Replies

I didn’t realize you served under Clinton and I guess DADT, which means if you got in and kept yourself from being found out as openly homosexual, you were left alone.

I didn't serve under Clinton; I was in for Bush and Obama — and the issues w/ the latter showed me that as-an-organization they have no intention of upholding the Constitution.

Now the law is libertarian law, they don’t have to hide in the shadows they are equal, and their state gay marriages are recognized.

Actually, that's not quite right: libertarian thought would not discourage people form thinking homosexuality is horrible — as I understand it there's at least a few who'll gut you [metaphor] if you hold that view.

I think you oppose the libertarian position on that and want to return to the 1970s law of, if they are found out, they are drummed out, even screened before they go in at all and their state law marriages are not recognized, which is the social conservative, traditional American position.

Homosexuality [and its issues] is not my passion — I'd much rather talk about Justice, the law (as an ideal, as practiced, and what would be good law), philosophy, programming... heck, there's a LOT more interesting things to talk about than homosexuality.

Accepting gays and their state marriages in the military is the libertarian position.

Your dedication to this thread and the homosexual issue proves your strong passion for it, you just won’t admit where your political support goes on it.

Do you think the libertarian position shows more “justice” for the gays in the military than the centuries old conservative position?

An interesting point is raised on this thread (though the author of the linked article goes off the rails on the subject of "equality", carelessly conflating equality of opportunity with equality of outcome):

One thing about virtues -- which are defined as "good moral habits" -- is that their exercise doesn't require the cooperation, or compulsion, of another person.