Gays In Military

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338562152' post='2439339']
Doesn't matter--one is a federal crime, the heinousness of which is pretty self-evident. The other is a harmless contract that doesn't affect you, me and hardly anyone else.
[/quote]
so change the law!

i mean, if we are gonna change marriage...then change that!

(unless you think there is something morally wrong with it, and thus should be against the law?)

consent is all that matters, though...

[Anomaly]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338568177' post='2439409']
Correct. There's nothing wrong with presenting a religious viewpoint in this debate. But it's not nearly the trump card that some would like it to be. If we were all super duper Catholic, or at least super duper some-sort-of-Christian, this probably wouldn't be an issue.
[/quote]hey, what do you have against non-Christians? 😂. The conflict for Christians is subjective of what's good for the individual and what's good for society in the long run. Does allowing openly gay persons in the regulated military society protect the individual but then have the effect of promoting the behavior? And if so, is that better or worse for society in general? All answers will be conjecture.

Christians include divine and salvific principles in their evaluation that may or may not correlate with other humanist or atheistic principles. You personally have to decide if your personal opinions on this issue coincide with being a Catholic and/or the person you want to be in both the short term and long term. If you believe in and want an afterlife for your self and others in society, that has to be an important part of your evaluation.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Anomaly

[kujo]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1338569780' post='2439420']
so change the law!

i mean, if we are gonna change marriage...then change that!

(unless you think there is something morally wrong with it, and thus should be against the law?)

consent is all that matters, though...
[/quote]

The law pertains to a crime. Therefore, "changing" the law would mean making something no longer a crime.

That is gigantically different from civil laws dealing with who can and can't enter into a government-sanctioned contract with each other.

[kujo]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1338569915' post='2439422']
hey, what do you have against non-Christians? ������. The conflict for Christians is subjective of what's good for the individual and what's good for society in the long run. Does allowing openly gay persons in the regulated military society protect the individual but then have the effect of promoting the behavior? And if so, is that better or worse for society in general? All answers will be conjecture.

Christians include divine and salvific principles in their evaluation that may or may not correlate with other humanist or atheistic principles. You personally have to decide if your personal opinions on this issue coincide with being a Catholic and/or the person you want to be in both the short term and long term. If you believe in and want an afterlife for your self and others in society, that has to be an important part of your evaluation.
[/quote]

Again, you, like many before you, appear to be under the assumption that large swaths of people look to the government, or to the military, for guidance on sexual mores. If that were the case, you would have a compelling case in favor of things like DO[color=#000000][font=arial][size=3]MA[/size][/font][/color], DADT, and other efforts to codify "traditional" sexual norms into law. But in order to make that case, you need to prove that assumption. In other words, how would this stuff "promote" homosexual behavior? If this stuff is a virus that only needs an accelerant to spread like wildfire (pause for oh my goodness (don't blasphemy) WILDFIRE Game of Thrones!!!!!), you have to prove that, and than prove how allowing gays to serve openly in the military, or to get married, would serve as that accelerant.

[PhuturePriest]

Forget about this discussion of gay rights. Let's talk about llamas.

Edited because the picture will not work.

Edited June 1, 2012 by FuturePriest387

[kujo]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1338571480' post='2439436']
Forget about this discussion of gay rights. Let's talk about llamas.

Edited because the picture will not work.
[/quote]

Careful not to derail this thread. We wouldn't want franciscanheart to come in and close it down!

[Anomaly]

The Wildfire existed under the Red Keep for years and since it was left out of the conscience of the people, it had no effect, one way or another. It was a neutral existence. Once Cersi and Tyrion decided to fabricate more and found more in stoarge, then utilize it for their own purposes, it became a weapon.

Most people do look to their government to validate their opinions of what is right or wrong in society. That is the purpose and role of government. The rightness or wrongness of social behavior is not really proven until after the fact.

