Army discharges gay soldiers

[PeppyGPhiB]

I think it's time for this policy to be overturned. The Army is admitting convicted criminals and high school dropouts, for crying out loud. Yet they won't even enroll a gay college graduate fluent in Arabic. It's a joke that's hurting our military.

Jon Stewart had a guy on his show the other night talking about his book about this very subject: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...athaniel-Frank

[Thetagirl218]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

I think it's time for this policy to be overturned. The Army is admitting convicted criminals and high school dropouts, for crying out loud. Yet they won't even enroll a gay college graduate fluent in Arabic. It's a joke that's hurting our military.

This is a very good point. Even though I personally don't agree with homosexuality, I am wary when the government says you can't do something because of your sexual preference. That is your own, private business.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Skeletor Madonna is a minor technicality. Let us remember the good times.

Be happy that we approve of your decision. You'd be fired if we did not.

True - luckily "Like a Virgin" Madonna has been universally-accepted. Who knows what would have happened if I'd had the same reaction to Cindi Lauper.

Originally Posted by Thetagirl218

This is a very good point. Even though I personally don't agree with homosexuality, I am wary when the government says you can't do something because of your sexual preference. That is your own, private business.

That's where I am on this; I think there are certain issues where the government should just back off, short of some serious compelling interest. That's the Libertarian in me breaking out, though.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

That's where I am on this; I think there are certain issues where the government should just back off, short of some serious compelling interest. That's the Libertarian in me breaking out, though.

I think protecting against deviant behavior should be a serious compelling interest. Although my professor swears that "all the good stuff is deviant."

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I think protecting against deviant behavior should be a serious compelling interest. Although my professor swears that "all the good stuff is deviant."

Plus that gets into the definition of "deviant" behavior, and how you're evaluating it. I get very uncomfortable, in most cases, where the baseline is religious doctrine (in terms of the government stepping into issues). So, if you're classifying homosexuality as deviant behavior based on its deviation from the accepted norms of Christianity, I'd rather the government stay out of those issues.

[DrPhil]

rant/

I have the "what is deviance" discussion with people everyday and a lot of people think you are making a personal value judgment when you say something is a form of deviance. Deepimpact2 is making a personal value judgment because of how she feels about homosexuality. However considerations of deviant behavior are widely accepted in some fields, even among those like myself who don't feel negatively of every deviant behavior and the people who engage in them.

Deviant behavior is anything that goes against normative behavior and it does not have to be based on religion. I prefer it not be. There's generally a consensus regarding what this society's norms are, whether based on the ruling of the majority in numbers or the majority in power.

Based on this perspective, homosexuality, crime, alcoholism, suicidal ideation and behaviors, mental disorders, and drug use are among the conditions and behaviors that are considered deviance regardless of how prevalent they are. Prevalence is difficult to prove for many forms of deviance where there are inconsistent rates, underreporting, etc.

When what this society considers to be the norms change, or the powers that be no longer feel threatened by a condition and its prevalence, so will what people consider to be deviance. If you read scholarly articles published decades ago for a few fields of study, divorce is considered abnormal and deviant. While this is still the case in terms of its impact on society, it is less the case as the divorce rates are so high and people have accepted different family structures.

/rant

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

rant/

I have the "what is deviance" discussion with people everyday and a lot of people think you are making a personal value judgment when you say something is a form of deviance. Deepimpact2 is making a personal value judgment because of how she feels about homosexuality. However considerations of deviant behavior are widely accepted in some fields, even among those like myself who don't feel negatively of every deviant behavior and the people who engage in them.

Deviant behavior is anything that goes against normative behavior and it does not have to be based on religion. I prefer it not be. There's generally a consensus regarding what this society's norms are, whether based on the ruling of the majority in numbers or the majority in power.

Based on this perspective, homosexuality, crime, alcoholism, suicidal ideation and behaviors, mental disorders, and drug use are among the conditions and behaviors that are considered deviance regardless of how prevalent they are. Prevalence is difficult to prove for many forms of deviance where there are inconsistent rates, underreporting, etc.

When what this society considers to be the norms change, or the powers that be no longer feel threatened by a condition and its prevalence, so will what people consider to be deviance. If you read scholarly articles published decades ago for a few fields of study, divorce is considered abnormal and deviant. While this is still the case in terms of its impact on society, it is less the case as the divorce rates are so high and people have accepted different family structures.

/rant

I'm more comfortable basing my ideas on "deviance" on the laws as they exist today. Granted, that mentality has its own pitfalls, in that many of the laws are based on notions of morality, and that previous laws have been found to be inconsistent with the realities of society.

But, as noted above, I feel uncomfortable having religion (as opposed to law) being the baseline from which to judge deviation.

ETA: Your post didn't appear to be a rant; it seemed like a scholarly take on the discussion.