|
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 12:30 PHILtheTANK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 12:27 koreasilver wrote:On September 21 2011 12:19 Bulldog654 wrote:On September 21 2011 12:17 koreasilver wrote:
American Christians that are so obsessed with the idea of setting up a theocracy in their nation really need to read Luther. I have no interest in setting up a theocracy, but that in no way means that I can't take my religious beliefs into consideration when I determine my stance on any given matter. Whatever the state puts out by law should have little effect on what you do personally. Your argument is vapid because whatever the state decides on how to approach homosexuality does nothing to how the church decides to approach homosexuality, etc. etc. and this goes on. The separation of the church with the state, faith with the aesthetic, God with the world, precedes Luther, Kierkegaard, and Barth all the way to Christ; "render unto Caesar...". American Christianity is so fucking moronic. It's blind, deaf, and idolatrous. Korean Christianity is little different. It's little wonder that the Europeans have said since long ago that America has lost her ability and right to read scripture. Some pretty ridiculous and insulting comments in here. Just because you see idiots on tv preaching a bunch of BS doesn't mean that represents "American Christianity"..... theyre just a bunch of idiots preaching shit on TV.
We are talking about a nation that has imported all of their fruitful Christian thought from Europe and in turn produced from their own land, Protestant Fundamentalism. I'm not going to say that there hasn't been many great thinkers from America, but when we look at the original thought that was born from within America, it is all extremely dismal.
edit: this is really off-topic, sorry
On September 21 2011 12:42 PHILtheTANK wrote:
Saying that "when we look at the original thought that was born from within America, it is all extremely dismal" is literally one of the most retarded things I've ever heard. America is 250 years old and the amount of "original thought" born in America is astronomical. If you want to just talk about religion, after having thousands of years to cement their own "brands" of christianity, very little changes in todays day and age, its not like since America started its own country they should just make up their own religion too? Also Protestant Fundamentalism started in Europe, not America.
I'm only talking about within the context of Christianity, like... the context of the posts that you've been replying to. Seeing as how much radical changes and movements that have occurred within Christianity since the 19th century, anyone who thinks that Christianity has been static in any way simply just doesn't know anything about the history of modern Christianity. Also, no, Protestant Fundamentalism, which was born in the 19th century alongside to the birth and heights of Liberal Protestantism that was born in Germany, was a decisively Anglo phenomenon, most of it focused in America.
|
On September 21 2011 12:37 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 12:30 PHILtheTANK wrote:On September 21 2011 12:27 koreasilver wrote:On September 21 2011 12:19 Bulldog654 wrote:On September 21 2011 12:17 koreasilver wrote:
American Christians that are so obsessed with the idea of setting up a theocracy in their nation really need to read Luther. I have no interest in setting up a theocracy, but that in no way means that I can't take my religious beliefs into consideration when I determine my stance on any given matter. Whatever the state puts out by law should have little effect on what you do personally. Your argument is vapid because whatever the state decides on how to approach homosexuality does nothing to how the church decides to approach homosexuality, etc. etc. and this goes on. The separation of the church with the state, faith with the aesthetic, God with the world, precedes Luther, Kierkegaard, and Barth all the way to Christ; "render unto Caesar...". American Christianity is so fucking moronic. It's blind, deaf, and idolatrous. Korean Christianity is little different. It's little wonder that the Europeans have said since long ago that America has lost her ability and right to read scripture. Some pretty ridiculous and insulting comments in here. Just because you see idiots on tv preaching a bunch of BS doesn't mean that represents "American Christianity"..... theyre just a bunch of idiots preaching shit on TV. We are talking about a nation that has imported all of their fruitful Christian thought from Europe and in turn produced from their own land, Protestant Fundamentalism. I'm not going to say that there hasn't been many great thinkers from America, but when we look at the original thought that was born from within America, it is all extremely dismal.
