Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Don't ask, don't tell, don't persueFollow

#1577 Dec 10 2011 at 12:44 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Vegeta wrote:

Let me know when you see an active duty member of the armed forces doing any of the stereotypical stuff listed above, not out of satire, & this little argument of yours may hold some weight. Until that point, it's just another of your "gay-fear" fueled fantasies.

Just like dudes wanting to peak at your junk in the shower.


You mean like every butch female that is "obviously" a lesbian?

That's the point of DADT. Just because you refuse to accept the fact that your understanding of the military was wrong, that isn't my problem.


Vegeta wrote:

DADT has been repealed, so what has changed since it's repeal that makes you now have a problem with homosexuals serving?


You asked me what is my reason for homosexuals not to serve. I replied that I have no reason, that's why I support DADT. DADT makes it possible for homosexuals to serve. I've answered your question.

Olorinus wrote:
What the hell are you even talking about? I am not upset that homosexuals are being given the same basic rights to acknowledge their sexuality that all other service members are. If you really think "being treated the same" is equal to being discriminated against, you are even moronic than I originally thought possible.


So answer me this. Where does "everyone must be clean shaven, unless you prescribe to a certain religion" fit in your definition of discrimination?

#1578 Dec 10 2011 at 1:06 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You asked me what is my reason for homosexuals not to serve. I replied that I have no reason, that's why I support DADT. DADT makes it possible for homosexuals to serve. I've answered your question.
Can they not serve now then?


Almalieque wrote:
So answer me this. Where does "everyone must be clean shaven, unless you prescribe to a certain religion" fit in your definition of discrimination?

Why do you keep bringing this up? Do you think Sikhs should break their religious obligations in order for all soldiers to be equal on the shaving front?

Would this not be directly in violation of your constitutional right to freedom of religion?

Would you not demand your religious rights if there were an army regulation which required you to do something which is forbidden by Christianity?
____________________________
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
#1579 Dec 10 2011 at 1:18 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
Quote:
So answer me this. Where does "everyone must be clean shaven, unless you prescribe to a certain religion" fit in your definition of discrimination?

Post 1573.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#1580 Dec 10 2011 at 1:20 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Can they not serve now then?


The question was if they can serve or not (which they can). The question was why I don't think homosexuals shouldn't be able to serve. I've responded several times that I don't have a problem with them serving, but support DADT.

Nilatai wrote:

Why do you keep bringing this up? Do you think Sikhs should break their religious obligations in order for all soldiers to be equal on the shaving front?


Would you not demand your religious rights if there were an army regulation which required you to do something which is forbidden by Christianity?



It's a simple question. Is it discrimination or not? I'm not asking for a justification.

Nilatai wrote:
Would this not be directly in violation of your constitutional right to freedom of religion?


No. You have the freedom to PRACTICE your religion without government intervention, your employer doesn't have to let you off on Wednesdays, Fridays or Sundays to go worship.
#1581 Dec 10 2011 at 1:24 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
Quote:
It's a simple question. Is it discrimination or not? I'm not asking for a justification.


Its not discrimination. It is actually 100% the opposite of discrimination.



Quote:
No. You have the freedom to PRACTICE your religion without government intervention, your employer doesn't have to let you off on Wednesdays, Fridays or Sundays to go worship.


I wonder who the military employer is. Would be strikingly awkward if it was the United States Government.

Edited, Dec 10th 2011 2:29pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#1582 Dec 10 2011 at 1:52 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Can they not serve now then?


The question was if they can serve or not (which they can). The question was why I don't think homosexuals shouldn't be able to serve. I've responded several times that I don't have a problem with them serving, but support DADT.
So you don't have a problem with them serving. So what's the problem, exactly? The fact that you know they're gay? You couldn't tell before? Smiley: dubious

Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:

Why do you keep bringing this up? Do you think Sikhs should break their religious obligations in order for all soldiers to be equal on the shaving front?


Would you not demand your religious rights if there were an army regulation which required you to do something which is forbidden by Christianity?



It's a simple question. Is it discrimination or not? I'm not asking for a justification.
It would be discrimination to not allow them to adhere to the tenets of their religion as everyone else is allowed to do.

Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Would this not be directly in violation of your constitutional right to freedom of religion?


No. You have the freedom to PRACTICE your religion without government intervention, your employer doesn't have to let you off on Wednesdays, Fridays or Sundays to go worship.

Awesome. Army is an arm of government. So they can't interfere with you practising your religion. For Sikhs, not cutting their hair is part of them practising their religion.
____________________________
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
#1583 Dec 10 2011 at 2:21 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Nilatai wrote:
So you don't have a problem with them serving. So what's the problem, exactly? The fact that you know they're gay? You couldn't tell before? Smiley: dubious


The problem is the repeal of DADT.

