Ending 'don't ask, don't tell' would undermine religious liberty

[rivrrat]

Again: I don't have a problem with that.

There are some people that are concerned that it will be taken further than that. Perhaps they're worried about nothing. I hope so.

I'm tired of getting hammered from 5 different directions, so I think I "shall seek my entertainment elsewhere." :mrgreen:

But I'm your Huckleberry!!

 

[Aunt Spiker]

But I'm your Huckleberry!!

Hah! Love it! My favorite line

- Lunger

 

[Jerry]

There are lots of gods with lots of names. But every christian priest I've had the displeasure of being around considered saying "goddamn" or "oh my god!!" to to be a sin. /shrug Personally, I couldn't care less how y'all interpret your respective mythologies. But most bible believers do consider it a sin.

"God" is a title which any being significantly superior to another being can hold. It's not a name.

I would argue to this priest that while it may be mildly disrespectful, it's not blasphemy.

 

[Jerry]

Only a few slight problems with your nonsense.

1) Just like every other form of sexual preference, it's IMPOSSIBLE to determine what someone elses is by looking at them.

2) The vast majority of crossdressers are heterosexual, not homosexual,

3)The vast majority of homosexuals are not crossdressers.

4) On duty members of the military dress in standard issed UNIFORMS.

Oooops...

.. your silly prejudice is showing.

On another thread MSgt made the same essential point that Gipper did here: that as a rule flamboyancy of any type doesn't enlist, and flamboyancy is not tolerated in the military.

Most gays are not the stereotypical pride marcher, so serving openly in the military will be less of a problem.

Gays who are pride marchers don't enlist, the career just doesn't appeal to that type of personality, so gays serving openly in the military will be even less of a problem.

Reading what someone actually types into a post instead of what you want the post to say will serve you well.

As I understand the issue the main problem is the attitude your typical fire-team has about gays, and nothing to do with any gay person. Constantly asserting gay rights does absolutely nothing to educate and improve the opinions hetero fire teams hold. In fact I would say it only makes those attitudes worse.

"I do not look down on niggers, kikes, wops and greasers. Here you are all equally worthless..."

....or the "here there is no brown, black, red, yellow or white. Here there is only green. Some of you may be light green, some of you may be dark green, but you are all green" speach.

I suspect the military will find a way to unify everyone by funneling sexuality through the M16...a kind of "here there are no fagots, breeders, fudge packers, egg packers, gays, or chair sniffers. Here there are only riflemen...."

 

[The Uncola]

On another thread MSgt made the same essential point that Gipper did here: that as a rule flamboyancy of any type doesn't enlist, and flamboyancy is not tolerated in the military.

Most gays are not the stereotypical pride marcher, so serving openly in the military will be less of a problem.

Gays who are pride marchers don't enlist, the career just doesn't appeal to that type of personality, so gays serving openly in the military will be even less of a problem.

Reading what someone actually types into a post instead of what you want the post to say will serve you well.

As I understand the issue the main problem is the attitude your typical fire-team has about gays, and nothing to do with any gay person. Constantly asserting gay rights does absolutely nothing to educate and improve the opinions hetero fire teams hold. In fact I would say it only makes those attitudes worse.

"I do not look down on niggers, kikes, wops and greasers. Here you are all equally worthless..."

....or the "here there is no brown, black, red, yellow or white. Here there is only green. Some of you may be light green, some of you may be dark green, but you are all green" speach.

I suspect the military will find a way to unify everyone by funneling sexuality through the M16...a kind of "here there are no fagots, breeders, fudge packers, egg packers, gays, or chair sniffers. Here there are only riflemen...."

I DID read what the guy posted. He posted that being "gay" and looking one way was ok (in the military), but being "gay" looking another wasn't, with the implied ASSUMPTION that the two given subjects WERE "gay." Which is, of course, is IMPOSSIBLE to know from photograghs alone. So Jerry, a little "reading what's there" wouldn't be a bad idea for you, would it?

 

[Your Star]

I can't believe that people are dumb enough to think that being accepting of people, and letting them have equal rights is against their religious beliefs. Especially if their Christian. It's not like their going to be making people partake in any homosexual practice, so I fail to see where repealing DADT infringe on anybody's religious freedoms.

 

[Jerry]

I can't believe that people are dumb enough to think that being accepting of people, and letting them have equal rights is against their religious beliefs. Especially if their Christian. It's not like their going to be making people partake in any homosexual practice, so I fail to see where repealing DADT infringe on anybody's religious freedoms.

Gays in the military has nothing at all what so ever to do with rights or equality.

It has to do with good order, discipline and cohesion.

 

[Jerry]

I DID read what the guy posted. He posted that being "gay" and looking one way was ok (in the military), but being "gay" looking another wasn't, with the implied ASSUMPTION that the two given subjects WERE "gay." Which is, of course, is IMPOSSIBLE to know from photograghs alone. So Jerry, a little "reading what's there" wouldn't be a bad idea for you, would it?

