• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
those who feel religiously obligated (not motivated by hate or homophobia, but by religious obligation, assuming any of you can understand that there's a difference there) to view homosexuality as an immoral behavior might find their careers impaired because of that belief.
doubtless. but it is NOT homosexuals that are "impairing" their careers but their own unwillingness to accept a behavior that does in no way affect them. It is not even sexuality but religious intolerance and the insistence that their religion has more meaning than the law that is affecting their careers. it SHOULD.
if non-coms and officers are required to go further in actively supporting and affirming homosexuality in a public manner, then yes that could be an issue.
you continue to insist that the fact that they do not LIKE what homosexuals do justifies restrictions on homosexuals. that is nonsense. It is, as others have pointed out, no more just in regard to sexuality than it is to race or the very religion these folks are using to justify it.
What about Chaplains? Is it going to be forbidden for a Catholic chaplain to even mention that the Catholic church considers homosexual activity to be a sin?
no. nor is it going to be forbidden for atheists to say that Catholicism is a form of oppressive thought control. No one is suggesting that allowing gays to serve in the military demands a repeal of the first amendment.
Maybe you say "Well, let him resign and get out of the military then, the intolerant schmuck."
that would be one option
Okay, let's say all the Catholic Chaplains resign, and along with them half or more of the Baptist Chaplains, plus some others. Do you know how many soldiers are Baptist or Catholic?
who cares?
All I'm saying is that yes, there might be some questions about how all this is going to play out
undoubtedly
and at some point those questions might fall under the heading of religious liberty
absolutely not. relgious liberty is the freedom to ascribe to the doctrines of a religion. it is specifically NOT the privilege to impose those restrictions on others. it is specifically the denial of that privilege.

no one is looking to burn you OR call you a bigot. I am trying to point out that you have a seriously skewed understanding of what the constitution protects.

geo.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,259
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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."

I know that's inaccurate because there are no homophobes on this thread, even.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
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.

You keep this up and I'm going to think we agree too much. ;)

I'm not even convinced the Bible really has anything to say about homosexuality. No need to go too far down this track because it doesn't matter as we're all free to believe what ever we choose to believe. My problem would be that someone thinks their belief should be imposed on others. This makes sense with things like murder, as it is harming someone else, but less so with consenting adults who are not breaking any law, or harming anyone else. Even if it is correctly and factually a sin, that would be between them and their God, and not something where we impose our beliefs on them.
 

friday

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
801
Reaction score
196
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative

Relax. Obama doesn't want to repeal DADT. He's using a trick he learned from the employees he shares with Goldman Sachs. He has put together a toxic bill so that he can avoid repealing DADT, and blame it on the Republicans. Think about it, the majority of Democrats don't support the homosexual agenda. Obama himself is one of many Democrat leaders who has stated that marriage is between one man and one woman. Bill Clinton was the one who put DADT in place. But he is getting heckled at most speeches about not repealing DADT, so he has to do something.

That is why they cooked up a bill that repeals DADT and provides taxpayer funded abortions. Obama knows that the right will vote against it, and the so-called "blue dogs" will vote against it unless they are bought off. And he has no intention of buying them off this time.

Obama has created a bill that is designed to fail and is betting his political career on that failure. Then he can say he tried to repeal DADT but the right stopped him, when the right actually will be voting to stop taxpayer funded abortion. Sorry guys, Obama is duping you and you are falling for it. You guys should probably be offended that he thinks you are so stupid as to fall for this, but I doubt you are.
 

MXracer169

New member
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
37
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I am going to post this with complete honesty... I ama Marine Corps combat veteran, I served in an infantry unit, and I went to war. The group of men I served with I will always consider my brothers. No matter what you feel about current conflicts, and whether you are left or right, we need a capable fighting force. My unit was very successful in doing our mission, and without a doubt unit cohesion is the reason we were successful. Allowing gays into the infantry would disrupt this cohesion.
I would go as far as saying that gays could serve openly and successfully in 95% of all military jobs. I would however exclude service in tight knit infantry units. Infantry unit cohesion is essential, and a break down would cause loss of life, and less success, and much less moral. The extremely close living conditions while in combat and constant interaction would create an uneasy awkwardness that would not be a good thing. I am sure there are some gay men that would still do just fine and fit right in, but some wouldn't, and bad situations would arise from it. However, almost every Air Force and Navy jobs would be just fine, and even the majority of Army and Marine Corps jobs. I don't think someone serving their country with honor should have to deny their sexuality. However, I think infantry units whould be left as they are... am I unreasonable? This is my oppinion and mine only, and I hope I haven't offended anyone.
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
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.

Welcome to life under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". :shrug:

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".

Then I would say it comes down to the same choice homosexuals have faced: is it gonna be military service or having an open personal life?