Edit to add:
Laws protect certain behaviors by removing unwanted consequences. A lot less people would bother with getting the government to recognize their sacramental marriage if there wasn't tax incentives and legal benefits to commingle personal assets when buying a home. If laws were passed disallowing un-related individuals from co-habitating for more than 3 years (regardless of any marital status or recognition) wouldn't you think that society wouldn't have the family strucure our society has now?

Edited June 1, 2012 by Anomaly

[kujo]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1338571741' post='2439443']
The Wildfire existed under the Red Keep for years and since it was left out of the conscience of the people, it had no effect, one way or another. It was a neutral existence. Once Cersi and Tyrion decided to utilize it for their own purposes, it became a weapon.[/quote]

[img]http://i.iflip.im/t/creepy-condescending-wonka.jpg[/img]


Is that an analogy?

[quote]Most people do look to their government to validate their opinions of what is right or wrong in society. That is the purpose and role of government. The rightness or wrongness of social behavior is not really proven until after the fact.
[/quote]

Prove these statements and I'll accept them.

Edited June 1, 2012 by kujo

[Anomaly]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338571957' post='2439447']
Is that an analogy?[/quote]Lamely making reference to G.O.T. Much more interesting than llamas.


[quote]
Prove these statements and I'll accept them.
[/quote]Disprove them and I'll consider rejecting them. I edited and added and example after you quoted.

Edit to add a link that explores the rise of STD's as a direct result of the legalization of abortion. In simple terms, once you remove the costs (consequences) of an action, it changes the dynamics of it's cost vs benefit, and effectively encourages the action. [url="http://webs.wofford.edu/pechwj/The%20Effect%20of%20Abortion%20Legalization%20on%20Sexual%20Behavior%20-%20Evidence%20from%20Sexually%20Transmitted%20Diseases.pdf"]http://webs.wofford....ed Diseases.pdf[/url]

Edited June 1, 2012 by Anomaly

[kujo]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1338572418' post='2439450']
Disprove them and I'll consider rejecting them.
[/quote]

You don't have to reject anything. But if your argument is premised on a certain set of assumptions, it would behoove you to prove that those assumptions are factual and true. It's not my job to disprove an argument you're too lazy to make.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338572877' post='2439454']
You don't have to reject anything. But if your argument is premised on a certain set of assumptions, it would behoove you to prove that those assumptions are factual and true. It's not my job to disprove an argument you're too lazy to make.
[/quote]Challenge accepted. If you would be so kind as to read the paper on the following link, sir. [url="http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/sex_and_society.html"]http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/sex_and_society.html[/url]

[kujo]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1338573183' post='2439456']
Challenge accepted. If you would be so kind as to read the paper on the following link, sir. [url="http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/sex_and_society.html"]http://www2.hu-berli...nd_society.html[/url]
[/quote]

This paper lost me after this paragraph:

[quote][color=#000000]Human sexual behavior develops in a very similar fashion. Children learn to adopt that behavior which is acceptable to their particular culture. They also acquire different masculine and feminine qualities according to their sex. If they have tolerant parents, their erotic capacities will grow, but a puritanical education will make them feel guilty and block or cripple their sexual responses. [/color][color=#000000]On the other hand, some frustrated children develop "loose morals" and use sex mainly to express their hostility; others, who are well satisfied, choose their sexual partners carefully and shower them with affection. Finally, some people decide to give up the pleasures of sex and, for some religious or moral reason, take a vow of chastity.[/color]
[color=#000000][/quote][/color]

[color=#000000]Again, just another exa[/color][color=#000000]mple of so[/color][color=#000000]meone [/color][color=#000000]making assertions based on a set of previously-assu[/color][color=#000000]med data points which are not acknowledged or debated. [/color][/font][/size]

Edited June 1, 2012 by kujo

[kujo]

[quote]Actually, in this case, a major reason for the mutual respect between "heathen" and Christian was simply the timing of their encounter...[/quote]

Probably didn't hurt that the "Christian" had a bayonette to the throat of the "heathen."

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338570651' post='2439429']
The law pertains to a crime. Therefore, "changing" the law would mean making something no longer a crime.

