E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSDeparting Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta extended Monday a list of benefits — all previously denied by the Pentagon — to the same-sex spouses of service members as well as to the unmarried partners of gay troops.
The perks, automatically available to heterosexual military spouses, will include child care services, member-designated hospital visits, and the issuing of military ID cards, which will give same-sex spouses and partners access to on-base commissaries, movie theaters and gyms. The policy changes will go into effect once training on the new rules is completed, Panetta said.
While advocates for gay and lesbian service members and their families hailed Panetta’s policy switch as “substantive” and “encouraging,” the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) still blocks the DOD from enacting more than 85 other benefits now provided to heterosexual military spouses and their children — most notably medical and dental care, housing allowances, and death benefits.
Also, as NBC News reported Feb. 4, that same federal law mandates that when a gay service member is killed in combat, military officials must first notify that troop’s blood family, not their spouse, as is normally the course of action.
Panetta said DOMA is “now being reviewed by the United States Supreme Court" — and he offered his first clear signal that the Pentagon wants that law overturned.
“There are certain benefits that can only be provided to spouses as defined by that law,” Panetta said. “While it will not change during my tenure as secretary of defense, I foresee a time when the law will allow the department to grant full benefits to service members and their dependents, irrespective of sexual orientation. Until then, the department will continue to comply with current law while doing all we can to take care of all soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and their families."
Same-sex advocates have been pushing the DOD to extend full benefits to the spouses and partners of all U.S. service members since the repeal 17 months of ago of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which prohibited gay troops from revealing their sexual orientation.
“At the time of repeal, I committed to reviewing benefits that had not previously been available to same-sex partners based on existing law and policy,” Panetta said. “It is a matter of fundamental equity that we provide similar benefits to all of those men and women in uniform who serve their country ...
“Taking care of our service members and honoring the sacrifices of all military families are two core values of this nation. Extending these benefits is an appropriate next step under current law to ensure that all service members receive equal support for what they do to protect this nation."
Advocates for gay and lesbian service members and their families praised Panetta’s policy shift although they said that the move is not groundbreaking due to the DOMA legal blockade.
“Secretary Panetta’s decision today answers the call President (Barack) Obama issued in his inaugural address to complete our nation's journey toward equality, acknowledging the equal service and equal sacrifice of our gay and lesbian service members and their families,” said Allyson Robinson, an Army veteran and executive director of OutServe-SLDN, an association of actively serving lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender U.S. military personnel with more than 50 chapters and 6,000 members.
“We thank him for getting us a few steps closer to full equality — steps that will substantively improve the quality of life of gay and lesbian military families,” Robinson said.
The American Military Partner Association (AMPA), a support network for LGBT military families, released the following statement today in response to Panetta's announcement:
“We’ve waited far too long for this, and it’s fantastic news that our dedicated military families will now have access to some of the benefits and support services they need and deserve,” said Stephen Peters, the group's president. “However, (DOMA) continues to undermine our military families who sacrifice so much for our nation. This summer, we hope that the Supreme Court will make it clear that our families are just as important and deserve the same protections, benefits, and support that federal recognition brings.”
To offer the new benefits to partners, DOD will ask gay and lesbian service members to sign a “Declaration of Domestic Partnership” in which they will attest that they are in a committed relationship, and intend to remain so indefinitely, and that neither is legally married, according to OutServe-SLDN.
The changes will take “several months to complete, Pentagon officials said. The extra time is needed so that military leaders can offer a chance for the public to comment on the new rules and also to allow an opportunity for each of the branches to update its IT system, develop new processes for issuing ID cards, and train their personnel on the refreshed benefits package.
Panetta did stop short on offering a full slate of benefits that gay advocates have been requesting for two years: on-base housing and burial at Arlington National Cemetery and other items that don’t fall under DOMA, according to OutServe-SLDN. (The organization’s lawyers drafted an explanation outlining the policy shift for gay service members and their families.)
DOD officials have explained to OutServe-SLDN that “policy for burial at Arlington National Cemetery is under review. At issue is how to verify eligible same-sex relationships for the surviving spouse in order to ensure equitable policy implementation."
NBC News' Jim Miklaszewski contributed to this report.
Related:
Leave a Comment:
Good news for equality. Try not to take it too hard, homophobes.
It's about time.
Equal rights for ALL tax-paying, American citizens!
Almost equal. Still have to repeal DOMA so that homosexual spouses can receive the all the same benefits as heterosexual spouses.
The is certainly a step in the right direction though.
Doug-950479 it is comments like yours that irritate non-homosexuals about your need to flaunt your choices. Why can't you just live your life as most people do without having to cause conflict.
My guess is you are liberal and that explains your need to be infantile.
A good day for the non-bigots of the world.
On a related subject, pope resigns.
The times they are a changin.
They should take it hard, in the butt. Do them a world of good.
foolish people do foolish things and the idiots will rejoice.
Wrong story John, this isn't the pope resigning story.
If they are willing to sacrifice their lives for us, this is the least we can do... although we should do much more. Sad that is still has taken us this long to treat these soldiers and their spouse with basic decency.
I fully expect Republicans to be completely against this, and start "boo'ing" soldiers again... just like they did at their primary debate.
mskin
No they don't.Please speak for yourself not for me. Much appreciated.
sounds like it is bigot posting day to me, lol. What makes your opinion right and everyone else wrong??
I have no issue with govt "trying" to set moral standards, many of you only want "your" standards, got "God complex"???????
have a great week
rukidding47: Guy risks his life to defend our country, and you call him a hero. He then says he's gay, and you call him trash.
He defended our country. He did his duty. That should be all you care about.
Speak for yourself. From what I can tell as a "non-homosexual" myself, it's only dumb bigots who oppose equal rights for all Americans.
