Gays in the Military?

[DownWithTheLeft]

I recently thought about this.  I had always been against it, but it remained one those list of issues I had never thought about in great detail.  I have changed mind and now support gays in the military.  I think, however, there should be strong penalties if they are found guilty of making sexual advances while on active duty to members of the same sex.  Opinions?

[DownWithTheLeft]

I think, however, there should be strong penalties if they are found guilty of making sexual advances while on active duty to members of the same sex.

Even if the other person is clearly consenting?

Yes, if it is a unisex unit the purpose is to avoid sexual conduct, therefore, this shouldn't be circumvented by a homosexual love affair.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I think, however, there should be strong penalties if they are found guilty of making sexual advances while on active duty to members of the same sex.

Even if the other person is clearly consenting?

Yes, if it is a unisex unit the purpose is to avoid sexual conduct, therefore, this shouldn't be circumvented by a homosexual love affair.

Yeah, but married couples are allowed to have sex in the military.  Why not gay couples?

It depends on the circumstance, if they are in a gender specific unit, they should not be having sex.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I think, however, there should be strong penalties if they are found guilty of making sexual advances while on active duty to members of the same sex.

Even if the other person is clearly consenting?

Yes, if it is a unisex unit the purpose is to avoid sexual conduct, therefore, this shouldn't be circumvented by a homosexual love affair.

Yeah, but married couples are allowed to have sex in the military.  Why not gay couples?

It depends on the circumstance, if they are in a gender specific unit, they should not be having sex.

Well, that's really none of your business... so... yeah.  Who are you to decide who should be having sex with whom/what?

Oh yeah.. you're a 16 year old male fundie... what people do with their penis/anus/vagina occupies every moment of your existence.

The idea of me being a fundie is absurd, also you should really read what I posted.  I said if the unit is purposely unisex with the idea of not having sexual relations, then they should not be having sex.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I said if the unit is purposely unisex with the idea of not having sexual relations, then they should not be having sex.

Why do you care?  It's none of your business.

Its the business of the United States government, what someone is doing on the government's time and they are being paid by the government should be the business of the government.  This is like arguing that people should not be fired for having sex in an office all day long because its none of the employers business.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I said if the unit is purposely unisex with the idea of not having sexual relations, then they should not be having sex.

Why do you care?  It's none of your business.

Its the business of the United States government, what someone is doing on the government's time and they are being paid by the government should be the business of the government.  This is like arguing that people should not be fired for having sex in an office all day long because its none of the employers business.

So people in the military don't have any free time?  That's silly and you know it.

They have free time, but they are still on active duty.  Honest question (I have no knowledge of military down time), where exactly do these people find the privacy to just have sex?  Maybe this is effecting my judgment of the situation.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I think, however, there should be strong penalties if they are found guilty of making sexual advances while on active duty to members of the same sex.

Even if the other person is clearly consenting?

Yes, as well as same-sex couples.  I'm kinda in MAS's situation right now, although I haven't gone over to the other side - I'm undecided and debating in the middle.

Where the hell did MAS post in the thread?

[DownWithTheLeft]

I think, however, there should be strong penalties if they are found guilty of making sexual advances while on active duty to members of the same sex.

Even if the other person is clearly consenting?

Yes, as well as same-sex couples.  I'm kinda in MAS's situation right now, although I haven't gone over to the other side - I'm undecided and debating in the middle.

Where the hell did MAS post in the thread?

Damn you and your stupid Red NJ Avatar!

C'mon did you really think you'd be agreeing w/MAS instead of me

[DownWithTheLeft]

I recently thought about this.  I had always been against it, but it remained one those list of issues I had never thought about in great detail.  I have changed mind and now support gays in the military.  I think, however, there should be strong penalties if they are found guilty of making sexual advances while on active duty to members of the same sex.  Opinions?

Go away you bigot.  How about we throw you in jail for being a stupid bigot.

You have set gay people back 200 years with that remark

[DownWithTheLeft]

You have set gay people back 200 years with that remark

Then he's still 200 years ahead of you.

I support gays to have every right as a citizen, however, I do not recognize the union of two gays.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I do not recognize the union of two gays.

Yes, and you can't logically explain why.

Just because the slippery slope argument isn't not one you can perscribe to doesn't mean it is not a fact.  Also, think about what you (and most liberals) are saying.  "If you don't support(x) you must a bigot and racist so leave America."  I'm afraid of what (x) is going to mean next

[DownWithTheLeft]

I do not recognize the union of two gays.

Yes, and you can't logically explain why.

Just because the slippery slope argument isn't not one you can perscribe to doesn't mean it is not a fact.  Also, think about what you (and most liberals) are saying.  "If you don't support(x) you must a bigot and racist so leave America."  I'm afraid of what (x) is going to mean next

DWTL, do you know the meaning of "straw man"? Or "associational fallacy"? Or "petitio principii"?

I wish pity on your soul

[DownWithTheLeft]

I do not recognize the union of two gays.

