Military's gay ban is unconstitutional

[stanmaxkolbe]

Racial policies are totally irrelevant to the DADT issue. In endorsing the idea that blacks are no different from whites and should be so treated, the government did what a government ought to do.

Having the government “affirm” that homosexuality it is no different from heterosexuality is a governmental endorsement of something that most of society considers a perversion and which the Catholic Church certainly does not affirm. If any of the anti-DADT people on here don’t think doing away with DADT will be understood as a governmental affirmation of homosexuality as nothing but an “alternative lifestyle of equal validity”, they really ought to think it out some more.
And don’t think for a moment that governmental endorsement of homosexuality in this instance will not give rise to it in others.

But those who oppose DADT really needn’t worry. Sooner or later Obama will do away with it. That’s absolutely a certainty, because militant homosexualism is part of the liberal base, and it makes no difference what the military thinks about it, in this as with anything else.

The point of my post was people are using the same argument today that was used then.

I don’t know but don’t the government unions endorse homosexuals I’m just asking?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Well the homosexuals didn’t destroy the United Kingdom, Canadian, or Australian militaries they seem to be doing ok.

Due to the fact that armed forces in the Anglosphere are the world’s best trained and equipped, and are all volunteers, I’m not sure how anybody could really tell whether there were adverse effects going the other way.

In any event, the U.S. is, culturally, not Great Britain, Canada or Australia. Let’s see, who in the U.S. finds overt homosexuality repugnant? Well, there are blacks, Hispanics, traditional Catholics, traditional Orthodox, Southern Fundamentalists, Mormons and Evangelicals. None of them in the armed forces.

Regardless, and being no military expert myself, it is notable that the current Marine Corps commandant opposes lifting DADT, and the heads of the Army and Air Force seem to be stalling. thehill.com/homenews/senate/83695-top-marine-opposes-ending-dont-ask-dont-tell-law

But again, my problem with it is not whether some number of skilled people enter the armed forces notwithstanding its acceptance of open homosexuality. (Though I strongly suspect it will suffer recruits due to it.) My problem is with government endorsing sexual perversion and equating homosexuality with heterosexuality. I don’t think government has any business doing that, particularly in this country, and I think the societal ripples will be more significant than some imagine.

And the government will endorse homosexuality for what purpose? So homosexual members of the armed forces can tell everybody what their sexual proclivities are? And everybody is willing to experiment with the armed forces and the body politic for the sake of that? I guess so. Why not gay marriage then? Why not “gender preference self-identification” in grade schools? Why not requiring that the schools teach the “equivalence” of same sex relationships to heterosexual relationships, starting with kindergarten on up? After all, if the government is endorsing it in the military, why not endorse it in everything the government does? And it will do that, using the “successfull” experiment with the military as its “Exhibit A”.

But, as I have said before, Obama will do away with DADT. So those who want to do away with it don’t need to worry. He’s just a little concerned right now, one suspects, because we’re involved in two wars in Muslim countries. If liberals get the vapors over some preacher burning the Koran will put targets on the backs of American soldiers, how much more might they rightly expect open homosexuality to do so. Obama doesn’t want to be held responsible if, after doing away with DADT, the casualties go up (for whatever reason) and some Islamic radical group holds a big rally somewhere proclaiming that America endorses homosexuality. He wants the reality without the perception, for now.

But he’ll walk out of both wars sooner rather than later, and if he doesn’t reverse DADT before that, he will certainly do it then.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The point of my post was people are using the same argument today that was used then.

No they aren’t. They’re totally different issues. Are you actually saying people used to argue that blacks could serve in the military as long as they didn’t go around telling people they were black?

Totally different things.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

Due to the fact that armed forces in the Anglosphere are the world’s best trained and equipped, and are all volunteers, I’m not sure how anybody could really tell whether there were adverse effects going the other way.

In any event, the U.S. is, culturally, not Great Britain, Canada or Australia…

The reason I mentioned those three countries is because their militaries are just as professional and equal to our own. Like I posted before when I was on active duty it was not a big deal.

If someone wants to put on a uniform go out and kill the enemy I don’t care who they sleep with and I bet the majority of people in our armed forces don’t really care either.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The reason I mentioned those three countries is because their militaries are just as professional and equal to our own. Like I posted before when I was on active duty it was not a big deal.

If someone wants to put on a uniform go out and kill the enemy I don’t care who they sleep with and I bet the majority of people in our armed forces don’t really care either.

Well, DADT really does stand for the proposition that “nobody cares who they sleep with”. That’s not the issue. But when it comes to official government acceptance of overt homosexuality, the Marine Corps Commandant seems to care, and the heads of the Army and Air Force won’t say, despite the fact that their boss clearly has a position on it.

