Military's gay ban is unconstitutional

[stanmaxkolbe]

Ok we all have our opinions on this but I have noticed that people forget the root of the military.

The purpose of the military is to kill the enemy period.

It’s about the mission and the mission comes first—fact!

The mission is to kill the enemy until they surrender—fact!

From my experience homosexuals can kill the enemy just as good as heterosexuals—fact!

When you are side by side with a fellow trooper you’ll defend that trooper with your life and that trooper will do same for you—you don’t care about their sexually. The bottom line is you complete the mission and the mission is killing the enemy.

When that first round zings by you head you don’t care about; think tanks, lowered life expectancy, government, morals, and trust me it depends on the fire-fight you don’t even think about God—because it’s so fast.

All you think about is those troopers on each side of you, your team, your crew, your squad—that’s what’s it about baby.

The closest thing to the military is Law Enforcement Officers in the United States and homosexuals have been putting their lives on the line for years in Police Departments all over this country and a lot are veterans—fact!

If homosexuals have the guts to put their lives on the line for my freedom—HOOAH!

 

[Sonic]

Ok we all have our opinions on this

And, opinions are like backsides… everybody’s got one. Right, Stan?

 

[kenofken]

Ok we all have our opinions on this but I have noticed that people forget the root of the military.

The purpose of the military is to kill the enemy period.

It’s about the mission and the mission comes first—fact!

The mission is to kill the enemy until they surrender—fact!

From my experience homosexuals can kill the enemy just as good as heterosexuals—fact!

When you are side by side with a fellow trooper you’ll defend that trooper with your life and that trooper will do same for you—you don’t care about their sexually. The bottom line is you complete the mission and the mission is killing the enemy.

When that first round zings by you head you don’t care about; think tanks, lowered life expectancy, government, morals, and trust me it depends on the fire-fight you don’t even think about God—because it’s so fast.

All you think about is those troopers on each side of you, your team, your crew, your squad—that’s what’s it about baby.

The closest thing to the military is Law Enforcement Officers in the United States and homosexuals have been putting their lives on the line for years in Police Departments all over this country and a lot are veterans—fact!

If homosexuals have the guts to put their lives on the line for my freedom—HOOAH!

That’s really all the whole thing boils down to as far as I’m concerned. If someone is willing and able to take on the hell of a job that it is and they can act professionally, the rest is pure bunk. No nation that would have DADT deserves the service of any soldiers. It’s basically saying “we’ll take your service, but we reserve the right to treat you dishonorably for an arbitrary reason.”

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

And, opinions are like backsides… everybody’s got one. Right, Stan?

HOOAH!

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

That’s really all the whole thing boils down to as far as I’m concerned. If someone is willing and able to take on the hell of a job that it is and they can act professionally, the rest is pure bunk. No nation that would have DADT deserves the service of any soldiers. It’s basically saying “we’ll take your service, but we reserve the right to treat you dishonorably for an arbitrary reason.”

HOOAH! GARRYOWEN!

 

[Aquinas62]

My one issue is this, I think DADT was intended to keep gays from making a statement out of their service… “I am gay and a service member” so I can march in pride parades in my uniform". rather than I am a service member, who happens to be gay. Why do gays want to serve? if it is so important to them, why can’t they be discreet? During my time in the service, PDF (public displays of affection) by straight couples was frowned upon in military culture. I find this whole gay business to be tiresome, just a exercise in narcissism.

If you are gay, why do you want your whole identity and self worth to be tied up with how you have sex? Can it be there are deeper, more psychological reasons than wanting to join the service? Is it one more way, to validate to yourselves that your attraction and lifestyle is normal and moral, and to force everyone else to accept it as such?

Or is it, in the final analysis just another way to fill that “God shaped hole” in their souls by human means? It won’t be enough, also IMHO on this earth it is an impossible task. it is a human longing, shared by everyone.

it is the human condition, we all suffer from, that can only be healed by the Great Physician.

