1 2 4 Next
Topic: Pentagon Study on DADT Released
Thomas3474's photo
Fri 12/03/10 12:04 AM

those numbers would no doubt change if the atmosphere were one where homosexuals felt FREE to be open and in the military,,,


There are over 1,420,000 Active military personnel AND just under 465,000 Guard AND just under 380,000 Selected Reserve. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/end-strength.htm)

That’s a total of about 2,264,900 military personnel. At a full 3% the homosexual count of military personnel is about 67,947.

The U.S. population is about 308,400,000
(http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/12/30/us-population-2010-308-million-and-growing)

That would make the entire homosexual population about 9,252,000

Currently the entire heterosexual military represents about .007% of the entire ‘heterosexual’ population.

Likewise the current homosexual military represents about .007% of the entire ‘homosexual’ population.

I think that’s remarkable - despite DADT both the heterosexual and homosexual military personnel are nearly equivalent representations of their perspective populations.

Of course I used what’s considered the highest end of homosexual population percentages. It may be possible that the military would see an increase of homosexuals but we are talking –possibly hundreds, not more than that.

Considering the similar representative split it would not make sense to think that the non-military homosexual population would be any more interested, capable or otherwise acceptable in military service than the same representation of non-military heterosexuals.

seperate showers doesnt resolve anything either, it would be like allowing heterosexual females and males to shower together


I think you misunderstood the quote about 'seperate showers', the remark was made for purpose of 'refuting'it. In other words the military has absolutely no intention of making such changes.

Either military law and the code of honor will be adhered to or those who don't like it will find work elsewhere.

Appearently it is NOT LIKE heterosexual f & M showering together, becasue it hasn't caused any problem yet despited the fact that many homosexuals are known to others in their unit.

I believe you have posted a couple times that you think military persnnel should be consulted - well they were but now you don't like what they have to say. noway






Talk to any man who works out at a gym and ask him if he hasn't been hit on in the shower by a gay man and if that was a pleasant experience?Gay men are far more aggressive and outspoken then gay women.I have had more than my fair share of gay men look me up and down,start asking me questions,commentating on my body parts,asking me if I am single,blah,blah.They shower not facing the wall but facing you so you can get a good look.They come into the sauna and drop their towel and walk around naked.


I do not want to be hit on in the shower of some gym or elsewhere.I do not want any guys checking my body out,talking about my body,or asking me personal questions in the shower.I don't want to see some guy washing his d**k for 10 minutes because he thinks you like the show.


I have had this happed too many times to count regardless of where you go to work out and what state you are in.It is a unpleasant,unwelcome experience,that I do not wish to go through on a daily basis.



Redykeulous's photo
Fri 12/03/10 12:15 AM

who said the military was broken?


Well it began with the Clinton administration and the proposal to fix it was DADT. It isn't working so it must still be broken.

did we win most all wars with openly gays in the military? no, we did not... everything you post is about a survey this and a survey that... you know as well as i do that surveys do not mean squat, they are only as biased as the people giving them... i noticed you didn't quote from the survey thomas posted... is there a reason for that? because it says the opposite of everything you say...


There is only one report that was ordered and that is the report being considered by Senate. Any other survey is not official and has no bearing on the proceedings.

I might ask you - why do YOU think the Senate is only dealing with this one report based on that one survey, if there are others of equal merit that you think should be considered?

there is no proof every way about gays in the military...what about the housing issues? that is going to be free? look at all the money they have already spent on this, and you say it will be minimal...



Housing Issues? What are you talking about? Nothing is supposed to change except that no one has to lie about their life or their loved ones.

msharmony's photo
Fri 12/03/10 12:37 AM
Edited by msharmony on Fri 12/03/10 12:47 AM

those numbers would no doubt change if the atmosphere were one where homosexuals felt FREE to be open and in the military,,,


There are over 1,420,000 Active military personnel AND just under 465,000 Guard AND just under 380,000 Selected Reserve. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/end-strength.htm)

That’s a total of about 2,264,900 military personnel. At a full 3% the homosexual count of military personnel is about 67,947.

