Update on DADT PolicyFollow

Most of all Christians think homosexuality is a sin because it is taught as such in the Bible. Hence why the entire Bible only references marriage between a man and a woman. As a result, they are against SSM. PERIOD. That's not to say that there aren't non-religious arguments, but that's the religious argument.



Wait, so you're telling me that the Church never complained about SSM until homosexuals started voicing their opinions on SSM! That's just crazy!

People are so crazy now-a-days.. Next you'll tell me that people didn't complain about Afghanistan and Libya until AFTER the U.S. got involved.



Seriously, why do you come here just blatantly making stuff up? Did you even bother to look up civil unions in the U.S. before making that comment? They are not federally recognized nor are states obligated to recognize them. They were done as a compromise.



Didn't I ask you to provide your study on homophobia? You can't just call people homophobic because they don't support SSM. People are against SSM because of their belief that homosexuality is a sin. They aren't trying persecute anyone from being a homosexual, just not allow what they believe to be sin to be promoted in society. That is why those Bible verses that are being thrown around are not supporting their argument.



What you're doing is creating false reasoning to make yourself feel better.

I agree that many people maybe "homophobic", but you can't use that as a blanket reasoning and say that people are too dumb to form their own opinions because of society. There are people, religious or not, who think homosexuality is wrong. There are people who are perfectly fine with the fact that their BFF is a homosexual, but still believes that homosexuality doesn't add up.

This is nothing more than people once again pretending that homosexuality is something special in order to support their point. There are many life styles that people disagree with while all at the same time have nothing but love for the people who live them. That is very common, so to pretend that can't be the case with homosexuality is nothing more than denial.



If your pastor or whatever never preaches against those things, then you're in the wrong place. You can't accuse the entire religion as acting one way simply because of a few rotten apples. It's obvious that you're just making stuff up again.

WTF do you think sin tax is? So, it's not mentioned in the Bible as a sin, yet people made it a sin without actually telling anyone that's a sin? How does that possibly make any sense? If it's not listed in the Bible directly as a sin, SOMEONE had to preach about it in order for people to believe it was.

I remember before TN got their Lotto, it was Christians who were against it because they considered that as "gambling" and taking money from the poor. So, please, quit making stuff up. It isn't helping your argument.



If you want to argue the concept, that's another debate. We are specifically discussing homosexuality and there is absolutely no ambiguity about that. So, just because people vary on eating pork or not has nothing to do with homosexuality.


Then why are you even arguing with me? This entire argument was over the ability of a Chaplain to say to a person that homosexuality is a sin or not if asked.

P.S. All of your Bible verses are not representing your argument at all. I don't claim to be an expert, but that is a result of a religiously ignorant person throwing around well known verses , while leaving out every other supporting verse, in attempt to make a point.

That's the very reason why religion gets a bad name. They act off of ignorance. For example when people use the verse that a woman should submit to their husband as an excuse to mistreat their wives. If they would read the very next verse where it says that the man should submit himself to God and treat his wife accordingly, they would realize the error in their logic. Instead, they just operate off of one verse. That's exactly what you're doing. You're completely ignoring context.

I also will +1.

Right? For it to be anything other than a +1, it needs to have content of value.

You're right. The worth of teaching is only as good as the mind enlightened. So any interaction with you is useless. Your very existence is vampiric.

It has nothing to do with the student. If you're saying the same thing over and over, you lose value. That's a choice you decide to make. If the student didn't comprehend something, you find another way to explain it. When you have exhausted all various methods, then you can try again or quit. All you have done is said the same thing over and over and over again. That's why I stopped responding to you before. I realized that there wasn't any value in what you were saying nor in me repeating myself.

Lol, when did you EVER stop replying to me?

And there are only so many ways to explain something. If the student is intentionally refusing to understand, there's just not anything you can do.

And it's ironic for you to call others valueless. You spend so much of your day on a forum where no one likes you.



I rather drink acid.

