Falls, TX: News, Weather, Sports. ABC, 24/7, Telemundo -

PARTIALLY SEGREGATED. You've given me an example of a very small few places where it's being tried PARTIALLY. The women and men are still segregated in sleeping and in the showers:

""We've installed cameras just for their safety, you know, to make sure there aren't any issues going on that aren't supposed to be, females use a certain stairwell when they go up to their sleep bays," said Staff Sgt. Nyria Castillo.:

There are gay men in the military now. Is sexual harassment a problem right now?

No?

Think man. Think.

Given the fact that gay men have to keep their gayness a secret, engaging in sexual harassment would be pretty tough. It's kind of hard to be harassing concerning something you can't even express without getting removed from service. Since the guys would just be removed from service, there's probably no way to tell if this is a problem or not.

You really should practice what you preach (the thinking part).

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

PARTIALLY SEGREGATED. You've given me an example of a very small few places where it's being tried PARTIALLY. The women and men are still segregated in sleeping and in the showers:

""We've installed cameras just for their safety, you know, to make sure there aren't any issues going on that aren't supposed to be, females use a certain stairwell when they go up to their sleep bays," said Staff Sgt. Nyria Castillo.:

Haha.. is this what you argument has been reduced to?

I guess having shower stalls and curtains is okay after all.

SOLUTION: shower stalls and curtains.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Given the fact that gay men have to keep their gayness a secret, engaging in sexual harassment would be pretty tough. It's kind of hard to be harassing concerning something you can't even express without getting removed from service. Since the guys would just be removed from service, there's probably no way to tell if this is a problem or not.

You really should practice what you preach (the thinking part).

You are not making much sense.

If someone sexually harass another member in the military, they are reported and investigated. Then based on the investigation and if found guilty of sexual harassment, they can be punished and remove/discharge from service.

It doesn't matter if the harasser is a man, a woman, gay or straight.

Somehow you are making the argument that gay men won't be reported for harassment if they are sexually harassing someone on the military base, or somehow it's okay for straight men to sexually harass women in the military without being removed from service.

Sexual harassment is a personnel issue, not a reason to ban women from military service.

Gender integrated training will continue.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Haha.. is this what you argument has been reduced to?

I guess having shower stalls and curtains is okay after all.

SOLUTION: shower stalls and curtains.

I don't think that having shower stalls, curtains and separate bunks, in a limited and experimental fashion is okay. It's clear it's being done under pressure from the left for the sake of "equality" where none really exists.

Exactly how would they do this for gay people? A third set of showers and bunks? Doesn't seem logistically practical.

You are not making much sense.

If someone sexually harass another member in the military, they are reported and investigated. Then based on the investigation and if found guilty of sexual harassment, they can be punished and remove/discharge from service.

It doesn't matter if the harasser is a man, a woman, gay or straight.

Chances are if it's a gay person, they are just expelled from duty for being gay, as quite a few are. Why go to the trouble of proving sexual harassment if you've got evidence that they are gay and violated DADT?

[dcmacdaddy]

Look out, everyone. Cover your pee-pees in the shower. We've got an openly gay man on back on active duty in the military.

Dan Choi Back on Drill Duty  | News | Advocate.com

According to the article, the gay soldier "felt welcomed back by his fellow guardsmen in his infantry unit". Geez, this guy barely gets back into active service and already he has gayed up his unit so much that they are glad he is there among them. And you know what is the worst part of all this, the gay soldier was returned to active duty at the request of his former commander. Has this commander been completely brainwashed by the gay agenda? Doesn't the commander know that the presence of an openly gay man will be detrimental to the well-being of the gay soldier's unit? Maybe this commander needs to be removed from the military as well if he is so willing to sacrifice the readiness of his troops by allowing an openly gay man among them. For shame, Commander. For shame!
I love the smell of sarcasm in the morning.


UPDATE: See five posts below for an update/clarification on the issue of active duty versus drilling with one's National Guard unit. (Heh. He was "drilling".) The subject in question was not/is not on active duty and returned to service with his Guard unit for one time only, not on a regular basis.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Chances are if it's a gay person, they are just expelled from duty for being gay, as quite a few are. Why go to the trouble of proving sexual harassment if you've got evidence that they are gay and violated DADT?

