Reply With Quote
This is a logical fallacy. Preemptive implies an action taken before the fact.
If it would be in reaction to or after the fact, then it wouldn't be preemptive anymore.
what is that ammendment based on? Is law divorced of ethics and morality?
This is a logical fallacy. Preemptive implies an action taken before the fact.
If it would be in reaction to or after the fact, then it wouldn't be preemptive anymore.
The basis for law is whatever Congress determined that needed to be legislated at any given time, that doesn't go against the rights provided in the Cons ution.
Can be based on a plethora of things: morality, ethics, utilitarian aspects, economy, etc.
No, never made that claim. But law does preempts whatever moral value you have over the same topic. If congress deems torture a crime, it doesn't really matter if you think it's morally right. It's still illegal.
Law's are not always moral. You have bad laws. You have dictatorships. Laws are only moral if they are based on a solid foundation of natural rights, otherwise they're tyranical. You can always revolt, or accept the fact that you are forced at gunpoint to comply.
That doesn't take away from the fact whether laws are objectively moral or not.
I have a practical question about the lifting of DADT.
If women and men aren't allowed to bunk and shower together, for obvious reasons; how does the military plan to separate those physically and sexually attracted to the same sex?
I'm attracted to women and, I understand why they wouldn't want me showering with them. Even if I minded my manners, averted my eyes, and played nice; would the woman be any more uncomfortable?
I don't see the difference with men and women being forced to shower with those who are physically attracted to the same sex.
That's a good question tho. That still doesn't mean that gays shouldn't be allowed to serve.
But tell me what you think should happen.
Your morals don't preempt the law though. The reason we have rules (laws) isn't to legislate morality, it's so everybody have a clear set of rules to live by.
If you didn't have that set of rules, then anything goes. We just wouldn't be a society if anybody did what they thought morally right.
Obviously, I disagree that there's an universal set of moral rules.
You're free to end your military career if it bothers you. Doesn't sound like anybody is forcing you to be there.
I think Clinton's DADT was the best of all worlds. It allowed gays to serve their country and, they were pretty much forced to behave or be disciplined.
DADT had the same effect as separating the sexes in the showers and bunk. Face it; while the vast majority of all soldiers, straight and gay, will not be affected by this change, I think their will be enough gays that misbehave -- with each other and towards straight soldiers, and enough straights that will unnecessarily target gays for scorn and ridicule (or worse) that it will distract from the mission.
In my opinion, that's a bad thing.
I'm not sure what being openly heterosexual or sexual has to do with fighting a war. Should have left it alone.
You're correct and, there'll be some of that.
Again, only time will tell how that affects the mission of the military.
lmao idiot
Except sexuals were showering and bunking with straight folk.
What has changed?
Your phobia now could have a clear target, I guess.
Also, I don't get why male phobes think every gay man is attracted to them. Is that something you think about a lot?
lol misbehave
What do you mean by "forced to behave"? All military members are forced to behave.
The leadership signed off on it; do you think you know better than them?
Do you think sexuals who fear reprisal will out themselves?
Why shouldn't they be openly hetero or sexual? Given the above idea, we should've also banned people from making overtly heterosexual statements or self-identifying as hetero. Does that make sense?
Gtown, what if I thought you were going to kill me? What if I had what I considered to be good intel? Would it be then alright for me to murder you instead?
Yes. There used to be an old adage, and I'm paraphrasing here, "If the military wanted you to have a partner, they would have issued you one." The military has a very specific mission, relationships and all they carry with them, are distractions.
So serviemen and women should all be sterile orphans.
Are they ing on the job, Yoni?
I don't know about when you served, or what branch, but the AF seems to recognize that those who have partners have a different viewpoint than single people, and are sometimes able to find a better answer to a problem because of it.
I certainly wouldn't consider my wife a "distraction" from the mission. If anything, I do better at my job because of her support at home.
Except when they're da ghey!
/yoni
You're turning into ChumpDumper, congratulations. I have another personal troll.
Off topic a bit but, if you were in a situation where the objective could result in harm to your wife, that wouldn't be a distraction?
Of course. And if a single soldier was in a situation where the objective could result in harm to his mother/father, wouldn't that be a distraction?
I'm pretty sure that the military wouldn't work well if they only allowed single childless orphans.
Yoni, when and what branch did you serve in?
Who said I served in the military? And, besides, it's not germane to the discussion.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