 

[Sonic]

That’s really all the whole thing boils down to as far as I’m concerned. If someone is willing and able to take on the hell of a job that it is and they can act professionally, the rest is pure bunk. No nation that would have DADT deserves the service of any soldiers. It’s basically saying “we’ll take your service, but we reserve the right to treat you dishonorably for an arbitrary reason.”

Here in lies the reason for the twists and turns of this discussion. There are two levels of discussion going on, and they are kind of like oil and water: they don’t mix.

Stan is taking his position from a worldly standpoint. He believes in the Military system he belongs to, and imbibes his entire confidence in it. He believes in the people he works with, and he calls them brothers. That is commendable, and we should expect it from him. That’s the attitude a soldier should have. I served in the military, too. I know where he is coming from.

Stan’s enemy, which he and his brother’s in arms are standing against, is the invading enemy seeking to destroy the nation he loves and protects. Anyone willing to stand against that enemy is his “battle buddy”… his brother in arms. He is confident that the military system is stronger than what is termed the Gay lifestyle, and nothing will make a fellow brother in arms cross that line.

I’m stating this to let Stan know I understand where he is coming from.

Yet, there is another dimension to this discussion, which many others are approaching this topic. They are approaching this topic from a spiritual and religious standpoint. From this point of view, the actions of enemy military powers pales in comparison to the “principalities and powers” at work manipulating through the influence of sin. For those who don’t believe in sin or evil, this dimension of the debate means nothing. It’s still an important one, because it is a reason why Dan and many others are not agreeing with Stan. They understand where he coming from, but their enemy isn’t the invading nation… for the most part it’s not the homosexual or any sinner. The enemy they are engaged with is evil itself, and they see the success and failure of the military (and any institution) dependent on it’s moral compass.

Add to this debate the consist reports of anti-Christian encroachments from secular institutions and movements along with the the blatant promotion of ideals and activities which Christians consider repugnant…

…plus the anti-Christian and insulting mentality and actions of many people who identify as Gay (such as calling heterosexuals “breeders” and producing a Jesus Christ Underwear line)…

…And you have people who just don’t have the same confidence Stan has in the military system to circumvent the movements of evil in the world. This is why many people here are not agreeing with Stan’s position. When they hold a vision of the American military being the defender of good in the world, but see the negative actions of some people in the Gay community, they do not see how allowing any activity or action contrary to the moral good as contributing to the moral foundations of the military.

Somewhere in this discussion, the individual struggling with SSA and SSA identity crisis can get lost.

As for me…

My only beef with Stan is he keeps sayin’ Hooooah! I didn’t like it when I was in boot at Fort Knox, and I still don’t like it!

 

[Sonic]

My one issue is this, I think DADT was intended to keep gays from making a statement out of their service… “I am gay and a service member” so I can march in pride parades in my uniform". rather than I am a service member, who happens to be gay.

This is an aspect I had missed. I think you are right about this.

 

[Aquinas62]

Sonic, I like your posts… well thought out.

P.S, I went to boot at Knox… were you a 19E?

 

[Sonic]

Sonic, I like your posts… well thought out.

P.S, I went to boot at Knox… were you a 19E?

Trained for 19K

 

[TMC]

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…

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

I read your posts, and I took them to mean that the supposed lower life expectancy for gays was a reason to bar them from serving. If that is not what you are saying, then what is the point of bringing it up? Are you trying to make a practical argument that there is factual evidence suggesting gays are less fit to serve because of their health? If so, its not an argument I have heard from the military establishment, or a problem that I have seen reported by the many other countries that allow gays to serve. If that is not your point, what is your point?

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

Here in lies the reason for the twists and turns of this discussion. There are two levels of discussion going on, and they are kind of like oil and water: they don’t mix.

Stan is taking his position from a worldly standpoint. He believes in the Military system he belongs to, and imbibes his entire confidence in it. He believes in the people he works with, and he calls them brothers. That is commendable, and we should expect it from him. That’s the attitude a soldier should have. I served in the military, too. I know where he is coming from.