Now I don't think that question is right and legitimate to force on anyone. In fact, I think its wrong. There is a happy medium and a balance that can be struck here. First of all, I don't think you're gonna find many homos sitting in army church listening to chaplains. Homos and church usually don't mix. Secondly, any Christian Chaplain who refuses to minister to a homosexual serving his country is so out of touch with the message of Christ, his ministry is suspicious to start with.

So how about this for a compromise: homos can serve openly and proudly but should not look for validation of their personal choices from the chaplains and the chaplains can believe whatever they want about homos so long as they don't go throwing holy water at them and telling them they are going to hell once they die on the battlefield?
 
Last edited:

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
46,680
Reaction score
51,929
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Welcome to life under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". :shrug:



Then I would say it comes down to the same choice homosexuals have faced: is it gonna be military service or having an open personal life?

Now I don't think that question is right and legitimate to force on anyone. In fact, I think its wrong. There is a happy medium and a balance that can be struck here. First of all, I don't think you're gonna find many homos sitting in army church listening to chaplains. Homos and church usually don't mix. Secondly, any Christian Chaplain who refuses to minister to a homosexual serving his country is so out of touch with the message of Christ, his ministry is suspicious to start with.

So how about this for a compromise: homos can serve openly and proudly but should not look for validation of their personal choices from the chaplains and the chaplains can believe whatever they want about homos so long as they don't go throwing holy water at them and telling them they are going to hell once they die on the battlefield?


:shrug: All this is going to be decided by loftier personages than you or I, but in general I'm okay with what you said.

I just hope that new policies are implemented carefully, and with an understanding that changing attitudes in the military is going to take a little time and that some allowance for that will help smooth things along.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
110,163
Reaction score
55,471
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
:shrug: All this is going to be decided by loftier personages than you or I, but in general I'm okay with what you said.

I just hope that new policies are implemented carefully, and with an understanding that changing attitudes in the military is going to take a little time and that some allowance for that will help smooth things along.

We are approaching 6 months into the yearlong Pentagon study on how to do it which leads me to believe that they are putting at least some thought into that.
 

friday

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
801
Reaction score
196
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I am going to post this with complete honesty... I ama Marine Corps combat veteran, I served in an infantry unit, and I went to war. The group of men I served with I will always consider my brothers. No matter what you feel about current conflicts, and whether you are left or right, we need a capable fighting force. My unit was very successful in doing our mission, and without a doubt unit cohesion is the reason we were successful. Allowing gays into the infantry would disrupt this cohesion.
I would go as far as saying that gays could serve openly and successfully in 95% of all military jobs. I would however exclude service in tight knit infantry units. Infantry unit cohesion is essential, and a break down would cause loss of life, and less success, and much less moral. The extremely close living conditions while in combat and constant interaction would create an uneasy awkwardness that would not be a good thing. I am sure there are some gay men that would still do just fine and fit right in, but some wouldn't, and bad situations would arise from it. However, almost every Air Force and Navy jobs would be just fine, and even the majority of Army and Marine Corps jobs. I don't think someone serving their country with honor should have to deny their sexuality. However, I think infantry units whould be left as they are... am I unreasonable? This is my oppinion and mine only, and I hope I haven't offended anyone.

Again, I wouldn't worry too much. Obama doesn't want to repeal DADT if he can avoid it. That's why they put taxpayer funded abortion in the bill. They want Republicans and blue-dogs to kill a DADT repeal. It's all election year tricks.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
71,661
Reaction score
37,280
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I am going to post this with complete honesty... I ama Marine Corps combat veteran, I served in an infantry unit, and I went to war. The group of men I served with I will always consider my brothers. No matter what you feel about current conflicts, and whether you are left or right, we need a capable fighting force. My unit was very successful in doing our mission, and without a doubt unit cohesion is the reason we were successful. Allowing gays into the infantry would disrupt this cohesion.
I would go as far as saying that gays could serve openly and successfully in 95% of all military jobs. I would however exclude service in tight knit infantry units. Infantry unit cohesion is essential, and a break down would cause loss of life, and less success, and much less moral. The extremely close living conditions while in combat and constant interaction would create an uneasy awkwardness that would not be a good thing. I am sure there are some gay men that would still do just fine and fit right in, but some wouldn't, and bad situations would arise from it. However, almost every Air Force and Navy jobs would be just fine, and even the majority of Army and Marine Corps jobs. I don't think someone serving their country with honor should have to deny their sexuality. However, I think infantry units whould be left as they are... am I unreasonable? This is my oppinion and mine only, and I hope I haven't offended anyone.

