Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Update on DADT PolicyFollow

#152 Jul 04 2011 at 8:40 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Idiggory wrote:
It's also funny, because you still think you can boil down the tenants of a religion to the beliefs of only some within it, even if alternate viewpoints are perfectly valid.


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.

Idiggory wrote:
Oh, and the church didn't really give a crap about ****** until the late 1970s, a decade after the *** rights movement began.


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.

Idiggory wrote:
Relatively few groups are in favor of removing all rights from gays, and the majority of this nation (which is overwhelmingly Christian) is in favor of civil unions.


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.

Idiggory wrote:
What people get hung up on is marriage. And I'm not going to deny that its primarily due to homophobia or religion, but the point is that they think they aren't being homophobic in denying it. They believe that marriage is somehow inextricably linked to heterosexuality.


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.

Idiggory wrote:
It's homophobic, yes. But it's homophobic in a way they honestly can't see. And many of them would have felt the same way even if they weren't Christian, because it's the way society has worked their entire lives.


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.

Idiggory wrote:
That's not it at all. His point is that priests NEVER preach about those things, because they pick and choose what they like.


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.

Idiggory wrote:
You can't make the argument that "it's in the bible so it's part of Christianity" when there is no standard for accepting, interpreting, or denying what is in the old testement. Because, like we said, the percentage of churches (not just people) that accept everything in the OT as truth is a very, very small minority. Especially because it is literally impossible to do so. Why?

Because the reason the Jews put Jesus to death as a false messiah was that he was changing laws established by previous prophets. You can't believe everything in the OT and everything Jesus says--they aren't compatible.

Believing that a priest should teach everything in the bible, then, is absurd.


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.

Exodus wrote:
I never said homosexuality isn't a sin.

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.

#153 Jul 04 2011 at 8:42 PM Rating: Decent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Yeah, I'm not reading this now. I have better things to do tonight than listen to you prove, once again, that it's not a good idea to try and abort a baby with drugs and alcohol but stop halfway through.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#154 Jul 04 2011 at 9:52 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
idiggory wrote:
Yeah, I'm not reading this now. I have better things to do tonight than listen to you prove, once again, that it's not a good idea to try and abort a baby with drugs and alcohol but stop halfway through.


I also will +1.
#155 Jul 04 2011 at 10:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
6,119 posts
Almalieque wrote:
idiggory wrote:
Yeah, I'm not reading this now. I have better things to do tonight than listen to you prove, once again, that it's not a good idea to try and abort a baby with drugs and alcohol but stop halfway through.


I also will +1.

That is all you do
____________________________
This sig better be appropriate...
#156 Jul 04 2011 at 10:07 PM Rating: Decent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Right? For it to be anything other than a +1, it needs to have content of value.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#157 Jul 04 2011 at 10:20 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
idiggory wrote:
Right? For it to be anything other than a +1, it needs to have content of value.


That's a lot coming from someone stuck on repeat. Even if you're 110% correct in your posts, repeating the same thing is a lack of content and value.
#158 Jul 04 2011 at 10:38 PM Rating: Decent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
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.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#159 Jul 04 2011 at 10:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
6,119 posts
you two need to get a room.
____________________________
This sig better be appropriate...
#160 Jul 04 2011 at 10:48 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
idiggory wrote:
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.
#161 Jul 04 2011 at 10:50 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Tyrrant wrote:
you two need to get a room.


You all are always trying to ***** me off to other posters.
#162 Jul 04 2011 at 10:58 PM Rating: Decent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
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.

Quote:
you two need to get a room.


I rather drink acid.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#163 Jul 05 2011 at 6:32 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Name one.


Name one what?

I'm not sure you understand my point. My point is, if you come up with a "get rich quick" scheme or a method to "cheat the system" using something very common such as religion, chances are, people have already thought of it before you.
What are you blathering about now? Support your damned statement or shut up. You said something about PhDs?

Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:

Laughable, I know more about your religion than you do.


Some how I doubt that to be true, given that you haven't provided anything to support that only the contrary. Even if that were somehow true (as there are non-religious people who study religion), that means nothing in reference to religion if you're not actually practicing it.

So your point is if I don't practice a religion I'm not allowed to attack or criticise it? I'm not allowed to point out the moral hypocrisy of Christians unless I myself am one. Is that what you're saying?
____________________________
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
#164 Jul 05 2011 at 7:32 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,890 posts
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

Quote:
Maximum punishment.

(1) Violation or failure to obey lawful general order or regulation. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.

(2) Violation of failure to obey other lawful order. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.

Note: For (1) and (2), above, the punishment set forth does not apply in the following cases: if in the absence of the order or regulation which was violated or not obeyed the accused would on the same facts be subject to conviction for another specific offense for which a lesser punishment is prescribed; or if the violation or failure to obey is a breach of restraint imposed as a result of an order. In these instances, the maximum punishment is that specifically prescribed else wherefor that particular offense.