Stan’s enemy, which he and his brother’s in arms are standing against, is the invading enemy seeking to destroy the nation he loves and protects. Anyone willing to stand against that enemy is his “battle buddy”… his brother in arms. He is confident that the military system is stronger than what is termed the Gay lifestyle, and nothing will make a fellow brother in arms cross that line.

I’m stating this to let Stan know I understand where he is coming from.

Yet, there is another dimension to this discussion, which many others are approaching this topic. They are approaching this topic from a spiritual and religious standpoint. From this point of view, the actions of enemy military powers pales in comparison to the “principalities and powers” at work manipulating through the influence of sin. For those who don’t believe in sin or evil, this dimension of the debate means nothing. It’s still an important one, because it is a reason why Dan and many others are not agreeing with Stan. They understand where he coming from, but their enemy isn’t the invading nation… for the most part it’s not the homosexual or any sinner. The enemy they are engaged with is evil itself, and they see the success and failure of the military (and any institution) dependent on it’s moral compass.

Add to this debate the consist reports of anti-Christian encroachments from secular institutions and movements along with the the blatant promotion of ideals and activities which Christians consider repugnant…

…plus the anti-Christian and insulting mentality and actions of many people who identify as Gay (such as calling heterosexuals “breeders” and producing a Jesus Christ Underwear line)…

…And you have people who just don’t have the same confidence Stan has in the military system to circumvent the movements of evil in the world. This is why many people here are not agreeing with Stan’s position. When they hold a vision of the American military being the defender of good in the world, but see the negative actions of some people in the Gay community, they do not see how allowing any activity or action contrary to the moral good as contributing to the moral foundations of the military.

Somewhere in this discussion, the individual struggling with SSA and SSA identity crisis can get lost.

As for me…

My only beef with Stan is he keeps sayin’ Hooooah! I didn’t like it when I was in boot at Fort Knox, and I still don’t like it!

I never said Hooooah! In my life; I’ve said HOOAH! What to you want me to tell you do the Kojak thing and say, “I love you baby?”

I also did BCT at the Holy City of Fort Knox. I find on these boards most people agree with me on DADT. As I stated before it is more of a security problem than a moral in the military. We have able body men and woman that wants to defend this great nation let them do it.

During Vietnam men said, “Hey I’m a homosexual.” It was, “Shut up and stand in line.” Now we have an all volunteer force and we are telling people no! They can be drafted but can’t volunteer? I see no logic in this.

My first unit was a 4/7 Cav in Korea the Camp was so small we and an Enlisted/NCO club, the NCO’s usually hung out in a room in the back where they played poker and got drunk. We had the grunts and tankers from C-Trp some of these guys were in dresses they had got made in the Village they were on the main floor dancing with each other everybody knew about them the Senior NCO’s didn’t care, we privates didn’t care, nobody cared, it was like hey I’m straight don’t touch me and we’ll be cool; it was no big deal and that was 1974.

I have seen this in every unit be it combat arms or combat support throughout my military career. I’m still in contact with a lot of my Senior NCO buddies and all of them agree with me on this. If they can do the mission which is to kill the enemy, farout man; let them do it.

I also look at this from a spiritual and religious standpoint if someone wants to live the homosexual lifestyle that’s between them and God.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2358The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Ok since you don’t like hooah; GARRYOWEN!

 

[donsnow]

I’ve read the OP and the posts on this page.

Ok, I’ve served non-combat tours in two branches of the USofA military.

In '61 - '65, I lived in the Quonset huts and barracks of the USMC for most of my four year tour. I’ve been around heterosexual men bragging about their sexual prowress and/or conquests. I’ve also heard big men brag about getting head from queers. In my mind, and I didn’t say anything because these guys were 'way bigger than me , that made them as queer as the perverts who gave them head.

I didn’t brag about what me and a woman did, I wasn’t raised that way.

My second tour was '72 - '74 (in '74 all non-essential personell were phased out of all the military and I was non-essential, but working to get my crow. No chance to do that, when phased out in '74) in the USNR and it was my privilege to serve a 46 day ActDuTra aboard the CV-14 USS Ticonderoga on her last mission, which was going out and recovering the astronauts from the last manned moon shot, Apollo 17.
Cooped up in that ship for 46 days, as far as I can remember, nobody discussed any kind of sexuality. It’s a whole different environment.

