Should Openly Gay People Be Allowed To Serve In The Military?

[add]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='02 August 2010 - 08:23 PM' timestamp='1280791427' post='2151154']
If I am not mistaken, the point Apparently was trying to make is that forbidding openly homosexual persons to serve in the military is bad because some countries seen as "oppressive" also forbid those who are openly homosexual to serve in the military. This is not a logical train of thought. I hope Apparently forgives me if I am misinterpreting what he is saying.
[/quote]

U kinda R
i neither suggested bad or good, i was just pointing out a sad fact about the topic and the "Association fallacy" fallacy...
(no need to apologizes for any misinterpretations, okay)

Edited August 3, 2010 by apparently

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='02 August 2010 - 07:48 PM' timestamp='1280789338' post='2151131']
Association fallacy.
[/quote]

the point is in some of the countries you would be killed for open homosexuality so in this case there is no fallacy.

[kafka]

A homosexual orientation is a severe disorder of a human nature, and so a person with a homosexual orientation should not be given a position in the military since it calls for a good moral character. They or anyone with a severe disorder such as an alcoholic have no right to a position in the military, because it demands a good moral character so it is simply a discrimination and discerning as to who is fit or unfit for a position. A significant amount of homosexuals in any group will damage that groups ability to act with morals, justice, truth, etc.

[MithLuin]

Um, [b]kafka[/b]? You do realize that many military people abuse alcohol. Right?

[Socrates]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='03 August 2010 - 11:53 AM' timestamp='1280850807' post='2151493']
the point is in some of the countries you would be killed for open homosexuality so in this case there is no fallacy.
[/quote]
The original article committed this fallacy by saying that since countries known to be run by brutal, oppressive regimes have bans on homosexuality in the military, therefore, we should not ban homosexuality in the military.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='MithLuin' date='03 August 2010 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1280860005' post='2151544']
Um, [b]kafka[/b]? You do realize that many military people abuse alcohol. Right?
[/quote]
The UCMJ makes it possible for someone to be court martialed for abusing alcohol.

[Lounge Daddy]

If I was in the military, I wouldn't much care the orientation of the guy watching out for my butt on the front lines. And I in turn would watch out for his -- again, regardless.

Excuse the terminology.

[lookingforfaith]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' date='03 August 2010 - 03:19 PM' timestamp='1280863197' post='2151573']
If I was in the military, I wouldn't much care the orientation of the guy watching out for my butt on the front lines. And I in turn would watch out for his -- again, regardless.

Excuse the terminology.
[/quote]


I am with you on that 100%.

[sistersintigo]

Anyone read Conduct Unbecoming by Randy Shilts? (No, I haven't)

link to Dr. Tom Dooley thread (the Navy pressured him into resignation)

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=107142

[SaintOfVirtue]

Wait a minute! is this guy a libertarian or a anarchist? The line between the two keeps getting thinner every time this guy opens his mouth.

No they should not be allowed to serve do to their mental disorder. The APA only removed homosexuality from the list of Mental Disorders after their convention was stormed by homosexual activists three years in a row (1970-1973).

[quote]Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist has described what actually occurred in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. (1981)

In Chapter 4, "Diagnostic Politics: Homosexuality and the American Psychiatric Association," Dr. Bayer says that the first attack by homosexual activists against the APA began in 1970 when this organization held its convention in San Francisco. Homosexual activists decided to disrupt the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, homosexual activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you."

Homosexuals forged APA credentials and gained access to exhibit areas in the conference. They threatened anyone who claimed that homosexuals needed to be cured.

Kameny had found an ally inside of the APA named Kent Robinson who helped the homosexual activist present his demand that homosexuality be removed from the DSM. At the 1972 convention, homosexual activists were permitted to set up a display booth, entitled "Gay, Proud and Healthy."

Kameny was then permitted to be part of a panel of psychiatrists who were to discuss homosexuality. The effort to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM was the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, not scientific discoveries.

Prior to the APA's 1973 convention, several psychiatrists attempted to organize opposition to the efforts of homosexuals to remove homosexual behavior from the DSM. Organizing this effort were Drs. Irving Bieber and Charles Socarides who formed the Ad Hoc Committee Against the Deletion of Homosexuality from DSM-II.

The DSM-II listed homosexuality as an abnormal behavior under section "302. Sexual Deviations." It was the first deviation listed. [/quote]

Also would military chaplains be forced to perform rights of "marriage" for homosexual couples?

[kafka]

[quote name='MithLuin' date='03 August 2010 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1280860005' post='2151544']
Um, [b]kafka[/b]? You do realize that many military people abuse alcohol. Right?
[/quote]
What is your point? I was expressing what is a valid rule or principle. A position with substantial responsibility or authority or leadership calls a good moral character.

And a homosexual orientation is much worse than an addiction to alcohol.

[quote name='kamiller42' date='03 August 2010 - 03:03 PM' timestamp='1280862207' post='2151570']
The UCMJ makes it possible for someone to be court martialed for abusing alcohol.
[/quote]
which is as it should be.

Edited August 4, 2010 by kafka

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='MithLuin' date='03 August 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1280860005' post='2151544']
Um, [b]kafka[/b]? You do realize that many military people abuse alcohol. Right?
[/quote]

Many people in general abuse alcohol.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='SaintOfVirtue' date='03 August 2010 - 07:03 PM' timestamp='1280880213' post='2151730']
Wait a minute! is this guy a libertarian or a anarchist? The line between the two keeps getting thinner every time this guy opens his mouth.

[/quote]

I guess if you are a big-time statist, or at least a huge fan of government, there isn't much difference.



And at the risk of hijacking the topic, I have to point out something:

Anarchism [i]is[/i] libertarian. And I am not talking about anarchism in the derogatory sense of the word. I mean serious anarchism -- Dorothy Day, Mikhail Bakunin, Samuel Konkin, and Murray Rothbard, for a handful of examples.

Libertarianism is seeking as small a government as possible, and believe we are better served if we find solutions that are as voluntary as possible. They view the State as an inherently violent institution.

Party Libertarians think the political system can be used to bring about change from within the system.

"Small L" libertarians tend to look for other means, and believe that the party system is broken and a waste of time.

Anarchists have zero faith in the government, and think we should look to other institutions entirely. For example, many modern anarchists look to the Market.

And note that libertarian anarchism isn't about zero laws. And it's not about licentiousness, or being libertine. Actually many libertarians (anarchists included) argue that government actually tends to endorse licence, and diminish liberty. For example, abortion (you can do what you want, and the State will shield you from the result of your actions -- even pay for it with tax dollars; aka: stolen money.)

And I also wanna add that anarchists sometimes call small-government libertarians "minarchists." Get it? Like "mini-anarchists."

Ok, you may now return to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Winchester]

What if you think only midgets should govern. That's really small government. In fact, it could be a compromise between right and left wing. Using midgets, we could have a slightly larger government than right wingers would accept because the individual size of the politicians would be smaller.

[lookingforfaith]

That would be small Winchester!

Edited August 4, 2010 by lookingforfaith