|
Going off topic with the religious discussion from page 11 and onwards will net you a 2 day ban at least. Stay on topic pretty please, with minerals on top. |
On September 21 2011 00:15 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 12:09 TOloseGT wrote:On September 20 2011 10:59 Daniel C wrote:On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote:
I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones. I don't know...hasn't marriage always been defined to be between a man and a woman? (I mean, this is how most cultures have done it historically regardless of their degree of religiosity). - correct me if I'm wrong. If that's true, then gay advocates are actually wanting to change the definition of marriage - which means they want additional rights (i.e. marrying someone of the same gender) in addition to the original definition of marriage. Which is totally fine, if they want to that. Just hope that someone could help me clear that up  Yes, the vast majority of marriages have been between a man and a woman. However, homosexual couples don't want additional rights, they want the same rights that hetero couples have under the law. As for religion, some churches are willing to condone homosexual marriage. It's just a matter of time before the bigoted churches die out. I disagree 100%. I don't think churches should have to condone homosexual marriage whatsoever and personally feel like condoning it is turning their backs on their religion. I think it's ridiculous they should be forced to acknowledge it. "Bigoted" churches? You mean, the ones actually following their scripture? 
There is not a single "Christian" on the planet that follows their scripture to the word, because that involves complete self sustenance and absolute selflessness.
|
On September 21 2011 03:10 Perseverance wrote:
As an Active Duty member of the Armed Forces...this was a really bad idea.
When we deploy to Iraq/Afganistan we sleep together and have community showers etc.
If I have to shower with a gay dude who may or may not enjoy what he see's........why can't I shower with the females? Instead, there is actually a General Order stating that you cannot being in personal quarters with members of the opposite sex...so once again, homosexual get an "awesome" advantage.
Why is this General Order in effect? The official reasoning is because they don't want to "hurt morale" because soldier X is getting some and soldier Y and Z aren't.
What's going to happen when some gay dudes are slamming away at eachother and sexually frustrated heterosexual males find out about it, especially when they already (possibly) don't like/understand homosexuals.
Put some of the lower IQ Infantry guys in this situation (Not saying all have low IQ but no one can reasonably argue that some don't) and all it spells is trouble.
Male/Female/Gay/Straight = logistical nightmare.
As an Active Duty member of the Armed Forces, I think that everything you just said was complete and utter prejudice. For every one person that a homosexual might be attracted to, he is still subject to the horrors of seeing some ugly ass people in the showers. Also, just because someone is gay doesn't mean they're attracted to you. That entire idea is just completely stupid. Gay people have standards, too.
Also, where are all these gay people "getting some" in a deployed environment? Have you ever actually seen this happen? No, you haven't, because its against the UCMJ and it will be even after the repeal.
The repeal of DADT isn't some get out of jail free card for gay people to do whatever the fuck they want. They are still subject to the law, and can't break it without being punished. And if some gay guy is going to look at you in the showers after the repeal, he probably was already doing it before.
DADT is not going to change anything except for giving gays some rights that they should have already had. Despite your prejudicial fears, there are not going to be random gay orgys occurring in the military workplace.
|
Ahhh, thank GOD! This is a law that should never really have been questioned.
|
On September 21 2011 10:57 ryanAnger wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 00:15 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 20 2011 12:09 TOloseGT wrote:On September 20 2011 10:59 Daniel C wrote:On September 20 2011 08:14 dcemuser wrote:
I don't understand why people who are opposed to it religiously can't separate marriage into two things.
There is "Marriage (Legal): a union between two people" and "Marriage (Religious): a union between a man and a woman".