If you can't prove sexual harassment, where's the evidence that the person is gay and violated DADT?

You mean if I was in the military, I can get anyone kicked out for being gay just by accusing the person of being gay?

No investigation required? Haha...

What's next for you? Ban women because of problems with sexual harassment? Ban blacks and asians because of problems with racial harassment? Ban muslims because of problems with religious harassment?

Harassment cases are a personnel issue. Not an excuse to ban a particular group of people.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Look out, everyone. Cover your pee-pees in the shower. We've got an openly gay man on back on active duty in the military.

Dan Choi Back on Drill Duty  | News | Advocate.com

According to the article, the gay soldier "felt welcomed back by his fellow guardsmen in his infantry unit". Geez, this guy barely gets back into active service and already he has gayed up his unit so much that they are glad he is there among them. And you know what is the worst part of all this, the gay soldier was returned to active duty at the request of his former commander. Has this commander been completely brainwashed by the gay agenda? Doesn't the commander know that the presence of an openly gay man will be detrimental to the well-being of the gay soldier's unit? Maybe this commander needs to be removed from the military as well if he is so willing to sacrifice the readiness of his troops by allowing an openly gay man among them. For shame, Commander. For shame!

I love the smell of sarcasm in the morning.

stupendousman wants to know if David Choi will get his own separate bunk and shower.

[lpkmckenna]

That story has been recanted. He's not been recalled.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

That story has been recanted. He's not been recalled.

{citation needed}

[subego]

DADT Repeal Activist Lt. Dan Choi Recalled To Active Duty [CORRECTION]

1LT Choi has NOT been ordered back to active duty. It would be difficult to order him "back" to active duty, being that he serves in the New York National Guard, not on active duty, unless he had been mobilized. What has happened is that, with the support of his command, 1LT Choi drilled with his National Guard unit this past weekend for training on critical infantry tasks with his Soldiers.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

If you can't prove sexual harassment, where's the evidence that the person is gay and violated DADT?

You mean if I was in the military, I can get anyone kicked out for being gay just by accusing the person of being gay?

No investigation required? Haha...

So you believe if there's evidence that the person in question is gay and sexually harassing, that they'd go to the trouble of finding them guilty of sexual harassment and not just remove them from service? That would seem to me to be a huge waste of time. If someone was gay and harassing, then they'd be in violation of DADT and just be removed from office.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Given the fact that gay men have to keep their gayness a secret, engaging in sexual harassment would be pretty tough. It's kind of hard to be harassing concerning something you can't even express without getting removed from service. Since the guys would just be removed from service, there's probably no way to tell if this is a problem or not.

Which is simply proof that they have control over their sexual desires and aren't the sexual maniacs you make them out to be.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So you believe if there's evidence that the person in question is sexually harassing, that they'd go to the trouble of finding them guilty of sexual harassment? That would seem to me to be a huge waste of time.

Thought I'd point out how ridiculous that sounds. Being gay doesn't mean being guilty.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So you believe if there's evidence that the person in question is gay and sexually harassing, that they'd go to the trouble of finding them guilty of sexual harassment and not just remove them from service? That would seem to me to be a huge waste of time. If someone was gay and harassing, then they'd be in violation of DADT and just be removed from office.

You seem to have a very negative view of our military.

You are making a lot of false assumptions.

You are implying that our military systematically sweeps reports of misconduct, such as sexual harassment, under the rug because it might be easier to get the person kicked out of the military for violating DADT.

[andi*pandi]

It also presumes that there's no structure in place currently to deal with sexual harassment, and that DADT is the better recourse.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Which is simply proof that they have control over their sexual desires and aren't the sexual maniacs you make them out to be.

Do you think that if there weren't laws against rape, that more men wouldn't force women to have sex with them? Many still do it even though it's illegal, but most refrain due to the negative effects it would have on them. At what point are limits set and at what point do reducing the limits blur the lines between what is acceptable and what is not.