Wow you STILL don't get it.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I can't believe that people are dumb enough to think that being accepting of people, and letting them have equal rights is against their religious beliefs. Especially if their Christian. It's not like their going to be making people partake in any homosexual practice, so I fail to see where repealing DADT infringe on anybody's religious freedoms.

Years back a woman tried to use bible verses to convince me that God wanted Christians to be judgemental of others and unaccepting of differences.

 

[Layla_Z]

Really?

Possibly some of his concerns may not materialize, but depending on the implementation of the new policies he might be right on some of the concerns he listed.

As a Southern Baptist, I am not permitted to say "homo is OK", because my beliefs teach otherwise. If my career path requires me to profess a belief that homo is OK, then I have a tough decision to make: throw my career out the window or throw my religious beliefs out the window.

For an ordained Baptist or Catholic minister who is a Military Chaplain, the choice is even more stark: repudiate the teachings of the church which ordained him, or risk running afoul of military policy or even the UCMJ? They already have enough trouble, what with the military trying to forbid Christian Chaplains from publically praying "in Jesus' name".

Possibly his concerns are overblown; I certainly hope so. I think denigrating him for airing them is in poor taste.

People who think homosexuality is wrong need to mind their own business. If you think it is wrong then don't be gay, that is the end of your involvement. Your freedom has not been limited at all. I think trying to force your morals on someone else is in poor taste!

 

[Jerry]

Years back a woman tried to use bible verses to convince me that God wanted Christians to be judgemental of others and unaccepting of differences.

Intolerant not of mere difference, but of sin. There's a distinct difference between the two and it doesn't appear you caught onto that.

Anyway the current ban on gays in the military is not a religious policy, so I fail to see where you're going with that post.

 

[1069]

I'd love to be able to write the guy in the OP off as a kook, but sadly, I could absolutely see that happening. I think it's a good thing that gays will be able to serve openly in the military, but I hope that things won't swing too far the other direction until people who are against homosexuality are being discriminated against.

Sexual orientation is not a choice.
It is as innate as race or sex.
You might as well say, "I hope people who don't like blacks won't be discriminated against for their beliefs! That would be just too far in the other direction!"

To which my response would be: no. It would not be.
There is no "too far".

 

[Jerry]

I'd love to be able to write the guy in the OP off as a kook, but sadly, I could absolutely see that happening. I think it's a good thing that gays will be able to serve openly in the military, but I hope that things won't swing too far the other direction until people who are against homosexuality are being discriminated against.

Gays serving openly in the military has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with equality just like gay marriage has nothing to do with equality.

Just as marriage is not about equality, neither is the military about equality. Marriage is about the raising and socializing of children and the military is about killing people and braking things. Anyone who can and is willing to perform that office should have access to it, and everyone who is either incapable or unwilling should be barred; regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion, etc, etc.

 

[Al Battani]

Gays in the military has nothing at all what so ever to do with rights or equality.

It has to do with good order, discipline and cohesion.

Putting aside the obvious fallacy that it has nothing to do with equality or rights, I'm going to respond to the latter part of that with a quote from The West Wing (the TV show for anyone that's not aware):

"You say it will disrupt the unit and create problems for cohesion and discipline?"
"Yes sir."
"You know you're right. Problem with that is, that's what people were saying about me fifty years ago. They said blacks couldn't serve with whites cos it would disrupt the unit. You know what? It did disrupt the unit. The unit got over it. Now I'm an Admiral in the U.S. Navy and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Beat that with a stick."

Obviously it's anecdotal but the point still stands. People were saying the same thing about African Americans serving in the Armed Forces and that doesn't seem to have disrupted the unit in anywhere near the way that people are speculating about gays in the military at the moment.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Intolerant not of mere difference, but of sin. There's a distinct difference between the two and it doesn't appear you caught onto that.

Anyway the current ban on gays in the military is not a religious policy, so I fail to see where you're going with that post.

Absolutely nowhere - it just came to mind when I read the post I responded to.

Gays in the military has nothing at all what so ever to do with rights or equality.

It has to do with good order, discipline and cohesion.

"Good order, discipline and cohesion."
Indeed - all these things are strong components of good military function and focus.

Someone being gay without punishment would somehow prevent these things from taking place (so it appears people believe, if it's not about rights or equality)?

 

[1069]

Putting aside the obvious fallacy that it has nothing to do with equality or rights, I'm going to respond to the latter part of that with a quote from The West Wing (the TV show for anyone that's not aware):

"You say it will disrupt the unit and create problems for cohesion and discipline?"
"Yes sir."
"You know you're right. Problem with that is, that's what people were saying about me fifty years ago. They said blacks couldn't serve with whites cos it would disrupt the unit. You know what? It did disrupt the unit. The unit got over it. Now I'm an Admiral in the U.S. Navy and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Beat that with a stick."

Obviously it's anecdotal but the point still stands. People were saying the same thing about African Americans serving in the Armed Forces and that doesn't seem to have disrupted the unit in anywhere near the way that people are speculating about gays in the military at the moment.

