National Guard: Gay Iraq veteran must leave service

[Maurepas]

In an ideal world, yes. Relationships should not be recognized on company time. However, the policy in place is limited to homosexuality. Please see my prior posting for the details of it.

So, in your opinion, Heterosexual families and relationships should not have any benefits and should not be recognized at all by members of the Military, correct?

Relationships, regardless of the sex of the partner, are of no relevance to the job description and should not be recognized at all.

That being said, the policy in question is limited to homosexuality.

So you would be in favor of reducing the rights of Heterosexual Spouses or Significant Others of Heterosexual Soldiers to the same level as the Homosexual ones?

[The Cat-Tribe]

I am in my mid twenties with a bachelors in political science with a law and justice concentration from North Carolina State University and one year of graduate studies towards my J.D. at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Correction: in a fallacious appeal to authority, you claim to be the above -- which is both unverifiable and irrelevant.

I could claim to be Admiral Mike Mullen, would that make me right?

Moreover, what the hell does being a twenty-year old with a polisci degree and a year of law school have to do with your alleged authority on the subject of military policy, equal protection, or fairness?

[Parthenon]

But if the guy working in the cubicle next to you did get to make personal calls on company time just because he happened to be from the same country as your boss, you'd be fine with it?

Not seeing where you are going with this...

Of course you don't... its a mystery when its a possibility of you losing something, its very clear when someone you disagree with is losing something.

We were discussing workplace policies and how in ignoring them one must be willing to face the consequences and you all of a sudden jumped to national origins and phone usage. Any rationale person would question where the hell you were going with it which i still fail to see. Claiming victory towards an unmade argument is quite hysterical though.

[Poliwanacraca]

Would you rather have gay-related beatings in the military, or would you rather have the entire question of sexual beliefs taken out of the picture? It has nothing to do about religion or bonding, which is where the both of you are taking it in order to justify your opinions; it only has to do with sex.

No, it has to do with RELATIONSHIPS.

When a soldier says, "I miss my wife," he has just revealed his sexual orientation. When a soldier kisses a picture of her husband back home before going to sleep, she has just revealed her sexual orientation. When a soldier lives on a military base with his family, he has revealed his sexual orientation. Do you really think those things should be banned?

[Parthenon]

I'm 16, And you study political Science? Wow, where do you go? Do they teach you that gays are inferior to America and are no good Aid spreaders? Think again, Just think about the gays, we only live life once. LET THEM LIVE.

Your are against our founding father's cause. Freedom.

What the hell does "are no good Aid spreaders?" even mean?
Also, I answered the question of my alma mater already if you actually read my post.

[Free Outer Eugenia]

The policy itself is an outrage. For one thing, it is demoralizing for a soldier to constantly live in fear of exposure. The homophobic policies of the US armed forces have a far more negative effect on troop morale than allowing gays to serve openly ever could.

Sexual orientation has no place in the military whatsoever.

That is the problem with policies that discriminate against gays- they bring sexual orientation into it.
Or do they boot out heterosexuals when the sordid truth of their sexual orientation comes to light too?

[The Cat-Tribe]

We were discussing workplace policies and how in ignoring them one must be willing to face the consequences and you all of a sudden jumped to national origins and phone usage. Any rationale person would question where the hell you were going with it which i still fail to see. Claiming victory towards an unmade argument is quite hysterical though.

If the "workplace policy" of the U.S. military, was that one is not allowed to engage in religious acts, declare one's religion, or get married in a religious ceremony, would you support it or might it be counter to the Constitution and/or American values?

[Maurepas]

Would you rather have gay-related beatings in the military, or would you rather have the entire question of sexual beliefs taken out of the picture? It has nothing to do about religion or bonding, which is where the both of you are taking it in order to justify your opinions; it only has to do with sex.

No, it has to do with RELATIONSHIPS.

When a soldier says, "I miss my wife," he has just revealed his sexual orientation. When a soldier kisses a picture of her husband back home before going to sleep, she has just revealed her sexual orientation. When a soldier lives on a military base with his family, he has revealed his sexual orientation. Do you really think those things should be banned?

Apparently Parthenon does...

[Enadail]

We were discussing workplace policies and how in ignoring them one must be willing to face the consequences and you all of a sudden jumped to national origins and phone usage. Any rationale person would question where the hell you were going with it which i still fail to see. Claiming victory towards an unmade argument is quite hysterical though.

