Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Update on DADT PolicyFollow

#102 Jul 03 2011 at 9:07 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Surely, with Military being a branch of the state, religion has no place what so ever in it?


Also, why do you end every post with "You are wrong, give it up"? Would that work on you?


That's kind of the point I'm trying to convey, the Chaplain corps is unique in respect to others. They don't follow the same guidelines. You can argue against that they shouldn't be different, but not that they aren't different.

As for the "give it up", you're right. I noticed that after I posted that last. I asked myself "Didn't I already say that?".. Oh, well.

idiggory wrote:
Quote:
This is why I'm not bothered with the rest of your post, because your problem can be seen right here. IN THE MILITARY THERE IS A RELIGION AS A WHOLE. CHAPLAINS ARE NOT THERE TO FAVOR ONE DENOMINATION OVER ANOTHER, JUST CHRISTIAN, MUSLIM and JEWISH. There's no Baptist Chaplain, just Chaplain. If you ever gone to Chaplains service, it becomes very obvious. I only went to one sermon and it was horrible. Completely PC to only mention generic teachings.


This just weakens your argument, you do realize that, right?

If they are giving simple services designed to be compatible with all denominations of a religion then it makes absolutely no sense for them to use their own denomination's ideas about what is and is not sinful.

Which is your entire argument, no?


Uh, except homosexuality being a sin isn't a "denominational thing". That's widely accepted as it's clearly written in black and white. It's not one of those interpretations of changed words with various meanings. So, no, it doesn't weaken my argument.

Lubriderm wrote:
Fair enough.

Alma, you act the way you do towards homosexuals because in your head, you can still smell the whiskey breath of the uncle who came to 'tuck you in' an hour after everyone else in the house went to bed when you were a child. The thing is, while you lash out at homosexuality, you have never felt more alive than on those special uncle visits.

Now I have said something totally random about you. Provide merit that I'm a racist, and I'll recant/apologize.


Are you really this confused? You started this by agreeing with a false accusation made by another poster. I didn't just come at you. You came at me with complete nonsense with nothing to back it up. As a 3rd grade counter, I made something up about you.

You wanted me to "take it back". I told you that what I said had no merit (4 times now) and that I was just doing unto you what you were doing to me. Furthermore, I'm not going to apologize for it because unless you can actually site my argument, then you were making stuff up against me, which was why I did what I did to make a point.

You started this, not me.

Exodus wrote:
I just want to restate how it cracks me up that almost every gay thread I've seen in both OoT and the Asylum revolves around Alma vs the forum. gbaji only if marriage is involved, cause only baby makers should get that right.

sh*t...I might've accidentally summoned gbaji.

Sorry guys. Smiley: frown

Anyway...I don't understand why any "devout heterosexual" would pay this much attention to what happens in the homosexual community. You aren't taking it up the pooper nor getting shot in the eye, so why the hell does anything related to this affect you? Why talk about it so much and debate on it so much? On an random video game forum, no less. What's there to gain? I mean, sure, let's all kill time, but gay people can't possibly be the only thing you can be completely wrong on, Alma. I'm just sure of it.


I would never physically do any work for/against homosexual anything. As I said in the other thread, other than this thread, I don't recall ever making any homosexual threads. Also, as stated in previous threads, my main thing isn't even about homosexuality, but the stupid arguments used in homosexuality's favor.

I'm here to argue and debate and this topic brings up the stupidest arguments. Most of them boils down to "Whatever it takes, no matter how illogical it might be". That's the wrong answer in ANY argument. If your cause is legit, then you would be able to provide legitimate arguments.

My personal opinion on SSM changes often, but I will never accept an argument that by disallowing SSM you are taking away the right for a homosexual to be married because that's simply misleading and isn't true.

Idiggory wrote:
Probably because a large population actually wanted to take it up the pooper and got shot in the eyes, but couldn't admit to themselves that they did. So they got really violent about it. But being overly angry about it alone makes you stick out, so they needed to get everyone else angry about it too.


If that what makes you feel better.

Allegory wrote:
Because it's an infringement on their worldview. For some people it's also a rejection of their identity; it is telling them that some part of their core belief system is wrong. That is a very difficult notion to accept, and so naturally many people adamantly reject it.


That's like a million times more likely the reason.


Raolan wrote:
From what I understand, being a Chaplain is a special duty assignment, meaning it's a voluntary assignment. I'm not sure what the specific qualifications are.