Wow this still going on?

Hmm well to add something of worth, I'll throw some info into the mix. Myself served a little over eight years and ETS'd as a SSG. DADT is a very ~VERY~ misunderstood policy. It's purpose was to allow homosexual's to serve in the service. See service members of all branch's are required to follow this separate legal code known as the UCMJ. Under the UCMJ many rights that citizens enjoy simply don't exist, namely 1st, 2nd and 4th amendment rights although others can be bent / reduced at the needs of the service. Also there is no "right to serve" anywhere in the US Constitution, the sole document that authorizes the military's existence. Serving is a privilege and can be denied for any reason the service branch's determine. This is at the discretion of the branch chiefs and the President, Presidents tend to defer to the branch chiefs on these issues. So now that we've established that no one has a right to serve, homosexual or heterosexual, man or women, we'll go into the details about how this works. This isn't an opinion piece nor does it deal with what ~should~ happen, merely was is.

Many decades ago the branch chiefs (at that time) determined that being homosexual was bad for the good order and discipline of the force, and thus a policy was made that made it illegal to be homosexual in the US Military. A commander could ask point blank to a soldier "what is your sexuality" and that soldier is required by law to answer truthfully. If the soldier answered truthfully that they were homosexual, they could then be charged with Article 92 (disobeying a lawful order) and / or 134 (general article) of the UCMJ. This could mean prison time. Lying and later getting caught would result in the same 92/134 plus a few others.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm92.htm
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/134.htm



Article 134 is the general "catch all" article, if you did something wrong you can probably be charged with Art 134.



Pretty vague huh? Failing to obey the general order of "don't be homosexual" would easily fall into both of those articles, you could be facing 3 months to 2 years of prison time. And here is one that just about every single service member I know has violated.

Art 125 Sodomy,
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm125.htm



Yeah basically the only thing legal is missionary position.

134-9 Wrongful Cohabitation
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/1349.htm

134-30 Indecent Acts with Another
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl134-30.htm



So as anyone can see, anything even remotely "homosexual" and most "heterosexual" activity is illegal if your a service member. Now that being said CSM's don't go around peeping inside windows to see what your doing in the bedroom. Even of the DOMA was repealed tomorrow, the only way two homosexuals could be a couple is if they were chaste homosexuals.

During Clinton's time there was a push to allow homosexuals into the military, the branch chiefs said it had to be carefully don't and that great harm could come to the force if it was suddenly pushed. The idea of a policy that the command would never ask a soldiers sexual preference, and the soldier would never divulge said preference was formed. Under this policy homosexual soldiers could enlist and serve honorable, without being exposed to the risk of incarceration or a dishonorable / bad conduct discharge. What was put in place is known as SAM (Statements, Acts, Marriage). Violating SAM would entail the soldier being discharged under a general discharge, the same used for medical and other non-negative reasons. SAM is as follows,

Statements. A soldier must state in the presence of an officer or NCO with a witness, that they are homosexual. This statement must then be wrote down on a DA-2823 (sworn statement, legally binding) and submitted as evidence to the soldiers commander. The soldier can avoid all this by simply not signing the 2823 (you can not be ordered to sworn statement) and saying they have no idea what the other two are talking about. Slightly grey but the soldier shouldn't of made the statement to begin with.

Acts. A soldier must have engaged in homosexual acts and this engagement must be witnessed. The witness must sign the above mentioned 2823 and it must be submitted to the soldiers commander as evidence. Here-say is not acceptable. Honestly for this one to take effect you need photo's / video's of a pornographic nature. The solder shouldn't be releasing video's of him / her having sex period.

Marriage. This is the cleanest of them all. The soldier engages in or attempts to engage in a same-sex marriage. A marriage license showing the soldier is married to someone of the same gender is sufficient. No getting out of this one, if you married someone of the same sex then your homosexual and all the above rules kick in.