The U.S. population is about 308,400,000
(http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/12/30/us-population-2010-308-million-and-growing)

That would make the entire homosexual population about 9,252,000

Currently the entire heterosexual military represents about .007% of the entire ‘heterosexual’ population.

Likewise the current homosexual military represents about .007% of the entire ‘homosexual’ population.

I think that’s remarkable - despite DADT both the heterosexual and homosexual military personnel are nearly equivalent representations of their perspective populations.

Of course I used what’s considered the highest end of homosexual population percentages. It may be possible that the military would see an increase of homosexuals but we are talking –possibly hundreds, not more than that.

Considering the similar representative split it would not make sense to think that the non-military homosexual population would be any more interested, capable or otherwise acceptable in military service than the same representation of non-military heterosexuals.

seperate showers doesnt resolve anything either, it would be like allowing heterosexual females and males to shower together


I think you misunderstood the quote about 'seperate showers', the remark was made for purpose of 'refuting'it. In other words the military has absolutely no intention of making such changes.

Either military law and the code of honor will be adhered to or those who don't like it will find work elsewhere.

Appearently it is NOT LIKE heterosexual f & M showering together, becasue it hasn't caused any problem yet despited the fact that many homosexuals are known to others in their unit.

I believe you have posted a couple times that you think military persnnel should be consulted - well they were but now you don't like what they have to say. noway





I actually just question the way the responses were worded, and how accurately they reflect the issue of whether such a move would negatively affect MORALE once it is in action(as opposed to just an ideal)

I dont believe there is an accurate way to count how many are straight or gay or bi and so those numbers are not relevant to what concerns me. As I stated before, it is the issue of PRIVACY from being in a shower with someone who might potentially become aroused. If my professionalism is such that that isnt an issue, than the gender of that person should not be either and therefore I would see the door opening to allowing heterosexuals common bunks as well.


If I were to go out with a man and later find they were a woman, that would feel like a violation, becuase I dont choose to date women

It would not be a very convincing argument that I should go with it because I was already dating a woman(and just didnt know it)

after all, I could easily make the argument that , compared to other discharges, homosexual discharges represent only one percent, so why make it such a big deal?

I think the only other option is to not let homosexuals serve, which would be TRULY discriminatory

likewise, I , and many others , choose not to be showering and sharing beds with those with the potential to be aroused by such activity.

and I will repeat, that although I dont agree(or have to agree with it) it is the decision best left to those living in the military

Redykeulous's photo
Fri 12/03/10 06:43 AM


those numbers would no doubt change if the atmosphere were one where homosexuals felt FREE to be open and in the military,,,


There are over 1,420,000 Active military personnel AND just under 465,000 Guard AND just under 380,000 Selected Reserve. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/end-strength.htm)

That’s a total of about 2,264,900 military personnel. At a full 3% the homosexual count of military personnel is about 67,947.

The U.S. population is about 308,400,000
(http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/12/30/us-population-2010-308-million-and-growing)

That would make the entire homosexual population about 9,252,000

Currently the entire heterosexual military represents about .007% of the entire ‘heterosexual’ population.

Likewise the current homosexual military represents about .007% of the entire ‘homosexual’ population.

I think that’s remarkable - despite DADT both the heterosexual and homosexual military personnel are nearly equivalent representations of their perspective populations.

Of course I used what’s considered the highest end of homosexual population percentages. It may be possible that the military would see an increase of homosexuals but we are talking –possibly hundreds, not more than that.

Considering the similar representative split it would not make sense to think that the non-military homosexual population would be any more interested, capable or otherwise acceptable in military service than the same representation of non-military heterosexuals.

seperate showers doesnt resolve anything either, it would be like allowing heterosexual females and males to shower together


I think you misunderstood the quote about 'seperate showers', the remark was made for purpose of 'refuting'it. In other words the military has absolutely no intention of making such changes.

Either military law and the code of honor will be adhered to or those who don't like it will find work elsewhere.

Appearently it is NOT LIKE heterosexual f & M showering together, becasue it hasn't caused any problem yet despited the fact that many homosexuals are known to others in their unit.

