I Respond To A Floridian's Stance on Homosexuality / Military / Society

A gentleman over at HCTP made his opinion known about gays in the military and society.  It is well thought out and reasoned. He's an intelligent person so there were no flames necessary.

Head on over before you read my reply, or not.

Hi Scott,

You've obviously given a lot of thought to this topic and your well thought out and well written article is proof of your convictions. It's articulate and assertive without being pushy.  In spite of this, I must respectfully disagree with your stance on homosexuality in relation to the military and our society.

In the military, gays are already serving (generally) quietly. The most discriminated group is not gays, but overweight people. They are routinely chapter-ed out for failing to meet physical standards. The problem that we face in the military is not openly serving gays receiving equal treatment, but gays asking for special privileges. Creating a new class of service member and giving them preferred treatments will make other service members resent them.

As a Libertarian, I try to follow a principle of live and let live. If my neighbor is gay but doesn't infringe on my liberties, who cares? What's wrong with tolerance? As a Christian, I don't wear my religion on my sleeve, but I try to be a good neighbor. The old testament spoke against homosexuality, but Jesus never said anything about that topic. The old testament also said that we should stone adulterers. Should we gather stones or are we without sin to cast the first stone? To me, this sounds like a strong case for tolerance.

If homosexuality is a choice, then it is between two consenting adults. So why should we care? A tattoo or piercing runs contrary to logic or reason, yet in many cultures it is acceptable. If it is not a choice and some people are born like this, then do you propose that we keep them segregated?  I use this word also, because if we replaced 'homosexuality' with 'colored folks.' The results are eerie. (I hate to pull the race card, but similar arguments were made prior to de-segregation.)

Also, under the 14th Amendment, we have equal protection. So if we deny gays the opportunity to adopt or have children, that's discrimination against a class of citizen. Do we want to infringe upon the rights of a class of citizen, again?

Let me ask you a question concerning marriage. Do you know where marriage licenses came from? Why would the state need to be party to a spiritual union between two people? Let's put aside legal contracts and estates and taxes (whole other debate :D ). After the civil war, the state wanted to be able to prevent inter-racial marriages. It's not a just a formality. A magistrate in Louisiana did deny an inter-racial couple marriage just last year. If two adults want to form a common law union, again, why should we care?

Debra, Scott, we don't have to like gays or talk to them. We just have to tolerate them. My instinct and emotional response may be to abhor them, but I use my logic and intellect to be tolerant, just, and polite to my neighbor because he/she pays taxes and schleps to work just like I do. Do they care what I do inside my house, probably not, so I should offer them the same courtesy. My logic and reason overcomes any "ism". My faith gives me strength when reason and logic fail.

Is homosexuality unholy? I can't say. Is it natural? Not for the purposes of reproduction. But bonobos and dolphins have been found to have homosexual relations, so there may be something in nature that allows for homosexuality.

The way I see it. If we deny a class of citizen privileges or rights that we claim, then we infringe upon their rights. To grant them their rights and privileges cost us nothing but a bit of tolerance. You both are passionate and intelligent folks as evidenced by your reasoning and education. I may not have won you over, but I hope I have given you something to consider.