The big point behind SAM / DADT is that the soldier isn't forced to reveal their sexual preference. The military (at that time) felt it was in the best interests of the force that homosexual's not serve openly. The concepts of good order and discipline, attrition and retention really rules here. This was a method to allow homosexuals to serve without weakening the US military.

The recent changes on Capitol Hill have outlined a path to remove DADT and replace it with the ability to serve openly. The current branch chiefs feel the force is ready to accept openly serving homosexuals provided it's done slowly and the soldiers are trained. EVERYTHING in the US Military is about training, you get "training" on how to make your bed and cleaning your rifle, to PCMS's your assigned vehicle and filling out paperwork. Your given frequent Equal Opportunity training, Consideration Of Others Training, Suicide Prevention Training, First Aid Training, NBC Training, they even have special school's they send you to when your ready for or make promotion, the NCOES and the various Officer School systems. Nothing happens in the US Military without a training package first. All the service members here know exactly what I'm talking about. You don't change a light bulb without first being "trained" on how to change a light bulb, and if you fail to change that light bulb then its your leaders fault for not training you to standard (I'm being a bit extreme but its really like that). Everyone is assumed to be an idiot unless you prove otherwise, and even then your demonstrated intelligence is considered a temporary thing.

The DOMA itself presents a legal hurdle, one that the branch chiefs can not remove. It prohibits federal funding or sponsorship of homosexual marriages. This funding includes BHA / OHA / COLA / FSP and various support services like on base housing and commissary / PX privileges. This isn't a Military decision, the Military can not legally recognize the spouses of same sex couples.

See the US Military isn't a social experiment, it is a real organization that deals with the art of accomplishing missions and if the necessity dictates, to kill people. Combat engagements are not a place for social niceties nor political correctness. You don't make sweeping changes because someone feel's it's politically "right" to do so. Soldiers live and die by the actions and trust of those they serve with, and any conflict within a team, squad or platoon can get someone killed. You or the person next to you can die if some misunderstanding forms or there is a rift within the team. Small unit leaders (CPL / SGT / SSG and maybe a LT somewhere) must be sensitive to these rifts and can not allow them to form. When I first joined myself and my platoon members received some un-official training (the Military call's it mentoring) from our drill's. The words stuck in my head and I used them on my soldiers, they go

I'm colorblind
I don't see white, black, red, yellow, brown, or blue
I only see green

This was used to emphasis that soldiers are a single group and that skin color no longer matters, that everyone is "green". And for the most part this works, we only have a few racists and their quickly caught and given the boot. Being labeled "racist" in the US Military is career suicide. This is also used for sexism, although the CA guys still struggling with women, but that's a different discussion (their concerned about physical standards not sexism BS). This same emphasis has been put on homosexuals. I have served with several homosexuals during my time and all of them were outstanding soldiers. The first one that comes to mine was a female Latino 31U (25U now). She could party harder then most of us and drink all of us under the table. Out at the clubs in downtown Daegu we'd see her hitting up her "girlfriends", no one cared because she did her job well and didn't take **** from anyone. She later got promoted to SGT and then PCS'd to another duty assignment.

So as you can see the force now has zero problems with openly homosexuals, what we do have a problem with is **** like LT Choi using the Military to make political statements. Someone wearing the uniform should never, ever, EVER make a public political statement, 1st amendment rights don't apply to soldiers.

Sorry for the WoT, I tried to make it as informative as possible without delving into the moral or PC arguments. Non service members rarely get a real look at how the service's work and how complex issues like this can be. Instead their fed stupid BS by the entertainment establishment and go around thinking soldiers are not intelligent. Or that soldiers just like to blow things up, or they all run around shooting everything. Especially when your talking people who aren't even Americans, much less members of their own nations Armed Forces, trying to speak like they know what's best for the US Military.

-Signal For Life !

Edited, Jul 5th 2011 1:36pm by saevellakshmi

What I get from this is that your job in the military is to party and get drunk.