But you're right, they aren't there to judge, they're there primarily for spiritual guidance and counseling. Which again backs up my point that the policy is designed as a "cover your ***" policy should they have to go into territory that some would consider discriminatory or negative, it isn't there so they can berate people. Can you honestly tell me that at no point in time a marriage counseling session, or counseling session of any type, might go into an aspect that someone may take offense to? Something as simple as a term taken the wrong way could be enough to get a Chaplain lynched, especially with how sensitive this subject is going to be for awhile. If a Chaplain has to tiptoe on eggshells because they have to worry about offending someone, it's going to be damn near impossible for them to do their job.

Lets use a little common sense for a second. I don't care what policies are in place, if a Chaplain starts spouting off at a homosexual about this or that, they're done. Not a chance in hell the military is going to protect them from that media sh*t storm.

There's a very simply rule when it comes to working with the government in any way, shape, or form. Cover your ***.


This.

Chaplains aren't going around telling people that they are going to hell, but if they can't read a verse out of the KJV Bible, because it might offend someone, then they can't do their job.

According to a Chaplain, you have be to ordained first, just like with Legal and Medical. You can come off the street and come in as a CPT or MAJ depending on your experience and expertise.
#103 Jul 03 2011 at 9:14 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Raolan wrote:
I'm not sure what the specific qualifications are.
Its pretty much the only officer field that actually requires you to be a priest/clergy/whatever of some sort prior to signing up.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#104 Jul 03 2011 at 9:26 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,496 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Raolan wrote:
I'm not sure what the specific qualifications are.
Its pretty much the only officer field that actually requires you to be a priest/clergy/whatever of some sort prior to signing up.


When my wife was volunteering at the chapel at her last base I spent some time talking to the Chaplains assistant, I thought I remembered him saying he wasn't ordained yet. I could be wrong though, which is why I wasn't sure. Although I do remember that he took over for the Chaplain when the Chaplain was reassigned.
#105 Jul 03 2011 at 10:17 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Raolan wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Raolan wrote:
I'm not sure what the specific qualifications are.
Its pretty much the only officer field that actually requires you to be a priest/clergy/whatever of some sort prior to signing up.


When my wife was volunteering at the chapel at her last base I spent some time talking to the Chaplains assistant, I thought I remembered him saying he wasn't ordained yet. I could be wrong though, which is why I wasn't sure. Although I do remember that he took over for the Chaplain when the Chaplain was reassigned.


The Chaplain's assistant is another story, they are your typical "Joe". I have a friend whose spouse is a Chaplain assistant in the Navy and he isn't even religious.

From my understanding, as a Chaplain and/or Legal Officer, you have to already have your education, that's why they come in as 1LT(P) or CPT.

Edit: Which I think is BS, because I can have a PhD in Telecommunications and I still would have came in as a 2LT. It's the "need of the Army". >.<

Edited, Jul 3rd 2011 6:17pm by Almalieque

Edited, Jul 3rd 2011 6:18pm by Almalieque

Edited, Jul 3rd 2011 6:19pm by Almalieque
#106 Jul 03 2011 at 11:58 AM Rating: Decent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Quote:
Uh, except homosexuality being a sin isn't a "denominational thing". That's widely accepted as it's clearly written in black and white. It's not one of those interpretations of changed words with various meanings. So, no, it doesn't weaken my argument.


The only place it is written in the bible that homosexuality is a sin is in a book filled with Jewish laws that nearly all Christians do not follow. Even if it's true that most Christians believe homosexuality is a sin (which I'm not sold on, or at most it's a small majority), they aren't using any teachings of Jesus to substantiate them.

Feel free to pretend that's not the case though.

And the fact remains that it doesn't matter if it is considered a sin or not. Islamic and Jewish faiths, to the majority of followers, have clear ideas of what women are and are not permitted to do (which, since you seem to care, are written very clearly in the texts that their faiths actually regard).

Chaplains still aren't allowed to insinuate that a woman is a sinner for joining the army.

Quote:
That's like a million times more likely the reason.


Says the person who I'm positive has never studied ***** history or the history of homophobia to the person who has.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#107 Jul 03 2011 at 12:23 PM Rating: Good
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
Uh, except homosexuality being a sin isn't a "denominational thing". That's widely accepted as it's clearly written in black and white. It's not one of those interpretations of changed words with various meanings. So, no, it doesn't weaken my argument.


The only place it is written in the bible that homosexuality is a sin is in a book filled with Jewish laws that nearly all Christians do not follow. Even if it's true that most Christians believe homosexuality is a sin (which I'm not sold on, or at most it's a small majority), they aren't using any teachings of Jesus to substantiate them.