And, I think that DADT should be required for all types of sexuality in the Armed Forces.

Notice, I’m not saying gays shouldn’t serve. There was probably some gay guy in the USMC Quonset huts and/or barracks. I’m gad they kept quiet, because some Marines were openly hostile to gays. And, there may well have been gays on the Ticonderoga, but like I meant to say, all the sailors were focused on their jobs or the poker parties during off duty hours, as well as keeping our uniforms squared away.

Imho, both Stan and Sonic are right.

I served stateside in both tours, and things are not like in combat theaters. It’s different.
Stateside, one Marine’s uniformed behavior can sully the entire USMC. (It only takes one [morally] rotten apple to spoil the whole barrel.) Stateside, nobody is saving anybody else’s life. It’s a wholly different scene.

So, that’s why I say both Stan and Sonic are correct.

Like they taught me in boot camp, “Semper Fi.” (Didn’t have to go through Navy boot camp ).

Don
P.S.
FYI to gays: Imo, gay militants do not serve the best interests of the gay community. I state this, because I have observed that their obscenities, aggressiveness and obnoxiousness turns people away from any civil discussion of the gay communities needs.
Just my two cents worth.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I also look at this from a spiritual and religious standpoint if someone wants to live the homosexual lifestyle that’s between them and God.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2358The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

And what is unjust discrimination? The Church itself will no longer (thank God) accept active or committed homosexuals in the priesthood. It guards carefully now against those who are reasonably suspected of pedophilia. Are those things unjust, simply because it may seem to someone or other that it is, and that it’s “politically correct” to think so? Non-ordination of women? Some think that’s unjust. Non-ordination of married men in the Latin rite? Some think that’s unjust, particularly since it’spermissible in the Eastern Rites. But is it?

I agree that if someone wants to be actively homosexual, that’s between him and God. But that does not mean civil society cannot, therefore, have any interest in the issue, any more that the Church as an organization cannot have any interest in the issue. Pedophilia is also between the pedophile and God. So is polygamy. But that does not, in itself, mean any of them should not be the subject of civil regulation.

You didn’t have a problem with overt homsexuals in your ranks. It could not have been too widely known or those individuals would not have been in your unit very long. Still, that does not mean everybody in the military, presently or potentially, will be okay with it. As has been mentioned before the Marine Corps Commandant isn’t, the heads of the army and navy won’t say, and neither are some of the posters here okay with it, some of whom have been in the military. Neither, I submit, will be a substantial number of young men and women whose traditions and/or religious training teaches them that it’s morally repugnant for them to even be around it. What’s the percentage of such folks in this particular society? I suggest that it’s almost certainly not less than 30 or 40%.

But again, my problem with it is not whether some group of soldiers or sailors will have a problem with it. My least serious problem with it is that I know for sure that some segments of this society have a very low tolerance for involvement with open homosexuals, and they are significant segments. The U.S. is not Britain or France or Canada.

My major problem is that doing away with DADT introduces something into the armed forces that amounts to a governmental endorsement of homosexuality as being equivalent to heterosexuality. It is precisely when some say DADT is “unjust” or violates someone’s “rights” that they are affirming the proposition that society should embrace equivalency as an official act.

Does this society really want to do that? Do we, as Catholics, really want this society to do that? Do we really want this society to officially endorse something our religion teaches us is profoundly immoral? This society has, by law, affirmed and endorsed abortion, thus sending the message to the young that, well, it’s “just another form of birth control”. It is, by presidential fiat, endorsing fetal medical research; something we all know (if we have a brain) is intended to result in human (medical) consumption of the “corpses” of the unborn. Are we now in Transylvania, to do that? I guess we are. How much lower, and in what other ways,are we prepared to sink into the affirmation of gross immorality? Making such things the law of the land, like it or not, gives seeming moral sanction to things that are profoundly immoral. And those who promote those immoral (and ghastly) things gain “converts” to it’s “morality” by sanctioning them in the law.