(3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.

(A) Through neglect or culpable inefficiency. Forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 3 months and confinement for 3 months.

(B) Willful. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.


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

Quote:
Elements.

The proof required for conviction of an offense under Article 134 depends upon the nature of the misconduct charged. If the conduct is punished as a crime or offense not capital, the proof must establish every element of the crime or offense as required by the applicable law. If the conduct is punished as a disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, then the following proof is required:

(1) That the accused did or failed to do certain acts; and

(2) That, under the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.


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

Quote:
Text.

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite *** or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient
to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Elements.

(1) That the accused engaged in unnatural carnal copulation with a certain other person or with an animal. (Note: Add either or both of the following elements, if applicable)

(2) That the act was done with a child under the age of 16.

(3) That the act was done by force and without the consent of the other person.

Explanation.

It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or **** the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or **** of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.


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

Quote:
Elements.

(1) That the accused committed a certain wrongful act with a certain person;

(2) That the act was indecent; and

(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Explanation."Indecent" signifies that form of immorality relating to sexual impurity which is not only grossly vulgar, obscene, and repugnant to common propriety, but tends to excite lust and deprave the morals with respect to sexual relations.

Lesser included offenses. Article 80-attempts

Maximum punishment. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.


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 *** period.

Marriage. This is the cleanest of them all. The soldier engages in or attempts to engage in a same-*** 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 *** 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 *** 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
____________________________
RoTZ: Complete DM: O
CoP: Complete AN: O
99 SAM, RDM, BLU, WAR, PLD, DRK

lolgaxe wrote:
Nothing in this game is impossible if you set yourself to the task of actually doing it. Even dumb people can only hold you back for so long.


Lucinus wrote:
when you're hefting something that deadly, you don't miss - mobs get the **** out of the way instead...
#165 Jul 05 2011 at 8:27 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
You're a day late and a dollar short, man.

Edited, Jul 5th 2011 10:27am by Eske
#166 Jul 05 2011 at 8:34 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,381 posts
Quote:
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.
What I get from this is that your job in the military is to party and get drunk.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#167 Jul 05 2011 at 8:35 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
I'll quote this first.

Saevellakshmi wrote:
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.


Exactly.. I made this exact argument before and this is exactly what I've been trying to convey to Iddigory. Military personnel are not bound by the same rules and regulations as others, even government employees. A Commander can say that the local McDonalds is "off limits" for reasons x,y and z. Instantly, we are not authorized to go there and going there can/will get us in trouble.

Quote:
-Signal For Life !


HOOAH! Let me guess 25U?

"You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us" or what we like to tell ourselves lol..
#168 Jul 05 2011 at 8:41 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
Exactly.. I made this exact argument before and this is exactly what I've been trying to convey to Iddigory. Military personnel are not bound by the same rules and regulations as others, even government employees. A Commander can say that the local McDonalds is "off limits" for reasons x,y and z. Instantly, we are not authorized to go there and going there can/will get us in trouble.
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.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#169 Jul 05 2011 at 8:56 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Hey Idiggory, don't forget to respond to my post you skipped. Just a reminder.

Id wrote:
Lol, when did you EVER stop replying to me?


When you were on repeat about something and I told you that I was done responding to you until you say something different. You made a couple posts afterwards, I proceeded to do as I stated.

Id wrote:
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.



Exactly. At that point, you quit. You didn't, hence making your posts valueless.

Nilatai wrote:
What are you blathering about now? Support your damned statement or shut up. You said something about PhDs?


Crap. I was asking you to clarify your statement because it was vague and could have applied to a number of things. I made the logical assumption that you were referring to something else, but was wrong. So to prevent me from making the same mistake twice, let me ask you exactly what you're looking for.

Are you wanting me to name a religious teachers with PhDs?

Nilatai wrote:
So your point is if I don't practice a religion I'm not allowed to attack or criticise it? I'm not allowed to point out the moral hypocrisy of Christians unless I myself am one. Is that what you're saying?


No, I'm not saying that all. I'm saying that you're trying to pretend that you know more about my religion than I do. Furthermore, that is some type of an embarrassment for me. My response is that you don't know more than me and even if you did know more than me, that isn't nothing to be ashamed of. This is true because in the religious world, it's the people who DO not the people that are, that matters the most. You could be able to quote the Bible forwards and backwards in 4 different languages, but that means absolutely nothing to a Christian if you haven't accepted Christ or even worse, accepted Christ but not follow his teachings.

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


In Korea, that is basically what happens. The joke over there is that a Korea move is actually TDY, which typically stand for temporary duty, but for Korea it's "Temporarily Divorced for a Year". It's nothing but people drinking and having *** with people that they shouldn't.

Daegu isn't even the party central, Osan and Seoul is where it's at. Apparently The Hump is going to be the next big spot... I'll be back to see that.. can't wait!