No. You were equating lack of personal privilege to the right to admit you're gay. So I took it to the more accurate comparison: if most members in the company got to make personal phone calls but you were excluded for a personal reason. You made it appear as if everyone's on the same level, which isn't the case in the least.

[Parthenon]

I am in my mid twenties with a bachelors in political science with a law and justice concentration from North Carolina State University and one year of graduate studies towards my J.D. at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Moreover, what the hell does being a twenty-year old with a polisci degree and a year of law school have to do with your alleged authority on the subject of military policy, equal protection, or fairness?

You really need to stop coming into threads ten pages late without reading...
I never claimed my qualifications made me an authority on the subject, I merely was answering the child's question about my age.

[Trippoli]

I'm 16, And you study political Science? Wow, where do you go? Do they teach you that gays are inferior to America and are no good Aid spreaders? Think again, Just think about the gays, we only live life once. LET THEM LIVE.

Your are against our founding father's cause. Freedom.

What the hell does "are no good Aid spreaders?" even mean?
Also, I answered the question of my alma mater already if you actually read my post.

What are you stupid? Do I have to explain?

Aids= STD's = Sexually transmitted diseases? You people think gays spread it right? Good, I hope I don't have to break it down for you anymore. You are pretty slow are you? Sorry if I am being harsh, but I have never debated with someone as stupid as you.

[Maurepas]

I am in my mid twenties with a bachelors in political science with a law and justice concentration from North Carolina State University and one year of graduate studies towards my J.D. at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Moreover, what the hell does being a twenty-year old with a polisci degree and a year of law school have to do with your alleged authority on the subject of military policy, equal protection, or fairness?

You really need to stop coming into threads ten pages late without reading...
I never claimed my qualifications made me an authority on the subject, I merely was answering the child's question about my age.

But, on a more pressing note:

So you would be in favor of reducing the rights of Heterosexual Spouses or Significant Others of Heterosexual Soldiers to the same level as the Homosexual ones?

[Vervaria]

I am in my mid twenties with a bachelors in political science with a law and justice concentration from North Carolina State University and one year of graduate studies towards my J.D. at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Correction: in a fallacious appeal to authority, you claim to be the above -- which is both unverifiable and irrelevant.

I could claim to be Admiral Mike Mullen, would that make me right?

Moreover, what the hell does being a twenty-year old with a polisci degree and a year of law school have to do with your alleged authority on the subject of military policy, equal protection, or fairness?

He's also smart, handsome, confident, a amazing dancer, and vital to the election of half of North Carolina's Republican reps, right? Did I miss anything? To my recollection, he's never proved any of that when asked, and nobody's ever demanded that he MUST answer.

[Parthenon]

We were discussing workplace policies and how in ignoring them one must be willing to face the consequences and you all of a sudden jumped to national origins and phone usage. Any rationale person would question where the hell you were going with it which i still fail to see. Claiming victory towards an unmade argument is quite hysterical though.

No. You were equating lack of personal privilege to the right to admit you're gay. So I took it to the more accurate comparison: if most members in the company got to make personal phone calls but you were excluded for a personal reason. You made it appear as if everyone's on the same level, which isn't the case in the least.

Taken from the policy itself:

(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that—
(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and
(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

This also answers cat tribe's post.

[The South Islands]

We were discussing workplace policies and how in ignoring them one must be willing to face the consequences and you all of a sudden jumped to national origins and phone usage. Any rationale person would question where the hell you were going with it which i still fail to see. Claiming victory towards an unmade argument is quite hysterical though.

If the "workplace policy" of the U.S. military, was that one is not allowed to engage in religious acts, declare one's religion, or get married in a religious ceremony, would you support it or might it be counter to the Constitution and/or American values?

Soldiers are restricted from certain religious activities.

[Maurepas]

We were discussing workplace policies and how in ignoring them one must be willing to face the consequences and you all of a sudden jumped to national origins and phone usage. Any rationale person would question where the hell you were going with it which i still fail to see. Claiming victory towards an unmade argument is quite hysterical though.

No. You were equating lack of personal privilege to the right to admit you're gay. So I took it to the more accurate comparison: if most members in the company got to make personal phone calls but you were excluded for a personal reason. You made it appear as if everyone's on the same level, which isn't the case in the least.

