Update on DADT PolicyFollow

There isn't any dispute on homosexuality being considered a sin. As I already said before, rather or not there is controversy over eating pork doesn't discredit the fact that homosexuality is broadly seen as a sin. Therefore, the Chaplain can indeed mention that and be considered to be accurately teaching from the Bible because it is blatantly written and no one is disputing it.

My Pastor back home labels his church as a "Bible Teaching Church". Many churches will have people read one or two verses and then talk about them in some length of time. Only 2 sentences are actually from the Bible, everything else is just talk from the pastor. What he does, and other well known pastors do, is primarily read directly from the Bible. That is how you accurately teach from the Bible. If you want to make your own personal conclusions, then go right ahead.



As much as I want to +1 from your stupid posts, I'm not responding till you respond to my previous ignored post.



Well it was a 50/50 chance between a 25B or 25U. Those are awesome jobs but the promotion points are so high that it's hard for people to make rank. I always feel bad because they work so hard. The bright side is that you are set up for success coming out. It's all about the TS. I'm glad you were able to have it before you retire. Some people end up retiring with an S because their 5 year window was up and their job didn't require them to have a TS. That would suck

Those rules can't change until the nation's rules change.

Not so much DADT, but the SSM aspects of it.

The biggest misconception is the belief that what the people want is what's best for the people.

Being in the military doesn't mean crap about having knowledge of military history. I've spent the last month in an intensive course studying ***** history specifically within the context of the US from the late 1800s to the 1990s. So no, I think your account is full of crap and not backed at all by historical proof.

For instance, did you know that it came out in WWII that the majority (over 90%) of serving women were openly lesbians? And that the entire military administration said "That's fine, they're highly decorated and we've had no problems." MANY of these women remained in the military until McCarthyism came to power and they were discharged.

Some sources you can check if you are interested:
The documentary "Before Stonewall."
"The Political Economy of the Closet" by Jefferey Escoffier
"Marching to a Different Drummer" Allan Berube
"Sex Research at the Borders of Gender" by Meyorowitz
"Behind the Mask of Respectability" by Martin Meeker

IIRC, these all discuss the issue.



Stop letting Alma derail this thread into being about SSM.

The point is that the military is perfectly free to establish its own standards for anti-discrimination (and is doing so with DADT's repeal). But they've chosen not to apply all these standards equally, as all federal protections are.

Edited, Jul 5th 2011 1:48pm by idiggory

Alma's a fascist, what a surprise.

You didn't seem to have any problem bringing it up before.

1. I wouldn't call serving in the military a job, so much as an "existence", which as far as I'm concerned is usually one of the toughest, most exacting existences on Earth. Substitute existence for "life", or "experience" as you will.

2. Signing up for the military service is one of the ultimate sacrifices a human can make.

3. Certain aspects of military life are designed to give you very strong Mindfulness training and extensive practise of it. This is generally beneficial. Different aspects of military life mean that the majority of enlisted are guaranteed to become sufferers of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, which is appalling but necessary in a world where physical conflict is still in play. As far as I'm concerned, military personnel are not trained sufficiently in techniques and skills that allow them to over time strongly reduce the effects of PTS on themselves and their loved ones.

4. The entirety of civilian life, and the benefits of a civil and prosperous society, depend (often invisibly but) utterly on a nation having a working and adequate defense force. A military largely has to operate on "what works", for a military.

All of the above means that I have an enormous respect for a great many aspects of the military, and the service personnel.

However, it is also a reality that there is a Meta-aspect to the military, in that the purpose of the military in a modern democracy is to serve to defend the continuing existence and freedoms of the civilian population. The civil society of a nation is both the military's reason for existence and it's ultimate authority. For very good reasons, while the military usually governs itself, it ultimately is governed by the civilian Executive, which is an expression of the will of the people of the nation.

Civilians have the right to debate military practice, because civilians ARE the ultimate, if removed, Authority of the Military. When large moral shifts occur in civil society, eventually these are going to be reflected in military practices as far as is practical, because the military, for all its needs to have special rules and structures, is there to uphold the existence of the moral rules of the majority of the nation, and the laws that express those.

What Joph and Ari said.

Because being a service member is a very different lifestyle. Speaking as a military spouse, even we have certain rights which are restricted.

Under the UCMJ, a service member is a piece of property, a piece of government equipment.

Looking at the more extreme side of things, if a service member injures themselves while on a motorcycle, snowmobile, quad, etc and they aren't wearing proper PPE, they can be charged with damage to government property. Both my wife and I can be charged with damaging government property if I were to get her pregnant. You would be surprised at how many female service members try to get knocked up to get out of an assignment, which they could be charged for.

Looking at a more realistic example, my wife is a medical lab tech. She's trained in proper evidence handling procedures in regards to specimen collection for drug testing. Because of this, she has to literally be available 24/7. Now she just had a 4 day weekend this weekend because of the holiday. If we decided to go island hoping this weekend she would have had to get permission from her OIC or put in for leave. If she hadn't and was called in, even though she's on a holiday weekend, she could be charged with going AWOL or dereliction of duty.

Going back to Ari, I'd say the biggest misconception is that the "military" or the "government" is somehow separate from the citizen population at large and is either something to be deified or something to treat with hostility. Both are nothing more than organizations made up of citizens and neither deserves the overblown importance people give them when they are set up on a hill as some magical, alien construct.

Anyone has the complete right to question, criticize or praise these institutions or anyone in them.

Except, when the organization is made and paid for by the citizens then it has an onus to answer the questions of the citizens regardless of how ignorant or asinine they are. It actually has an obligation to keep answering those questions until the citizenry is satisfied. Not you personally, I'm sure they hire professionals for that, but "We're not speaking as equals" is a non-answer which just avoids the question.

In the case of McD's grill workers, they have to do what they're told, lest they lose their jobs. You have to do what your superiors command lest you be reprimanded. I don't have to give a **** what the military (or McD's) thinks about me as I question their policies and demand change and, since the military is ultimately dependent upon the citizens to stock it with people and funds, and since its within the rights of the citizenry to make changes to the military (such as DADT repeal) it's on the military to answer to the citizens. No matter how much they feel or don't feel that we're "equals".