It wasn’t really my point, but you certainly don’t know how many southern mountaineers, blacks, Hispanics, traditional Catholics or Orthodox, or others are going to reject enlistment because they, their parents, their peers and their preachers are going to be repulsed by open homosexuality in the military. Nor do you (or I) know how many people who are already disgusted with the immorality and anti-Christian ways that are more and more accepted by the elites in this society, are going to become even more alienated from this society than they already are. I realize that, to liberals, that’s okay. The left has written off the 40% or so of the society that really feels firmly and consistently about traditional values, and it doesn’t matter to them. But can a society as a whole do that without negative unforeseen consequences that it really isn’t willing to accept? And should it undertake to do so for so very little in benefit to a tiny minority, and for something that, if one does not insist on being overt about his sexual proclivities, has no practical effect at all?

 

[kenofken]

No they aren’t. They’re totally different issues. Are you actually saying people used to argue that blacks could serve in the military as long as they didn’t go around telling people they were black?

Totally different things.

It’s not as different an issue as you’d like us to believe. While blacks weren’t barred from service or put in the absurd situation of trying to hide their identity, they were treated on a much inferior basis and segregated to maintain “God’s natural order” and to avoid offending the good Christian majority of the day. They were allowed to serve only on the condition that they knew and kept “their place.” I don’t see any daylight between that and DADT.

 

[edwest2]

It strikes me that if you want to build a strong army, discriminating on anything but the basis of the military potential of your recruits is crazy. Should we really turn away an intelligent, strong, disciplined candidate who is gay rather than a less qualified straight person?

This type of question has been dealt with by the military. The decision is theirs. They understand the pros and cons.

law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html

Hope this helps,
Ed

 

[Sonic]

Well the homosexuals didn’t destroy the United Kingdom, Canadian, or Australian militaries they seem to be doing ok.

Wow! I’m really surprised their, Stan. Usually you don’t try to side step a discussion.

I was not talking about homosexuals contributing to the destruction of any military.

I was talking about military homosexual life expectancies being shortened from being further immersed in the gay lifestyle. There’s a difference there.

 

[kaid100]

This type of question has been dealt with by the military. The decision is theirs. They understand the pros and cons.

law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html

Hope this helps,
Ed

There is a possibility, however small, that their decision was influenced by a distaste for homosexuality rather than reason. Other nations have been able to include homosexuals in their armies without the effects on morale and discipline described in this policy.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

Wow! I’m really surprised their, Stan. Usually you don’t try to side step a discussion.

I was not talking about homosexuals contributing to the destruction of any military.

I was talking about military homosexual life expectancies being shortened from being further immersed in the gay lifestyle. There’s a difference there.

As far as I know it hasn’t done this to United Kingdom, Canadian, or Australian militaries if it did don’t you think the leadership of the JCS would have mentioned this?

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s not as different an issue as you’d like us to believe. While blacks weren’t barred from service or put in the absurd situation of trying to hide their identity, they were treated on a much inferior basis and segregated to maintain “God’s natural order” and to avoid offending the good Christian majority of the day. They were allowed to serve only on the condition that they knew and kept “their place.” I don’t see any daylight between that and DADT.

If you don’t, you don’t, and neither I nor anyone else is going to persuade you. But there really is no comparison between keeping a black person from attaining rank, serving in certain units, etc, and expecting a person to keep his sexual perversions a private matter.

There is also a significant difference between the government affirming that a person of one race is not inferior to a person of another race, and affirming that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality. If you see no difference, no one can persuade you that there is one.

But again, you shouldn’t worry. As soon as Obama is no longer afraid of causing a Muslim backlash, (what do the ultra leftists and ultra rightists call it? “Blowback?”) he’ll do away with DADT.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There is a possibility, however small, that their decision was influenced by a distaste for homosexuality rather than reason. Other nations have been able to include homosexuals in their armies without the effects on morale and discipline described in this policy.

I’m not sure they would know. A society that embarks on such things as overt homosexuality in their militaries are not terribly likely to later say it was a mistake, or even care to evaluate it. It makes one think of the APA which, having declared that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, has pretty much squelched all research that might demonstrate that it is.

 

[Sonic]

As far as I know it hasn’t done this to United Kingdom, Canadian, or Australian militaries if it did don’t you think the leadership of the JCS would have mentioned this?

It only goes to follow that an already lowered life expectancy becomes lower whenever there is already a prerequisite for health problems and death (like in the homosexual lifestyle).

 

[TMC]

It only goes to follow that an already lowered life expectancy becomes lower whenever there is already a prerequisite for health problems and death (like in the homosexual lifestyle).

This lowered life expectancy argument may be the worst argument against gays in the military I have ever heard. First, I don’t buy the premise that all gay people have a significantly lower life expectancy than straight people. But even if its true, almost all military service members are under 50, the vast majority are under 40, most are under 30.