It's pretty hard to prove behavior is arassing. If I tell a woman she looks hot in a dress, that might not be enough to prove harassment (even if that was my intent) but it would probably be enough evidence to suggest I was a heterosexual. I'm guessing that if being a heterosexual broke a rule, they wouldn't bother proving the harder standard and just use my heterosexuality as a rational to remove me.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You seem to have a very negative view of our military.

You are making a lot of false assumptions.

I don't have a negative view of anything. I have a reasonable understanding of human nature. Human nature doesn't change just because you are gay, straight or in the military.

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

It also presumes that there's no structure in place currently to deal with sexual harassment, and that DADT is the better recourse.

It presumes no such thing. Repealing DADT creates an environment that's worse than the average office scenario in encouraging poor behavior in regards to encouraging sexual aggressive behavior. It seeks to take people who have sexual attraction for those they are training/working with, and put them in an environment where they can take unfair advantage sexually over the fellow members of their unit.

Just as an analogy, if I consistently walk into the ladies restroom at work when a certain lady is present, I'm pretty sure I'd be charged with sexual harassment. How exactly would you enact this same standard if I were allowed carte blanche access to the ladies room? You couldn't really. This is why the standard that's been in place forever works and why the new standard is not fair and gives unequal rights to all involved. There's really no way to sugar coat the level of irrationality that goes with supporting something like this.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Do you think that if there weren't laws against rape, that more men wouldn't force women to have sex with them? Many still do it even though it's illegal, but most refrain due to the negative effects it would have on them. At what point are limits set and at what point do reducing the limits blur the lines between what is acceptable and what is not.

"Most [men] refrain [from committing rape] due to the negative effects it would have on them."

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? ARE YOU F*CKING KIDDING ME?

Most men refrain from committing rape because it is a horrific thing to do. Period.

The fear of getting caught is NOT what deters men from committing rape. But now I know why you hold our male soldiers in such low regard. You don't think it is just male soldiers who are slaves to their sexual urges, you think it is all men who are slaves to their sexual urges. Well guess what, most of us are NOT slaves to our sexual urges and would never consider rape as anything but the horrific act it is.


You are really messed in the head stupendousman.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't have a negative view of anything. I have a reasonable understanding of human nature. Human nature doesn't change just because you are gay, straight or in the military.

No, you DO NOT have a " reasonable understanding of human nature". Your "reasonable understanding" assumes all men are slaves to their sexual urges and would force themselves upon those they find sexually attractive if there didn't exist laws against such a thing.

Let me tell you, there is NOTHING reasonable about such a viewpoint.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

"Most [men] refrain [from committing rape] due to the negative effects it would have on them."

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? ARE YOU F*CKING KIDDING ME?

Most men refrain from committing rape because it is a horrific thing to do. Period.

You are correct. I was generalizing. I should have said that most men who would like to force a woman to have sex with them, don't due to the negative effects it would have on them.

You are really messed in the head stupendousman.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You are correct. I was generalizing. I should have said that most men who would like to force a woman to have sex with them, don't due to the negative effects it would have on them.

OK. Fair enough. Please accept my apologies for saying you are messed in the head.



I struck out the sentence in my post but left it there for reference purposes.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You are correct. I was generalizing. I should have said that most men who would like to force a woman to have sex with them, don't due to the negative effects it would have on them.

So, of the very small minority of the male population that would like to force a woman to have sex with them, most are only prevented from doing so due to the negative effects. So, that's like 90% of 5% of the male population? And, if we translate that to the gay population which is only 5% of the entire male *and* female population?

In any case, all of the laws that exist to protect women from those predatory males will also serve to protect straight guys from predatory homosexuals. Even in your world where all men are slaves to their sexual desires, you've already admitted that most can control their behavior out of fear for the negative consequences.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Just as an analogy, if I consistently walk into the ladies restroom at work when a certain lady is present, I'm pretty sure I'd be charged with sexual harassment. How exactly would you enact this same standard if I were allowed carte blanche access to the ladies room? You couldn't really.

Require all men who entered the ladies room to wear dresses? Crossdressers allowed.

Seriously though, what about all the lesbians who use ladies rooms, what do we do about them? Is their mere presence harassment? Why aren't more women worried about being leered at in the bathrooms by those dangerous homos? Oh right, we ignore them unless they cause a real issue. A real issue being exerting real effort to intrude on privacy, making clearly innappropriate comments, or you know, assault. Let's not diminish sexual harassment by letting your own paranoia belittle it. It's a real issue for many.