I believe you have posted a couple times that you think military persnnel should be consulted - well they were but now you don't like what they have to say. noway





I actually just question the way the responses were worded, and how accurately they reflect the issue of whether such a move would negatively affect MORALE once it is in action(as opposed to just an ideal)

I dont believe there is an accurate way to count how many are straight or gay or bi and so those numbers are not relevant to what concerns me. As I stated before, it is the issue of PRIVACY from being in a shower with someone who might potentially become aroused. If my professionalism is such that that isnt an issue, than the gender of that person should not be either and therefore I would see the door opening to allowing heterosexuals common bunks as well.


If I were to go out with a man and later find they were a woman, that would feel like a violation, becuase I dont choose to date women

It would not be a very convincing argument that I should go with it because I was already dating a woman(and just didnt know it)

after all, I could easily make the argument that , compared to other discharges, homosexual discharges represent only one percent, so why make it such a big deal?

I think the only other option is to not let homosexuals serve, which would be TRULY discriminatory

likewise, I , and many others , choose not to be showering and sharing beds with those with the potential to be aroused by such activity.

and I will repeat, that although I dont agree(or have to agree with it) it is the decision best left to those living in the military


You and others like you have no problem telling homosexuals that they should just accept DADT and remain quiet. In effect you have already been denying homosexuals the right to serve. Unless everyone thinks they are heterosexual they cannot serve. How is that any differen than what you say WOULD be discriminatory???

It has also been said many times - homosexuas have the 'exactly' the same rights to marriage as a heterosexual couple and you make that claim knowing full well that the REAL choice to heterosexuals is not marriage itself - but the right to marry whom they love.

Yet you somehow feel vidicated when you take the stand you have of either scenareo.

Well if (when) DADT is repealed those people who tend to think as you do will HAVE to change their thinking if they want to serve. If they don't want to serve under those conditions than perhaps the call to serve was not very strong anyway.

But at least they WILL finally have equal choice because, remember, homosexuals have to live the heteros as well, never knowing what bias or prejudice exists under the surface and can end with a knife in the back...

Redykeulous's photo
Fri 12/03/10 06:44 AM



those numbers would no doubt change if the atmosphere were one where homosexuals felt FREE to be open and in the military,,,


There are over 1,420,000 Active military personnel AND just under 465,000 Guard AND just under 380,000 Selected Reserve. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/end-strength.htm)

That’s a total of about 2,264,900 military personnel. At a full 3% the homosexual count of military personnel is about 67,947.

The U.S. population is about 308,400,000
(http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/12/30/us-population-2010-308-million-and-growing)

That would make the entire homosexual population about 9,252,000

Currently the entire heterosexual military represents about .007% of the entire ‘heterosexual’ population.

Likewise the current homosexual military represents about .007% of the entire ‘homosexual’ population.

I think that’s remarkable - despite DADT both the heterosexual and homosexual military personnel are nearly equivalent representations of their perspective populations.

Of course I used what’s considered the highest end of homosexual population percentages. It may be possible that the military would see an increase of homosexuals but we are talking –possibly hundreds, not more than that.

Considering the similar representative split it would not make sense to think that the non-military homosexual population would be any more interested, capable or otherwise acceptable in military service than the same representation of non-military heterosexuals.

seperate showers doesnt resolve anything either, it would be like allowing heterosexual females and males to shower together


I think you misunderstood the quote about 'seperate showers', the remark was made for purpose of 'refuting'it. In other words the military has absolutely no intention of making such changes.

Either military law and the code of honor will be adhered to or those who don't like it will find work elsewhere.

Appearently it is NOT LIKE heterosexual f & M showering together, becasue it hasn't caused any problem yet despited the fact that many homosexuals are known to others in their unit.

I believe you have posted a couple times that you think military persnnel should be consulted - well they were but now you don't like what they have to say. noway





I actually just question the way the responses were worded, and how accurately they reflect the issue of whether such a move would negatively affect MORALE once it is in action(as opposed to just an ideal)

I dont believe there is an accurate way to count how many are straight or gay or bi and so those numbers are not relevant to what concerns me. As I stated before, it is the issue of PRIVACY from being in a shower with someone who might potentially become aroused. If my professionalism is such that that isnt an issue, than the gender of that person should not be either and therefore I would see the door opening to allowing heterosexuals common bunks as well.


