Gays in the Military?

[Verily]

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.

That argument only applies if soldiers are having sex on the battlefield. If it's at any down time, which is a good part of the time even during active duty and certainly when not on active duty, your argument holds no water.

[Verily]

Does Don't Ask/Don't Tell directly discriminate against someone from a liberal state who has a gay marriage/civil union contract?  Since their orientation is out in the open.

It's probably precedentless; there aren't more than maybe ten thousand same-sex marriages in Massachusetts so far (plus one in Iowa and a handful in New York and California), and fewer civil unions elsewhere. At least so far same-sex marriages tend to occur at later ages than opposite-sex marriages (probably because of people waiting for decades), which makes it relatively unlikely than anyone married to someone of the same sex has yet applied to join the military. If they did, the military would have to make a decision on whether that violated DADT, but it seems ambiguous to me.

[Verily]

Fortunately, it would appear times are already a-changin'

To hear the GOP candidates speak, even the traditionally pro-gay ones like Romney or Giuliani, the policy is apparently necessary for national security.

Foremost in the gay agenda are nukes for Iran.

[Verily]

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"?

[Verily]

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.

[Verily]

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.

[Verily]

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.

[Verily]

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.

[Verily]

1.) Degradation of morals in America

You're right, this is not, in itself, a debatable issue. However, we might question why Biblical-literalist morals are particularly important for America, and that is a debatable issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above. This is not really a separate argument from Biblical literalism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is spurious; no one is forcing anyone to get be married, nor is anyone being forced to "accept" it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Only if marriage, generally, is unconstitutional. (Silly strict constructionists.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would say, rather, that it is a slap in the face to gay people that religions want to deny them something. Why should religions care; this doesn't even involve their own members.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Large" is certainly an exaggeration, although Alcon did acknowledge this point above. It is something that can be debated: "How many gay people are there?" "Is the benefit of stabilized relationships worth the cost of tax benefits?" "Is it illegal to offer tax benefits to some people and not others?"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Err... what?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, perfectly debatable, and ultimately a separate but related issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To you, perhaps. Again, this folds into Biblical literalism. Is Biblical literalism good for America?