Unless you are saying their life expectancy is thirty or forty years shorter than straight people, what difference does that even make?

 

[Sonic]

This lowered life expectancy argument may be the worst argument against gays in the military I have ever heard. First, I don’t buy the premise that all gay people have a significantly lower life expectancy than straight people. But even if its true, almost all military service members are under 50, the vast majority are under 40, most are under 30.

Unless you are saying their life expectancy is thirty or forty years shorter than straight people, what difference does that even make?

Well, if you’d taken the time to read through my previous statements, then you would know that I’m not making an argument against homosexuals being prevented from serving in the military. What I did say was that under certain conditions serving in the military would be beneficial, but lifting DADT might contribute to making things worse for those struggling with SSA or in an SSA identity crisis.

The life expectancy as I stated previously…

Did you know that the promiscuous homosexual lifestyle shortens a person’s life by an average of an incredible 32 years. This conclusion, is based upon the examination of obituaries in the nation’s largest homosexual newspaper The Advocate.

Compare this 32-year shortening of life to other hazardous behavior; heavy drinkers lose an average of 11 years from their lives; heavy (two-pack-a-day) smokers lose 9 years; and illegal hard-drug users lose an average of 14 years.

My previous posts for your edification:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7053388&postcount=59

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7053427&postcount=61

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7055047&postcount=65

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7056142&postcount=70

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7058532&postcount=88

 

[kenofken]

It only goes to follow that an already lowered life expectancy becomes lower whenever there is already a prerequisite for health problems and death (like in the homosexual lifestyle).

What exactly is “the homosexual lifestyle” to which you refer? Do you have any good, unbiased health data (not cooked up by some bizarre “ex gay ministry” ) which shows that all or most gay men are living like the San Francisco bathouse culture of 1982? Do gay men have a higher incidence of HIV than the general population? Sure. So do many minority groups, especially black women. Would you have us ban them from military service because “we all know how they live?”

Many armies in Africa have been decimated by HIV, and it had virtually nothing whatever to do with gays. Perhaps the answer is a ban on anyone of possible reproductive age. We could have armies of 10-year olds and 80 somethings. Some of the other health problems you attribute to “gayness” are really just depression, suicide and substance abuse brought on in part by the higher rates of abuse and bullying gay people still experience as young people in this country, largely at the hands of “Christian” people.

I’m not sure where you think this “lowered life expectancy” is going to sneak up on our military. Everyone gets a full physical and bloodwork upon entry. Soldiers have better access to prevention and screening and education about these things than virtually any other population of young people in the world.

In another sense “the military lifestyle” isn’t exactly geared toward high life expectancy anyway. Suicide bombs are not a major cause of death for 20-somethings anywhere outside of the military.

I’ve seen mention several times on this thread of the countries which allow gay people to serve. Here’s a more comprehensive list from Wikipedia “sexual orientation and military service.” These armies vary considerably in their power, but I think you’ll find none of them have been undermined by AIDS or morale problems or soldiers carrying on like drag queens in uniform etc. :

3 Countries that allow homosexuals to serve in the military​

* 3.1 Albania
* 3.2 Argentina
* 3.3 Australia
* 3.4 Austria
* 3.5 Belgium
* 3.6 Canada
* 3.7 Colombia
* 3.8 Czech Republic
* 3.9 Denmark
* 3.10 Estonia
* 3.11 Finland
* 3.12 France
* 3.13 Germany
* 3.14 Ireland
* 3.15 Israel
* 3.16 Italy
* 3.17 Lithuania
* 3.18 Luxembourg
* 3.19 Malta
* 3.20 The Netherlands
* 3.21 New Zealand
* 3.22 Norway
* 3.23 Peru
* 3.24 Philippines
* 3.25 Poland
* 3.26 Romania
* 3.27 Russia
* 3.28 Slovenia
* 3.29 South Africa
* 3.30 Spain
* 3.31 Sweden
* 3.32 Switzerland

• 3.33 Taiwan
  • 3.34 United Kingdom
    o 3.34.1 Bermuda
  • 3.35 Uruguay

Now let’s have a look at the other list, which includes the U.S. Real good company eh?

• Cuba
  • China
  • Egypt
  • Greece[1]
  • Iran
  • Jamaica
  • North Korea
  • Pakistan
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Serbia
  • Singapore
  • South Korea[2]
  • Syria
  • Turkey[3]
  • Venezuela
  • Yemen

 

[Chaplain777]

It was in regards to Via Dolorosa’s post claiming that everyone who’s in the military on the forum seemed to be ok with gays openly serving in the military, and dismissing everyone who argued against it as not being in the military.

I was being snarky.

Dig that. I just missed the subtlety.

