Eske wrote:
I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding on your part. I'm not resting any argument on whether or not "only homosexuals can get kicked out for claiming homosexuality." I don't think that has anything to do with the debate, actually. My point is simply that these other examples that you keep bringing up are not comparable to homosexuality. I'll explain in a sec, since your next excerpt goes right to that:
Eske wrote:
Alma wrote:
You're painting a picture that this type of stuff only happens to homosexuals
Getting kicked out for saying that you're homosexual? I'm pretty sure that only happens to homosexuals. So yeah, that's pretty much exactly the picture that I'm painting.
Right here is where you attempted to make that distinction. I merely went with you wording to prove that wrong as well. If you look at my quote, I said "type of stuff", which was my argument, that people get kicked out for things that society disagree with all of the time.
Eske wrote:
There certainly are shared reasons for the military's rules on both homosexuality and other "offenses". I'll even agree that "image" is a main one of those reasons. Unfortunately, that doesn't make them the same thing. The nature of homosexuality and such "offenses" are fundamentally different. What's an example: sodomy? Sodomy is an action, one which can be easily avoided. Homosexuality is a personal quality, and one which might be uncovered about a soldier without them committing any other dischargeable offenses (as in the example of the USAF lesbian). And in the case of sodomy, I don't think that should in-and-of-itself a dischargeable offense, either.
So yeah, both things are about image. But are they the same? No. Should they fall under a blanket category together? Certainly not. Does having one rule justify the other? Nope.
So yeah, both things are about image. But are they the same? No. Should they fall under a blanket category together? Certainly not. Does having one rule justify the other? Nope.
First, I'm glad that you realize that homosexuality is a personal trait. Now maybe you can tell the rest of the forum that there is a difference between discriminating against physical traits and personal traits.
Well as for the rest of what you said, that's what I said. Of course they are not the same thing. That's like being kicked out for theft and murder. I'm not proclaiming that theft and murder are the same, I'm proclaiming that there are multiple reasons why someone can get kicked out and that the military isn't focused on solely homosexuals.
The simple fact that the sodomy law existed BEFORE DADT supports the belief that the law was aimed towards heterosexuals as homosexuals weren't allowed in.
eske wrote:
By "issue", I clearly was referring to DADT discharging. I reread the section where I said this, and it should be pretty easy to understand that. I think you need to read a little harder, honestly.
Why did you think I meant anything else? If it seemed so obvious, why think something else?
Eske wrote:
What is good and what is bad are always opinions. They're subjective. Thankfully, we don't let that stand in the way of progress. We didn't stop the civil rights movement because the belief that blacks and whites are equal is just an opinion.
Your argument that others believe in other forms of discrimination is presumptuous (you never heard my opinions on the examples that you used for that back in the thread, so I don't think you've got any ammunition here, anyway). But suffice to say, I acknowledge that I have my biases too. Everybody does.
Personally, I don't like to restrict the actions of people unless a negative consequence can be proven. And even if that consequence is proven, I believe that you still have to weigh the pros and cons before placing those restrictions. In the case of DADT, I believe that the restrictions are not sufficiently justified.
Really?
Eske wrote:
But unfortunately, I don't really give a @#%^ what else the Army happens to deem improper...some of it seems like BS, some of it may not be. Doesn't matter, because it doesn't help your point either way. None of them are comparable to the state of "being homosexual" which is not wrong any way you happen to cut it, nor a detriment to the Army's well-being.
You even said here that you clearly just don't care and some of it seems like BS in any case it isn't "homosexuality". This is because all you care about is forcing people to accept homosexuality but pretending that you have other motives.
Eske wrote:
Is the thought process that a heterosexual grunt has automatically earned the right to mention his sexual preference, while a homosexual grunt will never? Where are you going with this, and how on earth does it help your case?
No, it depends on what their sexual preference is. Just because you're a heterosexual, doesn't mean that you can say your sexual preference without repercussions. There might be men who are attracted to little girls, do you think he's earned the right to mention is sexual preference?
The point of that paragraph which you completely overlooked is that you have less rights than civilians when joining the military. As you get up in the ranks, you gain more freedoms, but there are still rules that effect everyone, i.e. sodomy. If you want to go back and change these laws, that's all good, but when does it stop? The over all uniformity and lack of individual expression is what keeps good order and discipline. This isn't to say that some rules should remain, but that you have to look at the big picture before you just start changing stuff.
Just because in your mind you don't think there is ever a time when discrimination against homosexuality is ever valid, doesn't mean that it isn't valid somewhere.
Eske wrote:
Who cares? What does it matter if it's the image that the military prefers? Your physical fitness examples are irrelevant. They can be argued for their merit on their own; if they're justified, then they stay, if they're not, then they get adjusted or thrown out. The Army's preferred image relating to homosexuality needs reevaluating, because it's fallen behind our cultural standards.
Let's use the civil rights example again: in the South, they preferred the image of segregated races. Does that make it right?
The argument "But it's what they want!" is really, really weak. At least try to justify DADT by showing the consequences of repealing it. Try and tell me that homosexuals are worse combatants, or that they sissify the other soldiers, or that they'll cripple the army with fraternization.
Let's use the civil rights example again: in the South, they preferred the image of segregated races. Does that make it right?
The argument "But it's what they want!" is really, really weak. At least try to justify DADT by showing the consequences of repealing it. Try and tell me that homosexuals are worse combatants, or that they sissify the other soldiers, or that they'll cripple the army with fraternization.
Look at the bold statements. You are blinded by your own motivation. Your whole argument is that a homosexual can preform the same way a heterosexual can perform, right? Well, that's exactly what I was talking about with overweight Soldiers. They can not only perform just as good, but better in some cases and yet they get the boot. Are the two the exact same? No, because I understand the difference between a physical trait and a personality trait and I think you do now as well. At the same time, the concept of being qualified and thrown out because of what the military thinks is standard applies to both and that's exactly what we're talking about.
Eske wrote:
I mean, you'd be wrong, but you'd at least be trying to show that there are negative consequences to repealing DADT. The Army having a "less manly" image ain't good enough.
If you paid attention more you would realize that this has nothing to do with the physical image of the military, i.e. "less manly", but the image of being a hypocrite. I've said numerous times that AS LONG AS RULES SUCH AS SODOMY EXIST IN THE MILITARY, IT IS HYPOCRITICAL TO OPENLY ALLOW HOMOSEXUALITY.
Take Sodomy for example:
If the rules were in layman terms:
1. Fellatio is authorized.
2. Male ejaculation during fellatio is not authorized
3. Physically touching another ****** is authorized.
4. Physically touching another ***** is not authorized.
All is doable, but that makes no sense. So, you can perform fellatio on a male, you just can't touch the ***** in the process or result in ejaculation. Women can receive fellatio and can have their ****** stimulated. The "all or nothing" approach was to simply say "Sodomy" is not authorized.
By allowing open homosexuality, you're saying that Tom and Mary can't perform acts of sodomy, but it's ok for Dave and John to give off the perception that they partake in the same acts of sodomy. It's just plain wrong.
If you want to attack that particular issue, then you understand how the military works and start from there, the top. As you "fix" things from above, it will force other changes to follow.
You work your way from the top down (which in this case is the foundation), not just random shots hoping that it will soon collapse. But, you wont, because all you're doing is try to force people to accept homosexuality in the belief that there is no legitimate discrimination against homosexuality.
Edited, Sep 18th 2010 5:49pm by Almalieque
