As I stated before, this whole issue will boil down to worldviews. Sure, I may not have all the particulars down for what should be "acceptable heterosexual behavior" in the military (though I would argue from moral principles), but we're not discussing heterosexual behavior. We're talking about homosexual behavior, and that is what I was criticizing.
I'd like to know how you "cornered me with logic," because all I see in your post are appeals to emotions. And it's not like I don't realize you would disagree with me on my views about homosexual behavior. I don't expect someone with an anti-Biblical view of the world to accept them.
However, given your worldview, my complaints and constraints for homosexual behavior are perfectly okay, because they are the set of morals that I bind myself to. So, logically, you shouldn't have anything else to say against my views. But you do. And it shows that you, as much as you try to be on the forums, are not neutral when it comes to homosexual (or any other moral) behavior.
If we're debating theory, we can debate all day... but we wouldn't, because you're perfectly entitled to spit your "loving venom" in my direction all day and all night. You're entitled to not have me in your home. You're entitled to call me names or whatever else you'd like.
However, we're discussing policy. I would like to punish actions taken on the job which actually impact the job. You and others would like to punish actions taken while not on the job that only MIGHT impact the job. There is a difference here. If you are in fact NOT advocating legislation, and are only speaking in theoreticals and moral opinion on the overall subject, then we are automatically at a draw every time. We are not going to change one another.
I did not say I cornered you with logic. I say that your own logic is your undoing. You assert that morality is the standard that should decide who is and is not allowed to serve in the military, but only punish heterosexual immorality with peer pressure and words, and homosexual immorality with discharge from service. This is an unequal standard.
As to the notion of comparing homosexuals to rapists and the like, if someone is convicted of an action that renders them ineligible for the military that is its own issue. Homosexuality, however, is legal in much of the country, is it not? It would be more along the lines of allowing heavy drinkers into the military. If homosexuality is a question of behavioral choices, this is an appropriate parallel. Drinking is, in and of itself, legal. Drinking while on duty is likely to be a problem, and could jeopardize the unit. Drinking heavily while on duty is unacceptable, and absolutely will jeopardize the unit. The way to deal with this is not to discharge all persons who have ever had a drink, but instead to discharge those who decide to indulge while on duty and jeopardize their fellow soldiers.
...neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality
This becomes a bit of a prickly issue. Once more, you have not put forth any objection to idolaters, the impure or immoral, or adulterers serving in the military, so long as they are heterosexual. In addition, we know from Biblical study that thinking of these things... fantasizing about them... is tantamount to doing them. How does one regulate such a thing? One doesn't. One regulates behavior and action WITHIN the military and removes those who disrupt the unit, just as one would remove an unruly child from the classroom so that others can continue their studies.
Logic would follow that everyone in the military should be beholden to the same rules, including those governing sexual conduct. This means that even if you're married (as someone earlier pointed out) to someone who's on base with you, there are restrictions as to what you can do. This means that harassment against women and men both is disruptive, regardless of the orientation of the instigator and the offended, and that rape should never be tolerated.
This should also mean that talking about your life back home should be done respectfully and not out of fear that if you mention your religion, sexual orientation, the race of family members, or any such thing, you'll be dismissed and all your training up until then will be for nothing. That is, of course, always a matter of opinion, but it is one I hold to consistently. Punish the action, not what you think might lead to a potential action. Again, a lot of this thread reveals that the desire to discharge homosexuals from the military is based mostly upon what people perceive homosexuals as being unable to stop themselves from doing, and how other soldiers will perceive them. Those both rely on blanket generalizations. At least your objections, Theocrat, are rooted in something more solid... but the logic is still inconsistently applied.
should the US Military allow dudes who get off on sodomizing cats and dogs into the military as well? ... Should the military allow rapists to serve? How about serial killers? What about kidnappers? Equality for all, right?
It is, actually, funny you two have mentioned this.
New data has been released by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee showing the U.S. Armed Forces loosened recruiting guidelines to allow entry to applicants with serious criminal histories, including sexual offenders, kidnappers and arsonists.
The new data, which focused on the Army and Marine Corps, comes to light as the anti-gay, Clinton-era “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy continues to be enforced, denying military entry and service to otherwise qualified LGB Americans.
Between 2006 and 2007, the number of “morals waivers” issued to recruits convicted of manslaughter, rape, kidnapping and making terrorist threats nearly doubled. The request for the information was made from the Oversight and Reform Committee’s chairman, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA).
...
While the military was allowing serious criminal offenders into the nation’s peacekeeping and defense ranks, the Pentagon also discharged nearly 700 service members found to be in violation of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
In contrast, the military issued 511 felony “morals waivers” in 2007, including three soldiers convicted of manslaughter, one soldier convicted of kidnapping or abduction, seven soldiers convicted of rape, sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, incest or other sex crimes, three soldiers convicted of indecent acts or liberties with a child, and three soldiers convicted of terrorist threats including bomb threats
All of those people are qualified, and moral enough, but if you kissed someone of the same gender once upon a time... and you tell that story while you're in the military... oof. You're in trouble. The military's one twisted place when it comes to rules. I'd like them applied equally. Frankly, most criminals who aren't in prison and can pass the examinations to get into the military don't bother me if they get in. If what they did was so bad, they'd still be in prison or awaiting execution, one can hope. The brevity of punishment for severe crimes is a topic for another day. If, however, they commit those acts while in the military then they should be punished *and* they should absolutely not receive any further military consideration or benefits.
Anyhow, again, if you're not advocating legislation but are just waxing poetic on the subject, I apologize for the mischaracterization. I have more work to do, though, so I probably won't be responding to these threads for awhile
Have at it!