Done. Legally, people should have the same rights. However, YOU don't have to acknowledge those marriages as religious ones. I don't know...hasn't marriage always been defined to be between a man and a woman? (I mean, this is how most cultures have done it historically regardless of their degree of religiosity). - correct me if I'm wrong. If that's true, then gay advocates are actually wanting to change the definition of marriage - which means they want additional rights (i.e. marrying someone of the same gender) in addition to the original definition of marriage. Which is totally fine, if they want to that. Just hope that someone could help me clear that up Yes, the vast majority of marriages have been between a man and a woman. However, homosexual couples don't want additional rights, they want the same rights that hetero couples have under the law. As for religion, some churches are willing to condone homosexual marriage. It's just a matter of time before the bigoted churches die out. I disagree 100%. I don't think churches should have to condone homosexual marriage whatsoever and personally feel like condoning it is turning their backs on their religion. I think it's ridiculous they should be forced to acknowledge it. "Bigoted" churches? You mean, the ones actually following their scripture? There is not a single "Christian" on the planet that follows their scripture to the word, because that involves complete self sustenance and absolute selflessness.
Yeah, I also don't follow the religion nor think it's practical to pick and choose. But whatever.
|
I feel like it is very difficult for many of you to understand why Christians/Mormons/Musilims are against this, hopefully I can clear it up.
As a Christian I believe that God judges individuals in the after life but judges nations here and now. I believe God stated that man lying with man is an abomination, and I believe that if as a nation we endorse their behavior then we as a nation will lose his blessing. Simple as that.
|
This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
|
|
|
On September 21 2011 11:40 Bulldog654 wrote:
I feel like it is very difficult for many of you to understand why Christians/Mormons/Musilims are against this, hopefully I can clear it up.
As a Christian I believe that God judges individuals in the after life but judges nations here and now. I believe God stated that man lying with man is an abomination, and I believe that if as a nation we endorse their behavior then we as a nation will lose his blessing. Simple as that.
And I as a christian believe you shouldn't judge others. The reason we(Christians) get such a bad rap is cuz of crap like this. Christianity preaches acceptance, not demonizing someone because of their differences.
|
On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote:
This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
You realize that gay people still don't have to come out if they don't want to... right? The repealing of DADT doesn't require everyone to be honest about their sexual orientation if asked. It simply means that gays can't get kicked out of the military if they want to admit they're gay.
|
On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote:
This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
And they can continue just as they were. There is nothing that makes them go around telling everyone they are gay.
|
Quick, someone find a way to take any credit away from Obama!
|
On September 21 2011 11:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote:
This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits. You realize that gay people still don't have to come out if they don't want to... right? The repealing of DADT doesn't require everyone to be honest about their sexual orientation if asked. It simply means that gays can't get kicked out of the military if they want to admit they're gay.
No i understand this completely, my point is that instead of campaigning for so long to get rid of DADT they should have used that time to do something that will actually make a difference for gay servicemen. The number of servicemen who this actually changes anything for is so tiny its ridiculous.
|
On September 21 2011 11:40 Bulldog654 wrote:
I feel like it is very difficult for many of you to understand why Christians/Mormons/Musilims are against this, hopefully I can clear it up.
As a Christian I believe that God judges individuals in the after life but judges nations here and now. I believe God stated that man lying with man is an abomination, and I believe that if as a nation we endorse their behavior then we as a nation will lose his blessing. Simple as that.
The United States of America practiced slavery for almost a hundred years after its founding, and the Bible was used to justify it, along with some pretty bad science. We nukes two Japanese cities full of innocent civilians. We threw our young people, against their will via the draft, into the jungles of Vietnam to fight an ideological offensive war. We have overthrown democratically elected leaders. We torture people in places like Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graib. We launch preemptive invasions of countries under false pretenses, and killed hundreds of thousands of children with sanctions during the '90s. But sure, God was fine with all that as long as no gays were allowed in the military.
The Crusades were fought with "God's blessing" too.
|
On September 21 2011 11:52 PHILtheTANK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 11:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote:
This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits. You realize that gay people still don't have to come out if they don't want to... right? The repealing of DADT doesn't require everyone to be honest about their sexual orientation if asked. It simply means that gays can't get kicked out of the military if they want to admit they're gay. No i understand this completely, my point is that instead of campaigning for so long to get rid of DADT they should have used that time to do something that will actually make a difference for gay servicemen. The number of servicemen who this actually changes anything for is so tiny its ridiculous.