That is gigantically different from civil laws dealing with who can and can't enter into a government-sanctioned contract with each other.
[/quote]
no it's not...

they're just words on paper...

if gay "marriage" were law, you could be 'denying' someone's civil rights if you refused to "marry" them....

big whoop-dee-doo.... criminal vs. civil charges...

come on.. at least be man enough to admit consent is all that's needed.... (that was baitng right there)

[Anomaly]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338573557' post='2439461']


[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]This paper lost me after this paragraph:

[/color]

[color=#000000]Again, just another exa[/color][color=#000000]mple of so[/color][color=#000000]meone [/color][color=#000000]making assertions based on a set of previously-assu[/color][color=#000000]med data points which are not acknowledged or debated. [/color][/font][/size]
[/quote]I'm disappointed you didn't continue reading, check the foot notes, etc. You were challenging my statement that laws restrict or protect social customs, and have an effect on behaviors, including sexual behaviors. Personally, I felt that 'truth' was intuitive but accepted you challenge.

[kujo]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1338573831' post='2439466']
no it's not...

they're just words on paper...

if gay "marriage" were law, you could be 'denying' someone's civil rights if you refused to "marry" them....

big whoop-dee-doo.... criminal vs. civil charges...

come on.. at least be man enough to admit consent is all that's needed.... (that was baitng right there)
[/quote]

If you can't accept the difference between criminal and civil law, then I guess we ought to just stop debating this topic. If they're just "words on paper" that carry no signficance beyond the fair market value of the ink and parchment used to create the facsimile of the idea you are attempting to convey, then why can't we just put some new ink on the paper to allow gays to get married?

We're talking about contractual agreements between parties of sound body, mind and of proper age to enter into a legally-binding agreement. You want to make this about the morality of the act, and I will not take the bait, because the point of tort law in the U.S. is NOT to instill morality in the citizens involved.

[MIKolbe]

you're hiding....

[kujo]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1338574031' post='2439467']
I'm disappointed you didn't continue reading, check the foot notes, etc. You were challenging my statement that laws restrict or protect social customs, and have an effect on behaviors, including sexual behaviors. Personally, I felt that 'truth' was intuitive but accepted you challenge.
[/quote]

I did continue reading the link you sent. I didn't read every section of that paper, nor did I look at the footnotes. But I got the jist--human sexuality is no different than the rest of human behavior, in that it is all socially constructed, and can therefore be manipulated by a variety of factors, including religious instruction and civic involvement.

That doesn't mean that allowing gays to serve in the military will somehow make me wanna bang a dude. That's because I'm not gay. I have never been gay, and there was no time in my life where I looked around and said "Gee, can someone please tell me who I am supposed to direct my sexual energy towards?" I don't believe in this "Patient 0" approach to sexuality, as put forth by the Ph.D. you posted. That idea might work for language, but it doesn't work for sexual attraction, which is tied to biology and physiology, a fact that he obscures in service to his desire to pursue a neo-Freudian approach to psychosexual studies.

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1338574421' post='2439471']
you're hiding....
[/quote]

This closet is reallllllyyyyy nice.

[MIKolbe]

so it's razzle dazzle because she had consent?

[url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/nadine-schweigert-woman-marries-herself_n_1546024.html"]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/nadine-schweigert-woman-marries-herself_n_1546024.html[/url]

Your weave is worse than kat williams'

Please tell me your better half is joining us in July.....PLEASE!

[kujo]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1338574537' post='2439473']
so it's razzle dazzle because she had consent?

[url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/nadine-schweigert-woman-marries-herself_n_1546024.html"]http://www.huffingto..._n_1546024.html[/url]

Your weave is worse than kat williams'

Please tell me your better half is joining us in July.....PLEASE!
[/quote]

Again, I really do.not.care.who.marries.who.provided.there.isn't.coercion.and.both.parties.are.of.legal.age

EDIT: I will no longer respond to posts which attempt to draw a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia, incest or any other clearly illegal activities.

Edited June 1, 2012 by kujo