Let me also clarify and say I'd be fine with co-ed bathrooms, as long as men mind their manners, keep it clean, AND LEAVE THE SEASHELL SOAPS ALONE THEY ARE JUST FOR LOOKS DAMMIT.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Let me also clarify and say I'd be fine with co-ed bathrooms, as long as men mind their manners, keep it clean, AND LEAVE THE SEASHELL SOAPS ALONE THEY ARE JUST FOR LOOKS DAMMIT.

Just remember to not drop the soap under any circumstances!

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Let me also clarify and say I'd be fine with co-ed bathrooms, as long as men mind their manners, keep it clean, AND LEAVE THE SEASHELL SOAPS ALONE THEY ARE JUST FOR LOOKS DAMMIT.

Sounds like someone needs to have a chat with her husband regarding the "nice towels" being reserved for company.


Why do you women do things like that? When I was living with my Mom last year she had three separate hand-towels hanging in the kitchen for show only and she re-used the same old, worn towel over and over again for drying one's hands. It was maddening to say the least.

[Kerrigan]

DADT is probably NOT going to be repealed anytime soon.

The study that is being undertaken will not be finished until after congressional elections. If the repeal movement is having trouble now, there is no chance it will succeed post-November.

Since a repeal has little to no chance of happening in 2011, that means that Obama will use it as a reelection issue in 2012. The way things are going, Obama will not be reelected, and so the issue will die.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Sounds like someone needs to have a chat with her husband regarding the "nice towels" being reserved for company.


Why do you women do things like that? When I was living with my Mom last year she had three separate hand-towels hanging in the kitchen for show only and she re-used the same old, worn towel over and over again for drying one's hands. It was maddening to say the least.

Yeah, I'd like to know the answer to this too.

[subego]

Using towels, or more accurately, washing and drying them, causes the ends to get all warped, thus making the towel not lie nicely on the towel rod. The fix is to have "display" towels and "use" towels.

[Kerrigan]

Why would you need to look at towels?

[subego]

So I don't accidentally dry off with the cat?

Seriously, I don't understand your question.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Using towels, or more accurately, washing and drying them, causes the ends to get all warped, thus making the towel not lie nicely on the towel rod. The fix is to have "display" towels and "use" towels.

Yes. But what is the *reason* for wanting to have display towels in the first place?

Does it serve as a sign of idealized domesticity that one can have pretty things that normally would be seen as mundane and boring?
Does it serve as a (financial) status marker to indicate one's wealth/financial success? As in "Look, we are so well-off we can afford to have towels for display purposes only."
Does it serve as a display of one's craft-making skills (if the towels are home-made)?
Does it serve some other purpose not mentioned here?

[dcmacdaddy]

We haven't heard from ebuddy or stupendousman in a few days. You think they got scared of catching "the gay" from us because we have been discussing dish towels the past few days?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

We haven't heard from ebuddy or stupendousman in a few days. You think they got scared of catching "the gay" from us because we have been discussing dish towels the past few days?

eBuddy probably thinks we're mentally ill, and Stupendous went into hiding, so we don't accidentally peek at his privates.

[subego]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Does it serve some other purpose not mentioned here?

It's aesthetics.

If the rest of your home looks nice, janky, warped towels break that aesthetic.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

We haven't heard from ebuddy or stupendousman in a few days. You think they got scared of catching "the gay" from us because we have been discussing dish towels the past few days?

I've been busy. It's been Valentines Weekend. While you nerds where posting, I was "loving" and letting the person of my choice see my privates!

I'm not sure how rebutting the same retread arguments day after day will change anything anyways. I was also waiting for something that actually has some kind of substance before posting again.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I've been busy. It's been Valentines Weekend. While you nerds where posting, I was "loving" and letting the person of my choice see my privates!

I'm not sure how rebutting the same retread arguments day after day will change anything anyways. I was also waiting for something that actually has some kind of substance before posting again.