I see absolutely no difference between this government’s affirmation of abortion on demand, on fetal cell research and on its official endorsement of homosexuality. Yes, euphemisms are employed to soften it all; more than that, to clothe those things in righteous terminology. “Abortion=a woman’s right to choose”, “Fetal cell destruction=research that could save lives”. “Homosexual unions=the right to be oneself”. “Murder, cannibalism and perversion” is what they really are. And many in society want the government to sanction and affirm them all.

What is at stake here, and we should not kid ourselves, is not “the right to serve the nation”. Homosexuals have that already. What is at stake is official government endorsement of it as equivalent to heterosexuality.

But I will say again, Obama will do away with DADT. He’ll do it as soon as he perceives, rightly or wrongly, that official governmental affirmation of homosexuality will not put soldiers in Islamic lands at greater risk than their true function there requires. Since he is more likely than not to abandon the Middle East to Iran’s domination eventually, it will happen sooner rather than later.

You have asserted that the “business” of the military is to “kill people”. Some military leaders of note have asserted that it’s actually to destroy the enemy’s ability to carry on a war. But regardless, it is not there to be the servant of “political correctness” or to create “rights” that were dreamed up the day before yesterday.

 

[Sonic]

Are you trying to make a practical argument that there is factual evidence suggesting gays are less fit to serve because of their health?

No, that’s not my intention.

To really understand my statements, you’d have to understand my back story. I’ve worked with people who have SSA or are struggling with an SSA identity crisis. All of them have told me that their major struggle came from their immersion or exposure to what they describe as gay culture (Now what they mean by gay culture or lifestyle is everything from hanging around with friends who identified as being gay and/or frequenting parties or events that were gay oriented).

In each case, they intimated to me their concerns about allowing situations which might allow for further immersion into (what they often call) the “gay lifestyle”. The concerns over the health issues was one reason why they wanted to get away from the “gay lifestyle”. Their main concern was living a lifestyle that would allow them to be healthy, but also allow them to eventually live holy lives.

Their concern is based on the welfare of others who may be in the same situation as themselves. They see DADT as at least a way to make it easier to avoid immersion into the lifestyle, but also a way for them to at least continue serving without having to worry about their struggle or health interfering with their military service (which can already be a dangerous job).

Concerns over health issues are only one thing that was intimated to me. I haven’t mentioned other things, because the rules on CAF wouldn’t allow me to get into details over certain behaviors and could also be a near occasion for sin for others. The health issue was really the only thing I could safely bring up.

I don’t know if that explains exactly why I brought it up. If not, I’ll try to explain another way.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Their concern is based on the welfare of others who may be in the same situation as themselves. They see DADT as at least a way to make it easier to avoid immersion into the lifestyle, but also a way for them to at least continue serving without having to worry about their struggle or health interfering with their military service (which can already be a dangerous job).

Truly remarkable!

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

And what is unjust discrimination?

When the country needs them our government drafts them into military service and they fight and die for our freedom; so when our country doesn’t need them we ban them; you’re now not good enough to serve in our military? That’s discrimination.

Your argument about the Priesthood and pedophilia is just lame just like the way the LSM reported it. Since the majority of pedophiles’ are married heterosexual men should we ban married men from the military—no I don’t think so.

For you information the majority of soldiers does not baptize babies or give kids spiritual advice. Total different job man.

I don’t know what you think goes on in the military you’re not going to see open homosexuality in the ranks just like now you don’t see open heterosexuality in the ranks, we have a code of conduct that we go by.

Of all the married, boyfriend and girlfriend military couples I never seen them put their tongues down each other’s throats in uniform; that is just not going to happen there is regulations about this.

Congress already endorsees homosexuality as being equivalent to heterosexuality; have you ever heard of Barry Frank.

Please don’t put words in my mouth; I never said the purpose of the military is to kill people—I said the purpose of the military is to kill the enemy until they surrender there is a difference.