Taken from the policy itself:

(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that—
(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and
(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

This also answers cat tribe's post.

So, you would be in favor of reducing the rights and benefits of the Heterosexual members of the Military's Heterosexual Spouses and Significant Others, to the same level as their Homosexual Counter parts at the current time, correct?

[Poliwanacraca]

In an ideal world, yes. Relationships should not be recognized on company time. However, the policy in place is limited to homosexuality. Please see my prior posting for the details of it.

So, in your opinion, Heterosexual families and relationships should not have any benefits and should not be recognized at all by members of the Military, correct?

Relationships, regardless of the sex of the partner, are of no relevance to the job description and should not be recognized at all.

Interesting. So you feel the spouses and children of military members shouldn't be able to receive health insurance through the military, I take it? They shouldn't be notified if anything happens to their spouse/parent? They shouldn't have access to military housing? They shouldn't be entitled to request a military funeral if their spouse/parent is killed in the line of duty?

[Enadail]

(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that—
(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and
(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

This also answers cat tribe's post.

Which... in no way implies that members of the military are to be denied fundamental rights or that they can be discriminated against. Nor does it change the scenario proposed BY YOU.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I am in my mid twenties with a bachelors in political science with a law and justice concentration from North Carolina State University and one year of graduate studies towards my J.D. at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Moreover, what the hell does being a twenty-year old with a polisci degree and a year of law school have to do with your alleged authority on the subject of military policy, equal protection, or fairness?

You really need to stop coming into threads ten pages late without reading...
I never claimed my qualifications made me an authority on the subject, I merely was answering the child's question about my age.

1) I have read the entire thread and have been posting in it within a few pages of when you joined in.

2) You "answered the child's question" AFTER you asked the other poster how old he/she was. YOU brought up the subject.

3) This isn't the first time you've either claimed to have some authority on a subject or questioned the qualifications of other posters. It's fallacious, it's annoying, and it should stop.

[Trippoli]

What I don't get is why can't we just let the soldier's live their own personal life and at the same time defend our country. Religion and sexual orientation.

I don't give a shit if a guy's a Muslim, or gay. Can't we just keep it simple?

[Chumblywumbly]

...the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

And simply being homosexual is a 'personal behaviour' that is legitimately restricted by the military?

These restrictions are for, one presumes, combat efficiency. One wonders then what about being homosexual affects efficiency?

[Maurepas]

What I don't get is why can't we just let the soldier's live their own personal life and at the same time defend our country. Religion and sexual orientation.

I don't give a shit if a guy's a Muslim, or gay. Can't we just keep it simple?

Ah, you idealistic youngsters are all the same, with your fanciful ideas and your equality and such, its really nostalgic,

[The Cat-Tribe]

We were discussing workplace policies and how in ignoring them one must be willing to face the consequences and you all of a sudden jumped to national origins and phone usage. Any rationale person would question where the hell you were going with it which i still fail to see. Claiming victory towards an unmade argument is quite hysterical though.

No. You were equating lack of personal privilege to the right to admit you're gay. So I took it to the more accurate comparison: if most members in the company got to make personal phone calls but you were excluded for a personal reason. You made it appear as if everyone's on the same level, which isn't the case in the least.

Taken from the policy itself:

(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that—
(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and
(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

This also answers cat tribe's post.

Almost all, if not all, laws and regulations have a justification section. Are you saying you blindly accept such statements as not just true, but morally right?

[Dyakovo]

...the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

And simply being homosexual is a 'personal behaviour' that is legitimately restricted by the military?

These restrictions are for, one presumes, combat efficiency. One wonders then what about being homosexual affects efficiency?

Homosexuals interfere with unit cohesion.
That is at least what the official story is.

[The Cat-Tribe]

We were discussing workplace policies and how in ignoring them one must be willing to face the consequences and you all of a sudden jumped to national origins and phone usage. Any rationale person would question where the hell you were going with it which i still fail to see. Claiming victory towards an unmade argument is quite hysterical though.

If the "workplace policy" of the U.S. military, was that one is not allowed to engage in religious acts, declare one's religion, or get married in a religious ceremony, would you support it or might it be counter to the Constitution and/or American values?

Soldiers are restricted from certain religious activities.

Not responsive to what I said.