Religion Taking A Left Turn?

[teancum79]

I've not followed the issue too much. Before Clintons "don't ask don't tell" if a person was found to be gay they would be kicked out. The problem with a gay only unit is that it almost becomes a freak show. "Did the gays do as well as the straights" "Can we send them in because if they all die the Army will be sued for not taking care of them.” It could become a political nightmare. I suppose if US society was less lawsuit happy it would not be such an issue, but the US is very lawsuit prone.

It is a lot like putting women in combat roles or on subs. Yes in theory they should be able to get the job done as well as a straight man, but what is the overall cost making accommodations needed to not impose on the others?

I don’t know what can or should be done for sure. Defending the nation is a responsibility that many take part in directly and nearly all indirectly (mostly through taxes). I don’t think it is right to ban an able bodied group from serving in the military. It is also not right to make soldiers feel uncomfortable with their comrades.

If we just went with Kant’s ethical approach we would spend the millions or billions to enable men and women gay and straight to serve around each other and never feel uncomfortable or abused. Realities of the cost involved makes this quite unlikely.

[moonchain]

Long story short if I was in a military and I knew that one of the guys I was around all day might think of me as a possible sexual partner that would be very difficult to deal with.

No. That's very easy to deal with. You say, "Yo, man. I'm just not into that." It's like if a female military officer that you found very unattractive was suspected of liking you, you say, "Sorry, not my type." Unless the gay soldier is trying to jump on you, you have no reason to be all angsty about it. And if he does try to jump you, you report him for sexual harrassment. Or is that too much trouble for you to deal with?

And your talk of endless liability suits is just as ridiculous as when women started requesting to join the army. When women first started joining up as actual soldiers, they didn't request special treatment. In fact, there are stories of women that just dealt with being in the barracks with male soldiers. Why? Because they had no other choice. In situations like that, and with gay soldiers *and* with racial groups, the weight falls on the minority to step up, show discipline, and resist confrontations because more often than not they are the ones who have to deal with proving against prejudice, such as "she's here to sleep around with all the army guys," "he's obviously sexually attracted to me, now I have to go beat him up," or "Black boy is going to steal my money when I'm asleep." I honestly don't see the difference between how we treat gays and how we have and sometimes still do treat racial minorities or females. Choice or not, its like disrespecting people who chose to be of another religious path, or chose a liberal party to back up, or are by birth a different "race" than you. Still just people. You say they are people just like anyone, yet your words regarding this whole topic show them none of the respect that they deserve as people.

[dianaholberg]

Expressing disapproval of a choice is NOT the same as disrespecting a person.

There are wise choices and unwise ones. There is no reason anyone should demonstrate approval of choices they believe are unwise.

[sarcasm]And if you say otherwise, you are obviously disrespecting me and my choice.[/sarcasm]

[teancum79]

I've meet people from from just about every part of the world most major religious back grounds. Many political ideologies and various personal choices. All of these are people all are children of God. All must be respected as such.

To disagree with some of their choices and to oppose that choice being imposed on others is not disrespecting them . It is standing up for the right of others to make their choices and not have their views disrespected.

[moonchain]

Denying a person of basic human rights even based on a personal choice that has yet to be proven as causing harm (and has yet to be proven as definitely "just a choice") is disrespecting a person.

Denying the right to a legal contract that allows people to share property, share medical control & financial control, and have a better representation legally and as a union of love is disrespect. Denying rights to fight for one's country is disrespect. Denying leadership in certain organizations based on fears and prejudice (such as Boy Scouts, which you've mentioned due to your "homosexuality=pedophilia" argument) is very much disrespectful. I'm sorry, I stand by my statements from earlier.

[dianaholberg]

First of all, I know of no one who is requiring people to disclose their sexuality, much less deny them basic human rights based on sexuality.

Also, your reference to "just a choice"... It is actually irrelevant whether or not homosexuality itself is a choice. There is no other group who chooses to identify themselves based on their sexuality.

I suppose I should start standing up for the rights of single chaste women. We should have the right to the same tax deductions that parents do. We should be able to file jointly if we so choose -- with anyone we want. Since we don't engage in sexual activity, much less risky behaviors, our insurance premiums should be a lot lower. We should have representation in Congress (which is sorely lacking, by the way). We should be equally employed -- every employer should be forced by law to hire single chaste women as a percentage of their workforce.

It all sounds pretty ridiculous, doesn't it? But for some reason when it comes to homosexuality and "minorities" we accept these kinds of arguments without question.

[teancum79]

As to the Boy Scouts the scout oath forbids homosexuality. Do you really expect a private organization to abandon something they stand for and endorse something they view as morally wrong? Leadership in the Anti-gun organization can’t be packing heat. It does not work.

You claim it is disrespectful to deny legal benefits to homosexuals couples, but you don’t seem to think it is disrespectful to redefine a long standing institution into a form that most within it find objectionable.

I must have missed when the government of this nation (or common sense) is run by a few who complain because they don’t get to be part of something they have rejected. If someone decides to not join the military they are not in the military they should not seek to redefine the military to include their profession.

I agree that homosexuals should be able to defend their country (as stated before). It is however very wrong to force anyone into a sexually compromising situation at work. If homosexuals can serve without causing problems great welcome aboard etc. If however their presence disrupts the ability of the military to do its job they need to not be there. The same goes for men, women, minorities, and handicapped persons. National defense can not take a back seat to political correctness. Every reasonable effort should be made to include all who want to serve, but you can’t sacrifice safety or the rights of many for the rights of one.

[Tara]

moonchain said:

Denying rights to fight for one's country is disrespect.

It isn't just disrespect, it's plain hypocritical. People are constantly asked by the government to serve their country and to contribute to your community and all that. But when that is being denied, that's just hypocritical.

[dianaholberg]

Very good point, Tara.