Ron Paul: The Only White Male Republican to Vote For Repeal of 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'

erowe1 said:
Right. I do get that. But I still don't see the logic of subsuming that idea under "the whole package of freedom." Even from their own viewpoint, I don't get how "freedom" has anything to do with whether or not we ban gays from the military, again, unless we're talking about the freedom of the taxpayer and potential future draftee, which, if anything is increased by having such a ban in place.

If we were talking about banning blacks from joining the military, I could sympathize with arguments against doing so. But I still wouldn't be able to see how allowing blacks to be in the military would be the pro-freedom position. There may be important ideals leading people to that position, but prizing freedom isn't one of them.
Click to expand...

If we wanted to boil it down? It's all moot. Ideally, money wouldn't be stolen by which this military is funded and run. Ideally, the military would be much smaller and less involved (if at all) in foreign messes like the ones we're in. Ideally, at that point, the military would be entirely the domain of those in it, and those who fund it via bonds or whatever other means is in place, and potentially those affected by it (for example if a base was going to be built in a certain town, the townspeople would have a stake in the matter regardless of their standing). That'd be awesome, imo.

However, since we do have to fund this monster, the nature of the policy is what's silly. You know, if they actually banned homosexuals from the military that might at least be more honest. The current policy is akin to "We know there are gays here, we just want them to be really quiet about it and pretend to be straight." The military is perfectly willing to accept all kinds of really awful people, and on top of that the heterosexual members can talk about some ungodly subject matter, but having a gay person is going to destroy unit cohesion ;) It's ridiculous.

If we want to make it even more basic than that, removing the policy simply allows market forces within the military to decide whether all these worries and misconceptions about the outcome are true. Maybe every person who "comes out" will be hazed, and while those who initiate the violence should be punished, it would probably keep a lot of gays from joining the military or from "coming out" at all. Maybe there wouldn't be that much of a backlash at all. Maybe it'd be something in between.

Even more basic than that, it's a hell of a waste. All of that training, all of that bonding that goes on in a unit, and maybe everyone even already suspected that the guy was gay and was fine with it... but he's "outed" and discharged. It seems to me it'd be up to the people involved to worry about it.

Then again, if it stays in place, at least there's an easy way to dodge the draft.

Thank you, by the way, for not making it some kind of moral issue ;)
 
If I had only one reason to allow every single person to marry anything, I can promise you it would be to piss off people like Theocrat.

I for one, am proud of Ron Paul.
 
Theocrat said:
Yes, I agree with you.
Click to expand...

Re: ...freedom means doing whatever you God approves of...

Be careful in your Biblical readings. Part of why you see me as anti-Biblical is because I've read the whole thing, not just the oft-quoted parts. I've even read some of the "Director's Cut" which ended up not being included in the final, commonplace version. I won't derail the thread into Hot Topics or Religion territory, but make yourself a list of what you believe God prohibits in relationships. Do it without the Bible at hand. Now go back in and verify your results.

Endogamy and incest, particularly, are favorites in the early books of the Bible. Is God okay with kissin' cousins, or is He not? Is He okay with you marrying your step-sibling? What about the implicit incest during population/repopulation? Why does the moral fabric seem to shift on various subjects such as these?

God's approval is not, to me, dictated by the Bible alone. It is another thing upon which you and I disagree.

Edited to add:
Ah I forgot the part about how Leviticus contains an awful lot of instruction on animal sacrifices. Should we still do that? I thought we were taking that section literally. Of course, being naked around a woman with her period (and she naked around you) is also punishable in that section... and there are a variety of incenst/endogamy issues. I found a really cute chart on Wiki about it. Then there's Leviticus 15 about how if you have a "discharge" you are unclean, and detailing all the things that are also unclean if this happens. This can apply to women and men alike.

A better citation should really be found before you go around asserting God hates gays :)
 
Last edited:
Be Careful About Your Claims

MelissaWV said:
Re: ...freedom means doing whatever you God approves of...

