Would you want him in your back seat?

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Wed Jun 03, 2009 2:19 pm

muddyboots wrote:

Ryan, can you give me any reasons why homosexuality should be outlawed in the military which don't either depend on religious views or "you're gross and I don't want you to see my pecker,"?

Except for some historical arguments, no. Honestly, the religious view is the only logical argument against it, and the best.

Ryan

muddyboots · **Posted:** Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:44 pm

in other words you want the right to inflict your religious views on people who don't share them... :wink:

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:07 pm

muddyboots wrote:

in other words you want the right to inflict your religious views on people who don't share them... :wink:

No.
First it's not MY beliefs I want to impose - it's a higher standard that has stood the test of time (6,000 years at least), is coherent, and adequately explains the world we live in.
Second, it's funny, but EVERYONE recognizes that there must me rules in society - even those who have no logical explanation why there is any difference between a good law and a bad law, or any law at all.
Maybe it would just be easier NOT to have any laws and let everything fall as it may. After all, everything is random and no one knows if the sun will even come up tomorrow.

C'ya tomorrow - or not. :wink:

Ryan

A2C · **Posted:** Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:30 pm

I agree w/ Ryan, and the point is the Air Force and the UCMJ has laws against adultery and homosexuality. That is a moral standard. Is muddyboots suggesting everybody should lower their standards, and don't see how muddyboots is going to change these rules.

JDK · **Posted:** Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:38 am

A2C wrote:

I agree w/ Ryan, and the point is the Air Force and the UCMJ has laws against adultery and homosexuality. That is a moral standard. Is muddyboots suggesting everybody should lower their standards, and don't see how muddyboots is going to change these rules.

I think it's quite stunningly arrogant and perhaps based on ignorance to see the British armed forces or the forces of Australia (among the long list of countries that do not discriminate against homosexuals in the military - as referenced in the Wiki thread earlier) operate to a 'lower moral standard' than the US Military.

I don't much care of you agree or disagree whither those forces are militarily or morally equal to those of the US. They have been (and are right now) more than welcome as key allies on the ground to the US military and have innumerable plaudits from US commanders for their work in all the wars the US has been involved in.

(I also think recent issues indicate that certain officers and enlisted soldiers in the US military have a significant and court-martial proven inability to understand 'moral standard', in the treatment of prisoners, specifically. For that reason alone, mention of high moral standard is rich - accepting of course that the vast, vast majority of US service personnel work to the highest standard - but the few failures are still unacceptable.)

There are good reasons why the US has a distinct separation between church and state (the military being a function of the state) and for that reason alone, direct assumptions of the morality of the church, scripture or Christianity in application are an imposition and against the requirements of the non-religious nature of the US military specifically, as I understand it. If the Anglican Church can handle gays in the British military (as the state religion of England) then a non-religious military has no excuse.

Adultery is a completely separate issue, and should you feel the need, please reference a copy of the 'Wicked' bible, which is missing the critical 'not' in the sentence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible

As I said before, and has been demonstrated in this thread, I've found gays better to work with (and less distracted and compromised in their work life and professionalism) than Christians - as a random benchmark.

I think it's perhaps best I leave the discussion here, as I don't wish to fall out over a peripheral discussion in the board's subject, and I'd hope most of us can accept that we may not agree on dearly held principles and beliefs but each other's right to those beliefs - for them.

Regards,

warbirdcrew · **Posted:** Thu Jun 04, 2009 6:09 am

Quote:

I agree w/ Ryan, and the point is the Air Force and the UCMJ has laws against adultery and homosexuality. That is a moral standard. Is muddyboots suggesting everybody should lower their standards, and don't see how muddyboots is going to change these rules.

Under no circumstances in any free state should the bylaws of a publicly funded institution supersede the laws, values, or morals of the state to which they are subservient. These laws, values, and morals are outlined in the Constitution and other governing documents which are interpreted by the Supreme Judiciary of the state. Unless the military exists in a position removed from the authority of the supreme judiciary, then there is absolutely no excuse for having regulations which contravene or differ from the will of the state. As Ryan has pointed out, the moral standard you refer to has already been decided on for you by your Supreme Court so therefore like it or not, the military is expected to uphold that decision.

While the Constitution/Bill of Rights do not explicitly say gays should be allowed to serve, it does not by any means dictate they cannot. Furthermore, various interpretations and amendments to said documents over the years by the Supreme Court have determined that to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, creed, are all illegal. Does the oath of the US Military not contain something about "defending the Constitution of the United States"?

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 04, 2009 6:25 am

You guys don't know US history, OR the text of the US Constitution. The "sex" part does not exist anywhere in the Constitution. The judges have effectively ADDED it to the Const. but it's still not there.

James,
The "separation of church and state" stuff is one of the most enduring myths about our US founding fathers. It comes from a letter Jefferson wrote to a Baptist congregation who were concerned that there be no "official" denomination. A large number of the reformers either believed themselves, or were influenced by basically reformed doctrine which would teach that God has created three jurisdictions - the family, church, and state - each with separate responsibilities - not separate moral standards. The church even after the Constitution spoke to the state when there was a moral issue to be considered, but did not have any authority to prosecute.
You will find that the early Presidents and Congresses (who should have known what was intended by the words of the Constitution) were quite unashamed to have religious influence and even "worship" services or calls for national days of prayer. Hardly the kind of separation of church and state so loved today.

