Army discharges gay soldiers

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

The bold part is still probably debatable although I tend to agree with you.

I think that there was a time when the policy made sense from a pragmatic point of view in terms of the homophobia of perhaps the majority of young men the military wanted to recruit. (I'm deliberately avoiding getting into the right of someone to serve and not be discriminated against, and what the military should be doing in terms of the minority group.)

But I think we're moving into a generation that has a lot fewer people who haven't already known and worked with homosexual people before they enlist. I think there will still have to be policies about soldiers dating each other, like those we have for heterosexuals already. But I don't think that homosexuals serving presents the same difficulties that it might once have. Basically, the armed services could get rid of the policy because they don't need the policy, and I kind of expect them to, rather than that they will be compelled to because of a lawsuit.

I was being sarcastic; I'm in the subset of people who think that sexual orientation is something you're born with, not something that's learned. I understand, though, that there are people who disagree with me.

I'm fairly liberal on social issues (i.e. gay marriage, gays in the military, etc.), but I don't see a whole lot of difficulties. There are women in the military now, so the dating issue is apparently not as big a deal.

But, I'm not bothered at all by people's sexual orientations, so that colors my opinion on the issue.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I was being sarcastic; I'm in the subset of people who think that sexual orientation is something you're born with, not something that's learned. I understand, though, that there are people who disagree with me.

I'm fairly liberal on social issues (i.e. gay marriage, gays in the military, etc.), but I don't see a whole lot of difficulties. There are women in the military now, so the dating issue is apparently not as big a deal.

But, I'm not bothered at all by people's sexual orientations, so that colors my opinion on the issue.

If you believe that, then you weren't being sarcastic.

I'm one of those people who believes that being gay is a choice. I also believe it is a sin. I know there are people who are born with both sexual organs, and they are often confused as to what sex they should be when making the decision to remove one organ. However, THAT is something that is medically proven. Scientists have yet to adequately prove that people are born gay.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

If you believe that, then you weren't being sarcastic.

I'm one of those people who believes that being gay is a choice. I also believe it is a sin. I know there are people who are born with both sexual organs, and they are often confused as to what sex they should be when making the decision to remove one organ. However, THAT is something that is medically proven. Scientists have yet to adequately prove that people are born gay.

The sarcasm was present in my mock indignation. I thought that was obvious, but apparently not.

On the topic of scientific proof, there are some people for whom there will never be enough scientific proof, because of their fervent religious beliefs. I would venture to guess that you are one of those people.

On the issue of the army policy itself; there's still a chance that it will be examined by SCOTUS, but my assumption is that at least one other circuit will have to follow the 9th Circuit in its heightened scrutiny approach.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

The sarcasm was present in my mock indignation. I thought that was obvious, but apparently not.

On the topic of scientific proof, there are some people for whom there will never be enough scientific proof, because of their fervent religious beliefs. I would venture to guess that you are one of those people.

On the issue of the army policy itself; there's still a chance that it will be examined by SCOTUS, but my assumption is that at least one other circuit will have to follow the 9th Circuit in its heightened scrutiny approach.

I'm trying to remember...are you the one that is in law school?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I'm trying to remember...are you the one that is in law school?

See, I get that this is sarcasm!

[deepimpact2]

[QUOTE=KSigkid;1790371]See, I get that this is sarcasm![/QUOTE
No it really was not sarcasm. I really don't remember.

[KSigkid]

[QUOTE=deepimpact2;1790380]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

See, I get that this is sarcasm![/QUOTE
No it really was not sarcasm. I really don't remember.

In that case, yes, I'm a law student. Almost done, thankfully.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I was being sarcastic; I'm in the subset of people who think that sexual orientation is something you're born with, not something that's learned. I understand, though, that there are people who disagree with me.

I'm fairly liberal on social issues (i.e. gay marriage, gays in the military, etc.), but I don't see a whole lot of difficulties. There are women in the military now, so the dating issue is apparently not as big a deal.

But, I'm not bothered at all by people's sexual orientations, so that colors my opinion on the issue.

Yeah, I think your opinions are pretty much the norm with the majority of people who will be recruited to be on active duty today, which is why I think the policy issue will resolve itself pretty soon.

Women still can't serve in combat roles, as far as I know, so it that may be an imperfect analogy, but I think the policies that apply for relationships could certainly address same sex relationship as well.

There may certainly still be a strong bias in the high ranks against openly homosexual soldiers serving, but as the next generation moves up. . .

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Women still can't serve in combat roles, as far as I know
.

And I really hope that women aren't trying to have this changed.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Women still can't serve in combat roles, as far as I know, so it that may be an imperfect analogy, but I think the policies that apply for relationships could certainly address same sex relationship as well.

I believe the "official" rationale behind keeping women out of combat zones is more closely related to the physical differences between men and women, and not any sexual or relationship rationale.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I believe the "official" rationale behind keeping women out of combat zones is more closely related to the physical differences between men and women, and not any sexual or relationship rationale.

Probably. I don't know. My point is only that we haven't hit 100% in dealing with sex and gender for heterosexuals without throwing orientation into the mix. ETA: I wouldn't point to allowing women to serve as evidence that orientation is less of an issue.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Probably. I don't know. My point is only that we haven't hit 100% in dealing with sex and gender for heterosexuals without throwing orientation into the mix. ETA: I wouldn't point to allowing women to serve as evidence that orientation is less of an issue.

Yeah, I was agreeing with you - orientation is completely a separate issue from gender, because there are actual legitimate physical limitations that just make the comparison fail.