Nilatai wrote:
It would be discrimination to not allow them to adhere to the tenets of their religion as everyone else is allowed to do.


But they are not. Not every religion is treated the same way. If I said that I practiced FSM and didn't have to shave, that would not fly because FSM isn't accepted by the military.

In either case, it's still discrimination because everyone isn't treated the same. Once again, you're in "justification mode". I'm not asking you for any justification. Is it or is it not discrimination? What you have provided is "yes, it is discrimination but is justified for reasons x,y and z". That's fine, as long as you accept the fact that not every religion is treated the same nor are the followers of different religions treated the same.


Fair would be "since religion x supports facial hair, then EVERYONE is allowed to have facial hair". Discrimination is "Only group x is allowed to have facial hair". How can you not see that?

If smokers are allowed to take 15 min breaks every hour, then fairness would be to allow EVERYONE to have 15 min breaks every hour. Discrimination is "only smokers are authorized 15 min breaks". Surely you see this and you're just to stubborn to admit that you're wrong.

Nilatai wrote:

Awesome. Army is an arm of government. So they can't interfere with you practising your religion. For Sikhs, not cutting their hair is part of them practising their religion.


Uh, the government isn't forcing you to join. If the government FORCED you to join, then made you cut off your hair, then you would have a point. Since that isn't the case, you don't have a point. If you think the military will allow you to do whatever you want under your religion, then you're truly an idiot. What would be the point of rules? I could just create a religion that allows me to do whatever I want, then you would have to abide by them.

Freedom of religion allows personnel to practice any religion without fear or threat of breaking any law. Rather or not your employer caters to your religion is a complete separate issue.
#1584 Dec 10 2011 at 3:08 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Almalieque wrote:
The question was if they can serve or not (which they can). The question was why I don't think homosexuals shouldn't be able to serve. I've responded several times that I don't have a problem with them serving, but support DADT.


The only interpretation of this that makes the slightest amount of sense to me is:

"I don't care if gays serve, so long as they can be kicked out when discovered."
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#1585 Dec 10 2011 at 4:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The question was if they can serve or not (which they can). The question was why I don't think homosexuals shouldn't be able to serve. I've responded several times that I don't have a problem with them serving, but support DADT.


The only interpretation of this that makes the slightest amount of sense to me is:

"I don't care if gays serve, so long as they can be kicked out when discovered."

Bijou wins!
#1586 Dec 10 2011 at 4:54 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
So you don't have a problem with them serving. So what's the problem, exactly? The fact that you know they're gay? You couldn't tell before? Smiley: dubious


The problem is the repeal of DADT.
Yes, but why? Could you not tell who was gay before? Smiley: dubious

Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
It would be discrimination to not allow them to adhere to the tenets of their religion as everyone else is allowed to do.


But they are not. Not every religion is treated the same way. If I said that I practiced FSM and didn't have to shave, that would not fly because FSM isn't accepted by the military.
Well FSM is a satirical movement for a start. If it were a recognised religion in which the tenets require one to not cut their hair, I'm sure it would be different.

Almalieque wrote:
In either case, it's still discrimination because everyone isn't treated the same. Once again, you're in "justification mode". I'm not asking you for any justification. Is it or is it not discrimination? What you have provided is "yes, it is discrimination but is justified for reasons x,y and z". That's fine, as long as you accept the fact that not every religion is treated the same nor are the followers of different religions treated the same.
Everyone is treated the same. They're allowed to serve in the military. It is removing an obstacle that would otherwise prevent that group of people from serving.


Almalieque wrote:
Fair would be "since religion x supports facial hair, then EVERYONE is allowed to have facial hair". Discrimination is "Only group x is allowed to have facial hair". How can you not see that?
Well as far as DADT goes, you're now allowed to be openly gay as well as straight. Everyone is allowed to openly talk about their sexuality. So that's fair, amirite? Besides, aren't you allowed to grow a moustache?

Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:

Awesome. Army is an arm of government. So they can't interfere with you practising your religion. For Sikhs, not cutting their hair is part of them practising their religion.


Uh, the government isn't forcing you to join. If the government FORCED you to join, then made you cut off your hair, then you would have a point. Since that isn't the case, you don't have a point. If you think the military will allow you to do whatever you want under your religion, then you're truly an idiot. What would be the point of rules? I could just create a religion that allows me to do whatever I want, then you would have to abide by them.

Freedom of religion allows personnel to practice any religion without fear or threat of breaking any law. Rather or not your employer caters to your religion is a complete separate issue.

