Homosexuals Have The Right To Die Just Not Marry

Military Brat, hmmm? So you personally was never in the military? The ONLY mission of the military is national defense. That requires unit cohesion... something not possible if the normal folks have to worry about problems from the perverts. The military is not a lab for social experimentation. Another thing to consider is that a poll last year showed that the vast majority of soldiers would leave the military if such a thing were done. That would leave us very undermanned and would probably require the re-imposition of the draft... which would lead to even more problems. Here is an interview that I got this morning on this very subject.... http://live.radioamerica.org/loudwater/player.pl?upload=1607&name=wnd

Nope I never served. But ask any spouse or kid of a solider and they will tell you they served right along with them. No I never had to worry about being shot at. No I never had to dig a fox hole. But I did make a lot sacrifices for my country and family due to my father's career choice. Heck my dad was gone so much to the field or on TDY so much when I was a kid that I hardly knew him til I was teenager and he retired. My mom was practically a single mom. We moved every two to three years. I counted it up once and in one three year span my dad was only home for a total of 6 months. that is not straight either. A few days here...a few days there. Back then alot of trips were "hardship tours" which meant the families did not get to go. I did not see him once for over a year straight. That was back when the Army felt that if they wanted you to have a family they would have issued you one.LOL. I hear it has gotten better about it now a days. I hope they have. It is hard on the family too you know. As for what you were saying about gays in the military. Well I don't think it will be easy. They will have to have separate living arragements barracks...showers..etc. It will mean a change in how things are handled. But people said the same thing when the military integrated. They said whites would revolt because blacks were allowed to join. Well the revolt did not happen. Sure a few may have quite because of it but not many. It worked with integration....why not now. My dad also says it will be really hard to do especially in combat units. But he said support units it will be easier. He does not agree with it...but he says it will happen no matter what...so the troops might as well get used to it.

I grew up a military brat....so I do realize it may not be easy...but I think it can be done. Just because someone is gay does not mean they don't love their country. It does not mean they do not want to defend their country. Also why should they be sooo special...what is it ok for straight people to die for their country....but too good for the gays? It is their country too.

Yeah I am trying to recreate my argument, but I am have a hard time doing so. The military is a federal entity, but marriage is a state entity, so that does not work.

I know what you mean. I believe they should have the same rights as everyone else. But we have to respect the process. Which means we may not like it that some states have banned it or changed the state constitution against it....but it is a state issue and the people of that state get to decide it. Let me know if you find a agruement against it. I would be intersted in hearing it.

I would take it a set farther, do away with the draft. If you cannot convince people to voluntary to go to war then maybe you should not go to war in the first place. Nothing like trying to fight a war with a bunch of people who do not want to be there in the first place. As to drinking age, their adults at the age of 18, they can smoke, they can vote, as you pointed out they can go to war, they can marry, sign contracts, they should be able to drink. If an 18 year old gets station over seas, on one of those bases that should not be there in the first place, they can drink off base. What is the difference?

Why is marriage not meant for homosexuals? Should you not be able to marry who you love?

The definition of marriage would need to be changed from what it currently means (ie. a bond between opposite sexes) it's that simple - you can't just marry anyone you want to as suggested if the union cannot be classed as a marriage. As the definition of the word stands, a man cannot 'marry' another man any more than he can 'marry' a teapot... the problem is that if you redefine marriage, then you redefine a state to which millions of couples are already subscribed to... The only analogy I can think of (apart from marrying a teapot!) is maybe redefining 'doctor' to include nurses... Nurses might be happy about, it but existing Doctors would feel that their 'status' if you like, had been changed to encompass a body of people that it was never intended to cover. I don't know if this is getting through, but the point is there is no point saying 'I want to marry anyone I like' if the resulting union falls outside the definition of the word marriage...

A pension is something ones puts money into, saves up for. A child cannot have it, because the child has put no money into it. Homosexuals put the same love, energy, and effort into their relationships that heterosexuals do, they should be able to get the same pay out.