as a (former) 0351, i have to agree. this, also, is a major reason to keep women out of those same units.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,989
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I am going to post this with complete honesty... I ama Marine Corps combat veteran, I served in an infantry unit, and I went to war. The group of men I served with I will always consider my brothers. No matter what you feel about current conflicts, and whether you are left or right, we need a capable fighting force. My unit was very successful in doing our mission, and without a doubt unit cohesion is the reason we were successful. Allowing gays into the infantry would disrupt this cohesion.
I would go as far as saying that gays could serve openly and successfully in 95% of all military jobs. I would however exclude service in tight knit infantry units. Infantry unit cohesion is essential, and a break down would cause loss of life, and less success, and much less moral. The extremely close living conditions while in combat and constant interaction would create an uneasy awkwardness that would not be a good thing. I am sure there are some gay men that would still do just fine and fit right in, but some wouldn't, and bad situations would arise from it. However, almost every Air Force and Navy jobs would be just fine, and even the majority of Army and Marine Corps jobs. I don't think someone serving their country with honor should have to deny their sexuality. However, I think infantry units whould be left as they are... am I unreasonable? This is my oppinion and mine only, and I hope I haven't offended anyone.

What, you don't think lack of cohesion is already goring on under DADT?
There ARE gays serving in the military. The only difference between DADT and no DADT is that YOU don't know they're gay. So, why would you knowing someone is gay affect your ability to focus and stay on task (or, someone else's ability to focus and stay on task)?

How about when a soldier is "found out" under DADT regulations and then is booted out - doesn't matter how, why, when or where - out they go? Doesn't that effect cohesion? What about when a soldier is found out - but isn't booted out - and instead is just abused by his fellow soldiers and socked every chance they get for their personal satisfaction? How does that help moral and this 'cohesion' factor?

Let's look at a scenerio similar to what's actually happened under DADT:
What if, let's say, a soldier was gay and tried *very very* hard to keep his gay relationship private. However, someone saw him with his partner at the movies in the next town over, took a few pictures, and turned him in - he was, under DADT, processed out.
Well, let's say he was a seargent - he had guys who depended on him to help them get through deployment, mission and assignments - musters and splurges - all that jazz. . . and then suddenly he's gone.
What then? They just Sunshine him out of their memory - re-cohese without him around, move on like he was never important? That's hard to do, that's damn hard.

What you're thinking of is a 'weak link' in a chain type scenerio - weak links can be straight, democrat, white or female - their orientation, race, gender or political leaning is NOT the reason why they might be a weak link. Someone might be a weak link because they just don't fit in with the group - maybe it's a personality clash or a clash of the titans scenerio.

Unless he's cohesing your buttcheeks - you "knowing" won't affect anything other than what you allow it to effect - as is with a lot of men - what they allow it to effect is their personal judgement, attitude and feelings. Nevermind that they're all soldiers and should put all those things aside or be in control of theirselves - nevermind all that jazz - suddenly - it's what people *feel* that counts when *feelings* are the last thing that should be stirring in the warzone.

It's a job, focus on it, get **** done.

And here I am always thinking that being a 'man' means not giving a damn about others and just proving you can handle everything - that nothing gets to you.
Guess not?
 
Last edited:

MXracer169

New member
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
37
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
cpwill- I was an 0311, Semper Fi bro

Aunt Spiker- from your post I know that you never served in an infantry unit. Believe me, you are closer than family after training for combat and then going to war together; there are no secrets. No one would be able to hide homosexuality in an infantry unit, and if they did it would be through a mountain of lies; lying is something you dont do to your brothers.
Like I said, gays could probably serve openly in the majority of jobs offered, just not the infantry. Like it or not, it is a brutal, conservative organization. Conservatives sign up to actually fight when they serve, it is just how it is. Also remember there are kids that are in their late teens and early twenties, they can be pretty narrow minded. Gays in the infantry would be a bad idea, just like having women in the infantry would be. It would cause problems, no matter how you slice it. At the least there would be distractions that would cause issues. We need to leave our infantry alone.
Just remember, the military, and especially the combat arms portion, are very much against repealing DADT. The civilians want it, and trust me, civilians don't know what it is like to serve.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
cpwill- I was an 0311, Semper Fi bro

Aunt Spiker- from your post I know that you never served in an infantry unit. Believe me, you are closer than family after training for combat and then going to war together; there are no secrets. No one would be able to hide homosexuality in an infantry unit, and if they did it would be through a mountain of lies; lying is something you dont do to your brothers.
Like I said, gays could probably serve openly in the majority of jobs offered, just not the infantry. Like it or not, it is a brutal, conservative organization. Conservatives sign up to actually fight when they serve, it is just how it is. Also remember there are kids that are in their late teens and early twenties, they can be pretty narrow minded. Gays in the infantry would be a bad idea, just like having women in the infantry would be. It would cause problems, no matter how you slice it. At the least there would be distractions that would cause issues. We need to leave our infantry alone.
Just remember, the military, and especially the combat arms portion, are very much against repealing DADT. The civilians want it, and trust me, civilians don't know what it is like to serve.

