Update on DADT PolicyFollow

And how exactly do we choose? Do we vote on it using our current electoral system, or do we go with the majority system? Is it a problem that the majority system takes the voice from minorities? Does it matter that the electoral system can pass laws that most Americans are desperately opposed to?

Stop pretending like this wouldn't require years of debate followed by years of politics followed by years of planning and organizing.

Right now, we use a system that attempts to maximize the voice of each person by allowing subsequent tiers of election into various government bodies, each governed by checks and balances, and each representing a different political philosophy concerning democracy.

That's why federal laws involve all three areas of the gov't. In order to change that system to allow for direct democracy, we are talking about a TON of political restructuring. That's going to take a very long time and cost a lot of money. I wouldn't be surprised at all if, in the meantime, the courts sent a gay marriage bill to the federal gov't and it passed.



Because you're still a religious person and religious doctrines and ideas vary wildly over the course of denominations, let alone religions, so you have no way of knowing if your chaplain is going to call you a sinner or help you deal with the pressures of being openly homosexual in a caring, non-judgmental way?



******** analogy is *********

First of all, if someone from MADD berated someone for being an alcoholic, I would have a massive problem with it. Secondly, MADD members don't hold gov't jobs (in the context of MADD) where they are expected to provide support and guidance.



And, in the context of him being bound by anti-discrimination laws, he shouldn't be allowed to mention homosexuality. His JOB is as a federal employee. His place in the religious organization is external to that.

If your chaplain is a Muslim, and you ask him where you've sinned, is okay for him to say "When you prayed to a heathen God."? No, it isn't.



There's plenty of other reason. And there's plenty else he could address without touching that particular topic.



Again, TERRIBLE argument. By that situation, a Christian man who goes to see a chaplain OBVIOUSLY can't be gay. You know, because he's Christian.



There's plenty of reason he might. If there's no Muslim Chaplain around, there's plenty of reason to assume he would visit the Christian one. It might not be in a religious context, per se, but more because he desperately needs to talk. And chaplains exist to give support. They do not exist to give support only to those who share their beliefs.

And there are maaaaaaaaaaaaaany Christian denominations, maaaaaaaaaany of whom hold specific notions of other ones being heretical. A mormon soldier might go to a Catholic chaplain, because he's a christian and its all that's available. Is it okay for the chaplain to tell him he's going to hell because he thinks there have been other prophets since Jesus?

His poor mother. I mean, I know it's her fault and all. But can you blame her for doing everything she could to get him OUT of her body?

Stawman much?

This is just a pathetic attempt to not agree with me. I've stated numerous times already that people should be able to appeal whatever they want, but at least cut down the time and money spent doing so. If the result was that 25 states allowed SSM and 25 didn't, that's 19 states that didn't have to go through the process of allowing SSM, which saves everyone time and money.

So, yes, the other states will still have to fight for SSM, but they would have had to either way you look at it. The goal is to change as many at once instead of in onesies and twosies.




So, like I said it's not that it can't be done, it's that people don't want to put the time and effort to make it work. Was the current system put in place over night? I'm sure they had to go through the same amount of work and effort to make it work as well. I'm sure there was and still is controversy surrounding the current system. So, you have yet provided anything on why we couldn't develop such a system other than "I don't wanna". A lot of work to make it happen != impractical.



This system doesn't exist, yet you're already complaining about stuff that DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THERE. You first complained about majority rules. I stated that it doesn't have to be that way, it can be representatives voted on by the public to DEBATE a particular side. After hearing all 50 states and their concerns, a decision can be made, all for one or a combinatioin.

Then you complained about not everyone having a voice. Look dude, it doesn't matter how you set the system up, just do it so we're not wasting time and money. It's going to have to be one way or the other. You can't hide behind "Well, it's not perfect" when we currently don't have a perfect system either.




But there is no "denomination" in the Chaplain core. They are trained to be able to address any denomination. You're either Christian or not, Jewish or not, Muslim or not, etc. In any case, tell me what Christian denomination that doesn't view homosexuality as sin? You're just grasping at straws. Without even knowing the Chaplain, I would assume that is the case. As a result, I would talk to the many other counseling people available that do not use religion. If you are indeed religious, then you should expect your "sinful" behaviors to be labeled as such if you bring them up in discussion.