Also the three counties I stated that have professional militaries equal to the United States Armed Forces is Australia, Canada, and United Kingdom. I never mentioned France! Other than the gun-control attitude of the UK all three of these countries are a mirror of us—they seem to be doing ok with this.

 

[kenofken]

Israel’s military also allows gays to serve openly, and they seem to getting the job done as well.

 

[kenofken]

No, that’s not my intention.

To really understand my statements, you’d have to understand my back story. I’ve worked with people who have SSA or are struggling with an SSA identity crisis. All of them have told me that their major struggle came from their immersion or exposure to what they describe as gay culture (Now what they mean by gay culture or lifestyle is everything from hanging around with friends who identified as being gay and/or frequenting parties or events that were gay oriented).

In each case, they intimated to me their concerns about allowing situations which might allow for further immersion into (what they often call) the “gay lifestyle”. The concerns over the health issues was one reason why they wanted to get away from the “gay lifestyle”. Their main concern was living a lifestyle that would allow them to be healthy, but also allow them to eventually live holy lives.

Their concern is based on the welfare of others who may be in the same situation as themselves. They see DADT as at least a way to make it easier to avoid immersion into the lifestyle, but also a way for them to at least continue serving without having to worry about their struggle or health interfering with their military service (which can already be a dangerous job).

Concerns over health issues are only one thing that was intimated to me. I haven’t mentioned other things, because the rules on CAF wouldn’t allow me to get into details over certain behaviors and could also be a near occasion for sin for others. The health issue was really the only thing I could safely bring up.

I don’t know if that explains exactly why I brought it up. If not, I’ll try to explain another way.

This clarifys your position, but it’s a really terrible reason for DADT. You’re proposing that we put honorable, dedicated soldiers in the position of arbitrary discharge to help a minority deal with what is apparently sexual addiction, not a problem of orientation. Even worse, you’re proposing that we destroy careers to help some “avoid the occaision of sin.” The military isn’t there to enforce personal or sectarian notions of religious virtue. If it were, Christian soldiers could have any of their colleagues discharged for going to a strip club or bar, Muslims could have people discharged for having pork or alcohol around them etc.

If these men you speak of are hoping to stop having same sex attractions and be “cured” of their orientation, they need to indulge their delusion on thier own dime, not on the backs of others who are there to serve honorably. If they want to stop compulsive sexual behaivior interferring with their lives or health, they need to grow up and deal with that on their own and with the help of appropriate professionals. Trashing other people’s careers and lives to clear a “temptation-free zone” for them is not an acceptable solution.

 

[Sonic]

This clarifys your position, but it’s a really terrible reason for DADT. You’re proposing that we put honorable, dedicated soldiers in the position of arbitrary discharge to help a minority deal with what is apparently sexual addiction, not a problem of orientation. Even worse, you’re proposing that we destroy careers to help some “avoid the occaision of sin.” The military isn’t there to enforce personal or sectarian notions of religious virtue. If it were, Christian soldiers could have any of their colleagues discharged for going to a strip club or bar, Muslims could have people discharged for having pork or alcohol around them etc.

If these men you speak of are hoping to stop having same sex attractions and be “cured” of their orientation, they need to indulge their delusion on thier own dime, not on the backs of others who are there to serve honorably. If they want to stop compulsive sexual behaivior interferring with their lives or health, they need to grow up and deal with that on their own and with the help of appropriate professionals. Trashing other people’s careers and lives to clear a “temptation-free zone” for them is not an acceptable solution.

Did you just call these well meaning people delusional? Wow! You’re not going to get much sympathy if you take that attitude.

Where did the sexual addiction aspect of this come into play? Are you saying that the people I’m talking about with SSA are suffering from a sexual addiction now? You don’t even know these people and your labeling them as sex addicts? You’re the one being judgmental now.

In fact everything you’ve said is based on a position of ignorance. These are not people who want to be cured of their SSA. To say so is to admit you know nothing about these people. So, why make statements based on ignorance? To win an argument online.

You talk about honor. You could have pointed out the weakness to the position. Did you really have to say the things you did to make your point?