If I were to go out with a man and later find they were a woman, that would feel like a violation, becuase I dont choose to date women

It would not be a very convincing argument that I should go with it because I was already dating a woman(and just didnt know it)

after all, I could easily make the argument that , compared to other discharges, homosexual discharges represent only one percent, so why make it such a big deal?

I think the only other option is to not let homosexuals serve, which would be TRULY discriminatory

likewise, I , and many others , choose not to be showering and sharing beds with those with the potential to be aroused by such activity.

and I will repeat, that although I dont agree(or have to agree with it) it is the decision best left to those living in the military


You and others like you have no problem telling homosexuals that they should just accept DADT and remain quiet. In effect you have already been denying homosexuals the right to serve. Unless everyone thinks they are heterosexual they cannot serve. How is that any differen than what you say WOULD be discriminatory???

It has also been said many times - homosexuas have the 'exactly' the same rights to marriage as a heterosexual couple and you make that claim knowing full well that the REAL choice to heterosexuals is not marriage itself - but the right to marry whom they love.

Yet you somehow feel vidicated when you take the stand you have of either scenareo.

Well if (when) DADT is repealed those people who tend to think as you do will HAVE to change their thinking if they want to serve. If they don't want to serve under those conditions than perhaps the call to serve was not very strong anyway.

But at least they WILL finally have equal choice because, remember, homosexuals have to live the heteros as well, never knowing what bias or prejudice exists under the surface and can end with a knife in the back...


msharmony's photo
Fri 12/03/10 01:14 PM



those numbers would no doubt change if the atmosphere were one where homosexuals felt FREE to be open and in the military,,,


There are over 1,420,000 Active military personnel AND just under 465,000 Guard AND just under 380,000 Selected Reserve. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/end-strength.htm)

That’s a total of about 2,264,900 military personnel. At a full 3% the homosexual count of military personnel is about 67,947.

The U.S. population is about 308,400,000
(http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/12/30/us-population-2010-308-million-and-growing)

That would make the entire homosexual population about 9,252,000

Currently the entire heterosexual military represents about .007% of the entire ‘heterosexual’ population.

Likewise the current homosexual military represents about .007% of the entire ‘homosexual’ population.

I think that’s remarkable - despite DADT both the heterosexual and homosexual military personnel are nearly equivalent representations of their perspective populations.

Of course I used what’s considered the highest end of homosexual population percentages. It may be possible that the military would see an increase of homosexuals but we are talking –possibly hundreds, not more than that.

Considering the similar representative split it would not make sense to think that the non-military homosexual population would be any more interested, capable or otherwise acceptable in military service than the same representation of non-military heterosexuals.

seperate showers doesnt resolve anything either, it would be like allowing heterosexual females and males to shower together


I think you misunderstood the quote about 'seperate showers', the remark was made for purpose of 'refuting'it. In other words the military has absolutely no intention of making such changes.

Either military law and the code of honor will be adhered to or those who don't like it will find work elsewhere.

Appearently it is NOT LIKE heterosexual f & M showering together, becasue it hasn't caused any problem yet despited the fact that many homosexuals are known to others in their unit.

I believe you have posted a couple times that you think military persnnel should be consulted - well they were but now you don't like what they have to say. noway





I actually just question the way the responses were worded, and how accurately they reflect the issue of whether such a move would negatively affect MORALE once it is in action(as opposed to just an ideal)

I dont believe there is an accurate way to count how many are straight or gay or bi and so those numbers are not relevant to what concerns me. As I stated before, it is the issue of PRIVACY from being in a shower with someone who might potentially become aroused. If my professionalism is such that that isnt an issue, than the gender of that person should not be either and therefore I would see the door opening to allowing heterosexuals common bunks as well.


If I were to go out with a man and later find they were a woman, that would feel like a violation, becuase I dont choose to date women

It would not be a very convincing argument that I should go with it because I was already dating a woman(and just didnt know it)

after all, I could easily make the argument that , compared to other discharges, homosexual discharges represent only one percent, so why make it such a big deal?