Be careful in your Biblical readings. Part of why you see me as anti-Biblical is because I've read the whole thing, not just the oft-quoted parts. I've even read some of the "Director's Cut" which ended up not being included in the final, commonplace version. I won't derail the thread into Hot Topics or Religion territory, but make yourself a list of what you believe God prohibits in relationships. Do it without the Bible at hand. Now go back in and verify your results.

Endogamy and incest, particularly, are favorites in the early books of the Bible. Is God okay with kissin' cousins, or is He not? Is He okay with you marrying your step-sibling? What about the implicit incest during population/repopulation? Why does the moral fabric seem to shift on various subjects such as these?

God's approval is not, to me, dictated by the Bible alone. It is another thing upon which you and I disagree.
Click to expand...

The reason why I am a theocrat is because I've spent my whole life studying the Scriptures, and I see the totality of its teachings (in both the Old and New Testaments) as applicable to humanity as opposed to humanistic teachings beginning with sinful, finite man's reasoning. It's a war of worldviews, Melissa.

When you say, "God's approval is not, to me, dictated by the Bible alone," you're simply admitting that you have not understood what the Bible teaches, even though you claim to have read the whole thing.

Anyway, you're right that this will get us off-topic (or put into "Hot Topics"), so I'll just leave you with that message.
 
erowe1 said:
I still fail to see how letting gays serve in the military is in any way a part of the whole package of freedom.
Click to expand...
My point is, if one meets all the job qualifications, then he or she should get the job.
What the person is doing in his or her bedroom is that person's individual choice and I don't think the government has right to dictate/regulate it.
Sure, military life is different than civil life but if the person can deliver what he's supposed to deliver, then why should we bother what he's doing in his free time?
 
Last edited:
Immoral Suicide

AmericaFyeah92 said:
Us Libertines are here to stay as well....so.....
Click to expand...

No, you won't. Your own philosophy and lifestyle will ensure that you die out. Call it "social natural selection." No libertine society has lasted very long in history.
 
^You're right. Theocracies like Iran, Talibanistan, and Dominican Florence do a lot better :rolleyes:


You're entire ideology and wordlview depends on people looking to an invisible, omnipotent imaginary friend for "answers," and refusing to think for themselves. I can't see a lot of human and technological progress happening under that system
 
Theocrat is right, I am afraid. Us libertines will die out soon.

Why? Gays can't have babies, duh. Why are we so inherently flawed? I'm not even gay and I'm pretty sure I got castrated the minute I thought gays had any liberties...
 
Depressed Liberator said:
Theocrat is right, I am afraid. Us libertines will die out soon.

Why? Gays can't have babies, duh. Why are we so inherently flawed? I'm not even gay and I'm pretty sure I got castrated the minute I thought gays had any liberties...
Click to expand...

There are gay people on this board who have children :p

The educated/intelligent, though, tend to have fewer kids overall in the world.

All that said, kids get rebellious. What if they decided they wanted to be Statists just to make you mad?

:eek:
 
MelissaWV said:
If we wanted to boil it down? It's all moot. Ideally, money wouldn't be stolen by which this military is funded and run. Ideally, the military would be much smaller and less involved (if at all) in foreign messes like the ones we're in. Ideally, at that point, the military would be entirely the domain of those in it, and those who fund it via bonds or whatever other means is in place, and potentially those affected by it (for example if a base was going to be built in a certain town, the townspeople would have a stake in the matter regardless of their standing). That'd be awesome, imo.

However, since we do have to fund this monster, the nature of the policy is what's silly. You know, if they actually banned homosexuals from the military that might at least be more honest. The current policy is akin to "We know there are gays here, we just want them to be really quiet about it and pretend to be straight." The military is perfectly willing to accept all kinds of really awful people, and on top of that the heterosexual members can talk about some ungodly subject matter, but having a gay person is going to destroy unit cohesion ;) It's ridiculous.

If we want to make it even more basic than that, removing the policy simply allows market forces within the military to decide whether all these worries and misconceptions about the outcome are true. Maybe every person who "comes out" will be hazed, and while those who initiate the violence should be punished, it would probably keep a lot of gays from joining the military or from "coming out" at all. Maybe there wouldn't be that much of a backlash at all. Maybe it'd be something in between.

