National Guard: Gay Iraq veteran must leave service

[The South Islands]

I can understand if this was his purpose. However, my belief on the matter is that you can do such things after you leave the armed forces. Is there a reason you need to further tarnish the name of the military that you wished to serve by creating ever more recent stunts like these? I think not.

The military's image is more important than the rights of its members?

Yeah, the US Military goes by a whole other set of laws then civilians, and do not enjoy the same rights.

[JuNii]

Obviously this man is unfit for service. He must have used his vile homosexual magic to trick his way to the rank of first lieutenant.

he used his magic wand instead of offically sanctioned gear.

[Ryadn]

Is it really that hard to stop wearing a cross or praying if you're Christian? Is it really that hard to bleach your skin and hair if you're black?

Nice attempt at a flame. Anyways. My point is not that Gay's should not be able to come out, but that while their in the armed forces, to keep quiet about their sexual orientation.

How could that in any world be interpreted as a flame? Is there a new rule against using comparisons that I don't know about?

My point was that your idea could be applied to many groups. Would you feel "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a just policy if it encompassed all religious beliefs? What if it allowed interracial individuals who 'pass' as white to serve, so long as they don't reveal their ethnic background?

[Ryadn]

In your own opinion, I highly doubt the entire United States agrees that it’s wrong.

The last figure I heard was 75% of Americans feel unfavorably about DADT. It's pretty hard to get 75% of Americans to agree that the sky is blue.

[Ifreann]

I can understand if this was his purpose. However, my belief on the matter is that you can do such things after you leave the armed forces. Is there a reason you need to further tarnish the name of the military that you wished to serve by creating ever more recent stunts like these? I think not.

The military's image is more important than the rights of its members?

Yeah, the US Military goes by a whole other set of laws then civilians, and do not enjoy the same rights.

And that makes it ok for them to discriminate against gays?

[Constans]

My point was that your idea could be applied to many groups. Would you feel "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a just policy if it encompassed all religious beliefs? What if it allowed interracial individuals who 'pass' as white to serve, so long as they don't reveal their ethnic background?

A comparison to being open about your sexual orientation cannot be compared to religious beliefs as it lies on an entirely different spectrum. Keeping closed about your sexual beliefs is one thing, while keeping closed about religious ideals is another.

It should not matter what your sexuality is in the military. If you're a woman, man, homosexual, lesbian, etc. Everyone should be allowed an equal opportunity at serving in the military, however, is it that important for you to express that your gay and so forth? The military isn't a dating service, I'm afraid.

[The South Islands]

The military's image is more important than the rights of its members?

Yeah, the US Military goes by a whole other set of laws then civilians, and do not enjoy the same rights.

And that makes it ok for them to discriminate against gays?

Morally or legally?

Morally its ambiguous, and thats not what matters.

Legally, yes. Thats why there aren't any women in the Infantry or Armor.

Individual rights for Servicemen for all intents and purposes do not exist in the Military.

[Dyakovo]

Don't blame them for kicking him out.

No, I blame Clinton.

Why? As bad as DADT is, it was an improvement.

[Ryadn]

My point was that your idea could be applied to many groups. Would you feel "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a just policy if it encompassed all religious beliefs? What if it allowed interracial individuals who 'pass' as white to serve, so long as they don't reveal their ethnic background?

A comparison to being open about your sexual orientation cannot be compared to religious beliefs as it lies on an entirely different spectrum. Keeping closed about your sexual beliefs is one thing, while keeping closed about religious ideals is another.

Were you going to attempt to explain why they're different, or is this one of those "because I said so" rules?

It should not matter what your sexuality is in the military. If you're a woman, man, homosexual, lesbian, etc. Everyone should be allowed an equal opportunity at serving in the military, however, is it that important for you to express that your gay and so forth? The military isn't a dating service, I'm afraid.

The military isn't there for spiritual guidance, either. Why do you feel soldiers have a right to rub their religious beliefs in others' faces?

[Enadail]

Everyone should be allowed an equal opportunity at serving in the military, however, is it that important for you to express that your gay and so forth?

No, its not, but when a heterosexual faces expulsion from the army for revealing their orientation, I'll consider this fair. Until then, this is just bigotry.

[Constans]

The military isn't there for spiritual guidance, either. Why do you feel soldiers have a right to rub their religious beliefs in others' faces?