It's mentioned a few times in the bible, to be honest, but rarely by Christ. And to be fair, in Leviticus 18, they also suggest that we don't defile ourselves with beasts, either.

As someone who has respect for the military in general, however, I find it sick that a chaplain would feel the need to lecture someone who is willing to kill and die for their country about their sexuality.
#108 Jul 03 2011 at 12:38 PM Rating: Decent
-REDACTED-
Scholar
***
1,150 posts
Lubriderm Quick Hands wrote:
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
Uh, except homosexuality being a sin isn't a "denominational thing". That's widely accepted as it's clearly written in black and white. It's not one of those interpretations of changed words with various meanings. So, no, it doesn't weaken my argument.


The only place it is written in the bible that homosexuality is a sin is in a book filled with Jewish laws that nearly all Christians do not follow. Even if it's true that most Christians believe homosexuality is a sin (which I'm not sold on, or at most it's a small majority), they aren't using any teachings of Jesus to substantiate them.

It's mentioned a few times in the bible, to be honest, but rarely by Christ. And to be fair, in Leviticus 18, they also suggest that we don't defile ourselves with beasts, either.

As someone who has respect for the military in general, however, I find it sick that a chaplain would feel the need to lecture someone who is willing to kill and die for their country about their sexuality.


Yes, Paul mentions that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Cor. 6:9-11, I believe. I don't think the late JC had anything to say about it, even in the largely exaggerated accounts of his life that we have. And, of course, ol' Pauly boy was pretty down on women too - they must keep silent in church and all that - so you're still left with the whole "pick and choose" delema.
#109 Jul 03 2011 at 2:28 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
Uh, except homosexuality being a sin isn't a "denominational thing". That's widely accepted as it's clearly written in black and white. It's not one of those interpretations of changed words with various meanings. So, no, it doesn't weaken my argument.


The only place it is written in the bible that homosexuality is a sin is in a book filled with Jewish laws that nearly all Christians do not follow. Even if it's true that most Christians believe homosexuality is a sin (which I'm not sold on, or at most it's a small majority), they aren't using any teachings of Jesus to substantiate them.


I already explained this to you. The Old Testament is part of the Bible for a reason. Tithing and offering is taught from the beginning of the Bible and is currently taught among Christians. The New Testament didn't completely overwrite the Old Testament. Jesus even said that himself.

So, you have no argument and you're making stuff up. There are many things that are brought up in the Old Testament, i.e Sabbath Day, tithing, 10 commandments, etc. that are still upheld in the New Testament.

I'm not an expert in religion, but the entire point of the New Testament was the deliverance and savior of the people for not following the Old Testament, not, "here's a new religion".

I don't recall there ever being something that was considered a sin in the OT but not a sin in the NT. In any case, various denominations may vary upon the two covenants, but once again, that isn't the Chaplain's job. His job is to reference the Bible. In the Bible, it clearly states that it is a sin along with adultery, incest, etc. If you were to ask the Chaplain if it is a sin to sleep with your sibling, he has the right to say yes. If that offends you, then don't ask him. As long as he is able to reference that in the Bible, he is doing his job.

Idiggory wrote:
And the fact remains that it doesn't matter if it is considered a sin or not. Islamic and Jewish faiths, to the majority of followers, have clear ideas of what women are and are not permitted to do (which, since you seem to care, are written very clearly in the texts that their faiths actually regard).

Chaplains still aren't allowed to insinuate that a woman is a sinner for joining the army.


You're trying to create a scenario where I would back peddle and it wont work. If you go to an Islamic or Jewish Chaplain and ask them if it is wrong for you to work as a woman and he can point out in black and white with no interpretations, then YES he can and should say that. If anyone has a problem with that, then there should be against the fact of having Islamic and Jewish Chaplains, not against them doing their jobs. If they are lying to people so they don't hurt their feelings, then they are not doing their job. You might as well make any liar a chaplain.

The military only acknowledges certain religions, but I don't care if there's a Chaplain of a religion that believes anyone over the height of 5'6" should be killed. If the government employed this Chaplain to teach from their religion and that's what it says in plain black and white, then he has the right to tell someone that s/he should be killed in the name of The Great Buhuhu if the service member asks.

If you disagree with that, then you should be fighting for the removal of that religion, not wanting him to lie about his religion.

Idiggory wrote:

Says the person who I'm positive has never studied ***** history or the history of homophobia to the person who has.