I think the only other option is to not let homosexuals serve, which would be TRULY discriminatory

likewise, I , and many others , choose not to be showering and sharing beds with those with the potential to be aroused by such activity.

and I will repeat, that although I dont agree(or have to agree with it) it is the decision best left to those living in the military


You and others like you have no problem telling homosexuals that they should just accept DADT and remain quiet. In effect you have already been denying homosexuals the right to serve. Unless everyone thinks they are heterosexual they cannot serve. How is that any differen than what you say WOULD be discriminatory???

It has also been said many times - homosexuas have the 'exactly' the same rights to marriage as a heterosexual couple and you make that claim knowing full well that the REAL choice to heterosexuals is not marriage itself - but the right to marry whom they love.

Yet you somehow feel vidicated when you take the stand you have of either scenareo.

Well if (when) DADT is repealed those people who tend to think as you do will HAVE to change their thinking if they want to serve. If they don't want to serve under those conditions than perhaps the call to serve was not very strong anyway.

But at least they WILL finally have equal choice because, remember, homosexuals have to live the heteros as well, never knowing what bias or prejudice exists under the surface and can end with a knife in the back...



I don t know that marriage is a 'right' so to speak. But in any case, being able to marry legally doesnt take into consideration anyones reason. People can marry for love, for money, for benefits,, thats not a part of what the state even gets involved in.

I also dont know when I or anyone else has denied a homosexual entry into the military.

As to the rest, thats why its best left up to those who have to live it. It is hard to hide a heterosexual preference and I dont see just reason to since that union is how we all get here(its hardly controversial or upsetting or uncomfortable, especially in a situation where males and females are living seperately.

It is different for a man to express hetero preference amongst other males, or a woman amongst other women , than it is for a homosexual to express it amongst a group of same sexed peers, especially if those peers are having to share living and showering quarters together.

If it were my decision, Id let it stand. IT seems if it were yours, you would repeal it. But it isnt , nor should it be up to either of us since we wont be the ones having to live it.

I think the military should procede with what the military finds will be best for the cohesion, morale, and tactical strength of its soldiers.

msharmony's photo
Fri 12/03/10 01:18 PM



those numbers would no doubt change if the atmosphere were one where homosexuals felt FREE to be open and in the military,,,


There are over 1,420,000 Active military personnel AND just under 465,000 Guard AND just under 380,000 Selected Reserve. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/end-strength.htm)

That’s a total of about 2,264,900 military personnel. At a full 3% the homosexual count of military personnel is about 67,947.

The U.S. population is about 308,400,000
(http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/12/30/us-population-2010-308-million-and-growing)

That would make the entire homosexual population about 9,252,000

Currently the entire heterosexual military represents about .007% of the entire ‘heterosexual’ population.

Likewise the current homosexual military represents about .007% of the entire ‘homosexual’ population.

I think that’s remarkable - despite DADT both the heterosexual and homosexual military personnel are nearly equivalent representations of their perspective populations.

Of course I used what’s considered the highest end of homosexual population percentages. It may be possible that the military would see an increase of homosexuals but we are talking –possibly hundreds, not more than that.

Considering the similar representative split it would not make sense to think that the non-military homosexual population would be any more interested, capable or otherwise acceptable in military service than the same representation of non-military heterosexuals.

seperate showers doesnt resolve anything either, it would be like allowing heterosexual females and males to shower together


I think you misunderstood the quote about 'seperate showers', the remark was made for purpose of 'refuting'it. In other words the military has absolutely no intention of making such changes.

Either military law and the code of honor will be adhered to or those who don't like it will find work elsewhere.

Appearently it is NOT LIKE heterosexual f & M showering together, becasue it hasn't caused any problem yet despited the fact that many homosexuals are known to others in their unit.

