I whole heartedly support gay marriage, across the board, at federal level.
That being said I think that gays in the military would serve to undermine unit cohesion and discipline, not because of the actually gay personnel, rather because of the small and closed minded personnel that they have to serve next to. However I am nothing if not a realist. Bringing women closer to combat has proven to be a negative thing, and it wouldn't be any different if you had openly gay people in combat arms units. I'm not religious, I have nothing against homosexuals (some of my best blah blah blah). There is a non-religious argument that is pertinent, and I know non-religious people that feel that way about marriage as well. That marriage, and the breaks associated with it, are there to assist in getting people to procreate. Course seems like no one needs any help, married or otherwise, with that these days. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Davis [mailto:hofli...@depressedpress.com] > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 6:54 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: RE: Huckabee v Stewart: Gay Marriage > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mary Jo Sminkey [mailto:mary...@cfwebstore.com] > > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 2:38 PM > > To: cf-community > > Subject: Re: Huckabee v Stewart: Gay Marriage > > > > >And that's kind of the point: marriage in this country can be a > > completely > > >secular, non-religious affair. So how can we possibly justify > > refusing it > > >to any group of citizens for what is clearly and completely a > > religious > > >reason? > > > > > > Sorry but it's not that clearly a religious issue, although > certainly > > most of the strong support for a ban against gay marriage > comes from > > the religious right. But people often see it as a further > erosion of > > the traditional family, as something that will open the way > for more > > pro-gay curriculum in schools, etc. There is a very large > segment of > > our population that doesn't believe gays should be openly > > discriminated against...but does not want them becoming mainstream > > either. It's a simplification of things to label it as > strictly a religious issue. > > It is absolutely a religious issue. There is no secular > evidence that homosexuality is a negative: nothing that > indicates it adversely affects species propagation, nothing > that indicates that homosexuals (despite nasty rumors to the > contrary) are any more likely to be criminals or pedophiles. > Nothing that indicates that homosexuals consume more than any > other segment or fail to give back to society any more than any other. > > You can mention "concerns for the traditional family" but > I've never, not once, heard an organized refusal of gays of > rights that wasn't religiously > motivated: ask those people where the "traditional family" is > defined and they'll say, I almost guarantee it, in the Bible > (which is rife with polygamy and incest in any case). > > It doesn't matter if people think that they're "icky" - > personal opinion doesn't matter here: what matter is if > people think that the United States should discriminate > against this group (or indeed any group of law-abiding, > productive citizens). > > Jim Davis > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:282727 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