Since the definition (or at least in practice) of the word "homophic/homophobe/homophobia" is not only misleading but often wrong, like the words sexist and racist, I would LOVE to hear your explanation of what homophobia is.
#110 Jul 03 2011 at 2:31 PM Rating: Good
Closet Case wrote:
I'm not an expert in religion
Then shut up about it.
#111 Jul 03 2011 at 2:38 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Child toucher wrote:
Closet Case wrote:
I'm not an expert in religion
Then shut up about it.


Neither are you. Nor do most people claim to be, hence why everyone goes to Church. WTF is your point?
#112 Jul 03 2011 at 2:48 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
hence why everyone goes to Church.
lol

You should find the tallest building around, go to the top of it, and shout "I'm an ignorant fool!"

Then jump off of it or something.

Edited, Jul 3rd 2011 4:50pm by Lubriderm
#113 Jul 03 2011 at 2:56 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Quote:
I don't recall there ever being something that was considered a sin in the OT but not a sin in the NT.


Lol, so all Christians you know eat kosher? And don't shave? And only wear one type of cloth at a time? And wear yarmulkes? And make sacrifices.

Give it up.

Oh, and btw, you might want to read this before you make it even more apparent how ignorant you are.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#114 Jul 03 2011 at 3:04 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
I don't recall there ever being something that was considered a sin in the OT but not a sin in the NT.


Lol, so all Christians you know eat kosher? And don't shave? And only wear one type of cloth at a time? And wear yarmulkes? And make sacrifices.

Give it up.

Oh, and btw, you might want to read this before you make it even more apparent how ignorant you are.


I did read it, hence why I said that the various denominations vary on their interpretations on the application of the old covenant.

The Chaplain DOES NOT favor denominations.


He reads from the Bible. If it is supported from the Bible in plain text, then he is authorized to say it regardless of what it says.

I was incorrect about previous sins, but that does not contradict the fact that many teaches from the Old Testament remains.

So, your proclamation of "It's in the Old Testament so it must be false" is incorrect. If you want to debate within certain denominations, then you would have an argument. Else, it is plainly written that it is a sin.

Edited, Jul 3rd 2011 11:05pm by Almalieque
#115 Jul 03 2011 at 3:26 PM Rating: Decent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
No, the VAST Majority of Christians don't take everything in the OT as true--to what extent they accept it is heavily denominational.

The only way, then, to structure a non-denominational service is to focus heavily on the gospel. That's literally the only common thread between all Christians.

Why? Because that thing you are thinking of as the Bible is, in all likelihood, King James' Bible. In actuality, the text used across the spectrum varies quite a bit. Greek Orthodoxy, for instance, accepts that the apocrypha (ancient books describing Jesus life from birth until his 30s) is canon. Other traditions don't.

But continue pretending like you have any clue what you are talking about.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#116 Jul 03 2011 at 3:46 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
idiggory wrote:
No, the VAST Majority of Christians don't take everything in the OT as true--to what extent they accept it is heavily denominational.

The only way, then, to structure a non-denominational service is to focus heavily on the gospel. That's literally the only common thread between all Christians.

Why? Because that thing you are thinking of as the Bible is, in all likelihood, King James' Bible. In actuality, the text used across the spectrum varies quite a bit. Greek Orthodoxy, for instance, accepts that the apocrypha (ancient books describing Jesus life from birth until his 30s) is canon. Other traditions don't.

But continue pretending like you have any clue what you are talking about.


OK,what is exactly your counter? You're confusing me on your point by throwing in irrelevant stuff that you just looked up in order to appear more educated than what you really are.

The Christian Chaplain's job is to teach out of the Bible, not by denominations. It is common by every Christian by any version of the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. What percentage of the OT is carried over to the NT will vary by denomination, but there are many things that indeed carried over, such adultery and incest being considered a sin, tithing, Sabbath Day, etc. Just because Jesus didn't mention "homosexuality is a sin", doesn't mean it magically became o.k. That is something interpreted at the denominational level. Any poster on this forum will agree that religious people are probably the biggest opponents of SSM. So, I'm not seeing where Christians are accepting homosexuality as a whole.

So, what exactly is your counter? No wiki words that you just looked up. Simply put,if the Chaplain's job is to read from the Bible and it plainly says homosexuality is a sin, with most denominations considering it as a sin, displayed by their open opposition of SSM, what is your counter?

#117 Jul 03 2011 at 4:28 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Well, you've failed to define by what you mean by "Bible" for one thing.