Saying that "when we look at the original thought that was born from within America, it is all extremely dismal" is literally one of the most retarded things I've ever heard. America is 250 years old and the amount of "original thought" born in America is astronomical. If you want to just talk about religion, after having thousands of years to cement their own "brands" of christianity, very little changes in todays day and age, its not like since America started its own country they should just make up their own religion too? Also Protestant Fundamentalism started in Europe, not America.
|
On September 21 2011 12:18 PHILtheTANK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2011 12:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 21 2011 12:11 PHILtheTANK wrote:On September 21 2011 12:07 Harrow wrote:On September 21 2011 12:04 PHILtheTANK wrote:On September 21 2011 12:00 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 21 2011 11:58 PHILtheTANK wrote: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? The point is that repealing DADT is in no way a bad thing... just that celebrating this as some huge victory when it barely changes a thing to me is ridiculous. They should have been campaigning for getting same sex couples benefits just like heterosexual couples get, thats something that would actually change the lives of gay servicemen and their families. Repealing DADT is a prerequisite to actually giving equal rights to gay servicepeople. How can you offer benefits to people who aren't supposed to knowingly exist in the army? People are celebrating it because A) it's a good thing and B) it took a shit ton of effort to get it past the homobigots who desperately tried to cling to the policy. While DADT may have started as a homophobic policy or w/e u want to call it, it wasnt kept because of homophobia. It was kept as a way of keeping groups of people who are in high tense situations from feeling different/resentment towards each other, regardless of how wrong it was. And now we recognize that it's time to tell bigots to get over it  Just like when we allowed, accepted, and acknowledged blacks in the military, as well as women. Gays are people too ^^ Integration may be tough for homophobes, but it's their problem, not the gays'. I agree to a point. The only problem is that you say "its their problem, not the gays", people who have a problem with gay people have historically made it into a problem for those gay people, lol. While DADT was a restriction of civil liberties it was also a means to try and protect gay people in the military in a way... if that makes any sense to you at all lol.
In the military, if anyone discriminates against anyone in any way (emotional, physical, etc.) they often get in a shitton of trouble, obviously depending on the severity. People in the military take that shit VERY SERIOUSLY, and the same applies to homosexual discrimination. Gays don't need protection from the homophobes, because Equal Opportunity Investigators and the UCMJ already does it.
|
Hurray!
Now gay people can kill, bomb, exterminate and destroy Muslims in Muslim countries too!
:/
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On September 21 2011 12:14 Bulldog654 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? 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. No, I said nothing at all about forcing my religious beliefs on other people. I could make the point that you, following the religion of Atheism, force your religion on me by supporting the legalization of acts that are against my religion. Maybe one day when you get over being so pissed all the time and lose a good deal of your self righteousness you'll come to the understanding that people vote their conscience, and calling them bigots and intolerant only makes you an intolerant bigot.
I'm sorry, but calling Atheism a religion is absolutely wrong and I'm going to have trouble taking anything else you say seriously. Now, on topic:
About damn time. A law like this shouldn't have ever existed in the first place. It was openly discriminatory against homosexuals, so I'm glad this shit finally got repealed.
|
On September 21 2011 15:44 AdrianHealey wrote:
Hurray!
Now gay people can kill, bomb, exterminate and destroy Muslims in Muslim countries too!
:/
They have been, see why the DADT was repealed smart guy?
|
On September 21 2011 15:44 AdrianHealey wrote:
Hurray!
Now gay people can kill, bomb, exterminate and destroy Muslims in Muslim countries too!
:/
Because every single person in the United States Military does that. I love it! I'm out here every day in Muslim-ridden South Dakota finding and killing helpless Muslim elderly, women, and children.
(The above is complete sarcasm.)
|
Netherlands19124 Posts
Going offtopic with the religious discussion after this post will net you a 2 day ban at least. Stay on topic please. That especially goes for people feeling the pressing need to get that last word/reply in anyway after this post.
|
Surprised this hasn't gotten more coverage considering its the 1st day people are allowed to come out of the closet in the military. I wonder how many men and women told their officers they're gay now lol.
|
My main problem as a whole with the US is how long it takes for us to actually realize the shit we do is stupid and that we should stop it. It's awesome that it's finally gone, but it took WAY too long for this to actually happen.
|
DADT wasn't a no gays allowed policy. it was as it was called... you don't ask people about their sexual orientation and you dont tell people about your sexual orientation. Technically you could violate DADT if you said you were straight. you could use it to stop people from making sexual orientation remarks. I did this in Basic training cause some dick would harass people all day and loved to call people "gay faggots". I made it clear to him if he continued i would bring it up w/ the chain of command. He stopped for the rest of the time there. One of the Drill sergeants explained DADT as a means to help protect ourselves from disliking people in your unit. example was you don't want someone saying how they are gay and have someone to hesitate jumping in a fox hole w/ them when mortars are hitting. Same time it keeps that person safe from being harassed and singled out for being gay.
