Secular Elation

soceity ought not to hurry to remove the principle of legal moral restraints too hastily.

Unless such a law is unjust.

randman

Well, defining unjust is an interesting thing to do at times, isn't it?

Take the issue of gays in the military. Is it unjust to remove openly gay men from the military?
Or, is it wrong to compromise the integrity of a unit designed to kill people?
Is the military just in the first place?

My point is I could see the civil rights thing as a badly needed major correction. I think the gay rights thing is largely a bunch of gays and others upset other people disagreeing with them, and their trying to force acceptance of their lifestyle on others who feel it is morally wrong.
I think there are areas like the military, where if the soldiers there prefer not to have gays in their units and think it harms their unity and cohesion, then I think gays need to just accept that. The government should not be forcing acceptance of homosexuality, especially in a place like the military.

Now, there are other areas where I do think it is wrong to discriminate against gays, and overall, I don't see America as a place that is particularly discriminatory against homosexuals.

Malaclypse the Younger

randman

Well, defining unjust is an interesting thing to do at times, isn't it?

Hence the existence of legislatures.

Take the issue of gays in the military. Is it unjust to remove openly gay men from the military?
Or, is it wrong to compromise the integrity of a unit designed to kill people?
Is the military just in the first place?

Access to and the performance of military service is indeed a matter of justice.

I think the gay rights thing is largely a bunch of gays and others upset other people disagreeing with them, and their trying to force acceptance of their lifestyle on others who feel it is morally wrong.

The nonreligious question is, what actual harm does accepting the expression of another's orientation do to you? Other than, of course, the contravention of your religious principles?

Remember that the civil rights demanded by homosexuals are very basic and, by themselves, moral: The right to marry. The right to hold a job. The right to occupy a home. The right to serve their country in the military.

I think there are areas like the military, where if the soldiers there prefer not to have gays in their units and think it harms their unity and cohesion, then I think gays need to just accept that.

It should be noted that this precise argument was made against racial integration. It is noteworthy that the right to fulfill one's arbitrary personal preferences are explicitly forfeited to a large degree as a condition of military service.

The only acceptable response of any military person when given an order by a superior officer (such as the Commander in Chief, aka the President of the United States), is "yes sir" or "yes ma'am".

The government should not be forcing acceptance of homosexuality, especially in a place like the military.

Why not? The government forces all sorts of things on military personell, including forcing them to risk their lives. The objection against coercion in the military is ludicrous.

Now, there are other areas where I do think it is wrong to discriminate against gays, and overall, I don't see America as a place that is particularly discriminatory against homosexuals.

This is an argument from ignorance.

Homosexuals are not permitted to marry. In some states (such as my own ), job and housing discrimination against homosexuals has been specifically enacted by legislation. Military service is a fundamental right (indeed many people, especially christians, consider it a duty) of physically capable law-abiding citizens. Homosexuals are often the victims of hate crimes. The question is, how are they not discriminated against?

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

randman

<a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26940" target="_blank">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26940</a>

Seeker630

Odd then isn't it, that homosexuals still have to register for the draft? Past history would seem to indicate that when it comes time for the all-volunteer military social club to function it's OK to openly discriminate against anyone they like: gays, blacks, Jews, and maybe others. But when the government decides it needs more involutary cannon-fodder the distinctions suddenly become blurred.

If Gays pose such a threat to the integrity of the military, then they should obviously be exempt from registering for the draft---right? As of right now they are not.

What total, hypocritical BS.

{edited by Toto to fix tag}

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Grizzly

Grizzly puts the randman quote into a time machine...


Randman thinking has been around for a long time. It should be exposed and villified whenever possible.

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: Grizzly ]</p>

Malaclypse the Younger

This article does not rule out the alternative interpretation that sexual molestation is caused, not by homosexuality, but by the church's obviously repressive stance on clerical sexuality and homosexuality in general, not to mention their historical lack of cooperation with law-enforcement, which has been lackadaisical at best and completely opposed at worst.

Aethernaut

I think the Catholic church should maybe be focusing on their own corruption and the fact that they were actively covering up the actions for priests involved in sexual abuse than scurrying to find a scapegoat.

In all of this controversy I've notice that the church is far more interested in cleaning up their own image than helping the victims of the sick mother-fuckers that commited the abuse. And whether the children involved were pre-pubescent or adolescent makes no difference, by the laws of most states the sicko priests were still actively engaging in pedophelia and they knew it. And what's worse, the church knew it and did nothing.

Knowing several gay men and being a gay man myself I can honestly say that I don't know anyone that is a pedophile or that would even consider such a vile crime. I don't even know anyone in my circle of friends that would consider getting involved with an adolescent let alone a pre-pubescent child.

-SK

pseudobug

This is an exceedingly minor point in this discussion, Macalypse, but I have to disagree with you.

As an ex-military officer, I know for a fact that a subordinate is entitled to say "no sir" or "no ma'am" when they are given an illegal order. To do so may or may not get your butt in sling, however, to knowingly follow an illegal order from a superior does not absolve one from the consequences resulting from that order.

Malaclypse the Younger

pseudobug

You are, of course, correct. However in this context, the order to accept homosexuals in the military is clearly legal.