So you are saying that, even if 90% of Christians were to disagree with something, because it happens to be included in the bible, a chaplain should teach it?

But earlier you said that services were meant to be open to all that share that faith? Clearly, wouldn't the best tactic be to provide services that ONLY reference the truly universal aspects of the faith (or at least, as close to that as you can get)?

And, afaik, chaplains are meant to work with peoples of all faith. Like, in the literal sense. They are given instruction and guidelines on how to deal with every gov't-recognized religion. They aren't there in the capacity of "Christian priest" or "Jewish rabbi." They are there as military chaplains, and their only job is to provide spiritual support to soldiers, regardless of religious beliefs.

And, once again, you are confusing opposition with same-sex marriage with the belief that homosexuality is a sin.

Even more importantly, you are still using an absurd argument. You have failed to show why this isn't a civil rights issue. If a chaplain is forbidden from negatively speaking of other religions, races, or sexes (even if his religion has specific beliefs about them), then there is no reason why sexuality shouldn't be included as well.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#118 Jul 03 2011 at 4:43 PM Rating: Good
idiggory, have my babies. You're endurance is amazing.
#119 Jul 03 2011 at 5:17 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
If I wasn't bored and it wasn't raining, I might be less inclined to deal with him. :P
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#120 Jul 03 2011 at 6:45 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Idiggory wrote:
Well, you've failed to define by what you mean by "Bible" for one thing.


Whatever Bible they are told to use during their Chaplain training. Homosexuality is defined as a sin in every version of the Bible.

Idiggory wrote:
So you are saying that, even if 90% of Christians were to disagree with something, because it happens to be included in the bible, a chaplain should teach it?



That doesn't make sense. If it is clearly written in the Bible, then 90% of the Christians wouldn't deny it being Biblical. They may have personal beliefs against it, but that is personal. The Chaplain isn't supposed to teach what people personally agree with or not in respect to opinions if it's blatantly written.

There's a big difference between agreeing that it is written in the Bible vs agreeing with what was written in the Bible. You may disagree with what Jesus said, but that doesn't change the fact that Jesus said it. At that point, the Chaplain has the right to say whatever Jesus said, because it is written. If you don't like it, then don't go to the Chaplain asking him what Jesus said. If he tells you anything other than what Jesus said, then he is violating his position as a Chaplain.

Idiggory wrote:
But earlier you said that services were meant to be open to all that share that faith? Clearly, wouldn't the best tactic be to provide services that ONLY reference the truly universal aspects of the faith (or at least, as close to that as you can get)?

And, afaik, chaplains are meant to work with peoples of all faith. Like, in the literal sense. They are given instruction and guidelines on how to deal with every gov't-recognized religion. They aren't there in the capacity of "Christian priest" or "Jewish rabbi." They are there as military chaplains, and their only job is to provide spiritual support to soldiers, regardless of religious beliefs.


Seriously though, don't you feel slightly guilty for obviously making crap up? You have no idea on how the Chaplain corps operates. This belief that Soldiers are bound by the same rules as a civilian or any other government employee is absurd. At this point, it is obvious that you're just making stuff up to fit what you would like it to be. If it were what you say they were, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, now would we?

Chaplains are labeled as Christian, Muslim or Jewish. They are even marked as such on THEIR UNIFORMS telling you "Hey I'm Muslim", "Hey I'm Jewish", "Hey, I'm Christian". Not only do they have an additional patch on their chest for their specific insignia, their rank on their head gear is replaced with the same insignia, except really shiny.

I'm not contradicting myself. They are taught to be able to talk in a generic sense to cover various denominations, BUT if you ask them a specific question (which has been the argued scenario from the get-go), he is obligated to respond based on the insignia on their chest. No matter what Bible you read, homosexuality is considered a sin.

Idiggory wrote:
And, once again, you are confusing opposition with same-sex marriage with the belief that homosexuality is a sin.


No I'm not. The religious opposition of Same Sex Marriage is because of the belief that homosexuality is a sin. What other religious reason would there be?

Idiggory wrote:
Even more importantly, you are still using an absurd argument. You have failed to show why this isn't a civil rights issue. If a chaplain is forbidden from negatively speaking of other religions, races, or sexes (even if his religion has specific beliefs about them), then there is no reason why sexuality shouldn't be included as well.