They certainly said the same thing about females as well, and are still saying them, in some quarters.

 

[Orion]

I don't really see a genuine conflict of interest here other than the one that the religious right is imagining.

Gays don't join the military to date or hook up. They join to serve their country.

Religious people don't join to proselytize or make sure their morality runs dominant. They join to serve their country.

Case A and B both have contracts and they should stick to them.

It's not against your religious beliefs to serve with a gay person and I don't find that excuse very valid. Homosexuality is against your faith but you don't have to engage in homosexual acts, nor do you have to even talk about it if you don't want to. No one is forcing you to do anything. Do you think a gay person is just going to blather on and on about their gay life if the people in their unit hate them for it? Their CO would probably ask the person to STFU.

You are there to do a job.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

You know - it just occurred to me how bizarre things really are coming from some people:

Religious people in the military - this is OK because killing is permissible by the Bible, apparently - even though, in the Christian Bible, 'thou shalt not murder' is one of the 10 commandments.
Gays in the military - not allowed according to some religious people because it's not permissible in the Bible.
Thus - it's ok to murder but not ok to be gay?
How on EARTH does that even make sense?

But, it's not OK to abort a baby and, for some, it's not even ok to avoid creating them in the first place?

None of this even makes sense - I'm lost on the religious front.

 

[Jerry]

Obviously it's anecdotal but the point still stands. People were saying the same thing about African Americans serving in the Armed Forces and that doesn't seem to have disrupted the unit in anywhere near the way that people are speculating about gays in the military at the moment.

Yeah...that's what I've been arguing for moths now...do you have anything new?

 

[Jerry]

You know - it just occurred to me how bizarre things really are coming from some people:

Religious people in the military - this is OK because killing is permissible by the Bible, apparently - even though, in the Christian Bible, 'thou shalt not murder' is one of the 10 commandments.
Gays in the military - not allowed according to some religious people because it's not permissible in the Bible.
Thus - it's ok to murder but not ok to be gay?
How on EARTH does that even make sense?

But, it's not OK to abort a baby and, for some, it's not even ok to avoid creating them in the first place?

None of this even makes sense - I'm lost on the religious front.

Thanks for tossing all religious folks in the same box :doh

 

[Jetboogieman]

Thanks for tossing all religious folks in the same box :doh

I think she was tossing some religious arguments in the same box. Not all religious people. She said "occurred to me how bizarre things really are coming from some people"

 

[Jerry]

"Good order, discipline and cohesion."
Indeed - all these things are strong components of good military function and focus.

Someone being gay without punishment would somehow prevent these things from taking place (so it appears people believe, if it's not about rights or equality)?

I argue that it would not.

I said gays in the military has nothing to do with equality, I didn't say gays should not serve openly. I'm a very strong supporter of gays serving openly....but it has nothing to do with "rights". It has to do with maintaining a strong military. Gay citizens are a resource the military needs. Go **** your "rights", no one cares. This is a national security issue not a social issue. I would openly discriminate against gays if the evidence went that direction, because again this is about a strong military not rights.

A gay Soldier is every bit as good as their hetero counterpart, so they should be allowed to serve.

 

[Redress]

Obviously it's anecdotal but the point still stands. People were saying the same thing about African Americans serving in the Armed Forces and that doesn't seem to have disrupted the unit in anywhere near the way that people are speculating about gays in the military at the moment.

Anecdotally, and second hand at that, but at the time, it was a serious disruption when the Navy at least integrated. The stories of having to go to the head in groups to keep from getting jumped where kinda amazing. It did not last terribly long however. The key that was learned from that time was the importance of a strong command.

 

[Arch Enemy]

This thread is absurd.

The argument that putting a homosexual into a company will lead to a lack of group cohesion is something that should be solved by the end of Basic Training. I mean isn't that what Basic Training is about? To instill the discipline to fight in an army and to expel those who cannot? Whether or not a soldier has a boyfriend or a girlfriend back-home is peripheral.

Ending DADT is not going to immediately cause every flamboyant homosexual in the Castro to sign up for service. There should be no fear that a homosexual could enlist and then change the camouflage patterns to that of a flamingo.

The only argument I can see against DADT is that it would make those who previously felt comfortable to be in the army, now feel uncomfortable. To this I have to say:
1) Grow a pair, you bigot; Accepting homosexuals into the army does not decrease the effectiveness of the US army. What is beneficial to the army is top priority.

2) Homosexuals are not anymore a sexual predator, than normal enlisted people. Nor are they rapists.

3) [as found in my previous post on page 1] It is inhumane to disallow a person to fight for his beliefs, his country, and by proxy, his family. Because he/she may not be hiding pornographic, heterosexual, material from the Gunny does not mean that this person is incapable for putting a bullet thru Usama's turban.

 

[The Uncola]

Wow you STILL don't get it.

Actually Jerry, yes I do "get it." A homophobe tries to make a point using crap evidence and I called 'em on it.

Wow, I guess you didn't "get that."