Don't Ask, Don't Tell Deemed Unconstitutional

Epignosis wrote: The T wrote: Epignosis wrote: The T wrote: Epignosis wrote: The T wrote: Epignosis wrote: [QUOTE=Chris S]In the modern world and  hopefully more tolerant world, sexual preference should have no bearing on whether military or federal parties agree or disagree. Either soldier I would be proud to stand next to in a line of battle. They deserve medals just for showing up for their country regardless whether they are gay or hetero or where they are going and why? Democarts may not agree on Iraq etc but every soldier has the governments full backing. The army should not decide on sexual preference either, that is wrong, they just need to spend their budget dollars more wisely in managing ' digs"   ps: Non citizen/permanet resident POV You would stand next to a gay solider, fine.Would you shower with one? That tells us more about your fears than about the wisdom or lack thereof in the resolution. My fears?  I don't fear gay people.Should women and men in the military shower together?  Why or why not? No. Not all men in the shower would be gay, though. It's a different scenario. It's complex. But I would've guessed freedom would be first for you, wouldn't it? What freedom is there if one's forced to hide behind a curtain of secrecy, behind a lie? It'd be better then if there was a requisite to join the army: "be straight". See my previous post.  When you join the military, a good bit of your freedoms go out the window.  That's why I'm opposed to the draft.  You know what you are getting into.  Don't like it?  Work elsewhere. Good. Then you agree with the requirement. "Be straight". It has to be written I think. You are forcing people to lie. You know what happens when men get together? They talk about "manly stuff". All gays in the army will have to pretend they're something else, and everytime they do, they're lying, to protect themselves. Nobody is asking "free gay sex in the army. Let soldiers f**k each other". But if a soldier wants to say "sorry I'm gay man" that should be his right. Everywhere.

T, really?  You're kind of making yourself look silly, as though you haven't been paying attention.

You go from one extreme to the other.   Don't ask means you don't ask.  Don't tell means you don't tell.  This means when you are serving with someone else, you don't know if they are gay or straight.  This is not forcing anyone to lie.  It's forcing people to shut up about something.  What's wrong with that?  How do gay people have to pretend to be something they aren't?  In other words, what must they do differently in the course of their duties as soldiers than they would if DADT didn't exist? 

 

 

What if they shut up, but somehow are outed while on shore leave by being discovered sleeping with a member of the same sex. When the military finds out, it is immediate Discharge, and oftentimes DisHonourable Discharge. What if they were an exceptional soldier? Is that fair?

 

Don't Ask, Don't Tell means lets just sweep it under the carpet and ignore that homosexuals are  all around us everywhere. Even in the military. Sugarcoat it however you like, but it is still Intolerance.

Edited by Greg W - September 15 2010 at 20:19

JLocke wrote:   Epignosis wrote:   Bullsh*t. The military doesn't enable you to express yourself.  The military teaches you to march in step, wear the same clothes as everyone else, and be on a strict schedule.  If you sign up, you become a clone when you wear those army greens.  And that's an important aspect of being a solider.  Did you know religious soldiers aren't allowed to proselytize while they are deployed?  Should they be allowed to be who they are in the course of military duty? I'm not saying we should let the gays go have gay sex whenever they feel like it while in the service. But to lie about who they are? Surely you can see the difference, here. It's not about expressing yourself, it's about feeling comfortable in your own skin during your service time. I guarantee you that a few closeted gay soldiers had a lot more inner torment going on than their openly straight brothers in arms. You don't think that can affect how you perform or your self-respect?