Even more basic than that, it's a hell of a waste. All of that training, all of that bonding that goes on in a unit, and maybe everyone even already suspected that the guy was gay and was fine with it... but he's "outed" and discharged. It seems to me it'd be up to the people involved to worry about it.

Then again, if it stays in place, at least there's an easy way to dodge the draft.

Thank you, by the way, for not making it some kind of moral issue ;)
Click to expand...

Imaginos said:
My point is, if one meets all the job qualifications, then he or she should get the job.
What the person is doing in his or her bedroom is that person's individual choice and I don't think the government has right to dictate/regulate it.
Sure, military life is different than civil life but if the person can deliver what he's supposed to deliver, then why should we bother what he's doing in his free time?
Click to expand...

Leaving aside whether I agree or disagree, I follow what you're both saying. I just don't think it really has anything to do with freedom or being a libertarian. And I note that nothing in either of the answers I quoted actually implies that it does have to do with that. It seems like when people say that Ron Paul's support for ending DADT is an example of his being consistent in his defense of freedom, they're trucking in some unspoken assumptions that lead them to the conclusion that defending freedom entails gays in the military, and regardless of the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality I doubt that it really does.

Things being what they are in the world, there are lots of political issues where the debate isn't over a libertarian position versus a tyrannical one, but where a tyrannical position is taken as a given and the debate is over some detail that in and of itself has nothing to do with freedom. There may be some other ethical principle besides the non-aggression principle or self-ownership, or whatever concept people see as their basis for libertarianism, that people consider important that determines their position on this policy. But if so, it should be treated as that and not a pro-freedom versus anti-freedom thing.

Honestly, personally, I care more about whether this will cost RP votes in the 2012 Republican primary than I do about the policy itself.
 
Last edited:
Being Frutiful and Multiplying--Dominion

MelissaWV said:
There are gay people on this board who have children :p

The educated/intelligent, though, tend to have fewer kids overall in the world.

All that said, kids get rebellious. What if they decided they wanted to be Statists just to make you mad?

:eek:
Click to expand...

The "educated/intelligent" have fewer kids? That's stupid. What could be better than having a generation of kids that influence the world for ages? It seems that the "educated/intelligent" will die off in their own lifetime. Meanwhile, my descendants will rule the world, in Christ. ;)
 
Theocrat said:
The "educated/intelligent" have fewer kids? That's stupid. What could be better than having a generation of kids that influence the world for ages? It seems that the "educated/intelligent" will die off in their own lifetime. Meanwhile, my descendants will rule the world, in Christ. ;)
Click to expand...

That is, until Jesus comes back with a guitar and rocks all the gays to hell, while his solo ascends everyone else to heaven.
 
The "Don't ask and don't tell" policy was put into effect to allow homosexuals to serve in the military without the military having exposure to any liabilities. If it is against the military rules for homos to join, and if a homo joined and got beat up, he or she could not come back on the military for supporting anti-homosexual sentiments. The homo violated the military rules by joining, thus the military can't be held accountable. Even though enlisted people can't sue the military, the military doesn't want to appear to hate homosexuals. Besides, homos can kill and die for their country just as easily as straights.

Now we are in the year 2010. The only people that are homophobes are religious nut-jobs, and people in the military are cool with gays serving alongside them. There are no attacks on homos in the military; those days are behind us.

So, why the repeal?

We are going to have a draft, so a person cannot be exempt from the draft for claiming to be gay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Swordsmyth
Trump’s EEOC Chief Threatens Civil Rights Lawsuits Amid H-1B Hiring
Replies
1
Views
88
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
Brian4Liberty
White Dudes for Harris
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Swordsmyth
Trump's Latest Executive Order Punishes Schools Mandating the COVID Shot
Replies
2
Views
147
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Anti Federalist
"We have many children and we will impose Sharia. We don't want homosexuals in Islam!”
2 3
Replies
41
Views
3K
oyarde
O
Brian4Liberty
One, Big Beautiful Bill (The Mega-Bill)
32 33 34
Replies
663
Views
6K
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
Back
Top