since it has nothing to do with anyone on here, they say they are all for it... but you are right, soon as something effects them, the tables will turn, i'm sure...

What does this have to do with a man marrying several women?

equal protection under the law.

if a man can marry one woman and a man can marry another man it is a discriminatory practice to not allow a man to marry more than one woman if that man and the women feel it is their human rights to do so.

we can't deprive consenting adults their right to marry, can we?

A man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman is still two consenting adults marrying each other. Just as we have now. So, I'm not sure how I see what it has to do with a man marrying several women.

looks like you were right, invictus...lol

Folks who haven't been in the military can't appreciate what trust and teamwork is about.

i agree...to them, it just a big dating game that has nothing to do with the military... it really just makes me sick

http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=18210&posts=6


THE REAL PENTAGON POLL: 91% REJECT HOMOSEXUAL LEADERS. 85% OF COMBAT MARINES DISTRUST, 71% WON’T SHARE SHOWERS, 24% WON’T RE-ENLIST.


HALF MILLION TROOPS, ONE IN FOUR, WOULD LEAVE THE MILITARY



Former Navy Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt just read the full Pentagon report on repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and here's his analysis:

"Don't believe the phony liberal media reports that 70% of troops support open homosexual service, because that statistic included 'mixed' feelings. A closer reading of the fine print in the newly released Pentagon survey shows our troops answered as follows:

Q45. If you had a leader whom you believed was gay or lesbian…9% positive, 91% negative or mixed impact on unit's performance.

Q68c. 85% of Marine Combat Arms, 75% of Army Combat Arms, 64% overall say Negative, Very Negative, or Mixed impact on unit trust if DADT is repealed.

Q90. 29% would take no action if assigned open showers with homosexuals. 71% would shower at other times, complain to leadership or chaplains, don't know or do "something else" [including violence].

Q81. 24% will leave the military or think about leaving sooner than planned. (One half million troops will QUIT the service early, destroying our national security.)

Q80. 6% will positively recommend service to others after repeal. 94% feel negative, mixed, no effect, or don't know about recommending military service to others. (Destroying recruiting efforts.)

Q66. If open homosexuality impacts combat performance, is the impact...9% positive, 91% negative or mixed impact.

Q71. 11% feel positive or very positive about permitting open homosexuality in field environment or out at sea. 60% negative or mixed. 19% no effect.

Q73. 5% say repeal would positively boost morale. 41% say negative or mixed impact morale. Rest no effect or don't know.

In summary, the real statistics prove our nation faces a NATIONAL SECURITY DISASTER if Don't Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, and open homosexual aggression is forced upon our troops against their will.”

So, you guys think that everyone in the military thinks the same way you do? That they're scared of gay men hitting on them? Why do you guys think the military wants DADT overturned?

hmmm.. read thomas's post, then get back to me

I'm asking you and the others for your opinions. Anyone can post an article or poll.

i think i have made my opinion plain as day in here... just in case you missed it, i'm 100% against it...

You are correct. However, it is illegal for 1 consenting adult male to marry more than one consenting adult female. If we are going to cite equal protection as the reason for allowing a man to marry another man or woman to marry a women then we have to also allow someone to marry more than one woman.

You cannot discriminate against consenting adults. Since we are not allowed to cite moral issues concerning the rights of homosexuals we cannot concoct some sort discriminatory reasoning to deny the right of polygamists to openly show their love for their multiple wives.

I don't understand why this concept is so difficult to grasp.

You are comparing two different things. However, if you're arguing against discriminating against consenting adults, then you're saying that anyone should be able to marry anyone else, as long as they're consenting adults? Not just a man and woman?

Yes, I get that. I'm sure everyone else does, too. But, as you can see, you didn't answer my questions.

but I think thats the point, I may be comfortable living with someone and my neighbor may not, but because I will have to live with them its what I feel that matters



I think the issue should be completely one for those who have to live the military life to decide for themself

Fear is not in the equation.

I've said this before but no one responded to it. Concerning "gays" in the military, how's it going to work in any number of cases where the situation calls for a combat leader to make a decision to put his men in harm's way if he happens to be emotionally involved with either of them? It's a given that he (or she?) would be predisposed to not allow the object of his affections to become overtly endangered. Is this fair or right?

Another situation might be one where soldiers are captured and threatened with torture. I know for me at least, if my significant other was about to be tortured if I didn't spill the beans, I'd be very upset to say the least and might well do or say anything to prevent it (sorry to all the rest of you out there who'll suffer and die for my lover's sake).

I see it as a practical decision to not want couples serving together, heterosexual or not.

I think the point of contention is preventative measures vs disciplinary measures. Military have a contract to serve the government regardless of their relationships. These men do come to care greatly about each other as do the women because of the nature of the job and how much time they spend together but they still manage to do their job as is required. There are already homosexuals in the military so the issue isnt so much their preferences but the effect of OPENNESS under such circumstances. There is a difference between knowing and not knowing. If I am in the shower with someone attracted to females, regardless of their sex, its going to be an issue for me. If it is another female, my natural thought wont suspect such a thing and ignorance will indeed be bliss. But its not I whose privacy and personal bits are on the line, so I think those who are on the line should decide.


I think isolated trials make sense to see the reality of how it will work, and perhaps if our men and women are so overwhelmingly professional as to not have it matter , we can move on to a trial of coed bunking as well. Because, if the argument is that their duty will come first with no concern to their potential 'attractions',the same should hold true for heterosexuals.