Religion has been an integrated part of human society since the dawn of man, censoring it would only cause more problems than its worth. Homosexuality is not a integrated part of human society, gay pride has only flared up in the past decades and as such, the two cannot be compared as they are both not on equal footing in their relations to society, past and old.

I like the old saying, "There are no atheists in foxholes." While the military isn't there for spiritual guidance, I would hate to see what it would become if it was removed.

[Ryadn]

The military isn't there for spiritual guidance, either. Why do you feel soldiers have a right to rub their religious beliefs in others' faces?

Religion has been an integrated part of human society since the dawn of man, censoring it would only cause more problems than its worth. Homosexuality is not a integrated part of human society, gay pride has only flared up in the past decades and as such, the two cannot be compared as they are both not on equal footing in their relations to society, past and old.

I like the old saying, "There are no atheists in foxholes." While the military isn't there for spiritual guidance, I would hate to see what it would become if it was removed.

Homosexuality isn't an integrated part of human society? You might want to share that ground-breaking news with historians, anthropologists, biologists, and any else who has ever made a study of human beings.

You may like that saying, but it's both untrue and beside the point. You can believe whatever you want in your foxhole, to yourself, but if you let anyone know you're a Christian, you're obviously not fit to serve in the military.

[Constans]

Homosexuality isn't an integrated part of human society? You might want to share that ground-breaking news with historians, anthropologists, biologists, and any else who has ever made a study of human beings.

You may like that saying, but it's both untrue and beside the point. You can believe whatever you want in your foxhole, to yourself, but if you let anyone know you're a Christian, you're obviously not fit to serve in the military.

I'd like to see the news that proved that Homosexuality was an integrated part of human society on the scale of religion? Sexual orientation has no place on the battlefield where religion does, you may want to accept your own opinion that homosexuality has been around since the very first tribes, however, it has not.

As such, the two cannot be compared. Gay pride was a recent flare of the past decades; I highly doubt such parades were happening in the time of the Crusades, right?

[Ifreann]

Don't blame them for kicking him out.

No, I blame Clinton.

Why? As bad as DADT is, it was an improvement.

Who else could be responsible for it?

Yeah, the US Military goes by a whole other set of laws then civilians, and do not enjoy the same rights.

And that makes it ok for them to discriminate against gays?

Morally or legally?

Morally its ambiguous, and thats not what matters.

If it didn't matter then there wouldn't be a thread about this.

It should not matter what your sexuality is in the military. If you're a woman, man, homosexual, lesbian, etc. Everyone should be allowed an equal opportunity at serving in the military, however, is it that important for you to express that your gay and so forth? The military isn't a dating service, I'm afraid.

If it doesn't matter what sexuality someone is then they should be allowed be open about it if they choose to be.

I like the old saying, "There are no atheists in foxholes." While the military isn't there for spiritual guidance, I would hate to see what it would become if it was removed.

There are atheists in foxholes, and that aphorism is disrespectful to their memories and accomplishments.
From wiki:

The Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers, an atheist organisation, opposes the use of this phrase. They have adopted the catchphrase of "Atheists in Foxholes" to emphasize that the original statement is clearly just an aphorism and not a statistical fact.

The quote is also referenced when discussing the opposite effect - that warfare will cause some soldiers to question their existing belief in a God due to the death and violence around them.

[Enadail]

Religion has been an integrated part of human society since the dawn of man, censoring it would only cause more problems than its worth. Homosexuality is not a integrated part of human society, gay pride has only flared up in the past decades and as such, the two cannot be compared as they are both not on equal footing in their relations to society, past and old.

Except that homosexuality has been in many cultures throughout history. And while it might be accurate to say religion has been a part of society since the dawn of civilization, it is most definitely not accurate to say since the dawn of man.

I like the old saying, "There are no atheists in foxholes." While the military isn't there for spiritual guidance, I would hate to see what it would become if it was removed.

Yah, cept there are...

I'd like to see the news that proved that Homosexuality was an integrated part of human society on the scale of religion? Sexual orientation has no place on the battlefield where religion does, you may want to accept your own opinion that homosexuality has been around since the very first tribes, however, it has not.

Again, I state... why should a heterosexual get to proclaim their sexuality on the battlefield while a homosexual cannot? Its not like they're having sex on the battlefield. And by the way, do some historical research... homosexuality has been around since the dawn of civilization.