 

[Sonic]

What exactly is “the homosexual lifestyle” to which you refer? Do you have any good, unbiased health data (not cooked up by some bizarre “ex gay ministry” ) which shows that all or most gay men are living like the San Francisco bathouse culture of 1982?

I don’t have any idea what you are talking about. What statistics have I used “cooked up by some ex-gay ministry”. If you are referring to the link I posted to a chapter of the Pro-life Encyclopedia from The American Life League, then I’d like to inform you it isn’t an ex-gay ministry.

As far as Courage is concerned, the information on life expectancy did not come from them. The posts here are my conclusions and not based on prepared rhetoric from a ministry.

Here’s a more comprehensive list from Wikipedia “sexual orientation and military service.”

Wikipedia? Are you kidding me? Do you know what my University professors would do if I cited anything from wikipedia? It’s probably the worst source you can cite. You’ll have to provide a source better then that if you want to really challenge anybody’s sources.

 

[Sonic]

Would you have us ban them from military service because “we all know how they live?”

Honestly, do I have to state this again? I am not arguing for the ban of gays from the military… period.

See post made to a previous commentator…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7059305&postcount=95

Edit: The information I posted must have struck a nerve, because all of a sudden I’m being considered the ban all gays from the military advocate.

Some of the other health problems you attribute to “gayness” are really just depression, suicide and substance abuse brought on in part by the higher rates of abuse and bullying gay people still experience as young people in this country, largely at the hands of “Christian” people.

Really? What health problem attributes have I… me… personally… attributed to gayness in any of my posts? I mentioned a lowered life expectancy based on a source. I did not mention why.

That last statement is pure propaganda.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What exactly is “the homosexual lifestyle” to which you refer? Do you have any good, unbiased health data (not cooked up by some bizarre “ex gay ministry” ) which shows that all or most gay men are living like the San Francisco bathouse culture of 1982? Do gay men have a higher incidence of HIV than the general population? Sure. So do many minority groups, especially black women. Would you have us ban them from military service because “we all know how they live?”

Many armies in Africa have been decimated by HIV, and it had virtually nothing whatever to do with gays. Perhaps the answer is a ban on anyone of possible reproductive age. We could have armies of 10-year olds and 80 somethings. Some of the other health problems you attribute to “gayness” are really just depression, suicide and substance abuse brought on in part by the higher rates of abuse and bullying gay people still experience as young people in this country, largely at the hands of “Christian” people.

I’m not sure where you think this “lowered life expectancy” is going to sneak up on our military. Everyone gets a full physical and bloodwork upon entry. Soldiers have better access to prevention and screening and education about these things than virtually any other population of young people in the world.

In another sense “the military lifestyle” isn’t exactly geared toward high life expectancy anyway. Suicide bombs are not a major cause of death for 20-somethings anywhere outside of the military.

I’ve seen mention several times on this thread of the countries which allow gay people to serve. Here’s a more comprehensive list from Wikipedia “sexual orientation and military service.” These armies vary considerably in their power, but I think you’ll find none of them have been undermined by AIDS or morale problems or soldiers carrying on like drag queens in uniform etc. :

3 Countries that allow homosexuals to serve in the military​

* 3.1 Albania
* 3.2 Argentina
* 3.3 Australia
* 3.4 Austria
* 3.5 Belgium
* 3.6 Canada
* 3.7 Colombia
* 3.8 Czech Republic
* 3.9 Denmark
* 3.10 Estonia
* 3.11 Finland
* 3.12 France
* 3.13 Germany
* 3.14 Ireland
* 3.15 Israel
* 3.16 Italy
* 3.17 Lithuania
* 3.18 Luxembourg
* 3.19 Malta
* 3.20 The Netherlands
* 3.21 New Zealand
* 3.22 Norway
* 3.23 Peru
* 3.24 Philippines
* 3.25 Poland
* 3.26 Romania
* 3.27 Russia
* 3.28 Slovenia
* 3.29 South Africa
* 3.30 Spain
* 3.31 Sweden
* 3.32 Switzerland

• 3.33 Taiwan
  • 3.34 United Kingdom
    o 3.34.1 Bermuda
  • 3.35 Uruguay

Now let’s have a look at the other list, which includes the U.S. Real good company eh?

• Cuba
  • China
  • Egypt
  • Greece[1]
  • Iran
  • Jamaica
  • North Korea
  • Pakistan
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Serbia
  • Singapore
  • South Korea[2]
  • Syria
  • Turkey[3]
  • Venezuela
  • Yemen

Wellllllllllllll, you failed to mention that the U.S. is in a category all by itself. It isn’t includable in either group, since it doesn’t prohibit homosexuals serving, like the second group, but doesn’t permit it being practiced openly like the first group. It might be mentioned too, that in the first group, pressures within the military (e.g., Russia, Poland, but perhaps others) effectively prevent homosexuals from serving at all.