“Just because you believe that homosexuality is “obviously” different from other sexual perversions doesn’t mean that there is in fact any significant difference.”

Then you go on to least a bunch of reasons why gay sex is immoral. But that’s not answering my question: I want to know why, per your argument, things that are bad necessarily must be the same. You’re at the moment effectively saying, “Gay sex is bad. Sex with dead people is bad. Both have to do with sex. Therefore they are both the same.” You aren’t showing me why the reasons for both of those actions’ wrongness must be the same. You look at the conclusion of the argument and assume that the premises that got them there must have been the same. Which is wrong. You can reach a conclusion about the moral wrongness of two independent actions without using the same line of argumentation for both.

Please refer to the argument I already made re: that very issue.

Okay, you’ve made a claim…..

Warrant that claim.

How is my logical conclusion of your definition of a soldier different or contorted?

Don’t just say it’s a straw man, say why it’s a straw man, than say why that straw man is wrong.

Because as far as I’m concerned, you’re calling it a strawman to avoid the obvious implications and applications that I’ve drawn from your dubious definition of a soldier.

No, I haven’t.

I don’t recognize anything of my argument in your contorted straw man.

Just because you believe that homosexuality is “obviously” different from other sexual perversions doesn’t mean that there is in fact any significant difference.

That’s your religious belief – your way of categorizing “good” or “clean” sexual activities from”bad” or “dirty” ones.

But “good”, “clean”, “bad”, and “dirty” are ideological, religious, subjective judgments. They are beliefs. They are not “facts” and you do not have any right to insist that I accept your beliefs.

Some people categorize “clean”/”dirty” sex according to whether it is healthy. Gay sex fails on that score: it is not healthy. It leads to unhealthy emotional boundaries, broken families, and physical diseases. It is associated with promiscuity. And so on.

Some people categorize “clean”/”dirty” according to a conception of “sin”, by which people are estranged from God. There are many arguments which can be made from this viewpoint that argue homosexuality is in fact “sinful”.

Some people categorize “clean”/”dirty” according to natural law: that which is related to purpose is healthy and therefore clean, and that which perverts purpose is unclean. Homosexuality perverts rather than fulfilling the purpose of sexual activity.

There are many standards by which people can categorize good from bad behaviors. You are outside of what is yours by right when you seek to shove your morality down other peoples’ throats.

I personally don’t care what people do in the bedroom, until and unless they threaten the well-being of my community, myself, or whatever I care about. In this case, the gay rights activists violate my boundaries not with their sexual preferences, but with the aggressive nature of their demands – their intolerance of those who do not share their beliefs or core values, and the mean-spiritedness of the strategies they adopt in their conflict with those whom they fear or hate or whatever it is they feel.

There we have the crux of it in a nutshell: your desire to make me share your beliefs about homosexuality.”

I’m not trying to make you believe a certain way about homosexuality. You clearly oppose it, as do I. However, comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, necrophilia, latex fetishes, and blow-up doll fetishes is not a moral judgment but an attempt to make a factual comparison. I am saying that factual comparison is wrong. My moral disagreement with homosexuality does not exist for the same reasons that I morally disapprove pedophilia and all of those other things. They are not the same.

I am not saying, “Blake, agree with me on homosexuality.” I’m saying “Blake, stop making comparisons that have no basis in fact.”

But, again, you haven’t shown at all why being allowed to say that one is gay (not going into details; we’ve already ruled that out) means full-on war against the military’s code of rule. The same rules should apply to straight people as to gay people, and that means that equality should flow both ways.

You also don’t get to say something like “it is right to discharge soldiers who refuse to follow orders,” which begs the question. We’re debating whether or not the order to keep silent about one’s homosexuality is a legitimate one, not whether or not gay soldiers or correct in following that order.

In the words of the great Lebowski, “Why does everything have to be such a travesty with you, man?” There’s always some grand conspiracy behind repealing policies generally regarded as ridiculous. First the ICC, now this. I feel like there’s some stronger argument you’re trying to make, something like “gay people are inherently immoral all around,” but are too afraid to actually come out and say it. That argument is ridiculous, of course, so I hope that isn’t the case, but all of these vague, unliked, unclear arguments aren’t doing anything to help your case.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Are you purposely avoiding my points or are you simply being daft?