Yes, and you can't logically explain why.

Just because the slippery slope argument isn't not one you can perscribe to doesn't mean it is not a fact.  Also, think about what you (and most liberals) are saying.  "If you don't support(x) you must a bigot and racist so leave America."  I'm afraid of what (x) is going to mean next

DWTL, do you know the meaning of "straw man"? Or "associational fallacy"? Or "petitio principii"?

I wish pity on your soul

My non-existent soul doesn't need any pity, thanks.

Proves my point, the gay marriage debate is not rooted in fact at all, the entire debate is nothing but opinion.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Proves my point, the gay marriage debate is not rooted in fact at all, the entire debate is nothing but opinion.

If you have a point, you have yet to state it.

The point is the gay marriage debate is one solely of opinion.  There are no facts suggesting the position way or the other, it is simply a matter of opinion and nothing more

[DownWithTheLeft]

The point is the gay marriage debate is one solely of opinion.  There are no facts suggesting the position way or the other, it is simply a matter of opinion and nothing more

That's complete crap.  Just because something is emotion-related does not make it not a fact.  There are quantitative facts, but there are also qualitative facts.  They are more subjective, though.  Just because you can't articulate a position solely based on economics and statistics doesn't mean that all opinions on the matter are arbitrarily decided.

That does not really negate my point.  My point is that it is impossible to tell someone they are right or they are wrong on the gay marriage issue because there is really nothing solid to say someone is right or wrong.  While you may say something you use is a fact, the overall question cannot be decided using fact.  That is why I choose not to debate gay marriage, it is a matter of personal opinion.

[DownWithTheLeft]

That does not really negate my point.  My point is that it is impossible to tell someone they are right or they are wrong on the gay marriage issue because there is really nothing solid to say someone is right or wrong.  While you may say something you use is a fact, the overall question cannot be decided using fact.  That is why I choose not to debate gay marriage, it is a matter of personal opinion.

Down...here's the deal.  People smarter than you, better human beings than you, disagree with you on issues you think you're objectively right on.  This is something I think you'll realize eventually, and then you'll have license to come down from your high horse and debate with the rest of us.

The issue is undebateable, where is the factual evidence one way or the other?  A debate on gay marriage leads nowhere

[DownWithTheLeft]

That does not really negate my point.  My point is that it is impossible to tell someone they are right or they are wrong on the gay marriage issue because there is really nothing solid to say someone is right or wrong.  While you may say something you use is a fact, the overall question cannot be decided using fact.  That is why I choose not to debate gay marriage, it is a matter of personal opinion.

Down...here's the deal.  People smarter than you, better human beings than you, disagree with you on issues you think you're objectively right on.  This is something I think you'll realize eventually, and then you'll have license to come down from your high horse and debate with the rest of us.

The issue is undebateable, where is the factual evidence one way or the other?  A debate on gay marriage leads nowhere

You say it is undebatable because you can come up with no evidence for your position. This is an interesting strategy, but it doesn't make the debate impossible. It just makes your position untenable.

I have tried logic like the slippery slope argument and everyone passes it off as rubbish.  Therefore, I pass off the idea that gay needs to be married as rubbish due to the slippery slope argument.  A circle that never ends

[DownWithTheLeft]

That does not really negate my point.  My point is that it is impossible to tell someone they are right or they are wrong on the gay marriage issue because there is really nothing solid to say someone is right or wrong.  While you may say something you use is a fact, the overall question cannot be decided using fact.  That is why I choose not to debate gay marriage, it is a matter of personal opinion.

Down...here's the deal.  People smarter than you, better human beings than you, disagree with you on issues you think you're objectively right on.  This is something I think you'll realize eventually, and then you'll have license to come down from your high horse and debate with the rest of us.

The issue is undebateable, where is the factual evidence one way or the other?  A debate on gay marriage leads nowhere

You say it is undebatable because you can come up with no evidence for your position. This is an interesting strategy, but it doesn't make the debate impossible. It just makes your position untenable.

I have tried logic like the slippery slope argument and everyone passes it off as rubbish.  Therefore, I pass off the idea that gay needs to be married as rubbish due to the slippery slope argument.  A circle that never ends

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, not logic. So is circular logic, which you've just admitted to using. Again, if you can't actually make logically valid points about a topic, it doesn't mean the topic is undebatable, it means you stink at debating it.

The topic is undebatable, any point anti-gay marriage people bring up liberals use reason #1, "I'm right, your right"

1.) Degradation of morals in America
2.) An embrace of homosexuality
3.) Forcing others to accept something they do not want to
4.) Constitutional issues
5.) Slap in the face to religion (this is the biggest reason liberals want it legalized)
6.) A large effect on the current tax system
7.) Immigration issues
8.) Adoption and parental rights
9.) Drawing a line on marriage (easily the most important reason)

I'm sure any liberal will blanketly say this is wrong or provide their opinion and say it is better