Not having anything of substance, via using the same retread (and false) arguments, hasn't stopped you from posting. (I know; my opinion is duly noted )

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

We haven't heard from ebuddy or stupendousman in a few days. You think they got scared of catching "the gay" from us because we have been discussing dish towels the past few days?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I've been busy. It's been Valentines Weekend. While you nerds where posting, I was "loving" and letting the person of my choice see my privates!

I'm not sure how rebutting the same retread arguments day after day will change anything anyways. I was also waiting for something that actually has some kind of substance before posting again.

Did he like seeing your privates?

[kmkkid]

I assert that stupendousman actually wants the sexuality of soldiers to be kept a secret so that gay men can shower together with straight men and be turned on, and be less effective at their job because of it, but...

NO ONE WILL FIND OUT BECAUSE IT'S A SECRET.

Even though such ridiculous happenings aren't happening now, nor would they happen if gay men were allowed to be out.



NewsFlash.

Gay men are, and always have been working in the military, and a lot of soldiers already know who these gay men are/were.

I'm pretty confident the annihilation of the U.S. armed forces hasn't happened because of this.

At least not yet anyways, it may now though since I single handedly let the secret slip.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

I assert that stupendousman actually wants the sexuality of soldiers to be kept a secret so that gay men can shower together with straight men and be turned on, and be less effective at their job because of it, but...

NO ONE WILL FIND OUT BECAUSE IT'S A SECRET.

Even though such ridiculous happenings aren't happening now, nor would they happen if gay men were allowed to be out.

Actually, I would like to go back to the pre-early 90's policy. That worked.

If you really think that "such ridiculous happenings aren't happening now," then you have a terminal case of naivety.

NewsFlash.

Gay men are, and always have been working in the military, and a lot of soldiers already know who these gay men are/were.

...and that proves?

Child molesting priests have always existed as well. The Catholic church thrived despite that. Would you suggest that just because they existed and for quite some time no one really make much noise about it, that we should make it okay for practicing child molesters to be priests?

Kids have been born with birth defects since time began. Many go on to achieve great things despite their disabilities. Do you think that we should encourage children to have birth defects as well, since it's already happening and a lot of kids do okay with them?

Really...is that the logic we are reducing ourselves to here?

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Actually, I would like to go back to the pre-early 90's policy. That worked.

If you really think that "such ridiculous happenings aren't happening now," then you have a terminal case of naivety.



...and that proves?

Child molesting priests have always existed as well. The Catholic church thrived despite that. Would you suggest that just because they existed and for quite some time no one really make much noise about it, that we should make it okay for practicing child molesters to be priests?

Ok.

Again, a homophobic retard posts the child-molestor to gay comparison, where in all rationality did not belong.

I cannot fathom how there can actually be "people" in this world that actually think like this in 2010.

[kmkkid]

Imho, I believe stupendousman shouldn't be able to be a part of our society based on his idiotic beliefs, as it distracts us all, and may lead to societies downfall.

Same rationality, but I believe mine makes more sense.


If only bigots had their own island, where they could all be exiled to.

Then of course they would find faults with each other anyways.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

Ok.

Again, a homophobic retard posts the child-molestor to gay comparison, where in all rationality did not belong.

Sorry you don't get how analogies work, seeing how you took from my example the false idea that I believe that homosexuality and child molestation are directly comparable themselves. Not surprising, but still disappointing.

The name calling pretty much tipped me off that you aren't likely the type to understand complex arguments in the first place.

[kmkkid]

Yeah, except that this isn't complex.

Let people be themselves, if others have a problem with it - it's their problem.

Fortunately times are changing, and the majority of teens now see how absurd it is to single someone out because of their sexuality.

In fact they are now embracing their own sexualities and being true to themselves thanks to the non-biased outlook of the future.

And I wasn't name calling - I truly believe you do have some sort of retarded function, to think the way you do.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The name calling pretty much tipped me off that you aren't likely the type to understand complex arguments in the first place.

The argument isn't complex, it's phrased in an incendiary manner.

You reap what you sow.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

Yeah, except that this isn't complex.

Let people be themselves, if others have a problem with it - it's their problem.

That's how the Catholics handled the child molester situation for years. I hear ya!