“Especially when their motive is a desire to humiliate, correct, rebel against, sabotage, or otherwise defy their superior officers out of a misguided sense that they, not their superiors, should determine how the military “ought” to be run.”

I don’t really see how wanting equality and consistency is defying superior officers.

Once again, you lack support for anything you say. It seems to be a habit Blake that you make claims without warrants, and it really hurts your argument.

I especially find this last part “should determine how the military “ought” to be run.” particularly odd coming from someone who has engaged in a debate and vehemently insisted on the way the military ought to be run.

It is right to discharge soldiers who refuse to follow orders.

Especially when their motive is a desire to humiliate, correct, rebel against, sabotage, or otherwise defy their superior officers out of a misguided sense that they, not their superiors, should determine how the military “ought” to be run.

Who are you to decide how I must feel about homosexuality?

There we have the crux of it in a nutshell: your desire to make me share your beliefs about homosexuality.

Your ideological, faith-based beliefs in the role, purpose, and meaning of sex, family, kinship, marriage, and human nature.

I am far less judgmental than you about sexual deviations, by the way. I have far more compassion than you do for people stuck with desires that aren’t socially acceptable. Do you imagine that the pedophile or the person attracted to animals or pain or death is somehow different from you? Do you imagine yourself to be better, because the desires you didn’t ask for happen to be a luckier draw than the desires they got stuck with?

Why would you imagine you deserve the right to talk about your sexual issues, but they do not? If having a “sexual identity” is a right, then wouldn’t everyone have that right?

If sexual identity is basic and fundamental, then it’s our job to find a way to simultaneously affirm the pedophile even as we accept responsibility for:

(a) enabling him to have the sexual gratification that all human beings “deserve” and

(b) at the same time protecting our children.

Saying “I’m gay” doesn’t mean the soldier is going to spill his/her life story and sexual exploits. All DADT does is allow soldiers to state their identity. That’s it. That doesn’t mean there needs to be any details. People are plenty aware gay people exist; it’s hardly going to offend anyone if someone who they suspect is gay affirms it with his or her words. Being allowed to state who you are isn’t “bossing around.” That isn’t enforcing a belief. It’s just stating who one is. I don’t understand how you don’t see this distinction, which is what I’ve been trying to get at all of this time.

But, even worse, even if you find homosexuality morally reprehensible, that doesn’t give you ground to compare it to things that it isn’t analogous to: homosexuality is not like bestiality, necrophilia, latex fetishes, or blow-up doll fetishes. They aren’t direct parallels, and you undermine the credibility of your position when you do so. It’s just a cheap shock tactic used to make one’s opponent worse than he or she actually is.

Maybe my response to that should be

“It really is that simple. If you want a job that is “fair”, then the military is not an appropriate career path for you.”

Wait who’s the whiner???

Okay, I’ll correct you. This is not the correct analysis at all. If this were the case, than the DADT law would also apply to heterosexuals. NEWSFLASH: Not everyone like’s hearing about heterosexual sex either.

The fact is that saying “I practice homosexuality” says just as much detail about sex as “I practice heterosexuality”.

Yet it is only when one says “I practice homosexuality” that they are discharged.

Just by that fact alone we know that the law isn’t about soldiers being grossed out by sex stories. You act like the soldiers sit around in a circle like a bunch of Junior Highers

***Ooohhh sex! It’s so gross!!!***

The fact is that it’s leaned against homosexuality.

“If you practice homosexuality, you may not be a soldier.”

That’s the problem.

Oh, okay.

Okay then the traits of courage, stamina, endurance, and ability to tough our harsh conditions as you’ve listed in your comment #24 aren’t actually what we need to ask ourselves. So what you really meant to say was “ask yourself if these men and women have the traits that make a good soldier, but only focus on the traits concerning commitment.

Thanks for clarifying.

“The behaviors exhibited by the ‘gay rights movement’ suggests they are not serious.”

That’s quite the statement. Still looking for solid warrants for your claims

***looking…..looking…nope***

Can you please provide systematic proof of gay men that join the military just to prove a point?

