Gays In Military

[Vincent Vega]

obvz

[kujo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1338260586' post='2436875']
Kujo, I agree that allowing homosexual behavior and accepting it are two different things, don't the two often end up going together? Look at what's happened out in California over the last few years where allowing it has morphed into being accepting and supporting of "other lifestyles."
[/quote]

I fail to see what your trying to say here.

No one is asking for anyone's stamp of approval here. Instead, I think the general idea is that people should just mind their own effin business and not get a hair across their backside when men and women who happen to be gay want to make the ultimate sacrifice to serve our country.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1338259404' post='2436846']

and i am somewhat dyslexic. this finds its way into my typing. good on ya for making fun of handicaps
[/quote]
No crying in phatmass.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338260830' post='2436883']
I fail to see what your trying to say here.[/quote]Oh I was agreeing that they're different things, but our society tends to conflate the two so often that it's become a real fear of some people who oppose gay relationships that they'll soon be forced to accept them as normal. There have been numerous cases recently of people who sue for "discrimination" when people don't speak well of gay relations.

[kujo]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1338260900' post='2436885']

No crying in phatmass.
[/quote]

Also, no Phatmass in crying!

(Note: I'm not making fun of handicapped people. I'm making fun of Groo. Whether or not he/she is handicapped has nothing to do with it)

[4588686]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1338254713' post='2436792']
Yes it does and you're just reading it with a weak understanding of Catholic Teaching. The Church's teaching against 'homosexuals' adopting children is also found in this document, but your weak understanding of Catholic teaching would also allow this teaching to be a option to take into account. Cafeteria Catholicism isn't razzle dazzle.
[/quote]


I like how you explained what was wrong with my reading of it rather than just asserting that you were right.

[kujo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1338260979' post='2436888']
Oh I was agreeing that they're different things, but our society tends to conflate the two so often that it's become a real fear of some people who oppose gay relationships that they'll soon be forced to accept them as normal. There have been numerous cases recently of people who sue for "discrimination" when people don't speak well of gay relations.
[/quote]

Again, I don't think most gay people give a carp whether or not qfnol31 supports their relationship. Similarly, I couldnt care less what those darn gays think of my relationship with Amanda. Mainly because it's none of their business. Same goes for anyone not related to me by blood or friendship.

The saying about opinions and sphincters is apt here, because you are absolutely entitled to your opinions. But there's a word for systems of government that formulate laws and military policy based on religious texts: theocracy.

[qfnol31]

Again, I agree with you (mostly), but what's scary is that government doesn't always follow public opinion (see the recent case of DC and MD where gay marriage is now legal, but not supported by popular opinion). Often government and authority will impose their own opinions and try to keep uniformity.

Now I'm not saying this is a definite possibility, but it's still a rational fear for a person to have.

[kujo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1338261835' post='2436900']
Again, I agree with you (mostly), but what's scary is that government doesn't always follow public opinion (see the recent case of DC and MD where gay marriage is now legal, but not supported by popular opinion). Often government and authority will impose their own opinions and try to keep uniformity.

Now I'm not saying this is a definite possibility, but it's still a rational fear for a person to have.
[/quote]

Well, all I can say here is that there was a time in our country's history where popular opinion favored slavery and discrimination based on gender and race. And the government's actions in curtailing these things certainly occurred before popular opinion (i.e.- a majority--51+%--Americans) dictated such actions.

Thus, I guess you could say that government action both formed [i]by[/i] and formed [i]from[/i] public attitudes.

[Jesus_lol]

I would be interested to know how many people here against gays being in the military would even be capable of making it through Basic.

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1338260900' post='2436885']
No crying in phatmass.
[/quote]

well, that disqualifies half the posts of half the peeps here....

[Anomaly]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338260830' post='2436883']
No one is asking for anyone's stamp of approval here. Instead, I think the general idea is that people should just mind their own effin business and not get a hair across their backside when men and women who happen to be gay want to make the ultimate sacrifice to serve our country.
[/quote]That's great in theory, but you know it never works out that way.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell was based on the idea that what people choose to do privately isn't really any other person's business.

Now that the Government is forced to openly acknowledge and allow public identification of active Homosexuality in the military, more questions arise.

Does the Military currently provide seperate living/showering/bathroom facilities based on gender for modesty/privacy purposes? If so, should the same facilities be provided based on sexual orientation? Why or why not?

Does the Military currently provide accomodations/benefits for hetero married couples? Should same sex couples have to be recognized by the Military? If so, should the same accomodations/benefits be provided for same sex couples?

[Groo the Wanderer]

the govt is already trying to illegally force military chaplains to perform same sex 'marriages'. So much for letting everyone just be. So much for not forcing the agenda on us.


riiiight

[Socrates]

I haven't had time to slog through this entire miserable thread, but officially allowing open homosexuality in our armed forces is simply another politically-motivated move by the government to officially sanction and approve homosexual conduct, and constitutes a lowering of standards of morality and honor that have been in place nearly since the founding of the American military.

For most of our nation's history, homosexual sodomy was generally recognized as behavior that is inherently dishonorable and unworthy of any man, whether serving his country in uniform or not, and thus as certainly unworthy of an American fighting man.

Yes, I'm fully aware that this very un-razzle dazzle, un-hip, and un-pc talk of morality and honor will likely draw nothing but sniggers and derision from most of the trendy pc phatmass crowd, including many of the "Catholics." And I'm sure one can always point out the hypocrisy of not allowing open homosexual behavior in the military in light of the other forms of sexual immorality servicemen are notorious for, but that still does not make this lowering of moral standards to comply with political correctness a good thing.

In addition, sexual and "romantic" tensions and relationships between combat soldiers, who must share very close quarters for extended periods of time, can create real issues. And I'm against women serving in combat units with men for the same reason.
I can only see this leading to an increase in lawsuits and such from both "gays" and "straights."

Many military officers and veterans petitioned against allowing open homosexuals in the military, including plenty of decorated vets with combat experience, and I personally know plenty of military vets who are strongly opposed to homosexuality in the military, so the usual childish ad hominems of saying the only people opposed are civilian wussies who could never make it through basic (and are probably closet homos themselves) is nonsensical, as well as largely irrelevant.

And as the US has somehow managed to have the world's best military, and win two world wars without sanctioning homosexuality in its ranks makes me seriously doubt that allowing "gays in the military" is an urgent military necessity.

The lowering of moral standards is never a good thing, and should never be applauded by Catholics.
Political correctness be damned.

[Socrates]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1338259523' post='2436850']
I don't know exactly which country operates an honorable and moral military, but I know the US military serves to protect the interests of the USA, and above all, the interests of the USA's government. Perhaps, at times, decisions are made to have the appearance of honor or morality for the purposes of PR, and certainly there are many honorable and moral individuals who are in the armed forces of the US and other nations, but I do not buy into the religion of statism, so I reject the concept that the US armed forces are some beacon of morality to a world of heathens.
[/quote]
So let's eliminate all traces of any standards of honor or morality in the US military, so it can stand exposed as the fascist gang of imperialist oppressors that it is. No standards beyond the ability to be trained to Kill! Kill! KILL!!!

Now where can I buy a Che Guevera t-shirt?