Do families, close families, throw out their gay brothers and sisters?
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,989
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Do families, close families, throw out their gay brothers and sisters?

Good question! I think it depends on how religious a family is and exactly what beliefs they cling to.

I haven't been shunned from my family and I've done all sorts of stuff. After my first marriage ended and I avoided being in a relationship for a *very* long time (several years) my mom asked me if I was a lesbian. :rofl So it appears that for my family it would have been ok if I was :shrug: and my Dad's a minister.
 

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Do families, close families, throw out their gay brothers and sisters?

If they're fundamentalist Christians, very likely. For some people, the delusions associated with having imaginary friends are more important than family members that actually exist.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,354
Reaction score
14,423
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Most fundamental Christians I know do not throw out their gay family members. They pray for them and urge them to seek help. I have heard of atheist families and hard left families throw out converts to Christianity though;)
 

winston53660

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
29,262
Reaction score
10,125
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Most fundamental Christians I know do not throw out their gay family members. They pray for them and urge them to seek help. I have heard of atheist families and hard left families throw out converts to Christianity though;)

Now Maya Keyes -- liberal, lesbian and a little lost -- finds herself out on her own. She says her parents -- conservative commentator and perennial candidate Alan Keyes and his wife, Jocelyn -- threw her out of their house, refused to pay her college tuition and stopped speaking to her.

When Sexuality Undercuts A Family's Ties (washingtonpost.com)
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
as a (former) 0351, i have to agree. this, also, is a major reason to keep women out of those same units.

and blacks. you know how THEY feel about us for enslaving their forebears. how can we trust them?

geo.
 

ADK_Forever

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
3,706
Reaction score
1,001
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This thread, and all those like it, are nothing but crap. Undermine religious liberty:confused: :roll: DADT was a dumb idea by Clinton then and is a dumb idea now. All it does is kick out good men and women, good soldiers based on bigotry and discrimination. None of those being kicked out have caused any kind of unit problems. Some have been in for many years and are well respected by their unit and peers.

The sooner this dumb ass law is repealed the better.
 

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
94,061
Reaction score
32,053
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Here is something that has always perplexed me about the OP's line of reasoning. If Christianity holds that sex should be reserved for one man and one woman, in marriage, then why is that homosexuality is any more sinful than straight people who have sex outside of marriage? If the OP has a problem that would keep him from accepting working alongside homosexuals, then he should have the same problem working alongside a straight man who lives with his girlfriend out of wedlock, a situation that is far more pervasive than homosexuality in the military. It's this kind of contradiction that makes this supposedly religiously motivated outrage look like at thin veil for mere intolerance. The simple fact is that the Christian religion encourages respect and tolerance for all kinds, and there is no way that ending "don't ask don't tell" will interfere with the practice of mainstream Christians in any way.
Give me a list of people that say it is.
 

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
This thread, and all those like it, are nothing but crap. Undermine religious liberty:confused: :roll: DADT was a dumb idea by Clinton then and is a dumb idea now. All it does is kick out good men and women, good soldiers based on bigotry and discrimination. None of those being kicked out have caused any kind of unit problems. Some have been in for many years and are well respected by their unit and peers.

The sooner this dumb ass law is repealed the better.

Agreed. The whole idea of religious liberty is asinine. Sure, you can believe whatever you want, but the moment you step outside or open your mouth, you're in the real world and you need to handle yourself appropriately. I don't care if inside, you hate every gay person that ever existed, that doesn't need to be spewed all over the place through your gaping pie hole. Should racists just be able to declare their racism "religious liberty" and expect to be able to practice it openly? How about misogynists? Where do you draw the line? Discrimination is abhorrent no matter why you do it, just sticking a religious label on it doesn't make it any better.

A lot of these people in the military need to grow the hell up and get over it. Reality works just fine guys, enough of your idiotic testosterone-laden immaturity.
 

Christopher

New member
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Messages
11
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
If someone offered me proof-positive that I have been mistaken and that the Bible does not view homosexuality as a sin, I would immediately alter my viewpoint on homosexuality. My current position is that we live in a free nation with a largely-secular government, and that as such it is nobody's business what two consenting adults do in private... however, I am forbidden from saying "homosexuality is good and fine and moral" because of my religious beliefs.

Dear Religious People,

Please stop making non believers point out how horribly flawed your interpretations of your own book are and learn basic reading comprehension and critical thinking.

There is nothing in the Bible that states homosexuality is a sin. Homosexual actions? Yes. Homosexuality? No. There are plenty of gay celibate Christians. And according to Christianity, homosexuality is neither moral nor immoral. Questions of sexual morality only come into play when people choose to act or lust over their attractions, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual.

Sincerely,
The Antichrist.
 
Top Bottom