Fortunately times are changing, and the majority of teens now see how absurd it is to single someone out because of their sexuality.

In fact they are now embracing their own sexualities and being true to themselves thanks to the non-biased outlook of the future.

And I wasn't name calling - I truly believe you do have some sort of retarded function, to think the way you do.

You mean logically? Yeah, I can see how that might seem "retarded" to you.

While I'm not sure this is relevant to a policy discussion regarding best procedures for military training, I think it goes to show that your ideas regarding what is or isn't "retarded" in terms what others might think, isn't based on anything rational.

Opposing Views: Poll -- Half of Americans Think Homosexuality Morally Wrong

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

That's how the Catholics handled the child molester situation for years. I hear ya!



You mean logically? Yeah, I can see how that might seem "retarded" to you.

While I'm not sure this is relevant to a policy discussion regarding best procedures for military training, I think it goes to show that your ideas regarding what is or isn't "retarded" in terms what others might think, isn't based on anything rational.

Opposing Views: Poll -- Half of Americans Think Homosexuality Morally Wrong

What percentage of those americans are christian, and believe in a bible that is no more rational than my own ideals?

Oh wait, it's an article by the Baptist Press, yeah that's 100% non-biased.

[besson3c]

Even if that poll was accurate, why should we assume that half of Americans are rational? After all, these half of Americans elected Bush twice!

*besson3c prediction: some response about Obama*

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

What percentage of those americans are christian, and believe in a bible that is no more rational than my own ideals?

Oh wait, it's an article by the Baptist Press, yeah that's 100% non-biased.

It quoted a Pew Poll, which pretty much reflects what most other polls show. Are you saying all those polls are "biased?"

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Even if that poll was accurate, why should we assume that half of Americans are rational? After all, these half of Americans elected Bush twice!

*besson3c prediction: some response about Obama*

Really, you should have your own forum, were you ask and answer yourself. Of course the only one who would likely get much enjoyment out such a forum is yourself, but that's really not much different than your participation in this forum.

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It quoted a Pew Poll, which pretty much reflects what most other polls show. Are you saying all those polls are "biased?"

The answer to that question depends on the answer to my own question.

What percentage of those polled (in any such relevant poll) are christian?

I myself believe in a higher power, be that God, or any higher power. However, I do not base my beliefs on the superstitions of a 2000+ year old fairytale. Unlike probably 45%+ of those polled.

Oh, and guess what? America isn't (despite how much you may believe it to be) the deciding factor on what is right or wrong in the world.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

The answer to that question depends on the answer to my own question.

What percentage of those polled (in any such relevant poll) are christian?

I myself believe in a higher power, be that God, or any higher power. However, I do not base my beliefs on the superstitions of a 2000+ year old fairytale. Unlike probably 45%+ of those polled.

Oh, and guess what? America isn't (despite how much you may believe it to be) the deciding factor on what is right or wrong in the world.

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 think the government should not be concerned with morality but rather with ensuring equality of rights and enforcement of contractual obligations. So I want the government to guarantee homosexual citizens rights equal to heterosexual citizens even if a majority of the population thinks homosexuality is morally wrong. Heck, a majority of the population thought mixing of the races was wrong even after the Supreme Court outlawed overt discrimination so I don't see how/why the government should be making its decisions based on the views of morality of its citizens. If the government were to do so--make judicial or legislative decisions based on the views of morality of its citizens--then we would have had "separate but equal" accommodations for blacks in this country well into the 1980s or 1990s until a majority of the citizens thought overt racism was morally wrong.

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

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 think the government should not be concerned with morality but rather with ensuring equality of rights and enforcement of contractual obligations. So I want the government to guarantee homosexual citizens rights equal to heterosexual citizens even if a majority of the population thinks homosexuality is morally wrong. Heck, a majority of the population thought mixing of the races was wrong even after the Supreme Court outlawed overt discrimination so I don't see how/why the government should be making its decisions based on the views of morality of its citizens. If the government were to do so--make judicial or legislative decisions based on the views of morality of its citizens--then we would have had "separate but equal" accommodations for blacks in this country well into the 1980s or 1990s until a majority of the citizens thought overt racism was morally wrong.

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 militants, 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.