I believe you have posted a couple times that you think military persnnel should be consulted - well they were but now you don't like what they have to say. noway





I actually just question the way the responses were worded, and how accurately they reflect the issue of whether such a move would negatively affect MORALE once it is in action(as opposed to just an ideal)

I dont believe there is an accurate way to count how many are straight or gay or bi and so those numbers are not relevant to what concerns me. As I stated before, it is the issue of PRIVACY from being in a shower with someone who might potentially become aroused. If my professionalism is such that that isnt an issue, than the gender of that person should not be either and therefore I would see the door opening to allowing heterosexuals common bunks as well.


If I were to go out with a man and later find they were a woman, that would feel like a violation, becuase I dont choose to date women

It would not be a very convincing argument that I should go with it because I was already dating a woman(and just didnt know it)

after all, I could easily make the argument that , compared to other discharges, homosexual discharges represent only one percent, so why make it such a big deal?

I think the only other option is to not let homosexuals serve, which would be TRULY discriminatory

likewise, I , and many others , choose not to be showering and sharing beds with those with the potential to be aroused by such activity.

and I will repeat, that although I dont agree(or have to agree with it) it is the decision best left to those living in the military


You and others like you have no problem telling homosexuals that they should just accept DADT and remain quiet. In effect you have already been denying homosexuals the right to serve. Unless everyone thinks they are heterosexual they cannot serve. How is that any differen than what you say WOULD be discriminatory???

It has also been said many times - homosexuas have the 'exactly' the same rights to marriage as a heterosexual couple and you make that claim knowing full well that the REAL choice to heterosexuals is not marriage itself - but the right to marry whom they love.

Yet you somehow feel vidicated when you take the stand you have of either scenareo.

Well if (when) DADT is repealed those people who tend to think as you do will HAVE to change their thinking if they want to serve. If they don't want to serve under those conditions than perhaps the call to serve was not very strong anyway.

But at least they WILL finally have equal choice because, remember, homosexuals have to live the heteros as well, never knowing what bias or prejudice exists under the surface and can end with a knife in the back...



I don t know that marriage is a 'right' so to speak. But in any case, being able to marry legally doesnt take into consideration anyones reason. People can marry for love, for money, for benefits,, thats not a part of what the state even gets involved in.

I also dont know when I or anyone else has denied a homosexual entry into the military.

As to the rest, thats why its best left up to those who have to live it. It is hard to hide a heterosexual preference and I dont see just reason to since that union is how we all get here(its hardly controversial or upsetting or uncomfortable, especially in a situation where males and females are living seperately.

It is different for a man to express hetero preference amongst other males, or a woman amongst other women , than it is for a homosexual to express it amongst a group of same sexed peers, especially if those peers are having to share living and showering quarters together.

If it were my decision, Id let it stand. IT seems if it were yours, you would repeal it. But it isnt , nor should it be up to either of us since we wont be the ones having to live it.

I think the military should procede with what the military finds will be best for the cohesion, morale, and tactical strength of its soldiers.

mightymoe's photo
Fri 12/03/10 02:43 PM
Edited by mightymoe on Fri 12/03/10 02:46 PM


who said the military was broken?


Well it began with the Clinton administration and the proposal to fix it was DADT. It isn't working so it must still be broken.

did we win most all wars with openly gays in the military? no, we did not... everything you post is about a survey this and a survey that... you know as well as i do that surveys do not mean squat, they are only as biased as the people giving them... i noticed you didn't quote from the survey thomas posted... is there a reason for that? because it says the opposite of everything you say...


There is only one report that was ordered and that is the report being considered by Senate. Any other survey is not official and has no bearing on the proceedings.

I might ask you - why do YOU think the Senate is only dealing with this one report based on that one survey, if there are others of equal merit that you think should be considered?

there is no proof every way about gays in the military...what about the housing issues? that is going to be free? look at all the money they have already spent on this, and you say it will be minimal...



Housing Issues? What are you talking about? Nothing is supposed to change except that no one has to lie about their life or their loved ones.


one question for you... have you ever been in the military? if not, how can you claim to know anything about what happens inside the military? i spent 5 years on a destroyer in the navy.... 400 men on a 500 ft ship... the quaters were close and and there were at least 50 men to a room for sleeping and showering rooms... only the officers had rooms to their selves.... how do you really think something like that will work with gays in the mix?

and almost all of these senators you speak of have no military experience either, yet they claim to be experts... i will listen to anyone that has been in the military as an enlisted, and officers really shouldn't count as much either...