Anyways that's the way i perceived DADT on paper. end of the day DADT or no DADT it doesn't really make a difference cause your w/ a tight knit group of people and people are gonna single individuals out or accept them whether there is a policy or not for the most part. for me if ya get the job done and have a good attitude your cool w/ me and thats how most people are that i have worked with are. thats my 2 cents 
|
On September 21 2011 18:14 bassa wrote:
Technically you could violate DADT if you said you were straight.
Uh, no.
|
Seems pretty retarded to me. What is the benefit to being able to state your sexual orientation?
I can see plenty of negative-
If I'm a straight guy in the army, I don't want to dress down or shower with a gay guy. Are they going to put all the gays in separate buildings, showers, units? They should, but that'd be bad right? Everyone would be upset, oh my, the segregation, it's not fair! But wait, there was no segregation before...why is that? Because before, it didn't matter, because no one knew anything, because that's not supposed to matter in the armed forces, because you're there for only one reason, to protect and serve.
Well lordy be, if they aren't going to separate the gays from the straight, by golly, if I was in the force, I would want to bunk and shower with females. Since everyone is equal, this should be changed right along with it, right? Oh wait, that's ridiculous? Yeah, it kinda is.
It's just stupid all around. No guy wants to be worrying about a gay looking at his junk, or fantasizing, or getting drunk and making a pass. It's hilarious they pass this to try to give gays rights, but everyone had the same rights already, keep your mouth shut and do your duty. Didn't matter before, you don't like it, can't handle not talking gay or prancing around, adios. The armed forces isn't for any of that, and if you're there for what it is there for, it sure as hell shouldn't make a difference whether you can put your sexual orientation out there or not.
I can't wait for all the unnecessary drama this will bring. The ones already in the armed forces will probably be smart enough to continue on without saying a word. The dumb ones, or the new ones, will probably get beaten and rejected by the rest, and there'll be 10x more animosity. It won't be fair to straight guys to have to bunk with gays, but I'll bet my last dollar they don't do shit about that, even though the majority of soldiers are straight. Oh, and let's not forget all the "They mistreat me because I'm gay" or "Sarg is homophobic because he made me clean the bunks, he needs to be fired." All this non-sense that should never surface
|
On September 21 2011 19:02 hasuwar wrote:
Seems pretty retarded to me. What is the benefit to being able to state your sexual orientation?
I can see plenty of negative-
If I'm a straight guy in the army, I don't want to dress down or shower with a gay guy. Are they going to put all the gays in separate buildings, showers, units? They should, but that'd be bad right? Everyone would be upset, oh my, the segregation, it's not fair! But wait, there was no segregation before...why is that? Because before, it didn't matter, because no one knew anything, because that's not supposed to matter in the armed forces, because you're there for only one reason, to protect and serve.
Well lordy be, if they aren't going to separate the gays from the straight, by golly, if I was in the force, I would want to bunk and shower with females. Since everyone is equal, this should be changed right along with it, right? Oh wait, that's ridiculous? Yeah, it kinda is.
It's just stupid all around. No guy wants to be worrying about a gay looking at his junk, or fantasizing, or getting drunk and making a pass. It's hilarious they pass this to try to give gays rights, but everyone had the same rights already, keep your mouth shut and do your duty. Didn't matter before, you don't like it, can't handle not talking gay or prancing around, adios. The armed forces isn't for any of that, and if you're there for what it is there for, it sure as hell shouldn't make a difference whether you can put your sexual orientation out there or not.
I can't wait for all the unnecessary drama this will bring. The ones already in the armed forces will probably be smart enough to continue on without saying a word. The dumb ones, or the new ones, will probably get beaten and rejected by the rest, and there'll be 10x more animosity. It won't be fair to straight guys to have to bunk with gays, but I'll bet my last dollar they don't do shit about that, even though the majority of soldiers are straight. Oh, and let's not forget all the "They mistreat me because I'm gay" or "Sarg is homophobic because he made me clean the bunks, he needs to be fired." All this non-sense that should never surface
RepealingDADT won't change anything. Like you said before homosexuals were alrdy in the military they simply didn't out themselves out of fear of getting kicked out. DADT being repealed isn't going to make them come out of the closet, nothing is going to change. They simply have rights to protect the country if for some reason it is known they are gay and they can't be discharged.
Just do your duty and try to enjoy yourself while you protect your country. If you wanna out yourself to a buncha straight guys who you shower with go ahead, but be prepared to be singled out a little bit at times. It's the same thing in the real world.