I'm pretty sure there have been quite a few cases of gay soldiers being discharged for their sexual orientation. Regardless, it's still a civil rights issue. Although I do agree with you that we can always be doing more to try to make things even more equal between heterosexuals and homosexuals.
|
On September 21 2011 11:40 Bulldog654 wrote:
I feel like it is very difficult for many of you to understand why Christians/Mormons/Musilims are against this, hopefully I can clear it up.
As a Christian I believe that God judges individuals in the after life but judges nations here and now. I believe God stated that man lying with man is an abomination, and I believe that if as a nation we endorse their behavior then we as a nation will lose his blessing. Simple as that.
If you judge a nation, then you judge every individual that belongs under it. That doesn't even make sense. That's like saying that you can judge a community without judging the individuals that comprise it, which is really just nonsense.
Do you really think homosexuality alone is what will cause the American nation to "lose his blessing"? Americans have broken and condoned going against certain explicit decrees that can be found within the bible, both in secular and religious realms. If you really believe in what you say, then the nation has gone to hell long ago - especially their churches. It's hilarious that you even think America is a blessed nation to begin with, or that God has favourites in the terms of nations. This is frankly idolatrous, and you turn God into a fascist dictator.
|
On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote:
This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits.
How does DADT being repealed change their situation then?
On September 21 2011 11:40 Bulldog654 wrote:
I feel like it is very difficult for many of you to understand why Christians/Mormons/Musilims are against this, hopefully I can clear it up.
As a Christian I believe that God judges individuals in the after life but judges nations here and now. I believe God stated that man lying with man is an abomination, and I believe that if as a nation we endorse their behavior then we as a nation will lose his blessing. Simple as that.
So you're going to try to enforce YOUR religious beliefs on other people? Classy. Thing is, I'm atheist, and don't give a damn what your Bible says, nor do I believe in these blessings. You might as well force people to be Christian. Intolerance in every which way.
|
On September 21 2011 11:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 11:52 PHILtheTANK wrote:On September 21 2011 11:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote:
This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits. You realize that gay people still don't have to come out if they don't want to... right? The repealing of DADT doesn't require everyone to be honest about their sexual orientation if asked. It simply means that gays can't get kicked out of the military if they want to admit they're gay. No i understand this completely, my point is that instead of campaigning for so long to get rid of DADT they should have used that time to do something that will actually make a difference for gay servicemen. The number of servicemen who this actually changes anything for is so tiny its ridiculous. I'm pretty sure there have been quite a few cases of gay soldiers being discharged for their sexual orientation. Regardless, it's still a civil rights issue. Although I do agree with you that we can always be doing more to try to make things even more equal between heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Ya it actually happened to a good friend of mine, although he wasn't too upset about it after serving two tours in Iraq, he was actually pretty happy to be discharged.
|
about freaking time
also, i want to create an officially recognized religion in which the only marriage allowed is gay marriage, so i can sue for discrimination if a state refuses to grant marriage licenses
|
On September 21 2011 11:56 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote:
This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits. How does DADT being repealed change their situation then?
Because the majority of gay servicemen won't come out anyway to the millitary it changes very few peoples situations.
|
On September 21 2011 11:58 PHILtheTANK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 11:56 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 21 2011 11:41 PHILtheTANK wrote:
This whole thing is dumb. From my experience homosexuals in the millitary actually LIKED don't ask don't tell. I have friends in the marines who say they will still never come out to other servicemen because of their fear of being ostracized from their peers. People made such a big fucking deal about repealing DADT, instead of doing somethig that mattered i.e. getting same sex marriages millitary benefits. How does DADT being repealed change their situation then? Because the majority of gay servicemen won't come out anyway to the millitary it changes very few peoples situations.
Ok? So what exactly is the problem? How does this make it dumb? It's a civil rights issue nonetheless. Since when have civil rights become less important because they effect a small minority as opposed to a large minority?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