 

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I was going to touch on that in my post, but I omitted it. So now I'll go into it.   I'll agree with your use of leverage in the second example, but not the first. In the first you willingly put yourself in an environment where you know there is a severe supply limitation. You wouldn't go to a poor tribal island which has one water source, and then accuse them of leveraging you when they demand $20 for a bottle of water. That's just the market's rationing system.   Now this "leverage" thing could arise in the case of some evil food monopoly which extorts the customer. I'll accept that, and in that situation we could discuss what rational decision the consumer makes. Surely, he values being alive and not starving to death more than the $1000 dollars for the loaf of bread. So he still gains in a technical sense from the interaction. However, without a supply shortage we would feel such a price is 'unfair'.   Fortunately, there has never been a natural monopoly on the free market. Near-monopolies have never exhibiting this pricing behavior. In fact, there's no good economic benefit for the company to do so. It's the great scare tactic you always hear, but it just doesn't exist unfortunately. Llama has more technical knowledge with regards to this than I do. Maybe he could make some things more lucid.

It is generally not in a monopolies best interest to charge an unreasonably high price, because there always exists some amount of price elasticity, that is, the quantity demanded goes down as price goes up. Even in the bread example (which Pat correctly states would never happen in real life) there would be some people who would be unable to pay the high price, even if they were willing. Therefore a monopoly does not increase its profits by raising prices indefinitely. A monopoly will charge a higher price than the competitive market, yes, but usually not insanely higher.

I think we're exploring something interesting here.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Zero-sum transactions don't occur in a free market. If you trade money for a good or service, then you value that good or service more than the dollar amount. Therefore you have a net gain. If I sold that good or service for the dollar amount, then I value the dollar amount more than the good/service. So I have then gained. I admit I'm generalizing when I say it doesn't apply to most people. However, you are suggesting that it does, so you too are generalizing. I believe people are on the whole good, which is why I make that statement. I suppose you would disagree with that?  I didn't make a personal jab. You jabbed yourself. I just didn't refute it.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Negoba wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote:   A majority?   Take yourself. You are incredibly wealthy to a majority of the world. How many of those descriptions fit you.   They all do, to some extent. I wish it was less.       Sucks for you then, but that doesn't apply to most people in the world.

thellama73 wrote: Easy Money wrote: thellama73 wrote: Easy Money wrote: thellama73 wrote: I think anyone who thinks the take away message of the New Testament is "be nice to people" is missing a large part of the point. The New Testament is about love, God's love for his creation including mankind. We learn from the example of God's love and apply it to our personal life. Jesus' sacrifice of his own life was the ultimate gift of love. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that he who believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life" - from memory. Jesus wasn't some meek pacifist, he was a revolutionary. He came not bearing peace, but with a sword. He was happy to turn brother against brother or father against son if that's what it took. Jesus' death on the cross was an act of unselfish love, he gave himself up willingly, there was no sword, he didn't need one, he had God's love, something that is more powerful than any human made weapon. The sword was a metaphor. It's from Matthew 10:34. I don't mean to sound condescending, but have you read the New Testament? I only ask because you seem to keep misunderstanding things that are said.

Yes, I know the New Testament well, my father is an ordained minister with the equivalent of a masters degree from Memphis Theological Seminary and I was raised on nightly Bible lessons. Was there something I misunderstood?

Edited by Easy Money - September 14 2010 at 20:04

Yeah, dude, not really into the way you spit back assumptions in the form of questions, without ever addressing the fact that your previous question was answered. You seem to enjoy putting people on the defensive. I was clear in what I stated, and didn't imply anything that I didn't already say - I certainly didn't imply what I think any belief system should or shouldn't be. I merely described my opinion of one of the problems with one facet of belief. It's also funny that you're trying to deconstruct my opinion - ergo, belief - about belief - with a logical process - that challenges whether I believe belief should be based on logic!


Edited by jplanet - September 14 2010 at 15:48

Well, as long as we've cleared that up! LOL...

No, the context of a Bible vs., let's say, James Joyce, is night and day.  People always think that they are using the Bible to guide them on right and wrong, and view it as law to live by. They do not do that with James Joyce, for example. They are both equally open to interpretation, but it is quite different to say, this is the meaning behind this author's novel, in contrast to, this is what I use to guide how I live my life and how I expect others to behave or else I burn in hell...