What someone has the authority to do and what is the right thing to do with said authority aren't the same thing. If some base commander get's a hard on over the local Mc'd it doesn't make it right.

Missing the point? I think so.

How can anyone accurately teach from the bible when so many people can't even agree on what it actually means? Or what is parable and what is literal?

Stick to something you know. Inside the US Military it is/was (fuzzy now) illegal to be a homosexual or rather to practice deviant sexual acts. The definition of which I listed above. The UCMJ is rather vague about these things but it's rather specific that oral and **** intercourse are considered deviant sexual acts. Both articles 125 and 134-30 spell that out, and 134-30 can be stretched to mean damn near anything. Article 134 in general is used to prosecute anything found to be in detriment to "good order and discipline", with good order and discipline being at the discretion of the commander. Homosexual behavior is/was listed as being a detriment to good order and discipline, although that is changing as we speak.

This isn't a moral discussion, these are the facts about the UCMJ, something you should look into. Violating the UCMJ is surefire way to get the boot if not sent to Fort Leavenworth. As for the ... "comments" about military authority, I realize that civilians are used to a very liberal way of thinking, namely the right to do whatever the fck they want. This may come as a shock but the US Military isn't a democracy, its an authoritarian dictatorship. Someone gives you a lawful order, you follow it, refusing to follow it and disciplinary action will be taken. Refuse it further and administrative action will be taken (Art 15 / loss of rank / loss of pay). Refuse it even further and punitive action will be taken via a courts martial, this is very bad because it goes on your FBI record as a federal crime. Trying to get a job with a dishonorable discharge and military prison time is pretty fcking hard, your options become rather limited. If you disagree with the rules, then don't volunteer, or wait till your contract expires and opt to ETS out (junior soldiers serve for a set duration, if they want longer they have to request it and reenlist). If your a civilian with no desire to volunteer yet still want to criticize then you've become the peanut gallery. Either way **** or get off the pot.


You my eager friend don't know the military. Its not a job, its a life style. That is something my Brigade Commander (O6 / COL) told me when I was a SGT on my first reenlistment. "The Army is a lifestyle, if that lifestyle is something you can do or you enjoy then reenlist, if its something that you find to be incompatible then ETS out, either way you've served your country." That lifestyle is a very "work hard, play hard" mentality. You put in 60~80 hour weeks at times, working seven days straight to meet some mission deadline. I've been awake for 36 hours straight before, not because I wanted to but because it was needed. You don't get paid a dime extra for all that additional effort. An E5 SGT in the field leading his troops gets paid the exact same as an E5 SGT sitting behind his desk at a staff posting. Sometimes additional pay is used for things like FSP (Family Separation Pay), but then their typically in the range of $50~100 USD a month extra.

What this all means is that when you have time off, you party like a rock star and enjoy every last minute because you have no clue when you'll get more. You party Friday night because on Sunday you have to be in the motor pool PMCS'ing your equipment in preparation for Brigade inspection / commanders inventory. You rock it during the weekend because on Monday General Order #1 takes effect and the consumption of alcohol is forbidden for the next month due to heightened military activity. You rock it because next week your unit goes on lock down for three months prior to a 12 month deployment in the sand box (Iraq / Afghanistan) where you will probably see someone you know die or suffer a debilitating injury.

Now that I've transitioned from active duty to the civilian world (IT field) I wake up in the morning, put on my work clothes and drive my car to the office where I put in a 8 hour day for a 40 hour standard work week. If they need me to work more hours they pay me. I know how it is to live in both worlds, so don't presume to lecture me on what is or is not my "job". When you can stand up and say you've proudly served your country then and only then can we discuss this as equals.


Haha no I wasn't a Uniform, although I've had extensive cross training in their world. Enlisted as a 74B then they renumbered us to 25B. Smartest move I ever made, walked out with a tons of specialized experience, a TS and management credentials (last position was Platoon Sergent).

Edited, Jul 5th 2011 4:28pm by saevellakshmi

Oh good lord.