InvictusV's photo
Tue 12/07/10 02:45 PM



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.


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?


You cannot discriminate against consenting adults.

How I could I possibly type that and it not include all consenting adults?

If a man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a woman then a man should be able to marry as many consenting women as he wants.

As I previously posted, If the morality reasoning does not apply to homosexual marriage then it cannot be applied to polygamy.

If YOU support gay marriage then you would be a hypocrite in not supporting the equal protection of others.

YOU cannot pick and choose when you want equal protection under the law applied.


msharmony's photo
Tue 12/07/10 05:32 PM




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.


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?


You cannot discriminate against consenting adults.

How I could I possibly type that and it not include all consenting adults?

If a man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a woman then a man should be able to marry as many consenting women as he wants.

As I previously posted, If the morality reasoning does not apply to homosexual marriage then it cannot be applied to polygamy.

If YOU support gay marriage then you would be a hypocrite in not supporting the equal protection of others.

YOU cannot pick and choose when you want equal protection under the law applied.




nice, so even consenting adults who happen to have the same parent should see this as an open door to similar protections allowing them to marry,,,

oh, and if alot of the best friend parents who want kids to be seen as equals step up , maybe we can protect children by stopping the tradition of having a government tell them when and where they can marry(instead of their parents)...

this could really be a pandoras box,,,,,

msharmony's photo
Tue 12/07/10 05:38 PM
back to the point though, and to reiterate my general feeling


just like there are different rules(and should be) for grownups than there are for children


there are and should be different rules for military than there are for civilians

equality isnt equal whe responsibilities and expectations arent equal

there is much more expected from an adult than a child which leads to adults being 'given' more authority over their environment and its parameters

similary, there is much more expected from a military environment than a civilian one and warrants the authority for the military environment and parameters to be best placed in the hands of military officials and personell


I think the choice should be strictly up to the Military, regardless of public opinion, but it should be based upon their EXPERIENCE and RESEARCH and it should be just as trusted with the military as we claim our lives are,,,

InvictusV's photo
Tue 12/07/10 06:18 PM





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.


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?


You cannot discriminate against consenting adults.

How I could I possibly type that and it not include all consenting adults?

If a man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a woman then a man should be able to marry as many consenting women as he wants.

As I previously posted, If the morality reasoning does not apply to homosexual marriage then it cannot be applied to polygamy.

If YOU support gay marriage then you would be a hypocrite in not supporting the equal protection of others.

YOU cannot pick and choose when you want equal protection under the law applied.




nice, so even consenting adults who happen to have the same parent should see this as an open door to similar protections allowing them to marry,,,

oh, and if alot of the best friend parents who want kids to be seen as equals step up , maybe we can protect children by stopping the tradition of having a government tell them when and where they can marry(instead of their parents)...

this could really be a pandoras box,,,,,


is that a morality argument?

This isn't about morality its about the fair and unbiased implementation of the law.

Morality issues can be debated within a family.

msharmony's photo
Wed 12/08/10 02:55 AM






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.


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?


You cannot discriminate against consenting adults.

How I could I possibly type that and it not include all consenting adults?

If a man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a woman then a man should be able to marry as many consenting women as he wants.

As I previously posted, If the morality reasoning does not apply to homosexual marriage then it cannot be applied to polygamy.

If YOU support gay marriage then you would be a hypocrite in not supporting the equal protection of others.

YOU cannot pick and choose when you want equal protection under the law applied.




nice, so even consenting adults who happen to have the same parent should see this as an open door to similar protections allowing them to marry,,,

oh, and if alot of the best friend parents who want kids to be seen as equals step up , maybe we can protect children by stopping the tradition of having a government tell them when and where they can marry(instead of their parents)...

this could really be a pandoras box,,,,,


is that a morality argument?

This isn't about morality its about the fair and unbiased implementation of the law.

Morality issues can be debated within a family.



agreed, fair and unbiased would not discriminate against incest(if it was consentual), or minor adult marriages(if the parent were agreeable to it)

1 2 4 Next