So you think Sikhs shouldn't be able to join the army if they are practising? Okay.
____________________________
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
#1587Kelvyquayo, Posted: Dec 10 2011 at 8:15 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Then they are not treated the same.
#1588 Dec 10 2011 at 10:38 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The question was if they can serve or not (which they can). The question was why I don't think homosexuals shouldn't be able to serve. I've responded several times that I don't have a problem with them serving, but support DADT.


The only interpretation of this that makes the slightest amount of sense to me is:

"I don't care if gays serve, so long as they can be kicked out when discovered."

Bijou wins!


YAAY!! ...wait, that victory cookie is probably pretty stale and bitter by now, huh.Smiley: frown

Kelvyquayo wrote:
sexual standards should be the same all the way around and you deal with the issues as they come.. but I don't really know what the rules are for people having sex in the military; but I certainly don't think that special rules should be made for anybody or any group. It's the damn military not Walmart.
Smiley: twocents
Glad to see you think teh homos serving is no problem.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#1589 Dec 11 2011 at 4:19 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Everyone is treated the same. They're allowed to serve in the military. It is removing an obstacle that would otherwise prevent that group of people from serving.


Then they are not treated the same.
If you join the military you should have to conform to military standards; not compromise discipline because you don't want to offend people from a certain religion.
What a bunch of BS.

On that note; sexual standards should be the same all the way around and you deal with the issues as they come.. but I don't really know what the rules are for people having sex in the military; but I certainly don't think that special rules should be made for anybody or any group. It's the damn military not Walmart.
Smiley: twocents

I'm glad you agree religion is a bunch of BS. I look forward to you not complaining about the "War on Christmas" in a few weeks with Alma and Varus. Unless of course Christianity is different because it's your religion? Smiley: grin

You don't seem to understand that DADT was a special rule made for a certain group. Now it's gone. Smiley: yippee
____________________________
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
#1590 Dec 11 2011 at 6:39 AM Rating: Excellent
No, it wasn't a special rule. Nobody could say that they were gay, even the straight people. It makes perfect sense, amirite?
#1591 Dec 11 2011 at 10:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
Nobody could say that they were gay, even the straight people.


Actually, you couldn't get kicked out under DADT if you were an out reservist because...well, we needed troops & maybe you were faking it.

Wiki wrote:
Reservist exception

In September 2005, the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military – a think tank affiliated with the University of California, Santa Barbara, and renamed the Michael D. Palm Center in October 2006 – issued a news release revealing they had found a 1999 FORSCOM Regulation (500-3-3 RC Unit Commander's Handbook) that allowed the active duty deployment of Army Reservists and National Guard troops who say that they are gay or who are accused of being gay. U.S. Army Forces Command spokesperson Kim Waldron later confirmed the regulation and indicated that it was intended to prevent Reservists and National Guard members from pretending to be gay to escape combat.[27]


http://web.archive.org/web/20080516002106/http://washblade.com/2005/9-23/news/national/outiraq.cfm

Quote:
The existence of the 1999 FORSCOM regulation was revealed earlier this month by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, a think tank affiliated with the University of California at Santa Barbara. In a news release issued on Sept. 13, the group said its researchers discovered the document while assisting the ABC television program “Nightline” with research on gays in the military.

Aaron Belkin, executive director of the CSSMM, said he was “astonished” that a military spokesperson has confirmed that military commanders routinely deploy service members thought to be gay into active duty assignments.

“The Pentagon has consistently denied that, when mobilization requires bolstering troop strength, it sends gays to fight despite the existence of a gay ban,” Belkin said.

The CSSMM and gay rights groups have asserted for years that gay service members whose sexual orientation becomes known are often retained during wartime, only to be discharged after they return home.


Edited, Dec 11th 2011 11:22am by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#1592Kelvyquayo, Posted: Dec 12 2011 at 1:53 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I do see a clear tendency to single out Christianity over all other religions. I'm sure if I made a thread talking about the merits of Islam or the Hindu religion that it wouldn't get nearly as much flak and horrified reactions from people than if I made another thread about Christianity.
#1593 Dec 12 2011 at 4:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
I don't see homosexuality any more wrong than anything else that people do throughout their daily lives.
Then what's the fucking problem?
Quote:
I cannot in good conscience state that "all religions lead to God".
Love and peace are probably better roads to God than any strict religious dogma bullshit. It's more or less what Jesus taught before someone realized that they could make a profit from making an organization out of it.
#1594 Dec 12 2011 at 5:17 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
Quote:
I do see a clear tendency to single out Christianity over all other religions. I'm sure if I made a thread talking about the merits of Islam or the Hindu religion that it wouldn't get nearly as much flak and horrified reactions from people than if I made another thread about Christianity.


You do realize that all religions are more or less all Identical. Sure some of the names change, and some have a couple more leading roles here and there, but fundamentally speaking they are all taken from the exact same playbook.