You're in denial. I already told you, the Chaplain is not bound by any of that stuff that you listed. You're just making stuff up to support your point. The Chaplain's job is to teach out of their religious scriptures. If their religious scripture blatantly says "All women should stay in the kitchen, have babies and be killed at the age of 40 after being raped by a football team of men", then he has the obligation to read that scripture as the truth in any relevant scenario.

You're claiming that I'm using an absurd argument, but I don't think you even know what it is. If it is written, then he can say it. If you don't like it, then get rid of the religion.

Codyy wrote:
idiggory, have my babies. You're endurance is amazing.


Don't egg this guy on. NO ONE on this forum agrees with him and you know that. I went back and looked at an old thread and everyone was blaming religion for "homophobia". Remember that argument about our founding fathers? It was argued that SSM wasn't changed because of the religious atmosphere of the U.S. and that's the entire reason why SSM and homosexuality is "bad". Now, this guy is arguing that most Christians don't believe that homosexuality is wrong, where it's blatantly obvious that religious groups are the biggest opposition to homosexuality and SSM.
#121 Jul 03 2011 at 6:56 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
The Bible says lots of things are sins which lots of Christians ignore, because it's convenient for them. That's why using, or being influenced by the bible in any way in your attitude towards SSM kills your argument.

Chaplains for example, explicitly work on the Sabbath, that's a stoning offence right there. It's also a much bigger sin than homosexuality is.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#122 Jul 03 2011 at 6:58 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Quote:
Whatever Bible they are told to use during their Chaplain training. Homosexuality is defined as a sin in every version of the Bible.


And in every version of the bible, it's a sin for a woman to speak in church. What's your point?

Quote:
That doesn't make sense. If it is clearly written in the Bible, then 90% of the Christians wouldn't deny it being Biblical. They may have personal beliefs against it, but that is personal. The Chaplain isn't supposed to teach what people personally agree with or not in respect to opinions if it's blatantly written.


So most Christians don't eat pork?


And yes, chaplains have their own faith. But it's also required of them, but the military, to speak with anyone who wishes to talk to them. AND, it's forbidden for them to negatively address those individuals' faith, regardless of what it is. If I was a Muslim, I would be able to go to a Christian chaplain if I needed to talk. And he wouldn't be allowed to insinuate that I was a sinner for anything relating to my religion.

Quote:
No I'm not. The religious opposition of Same Sex Marriage is because of the belief that homosexuality is a sin. What other religious reason would there be?


Most Christains in the US are in favor of gay rights, in general. Marriage is what gives them pause. For the most part, they are fine with two gays living together, and the support for civil unions is WAY higher than marriage. Why? Because they are obsessed with the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. MOST Christians are perfectly fine with gay people.

Quote:
the Chaplain is not bound by any of that stuff that you listed


You claim to be in the military, yet don't even know how this works? Federal statutes apply to all military personnel. There are federal protections for race, religion and sex. There aren't for sexual orientation. Chaplains are bound by all federal anti-discrimination policies.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#123 Jul 03 2011 at 6:59 PM Rating: Decent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Also, if everyone disagrees with me, please let me know. Because Alma seems to think that you all agree with him.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#124 Jul 03 2011 at 7:01 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Nilatai wrote:
The Bible says lots of things are sins which lots of Christians ignore, because it's convenient for them. That's why using, or being influenced by the bible in any way in your attitude towards SSM kills your argument.

Chaplains for example, explicitly work on the Sabbath, that's a stoning offence right there. It's also a much bigger sin than homosexuality is.


What?

What people ignore is irrelevant to the their teachings. EVERY religious person works on their respective holy day to teach everyone the holy scriptures. Kind of the whole point of not working on a specific day, to have time for everyone to gather and learn.. kinda like on the holy day..

How did you determine that was a much bigger sin? Based on what? I mean, besides the fact it isn't a sin anyway.
#125 Jul 03 2011 at 7:03 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
idiggory wrote:
Also, if everyone disagrees with me, please let me know. Because Alma seems to think that you all agree with him.



Unless they have changed their minds. I literally looked a specific thread today. So, if they do say otherwise, I'll just quote them blaming religion as the primary reason for "homophobia".

Anyway, notice how it's only me and you? I learned years ago, when it ever it's just me and one other person, it's because everyone agrees with me but doesn't want to come out and say it. Else, they would all attack me at once.

Given, times have changed and more people have given up much of that energy, but that's still pretty much the norm.
#126 Jul 03 2011 at 7:07 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Almalieque wrote:
it's because everyone agrees with me but doesn't want to come out and say it.
Or the silent people know that correcting you won't do anything.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 251 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (251)