You don't get it. If you don't get it, you never will. It does not mater, in the military. All that matters is winning the war.
Is breaking into my writing and taking something out of context a way of attacking something that you do not like?
How am I taking something out of context? You said it's better if everyone's the same sex and orientation. And I asked if you would apply that to race and religion, and if not, why not? I wonder why you are reluctant to answer these questions.
In a real sense, gays CAN serve in the military. If there was a draft you would not be excused if you tell the military that you are gay. If that was the case, people did not have to escape to Canada during Vietnam.
It is just that the military does not allow you to have sex with other men if you are a man.
This is false. DADT means you are kicked out if you are gay, whether or not you are having sex with other men. If a soldier went to his superior and said, "I'm gay, but don't worry, I'm not planning to act on it," then under DADT, he would be discharged.
Is it fair that the military can tell you who to have sex with and who you cannot have sex with? HELL YES! If you are an officer you cannot have sex with an enlisted person, that is grounds for dismissal. If you are an officer and married, you cannot have sex with someone outside of your marriage. That is grounds for dismissal as well. And it is a good thing that this is the case for several reasons. Allowing such behavior diminishes morale and can subject an officer to blackmail.
I agree with all of this. But is it fair that the military can tell you what sex you can have sex with when you're off-duty (or whatever they call it, on leave or whatever, I don't know the terminology)? I say no - if you say yes, then I ask you why?
Having these potential litte love tifs and love nests in the fox hole also diminishes morale. So women cannot serve on the front lines along side men under morst situations and the same thing with openly gay men.
Yeah, it doesn't follow. You haven't created a meaningful distinction between heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships. And although I tend to agree with you that neither relationship should probably be allowed among soldiers who are serving, why is it an issue if a male soldier has a civilian boyfriend
back home?
As a test, I once posted an outrageous comment in the forum and at the end I posted, "just kidding" as a test to see who would read the entire comment before responding. There was one who did. This is not the same here, but if you read the whole post you would not have sliced and diced my post. I also remember in the 6th grade they would test kids by seeing who would read the whole instructions to a test befor launching into it. I don't mean to call you uneducated, maybe you are too passionate about something and need a time-out to gather your thoughts.
If you didn't mean your insult to our armed services, you could have used a
or a
or a [/sarcasm] or something like that. It sure looked to me like you meant it, and if I'm wrong, I don't think it's my fault.
They were just as much under the stress, and in fact probably more so, than the traditional military. The fact that they were acting in a military capacity in a war zone is what is important. The fact that by name they were not the standard armed forces is minutia.
I trust our armed forces, and its members ability to be disciplined and follow orders, more than I do employees of a private warfighting corporation, with its various guarantees of immunity, etc. I guess this is where we agree to disagree.
Straw Man and Ad Homemin.
It is of course neither. Strawman is where I ascribe to you a view you do not hold, for the purpose of refuting it. But the view I ascribed to you is the view that all straight men are homophobic, which is a view you said you hold. Not strawman. Ad hominem is where I say your argument is wrong because of some personal characteristic of you. If I point out that your argument is wrong and point out a personal characteristic of you,
without the causal connection, then I have not done an ad hominem.
And if you think the military is the perfect battlefield to attack homophobia
Hey, here we have a great example of a strawman! Well done!
, you have even greater issues with logical thinking. I also never said I was homophobic.
You said
all straight men are homophobic. So either (a) you are not a straight man, (b) you were lying, or (c) you are homophobic. You pick!
In fact, I am for gay marrage. You are resorting to reading things into what I write that I have not written.
I picked what I thought was the most sensible interpretation. If you are gay, a woman, or a liar, please let me know.
Well if B signed a paper saying that he was not into humping M and he was caught humping M, then legally he has viloted the contract he signed and the military has legal authority to kick out B from the military.
True, and if B signed a paper saying he was not into eating sauerkraut and then he was caught eating sauerkraut then they could kick him out too. But if we want our military to be effective, then why would we kick out good people for actions unrelated to their ability and willingness to serve? Why put traps in their contract?
It is neither your nor my call.
Thank goodness!
We have no authority to tell the generals and admirals what is fair and what is not and what gets the job done or not. If the generals and admirals think this or that is what it takes to get the war done and done quickly then they are given the authority to do whatever they want.
There is of course a civilian who outranks all the admirals and generals, and that civilian, at least in some sense, answers to the populace (you and me). What I'm saying is, in a democracy with a civilian-controlled military, this
is our business, yours and mine. (I'm assuming you're a US citizen here; correct me if I'm wrong.)
They have total freedom and legal right. It does not matter what it involves with few exceptions. If they think someone should be shot for sleeping at his post, then that person is shot. The foot solder can protest a direct order but if that order is within a wide degree of reasonability, the foot solder is taken away for disobeying.
I can tell or I strongly sense you have not been in the military.
Would this be one of those ad hominems you were talking about, or did you have some legitimate point to make?
I also sense that you think you are too intelligent to be in the miltiary as well.
Based on what, exactly? Or is this just an insult thrown in for fun?
Wow, it baffles me that you would insult them the way you have.
Let me give you an example of the world we are talking about. Blacks were once segregated in the military. And it was this way a for long time. It did not matter that society said it was not fair.
And, no I am not racist.
It did not change because of public pressure. It changed because the military conducted studies to prove that black solders were just as intelligent and capable as whites. Then the segregation ended.
What is the point of this, exactly?