I think James is right about one thing for sure, we're probably going to have to agree to disagree and put this discussion aside.

Ryan

JDK · **Posted:** Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:04 am

RyanShort1 wrote:

The "separation of church and state" stuff is one of the most enduring myths about our US founding fathers.

I was not referring to the founding fathers, but the current legal position of the US Government:
"The United States is officially a secular nation; the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion and forbids the establishment of any religious governance."
You can interpret why how you like - currently, legally, there is no state religion for the USA. By all means challenge it in court, but at the moment, there isn't.

I certainly don't intended to live by a rulebook from 2,000 years ago or one from 17something, while I acknowledge there is much good in both advice manuals, they are both in sore need of updating. (I've found the Judeo-Christian tradition a very workable social contract overall, and while I utterly reject the concept of the requirement of faith, and the various versions of religion offered, much of the structure, as evinced in the morality of our societies is sound - however we disagree - completely - on the soundness of any prohibitions on sexual orientation.)

There was a recent article about the issues of the US separation between education and church in History Today, (February 2009 - http://www.historytoday.com/ ) from which I drew some of my background - I'd be happy to send you a scan if you are interested.

As to knowing my US history, I certainly wouldn't do as well as you on a test on US history, but I'd bet I'd get more marks in that than you would on one on global, British or Australian history.

There's some advantages in being a traveller and and expat by attitude.

Regards,

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:06 am

JDK wrote:

As to knowing my US history, I certainly wouldn't do as well as you on a test on US history, but I'd bet I'd get more marks in that than you would on one on global, British or Australian history.

There's some advantages in being a traveller and and expat by attitude.

Regards,

Sounds fun. I actually have read a fair bit about your fair Commonwealth. Have read more than half of the G.A. Henty series and have a nice 8 volume history of England on my shelf next to where I'm typing this. :wink:

Ryan

cozmo · **Posted:** Thu Jun 04, 2009 8:02 am

Arrgh, I didn't want to wade into this, but how many more pages are y'all going to agree to disagree while bashing each other about the head and shoulders with the facts as y'all see them?

Okay, ya'll the separation part of the US Bill of Rights has to do with the institutions of government and religion. Those deists (mostly) in their wisdom were more concerned with current religious/political intertwining going on in the rest of the world than what was written centuries earlier. There were as many arguments back then as now as how to interpret religious texts.

The original topic of this thread is interesting and I would like to follow it while it plays out. It is a debate that must take place in order to avoid the lasting controversy of the Wade decision. It is not the same as integration, but is close enough to draw lessons from that. And while the same sex marriage debate is taking place would be the right time to do something about don't ask / don't tell. Though, no one is forced to join the armed services the result of that debate will cover the entire country, while the same sex marriage debate will go state by state. And that is where things can get interesting.

The worst possible outcome would for this debate to be handled by the courts. Putting it off, while not as bad, doesn't solve the problem any more than it did in the 90's.

Not many of us are going to take part in the decision for the military, but we can all take part in influencing the laws that will most closely affect us. What folks from other countries have had to say about what they have already dealt with has been most interesting. The doctrinal pillow fight, not so much. Heck, just put it in a poll and get back to the topic.

muddyboots · **Posted:** Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:00 pm

A2C wrote:

I agree w/ Ryan, and the point is the Air Force and the UCMJ has laws against adultery and homosexuality. That is a moral standard. Is muddyboots suggesting everybody should lower their standards, and don't see how muddyboots is going to change these rules.

Why the hell are you demanding that I change the rules? They're going to be changed whether we like it or not. I'm simply pointing out that homosexuality, unlike adultery, has no real reason beyond religion, for being outlawed. Gay sex is a victimless crime. Adultery OTOH damages everyone around the adulterers. UCMJ's laws can and are changed by congress. I'm sure they will change this one in their own good time.

Chris, your dragging adultery into this is an attempt to tie one act, easily provable as bad, to another act, unprovable as bad, by innuendo. Whyn't you just drag beastiality and pedophilia into it as well? They're as connected to homosexuality as adultery is. :roll:

It's like arguing with a ten year old.

Ryan, I can point out numerous cultures where homosexual sex is not the aberration, but the norm (or at least socially acceptable and not damaging to the culture or individuals). That is, outside western culture, and from present day well back to the 6,000 years you have claimed. I can also find it in western culture, and again, as the norm. Basically you are making claims which are patently untrue to support an argument which is all to easily shown to be based in ignorance, lies, and bigotry.

Homosexual conduct is not immoral. Your religion has decided it is immoral. Your religion has no business setting laws for people who do not practice it-- no more than I as an atheist can demand that you cease to practice your religion.

GIJOE290 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:22 pm

RyanShort1 wrote:

michaelharadon wrote:

And what, then, if it does prove to be genetic?

That'll be the day. :wink:

Ryan

Ryan, trust me on this........Its Genetic. :wink:

brucev · **Posted:** Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:03 pm

RyanShort1 wrote:

Ryan, trust me on this........Its Genetic. :wink:

i don't like it but I agree it is a genetic predisposition (in some cases), but then so is a predisposition to violent crime (in some cases)

A2C · **Posted:** Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:59 pm

Quote:

don't like it but I agree it is a genetic predisposition (in some cases), but then so is a predisposition to violent crime (in some cases)

Is bestiality?

Fouga23 · **Posted:** Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:15 pm

A2C wrote:

Is bestiality?

Warbird Information Exchange

Would you want him in your back seat?

Who is online