Edited, Jul 5th 2011 4:57pm by Almalieque
#170 Jul 05 2011 at 9:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,381 posts
Lubriderm Quick Hands wrote:
What someone has the authority to do and what is the right thing to do with said authority aren't the same thing.
Missing the point? I think so.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#171 Jul 05 2011 at 9:05 AM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Lubriderm Quick Hands wrote:
Quote:
Exactly.. I made this exact argument before and this is exactly what I've been trying to convey to Iddigory. Military personnel are not bound by the same rules and regulations as others, even government employees. A Commander can say that the local McDonalds is "off limits" for reasons x,y and z. Instantly, we are not authorized to go there and going there can/will get us in trouble.
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.


That wasn't the point. Any authoritative CDR making that decision has valid reasons to do so. Typically if there has been a trend of fights or arrests at a local place, it can become off limits. The point was that he is able to legally do that. A GS civilian is not bound by those same rules.

In Korea, we had a curfew. All Soldiers on the pen from Private Fuzzy to the 4 Star CDR had to abide by that curfew. A GS employee could stay out 24/7 if he chose. You can't make them stay at work past 1700 hrs, nor could you make them come in to work before 0800. So, all of this talk that the Chaplain is a government employee and therefore are bound by the same rules as everyone else, is a load of crap.

The military is different and if you don't like the way it's different, then argue that, but don't argue that they are the same. As a result, the Chaplain is given the right to accurately teach form the Bible, as that is its job. Just because society changes, doesn't mean the Chaplain should change what is written.

Edited, Jul 5th 2011 5:06pm by Almalieque
#172 Jul 05 2011 at 9:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
As a result, the Chaplain is given the right to accurately teach form the Bible, as that is its job.
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?
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#173 Jul 05 2011 at 9:47 AM Rating: Decent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
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


I'd like to point out that this is wrong. Homosexuality was considered a risk factor, as homosexuals were considered high risk for communist blackmail schemes. Those rules and regulations remained on the books even when gays started coming out.

Before the 1940s/50s, there was no widespread *** identity. Most people with same-*** feelings had never even heard of cultures that contained men who had *** with men, so they lived average lives and MAYBE occasionally had a romantic encounter with a man. The military, as a ****-social entity, created both access and need for men (and became an allure for men experiencing same-*** attraction). Up until McCarthyism took hold, the military was filled with ******.

Quote:
This is true because in the religious world, it's the people who DO not the people that are, that matters the most. You could be able to quote the Bible forwards and backwards in 4 different languages, but that means absolutely nothing to a Christian if you haven't accepted Christ or even worse, accepted Christ but not follow his teachings.


A. That's stupid.
B. That doesn't change the fact that Nil knows more about your religion than you do.
C. Any human with a brain takes the holy writings of their religions and weighs them with their own mind. If you just blindly accept anything offered to you, you're a sheep and have failed to consider anything about your religion in a meaningful way. If you agree with a religion doctrine, it should be because you agree, not because "the bible says so."
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#174 Jul 05 2011 at 10:24 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,890 posts
Quote:
I'd like to point out that this is wrong. Homosexuality was considered a risk factor, as homosexuals were considered high risk for communist blackmail schemes. Those rules and regulations remained on the books even when gays started coming out.

Before the 1940s/50s, there was no widespread *** identity. Most people with same-*** feelings had never even heard of cultures that contained men who had *** with men, so they lived average lives and MAYBE occasionally had a romantic encounter with a man. The military, as a ****-social entity, created both access and need for men (and became an allure for men experiencing same-*** attraction). Up until McCarthyism took hold, the military was filled with ******.


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 **** 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.

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

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.

Quote:
HOOAH! Let me guess 25U?

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
____________________________
RoTZ: Complete DM: O
CoP: Complete AN: O
99 SAM, RDM, BLU, WAR, PLD, DRK

lolgaxe wrote:
Nothing in this game is impossible if you set yourself to the task of actually doing it. Even dumb people can only hold you back for so long.


Lucinus wrote:
when you're hefting something that deadly, you don't miss - mobs get the **** out of the way instead...
#175 Jul 05 2011 at 10:40 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
saevellakshmi wrote:
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.


What's up with certain military folk on this board babbling incoherently about how different the military is?

It's a silly strawman argument. DADT changes are impending, and a significant portion of the impetus for said changes is civilian opinion. Those facts render your whole tirade devoid of meaning. Whether or not a serviceman taking issue with a rule sent down from above gets them kicked out is irrelevant to this discussion, and to DADT policy.

The military is not a wholly independent entity. Their rules can, and will, be changed. It serves at the behest of the government, and the government serves at the behest of its people.

Edited, Jul 5th 2011 12:43pm by Eske
#176 Jul 05 2011 at 10:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
saevellakshmi wrote:
stuff

Oh good lord.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 63 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (63)