But it is ok to pretend that your religion is some kind of super religion, or that it matters at all.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#1595 Dec 12 2011 at 5:39 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
I do see a clear tendency to single out Christianity over all other religions. I'm sure if I made a thread talking about the merits of Islam or the Hindu religion that it wouldn't get nearly as much flak and horrified reactions from people than if I made another thread about Christianity.


You do realize that all religions are more or less all Identical. Sure some of the names change, and some have a couple more leading roles here and there, but fundamentally speaking they are all taken from the exact same playbook.

But it is ok to pretend that your religion is some kind of super religion, or that it matters at all.

At least
ten more pages.
____________________________
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
#1596 Dec 12 2011 at 7:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Kelvy wrote:
I don't see homosexuality any more wrong than anything else that people do throughout their daily lives.


Correct my Catholic Priest if you think he's wrong then:

The way he explained it: "being gay" isn't a sin, its the acting upon it outside of marriage (That the Church doesn't recognize so has setup a nice Catch 22) that's the sin.

Jesus wrote:
“The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#1597 Dec 12 2011 at 8:18 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
My post count is quite padded
Amateur.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1598 Dec 12 2011 at 5:51 PM Rating: Default
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Lubriderm wrote:
Then what's the ******* problem?


What's the problem with what? The things that people do in their everyday lives? Lives that only exist to serve the finite flesh will perish with it. Lives that only exist to serve the Infinite Spirit shall be perfected for eternity. It's logical, yes?Smiley: grin

[quote]Love and peace are probably better roads to God than any strict religious dogma *****************

I couldn't agree more.
I think where we disagree; you probably think the "love and peace" can be fully achieved by mere human will-power. I think history has shown quite the opposite.

rdmcandie wrote:
You do realize that all religions are more or less all Identical. Sure some of the names change, and some have a couple more leading roles here and there, but fundamentally speaking they are all taken from the exact same playbook.


Most are indeed more or less identical in that they appeal to the human ego rather than the harsh reality that there is a God that actually cares about what we do.
All other religions are from man, finite attempting to reach for the infinite; futile.
The religion of YHVH and His Anointed is from God, infinite attempting to reach the finite.

OmegaV wrote:
Correct my Catholic Priest if you think he's wrong then:
The way he explained it: "being gay" isn't a sin, its the acting upon it outside of marriage (That the Church doesn't recognize so has setup a nice Catch 22) that's the sin.

I'd correct your Catholic Priest by asking him how he justifies the existence of a Priesthood when Christ died so that all people had free access to God.. and justifies bowing to statues and praying to saints.. and worshiping Mary as the Mother of God.. and denying the Holy Spirit.. et al et cetera...
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#1599 Dec 12 2011 at 6:24 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
Quote:
Most are indeed more or less identical in that they appeal to the human ego rather than the harsh reality that there is a God that actually cares about what we do.
All other religions are from man, finite attempting to reach for the infinite; futile.
The religion of YHVH and His Anointed is from God, infinite attempting to reach the finite.


I would love to argue with you about religion but your complete lack of knowledge on the creation of Christianity (thus God) astounds me. All we have to "proove" gods existance is a collection of stories written by ancient men. Voted on by a group of yet other ancient men to be placed into a book, that has since been fractured numerous times by yet more men.

Christianity is a man made religion, it is no more word of god then Hindu, or Muslim, or Jewish. Everything a Christian learns is the interpretation of events by another man. God didn't come down and publish the bible no more than the Qur'an, man wrote the stories of the bible, man wrote the stories of every religion. Man was the one who interpreted the signs of the times in such ways.

I understand you might have a hard on for Christianity and God. But don't honestly expect me to buy that the bible is any more divine oriented than any other major holy text in this world. It is an absolute croc. If anything the Bible and Christianity is the religion most influenced by man, it is the only one to have split as many times as it has, with each sect having their own rewritten version of the word of god.

Its all the same ****, it is man creating community for himself in effort to understand the harshness of death. It is the solitary belief amongst all men across all religions that life continues to go one forever. This belief doesn't stop at names, or symbols. Every major religion believes in a divine entity, and some for of after life, the story of understanding might be different but the end result is the same.

Also

ALLAH MEANS GOD YOU TWIT.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#1600 Dec 12 2011 at 6:31 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,140 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Since the foundation of the military is based on service members having limited freedoms of expression, that is contrary to the direction of how the military operates.


I always thought that the foundation that the military was based on was people who were willing to put their lives in danger in defense of their country.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#1601 Dec 12 2011 at 6:33 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,564 posts
well isnt it obvious gays arent people.


(i hate being a poor typer)

Edited, Dec 12th 2011 7:34pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 100 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (100)