You're acting like this only affects homosexuals. EVERYONE is a sinner and this logic applies to everyone. Homosexuals aren't special. If anyone goes up to a pastor and talks about their pre-marital sexapades, you should be expected to be labeled as a conducting sin.

So, if you're complaining that the Chaplain has the right to call your activities "sin" if you bring up those activities for discussion to him, then your argument isn't against homosexuality, but the existence of a Chaplain. You might as well remove the job if he can only tell you what you're doing right and not wrong.



I'm not saying that MADD works with the government. If you're familiar with GS jobs (Government Service), there are plenty of jobs and positions to monitor, take care of,etc. the welfare of service members and their families. If you go to a member of MADD asking them advice and you got offended because they told you to stop drinking, then you are an idiot. What did you expect them to say?



I don't know the Muslim faith, so I don't know. There would have had to be other dialogue in that conversation. He just can't assume that you prayed to a heathen god or attack your prayers if they aren't the topic or related to the topic.

You don't understand that each chaplain is "marked" as Christian, Muslim, Jewish". If you don't agree with the Jewish religion, then don't go to a Jewish Chaplain asking for advice. You go to the Chaplain which most closely relates to your own beliefs.

I have no reason to go to a Muslim Chaplain because I'm ignorant of that religion. Even if I did, I wouldn't bring up specific activities for him to judge. I would simply ask for comfort. At that point, he can NOT judge any activity that he doesn't know. Even if he somehow could legitimately do that, I sought his advice. We don't ever have to talk ever again.

As you said, people have different interpretations, so there will never be any religious person that everyone agrees with 100%.


If you're telling him to alter what's blatantly considered to be right or wrong in a religion to not offend someone, then you have defeated the purpose of the Chaplain. His job is to teach God's, Jesus, etc. words, NOT what you and your buddies think is p.c. Certain topics can be debatable, but big ones such as the Ten Commandments,tithing, pre-marital sex,etc are widely understood. That includes homosexuality. If you don't like it, that's fine, just don't go talking to a religious person for religious advice if you don't agree with the said religion. It's really that simple.

That's exactly what was said in our briefing as well.



That's not a terrible argument at all. If the gay person is Christian, the he already knows that its considered a sin. Again, we all are considered "sinners' in one way or another. If you ask a religious person for advice, all of your "sin" is open for game. Homosexuality is no different.



You're still creating false scenarios. Any good Chaplain or religious person for that matter, will NOT push people away from their religion but focus on bringing them CLOSER to their religion. No Good Christian would say that "you're a Mormon, you're going to hell" for several reasons.

1. If you're going there for generic support, why does he need to know that you're a Mormon, Muslim or not?

2. Even if it comes up in conversation, unless the topic is specifically about being a Mormon, it would stop there. (As I pointed out to you with homosexuality)

3. TRUE people of religion don't condemn people of other positive faiths, only well known "sins", i.e. adultery. So, if you're in a religion that allows adultery and you ask him a question in reference to your adulterous relationship, the Chaplain may speak against adultery, but not speak against your religion.

If you don't like that, then you need to talk to someone else, because that's his job. To give advice according to book x.

I'm not a racist and I agree with his sentiment, that 'you got yours' in terms of rights and could give a flip less about any other group.

So Alma's solution to cutting down court costs is to put forth an entirely new system that will then need a complete appeals system attached to it.

Sounds like it's just as bad to me.

Your MADD analogy fails because it conveniently leaves out the most important aspect of the problem--that being that Chaplains are gov't employees working in a gov't job.



Then explain to me why chaplains are bound by anti-discrimination policies. You know why? Because they are federal employees. They are there to preach their religion, yes. But they have to forfeit the right to discriminate when they sign up for the job.



No. You know that some Christians consider it a sin, and many don't. you have no way of knowing what a specific Chaplain believes until you go to see him, and you don't deserve to have your sexuality berated because you wanted religious support.

But my favorite par of your post:



That's exactly the tactic religions use to gain converts.



I doubt he NEEDS to know. But the fact remains that you are free to tell him (like "Hello chaplain, I'm a muslim but I was wondering if you could still give me some advice on a few issues").