As such, the two cannot be compared. Gay pride was a recent flare of the past decades; I highly doubt such parades were happening in the time of the Crusades, right?

Not the crusades of course, because by then Christian homophobia had turned homosexuality into a sin and the devils work, but go a little further back and you'll see they didn't need parades, because it was accepted.

[The South Islands]

Morally or legally?

Morally its ambiguous, and thats not what matters.

If it didn't matter then there wouldn't be a thread about this.

My point is that if I were to say that I believe DADT is right, we could argue until the cows come home, and probably end up right where we started.

Morally, it really doesn't matter, because the UCMJ and Supreme Court gives the military very wide latitude to restrict the rights of servicemen, even those considered fundamental in the civilian judicial system.

[Meadowmere]

Dishonorable discharge. That is the law in my land, or if it isn't it will be.

Monarch Meadowmere

[The South Islands]

Dishonorable discharge. That is the law in my land, or if it isn't it will be.

Monarch Meadowmere

We don't care what goes on in your make believe nation. The adults are talking here.

[Gauthier]

Don't you love a military that's more than happy to shoot its own feet off because it's afraid of fags?

[Free Outer Eugenia]

Gay pride was a recent flare of the past decades; I highly doubt such parades were happening in the time of the Crusades, right?

During the time of the Crusades... where? In the Americas? Homosexuality was quite common and generally unopposed actually. Japan during this period? Ditto! China? Indeed! Southeast Asia? Queer as all fuck! Need I go on? "Gay pride" is a relatively new thing. But guess what? So is institutional homophobia in most of the world. And Gay Pride is simply the response to institutional homophobia.

[Ryadn]

I'd like to see the news that proved that Homosexuality was an integrated part of human society on the scale of religion? Sexual orientation has no place on the battlefield where religion does, you may want to accept your own opinion that homosexuality has been around since the very first tribes, however, it has not.

As such, the two cannot be compared. Gay pride was a recent flare of the past decades; I highly doubt such parades were happening in the time of the Crusades, right?

So now it has to be integrated on the SAME SCALE. I see. You better keep an eye on those goalposts, they're about to run right out of town.

It's not my 'opinion', it's scientific evidence. Homosexuality is evident in many, many, /many/ lower species, including our own close ancestors.

Not a lot of Chanukah celebrations during the Crusades, either. Ban Jews from the military!

[Ryadn]

Gay pride was a recent flare of the past decades; I highly doubt such parades were happening in the time of the Crusades, right?

During the time of the crusades... where? In the Americas? Homosexuality was quite common and generally unopposed actually. Japan during this period? Ditto! China? Indeed! Southeast Asia? Queer as all fuck! Need I go on? "Gay pride" is a relatively new thing. But guess what? So is institutional homophobia in most of the world. And Gay Pride is simply the response to institutional homophobia.

I don't know, maybe he has a point. You know what they didn't have much of during the Crusades? Guns. We should get rid of those and solve this military problem once and for all!

[Antilon]

I'd like to see the news that proved that Homosexuality was an integrated part of human society on the scale of religion? Sexual orientation has no place on the battlefield where religion does, you may want to accept your own opinion that homosexuality has been around since the very first tribes, however, it has not.

As such, the two cannot be compared. Gay pride was a recent flare of the past decades; I highly doubt such parades were happening in the time of the Crusades, right?

Why should it matter if Homosexuality is an integrated part of human society or not versus religion for it to be acceptable? Killing is undoubtedly integrated into human society (definitely before religion), but that doesn't mean it's acceptable. And why exactly should something be integrated into human society for it to be acceptable on the battlefield/in the military?

[Free Outer Eugenia]

It's not my 'opinion', it's scientific evidence. Homosexuality is evident in many, many, /many/ lower species, including our own close ancestors.

It's been found to be present in nearly all animals, in fact.

[Ryadn]

It's not my 'opinion', it's scientific evidence. Homosexuality is evident in many, many, /many/ lower species, including our own close ancestors.

It's been found to be present in nearly all animals, in fact.

And, at least in primates, it's generally associated with lower violence.

...OMG. That's it! The military hates gays because gays make the world more peaceful, hence the military isn't needed as much!

It all makes sense now.