Like I said before repealing DADT is a good thing and protects peoples rights to serve in the military if they are gay.
|
On September 21 2011 19:02 hasuwar wrote:
Seems pretty retarded to me. What is the benefit to being able to state your sexual orientation?
I can see plenty of negative-
If I'm a straight guy in the army, I don't want to dress down or shower with a gay guy. Are they going to put all the gays in separate buildings, showers, units? They should, but that'd be bad right? Everyone would be upset, oh my, the segregation, it's not fair! But wait, there was no segregation before...why is that? Because before, it didn't matter, because no one knew anything, because that's not supposed to matter in the armed forces, because you're there for only one reason, to protect and serve.
Well lordy be, if they aren't going to separate the gays from the straight, by golly, if I was in the force, I would want to bunk and shower with females. Since everyone is equal, this should be changed right along with it, right? Oh wait, that's ridiculous? Yeah, it kinda is.
It's just stupid all around. No guy wants to be worrying about a gay looking at his junk, or fantasizing, or getting drunk and making a pass. It's hilarious they pass this to try to give gays rights, but everyone had the same rights already, keep your mouth shut and do your duty. Didn't matter before, you don't like it, can't handle not talking gay or prancing around, adios. The armed forces isn't for any of that, and if you're there for what it is there for, it sure as hell shouldn't make a difference whether you can put your sexual orientation out there or not.
I can't wait for all the unnecessary drama this will bring. The ones already in the armed forces will probably be smart enough to continue on without saying a word. The dumb ones, or the new ones, will probably get beaten and rejected by the rest, and there'll be 10x more animosity. It won't be fair to straight guys to have to bunk with gays, but I'll bet my last dollar they don't do shit about that, even though the majority of soldiers are straight. Oh, and let's not forget all the "They mistreat me because I'm gay" or "Sarg is homophobic because he made me clean the bunks, he needs to be fired." All this non-sense that should never surface
I don't think you get it. Gay people aren't sexual predators just waiting for the chance to hit on their fellow soldiers every chance they get. And if any are, they should gtfo of the military. It has nothing to do with "prancing around and talking gay." Before they repealed this you weren't even allowed to MENTION your boyfriend/husband. Could you imagine being a married straight man and accidentally mentioning your wife? GG you're kicked out for good.
|
I agree with you Odal, but on the other hand, why aren't there unisex showers etc. then? Men in general are not sexual predators just waiting to hit on their fellow female soldiers every chance they get. I think it simply has to do a lot with psychology.
Regardless, I want to add that simply because DADT was repelled it does not mean that suddenly every gay member of the forces will come out and tell every cooleague that he is gay, I think we will really have to wait and see what time will bring.
|
On September 21 2011 20:31 Xedat wrote:
I agree with you Odal, but on the other hand, why aren't there unisex showers etc. then? Men in general are not sexual predators just waiting to hit on their fellow female soldiers every chance they get. I think it simply has to do a lot of psychology.
Regardless, I want to add that simply because DADT was repelled it does not mean that suddenly every gay member of the forces will come out and tell every cooleague that he is gay, I think we will really have to wait and see what time will bring.
Showers are in bathrooms.
Bathrooms are separated by gender because different sexes have different sexual organs. Urinals are useless for women, and men don't want to wait forty minutes to take a piss.
It's efficiency.
|
Not evry shower also contains urinals, and this is not the point. It would be far more efficient to have one big bathrooms with normal toilets than two bathrooms, the genders are separated because it is required by law and because it would make a lot of people uneasy.
|
On September 21 2011 20:31 Xedat wrote:
I agree with you Odal, but on the other hand, why aren't there unisex showers etc. then? Men in general are not sexual predators just waiting to hit on their fellow female soldiers every chance they get. I think it simply has to do a lot with psychology.
Regardless, I want to add that simply because DADT was repelled it does not mean that suddenly every gay member of the forces will come out and tell every cooleague that he is gay, I think we will really have to wait and see what time will bring.
I agree we aren't sexual predators but showing in a big open are with women likely might cause me to get aroused simply because I am seeing naked women. This could cause me to be embarrassed and make them feel uncomfortable.
While I was in the military (mainly basic) you didn't have time in showers to really focus on anything besides getting clean asap. If some gay guy had the time to ever check me out I do not know but neither did I care really.
|
Wow the USA never ceases to surprise me, I think it's crazy that there was such a ridiculous law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