By federal law, he's bound to not discriminate against religions. That's the difference. He IS REQUIRED to not reference any other religion in a negative way. They put a clause on their homosexuality anti-discrimination mandate that gives him an exemption here--one he doesn't have for any others. And they are only free to do so because a federal anti-discrimination bill doesn't exist yet.



HA. First of all, thanks for a ridiculous claim about specific religions that you've (for some asinine) reason made universal. What you believe to be "true" of religious people doesn't matter. I also like that feel you are in a position to judge against religions you don't find "positive" (though I should confess, there are veeeeery few religions I would call positive).

The fact of the matter is that, while the chaplain IS there in the name of his own religion, he's taking a gov't job in the process. That binds him by anti-discrimination laws. When he's working out of his own, private parish, he can say whatever he wants. But once he is holding a gov't position, he cannot.

Because no federal protections exist for homosexuals, the military is able to get away with not universalizing their anti-discrimination rules in this respect. Chaplains are bound by ALL OTHERS (sex, race, creed). Just not this one. And that's *********

lolwut? I believe all people should have the same rights. I'm not sure how that makes me racist.

To be honest, I take exception to being called a racist out of the blue like that. Back up your claim, recant it, or we will have an issue.

Edited, Jul 2nd 2011 4:28pm by Lubriderm

Many people have many times before pointed out to you where your logic is flawed. Due to your flawed logic, you can't see it for yourself. You're a victim of your owned flawed thinking. You're trapped in an endless cycle of thinking you are correct and nobody else understands. This is all results from your flawed logic. You are broken. You cannot be fixed. It's a perfect catch-22 and I don't know why anyone still bothers with you.

Are you going to become gbaji now and threaten legal action?

No, but it royally pisses me off.

Alma in 30 years.

Hey Alma, how do you propose we get issues into the federal gov't to vote on?

You do realize that all those landmark cases began at the local level, right? So what, should anyone who wants something voted on just put it up for vote in the federal gov't? We have 300 million people in this country, and local courts are inundated with suits (let alone higher courts).

How are we supposed to ever organize votes on topics? Right now, we work in two ways.

Representatives from states can put a bill forward, or a case can be heard by the supreme court. Both are heavily dependent on local gov'ts, because it's the only way the federal gov't can stay connected to current issues in the US.

Unless you can actually detail a way in which a true democratic structure would work, gtfo.

Would I love to see a federal vote on gay rights happen? Of course. But I'm not blinded by idealism. That will never happen until the vote has enough support, which will never happen until the representatives have enough support, which will never happen until their home states take decisive stands on the issues.

*And this assumes that they are fine forfeiting state power, the balance of which is a massive part of our gov't system.



The majority of people, religions and otherwise, in this nation have no problem with homosexuals. There's more opposition to MARRIAGE, yeah, but not to the sexuality itself (which isn't to say that homophobia isn't a part of the system, just that people don't actively dislike gays).

I'd wager that the majority of religious officials in this nation are not anti-gay. Most religious organizations aren't really touching homosexuality outside of marriage. The number of institutions that actually oppose ***** sexuality in totality is definitely a minority--they are just a very, very outspoken one where their counterparts don't have a voice here at all, by choice.

So, no, it is not realistic to think that a gay person should automatically assume that a priest would be militant against them. This is just your own ignorance showing.



The only place homosexuality is mentioned in the bible is in the old testament, and most Christians don't consider those laws as being divine mandates. Hell, most Jews don't even believe most of them anymore (Orthodox vs. Reform).

And since when are we only discussing Christianity?



So they should have to stay closeted to chaplains, because it's THEIR fault if he insults them?

You would think that.



Then explain to me why he is bound by every other anti-discrimination rule, INCLUDING THOSE ABOUT RELIGION, except for homosexuality.



And the fact remains that, if a Reform Jewish female soldier goes to see the Jewish chaplain (who happens to be Orthodox, but beggers can't be choosers), she will be a sinner according to his beliefs. But he is not allowed to tell her that, because federal laws protect her rights.

Fair, but I did say that representatives could put forth bills as well. In the context of civil rights, at least, this is almost always due to either state gov'ts having sufficient support at home to put forth a bill or because the judicial branch took it up.

A representative is rarely going to actually have the support he needs unless the state either has a functioning system already, that he can make reference to, or a sizable enough population that he can win an election by using it as a platform. And you only get to that point after its been publicly debated for a while already.