“Nobody has a right to force TMI about their sex life onto unwilling participants.”

I don’t care whether you want to tell me about your latex, your bestiality, your whatever – it is your responsibility to make sure that your audience does not mind sexually explicit information.”

I’m still wondering if you really know what DADT actually is. DADT wasn’t “If you’re audience doesn’t want to hear it don’t say”. It was “If you say it, you have to leave”.

Also, I’m not sure how this response you’ve provided actually answers…well ANY of my objections. The portion of my comment that you quoted was pointing out a response to what you later went on to repeat in your last comment. Let me clarify. You said:

“You want us to take your gay lover as being equal to a wife, but the problem is that’s a lie. A wife is a member of a family – you unite two family trees when you marry; marriage is a relationship that is only partly about love, and also equally about continuing a family. A gay relationship is different in kind, and so any attempt to present the two relationships as same in kind is inherently dishonest”

As a Christian it is ontologically true. A sexual relationship between two people of the same sex is different than a marital relationship between a man and woman (although I know Bret disagrees, but as a general note). But as Christians we would also say that a non-marital sexual relationship between a man and a woman is different than a marital relationship, would we not? Moving away from sex, we would also say that belief in the Muslim God and the Christian God is different, would we not? Yet they’re treated equally in the military.

My point is that you’ve effectively said:

A) Homosexuality is false (or at least not equal to homosexual relationships in honesty).
B) Because homosexuality is false, soldiers should not be allowed to talk about it.
C) Therefore, DADT is necessary.

The problem is that if you affirm this logic you must also affirm that this would apply to religion, or any other belief. Islam is falsehood, therefore Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to talk about it.

“Forcing unwanted intimacies upon unwilling victims is a violation of a sexual boundary – no different in kind really from showing off body parts to people who don’t want to see.

Is it only homosexuals that can cross sexual boundaries? My point is that DADT doesn’t apply to everyone. It only applies to non-heterosexuals. You’re saying that DADT exists in order to keep out unwanted intimacies. But the fact is that the only one’s who can’t talk about their intimacies are gays. Why is it that heterosexuals don’t have any sexual boundaries concerning talking about their sex life?

Saying “I’m a homosexual” says just about as many details about one’s sex like as saying “I have a wife”. So if you really want to prevent unwanted “intimacies” (which isn’t actually an intimacy, but you think it is), at least be consistent: make a law that mandates ANY ADMISSION OF ANY SEXUAL PREFERENCE results in being discharged. I wouldn’t want to hear about a man having sex with his wife any more than I would want to hear about a man having sex with another man.

I’d also like to point out that it’s really interesting that you took the route of asserting that soldiers deserve the right not to hear about others sexual orientation after previously saying that gays are a bunch of whining crybabies?

Really??? This coming the guy that is effectively “whining” about not wanting to hear about other’s sexual orientation.

So you’re going to have a make a choice Blake. What comes first? The needs of the military, or the feelings of the soldiers???

If it’s the needs of the military, than the military SHOULDN’T CARE about a soldiers sexual preferences, whether they admit it or not. All that should matter is if they are a good soldier. If they are, than who really cares what their beliefs are? Soldiers are complaining about hearing about gay guy? Who cares. For “real soldiers” they sure do complain a lot.

Except that we find that soldiers don’t really complain about serving with a gay soldier. Maybe you should be reminded that many of the soldiers that objected to being discharged for being gay weren’t just the discharged soldiers, it was also their fellow squad and unit members. Heterosexual men coming forward to defend their homosexual brothers in arms.

The image you’re depicting are soldiers alienating their brother’s in arms for their beliefs and practices, not based on their ability and commitment to the unit.

For someone who’s advocating loyalty, you really expect the soldiers to have none.

The fact still remains that you’ve done nothing but rant stereotypes and false situations that don’t exist in the military. You have yet to answer the fact that the logic behind DADT is completely backwards and that there’s no evidence to suggest that homosexual soldiers are less committed than heterosexual soldiers. Also, you’ve failed to answer the fact that the definition of a “good soldier” you’ve outlined prevents Christians from joining the military as well.

Cheers.