Well until the U. S. law is changed that marriage isn't just between a man and a woman, then this is illegal for Panetta to do. The Liberals just want every vote in the U. S. including illegals to stay in power and they will do anything to get it.
Gays have no rights because they are gay, they have rights in spite of being gay. The should have the common decency to keep their perversions to themselves and definitely should be sure children aren't exposed to such disgusting behavior. The best way to insure equality for the sexually confused is for them to keep such silliness private.
I definitly do not approve of my tax money going to the openly pervert because some people think we should tolorate such behavior in our society.
JERSY GIRL 1
Actually no it is not illegal, the rules regarding benefits for the military are not laws but rules. kind of like the rules your own health insurance puts on you. These rules are exactly like the employer rules in place for benefits by say a company like Microsoft which extends benefits to same-sex partners.
amazedandalarmed
Your ignorance is amazing, Many gay men and woman have fought to give you the right to spout your short sightedness, perhaps you should be saying thank you instead of running them down.
"irritates"? Little touchy there pal. It's just sex get over it.
I see the homosexual alert system is working well. Put out the alert, and flood the comment boards.
One question. How is this going to be paid for?. All these additional people now eligible for benefits. Is this another "no tax" increase, increase? If you expand the criteria, you must expand the budget and how will this be absorbed. Nice for a feel good moment but how is the check being paid. More waste of taxpayer money. we should eliminate all marriage perks now. They don't last more than a few years on average and with the expansions going on, it is un-affordable. Do away with all marriage tax perks. Why doesn't the goverment got to a one payer policy. Everyone should be responsible for their own benefits. Parents can pick one spouse to put the children, if any on it and everyone else pays their own. Marriage has been diluted down to being meaningless, first by the fickle progressives who treat marriage like an exercise in speed dating and now by the LGBT who are simply destroying the entire meaning of what marriage was intended. The only way to quell it is to revoke all benefits to married or civil unions.
Lol Doug good pun buddy, but I think you accidently said "homophobes" not 'homosexuals'
For less than 1% of the military service?
Post of the day goes to amazedandalarmed. so much truth to it
So now there will only be discrimination in the military against the non gay, non married folks that are in a loving long term relationship, but will not receive the same benefits as the LGBT.
Gee, Dom, you sound like the textbook example of a little brat who want to pick up his blocks and go home if he can't have his way. "Marriage is changing and therefore we need to just completely get rid of it because it's not going my way." Too bad. It changed when women got to have a say in who they married; it changed when divorce became an actual possibility; it changed when people had civil services and avoided the religious route; it changed when we allowed interracial couples to marry. And in each of those instance, there were people like you whining that the world was changing and it wasn't fair that other people were being treated fairly, as though someone else having rights somehow robs you of yours. Sad, pathetic, and childish.
As for how it would be paid--the same way it would be paid if these soldiers did what so many would like them to do and "straightened up" and married an opposite sex partner. Or would you prefer to cap the number of people in the military who are allowed to marry so we can keep it all under budget? Additionally, at one moment, your side cries about how the group of people asking for equality (or as you like to call them, "special rights) is so small they should be ignored, but then when they actually achieve equality, they suddenly are an overwhelming mass that will bankrupt the entire nation. Which is it?
Rocky: I agree that this is discriminatory to unmarried heterosexual partners. While it means inherent inequality because of the states which do not allow it, I think this should only be open to those couples who have actually married. many may go to other states to make the act official, but to make this available to non-married gay couples but not to non-married straight couples is inherently unequal.
amazedandalarmed:
They should have the same rights that you and I enjoy as citizens of this country. Because I'm straight, if I marry someone in the military, these "rights" are automatically granted to me. They're just giving gay spouses the same rights. What's wrong with that?
What they do in the bedroom is none of your business, just like what you do in the bedroom is none of theirs. However, when the government starts issuing things like tax breaks for heterosexual married couples, they're the ones bringing it into the open.
If someone needs to be married to get a benefit, and a gay couple is married, they should get that benefit, the same way a straight couple would. They're not shoving their lifestyle in your face, they just want the same rights and benefits you and I automatically get when we marry someone. You're still welcome to not like it. You can think it's icky all you want. However, they should get the same rights you and I enjoy as straight people.
And I don't like my tax payer money going to bigots and homophobes, but those are the breaks. I may not like what you have to say, but we're all citizens of this country, and should enjoy the same rights.
spike-322306
I am part of the heterosexual alert system.
If anyone is so against gay men and woman who serve in the forces being given equal rights then perhaps instead of hiding behind a screen you go tell them yourself, face-to-face.
I know a pretty big marine, married to a supportive man who have a son. He would have a few choice words to say back to you if any of you were frankly brave enough to say these comments to his face. I know him as a proud strong man, he knows me as dad.
Extending the benefits to unmarried partners of gay is a huge mistake and blatantly discriminatory. You can not give benefits to unmarried gays while not giving them to unmarried hetero couples. It outrages me that Panetta did this as it is nothing more than pandering to the gay community. I do not care how committed you say you are in some military piece of paper, if you are not married you are not entitled to benefits. They offer no such committed relationship option for hetero couples and it should not be done for gays. I will bet that there will be a lawsuit very soon attacking this part of Panetta's move.
"Equal rights for ALL tax-paying, American citizens!"
Really?
I am pretty sure two guys and a gal didn't get there health care covered.
So equal might be an overstatement.
So if I'm straight and have a girlfriend, she's not eligible for these benefits because these benefits are currently only available to married spouses. But now if I'm gay and have a boyfriend, he is entitled? How does that work? Now the young, straight soldier who may have a pregnant girlfriend back home is being discriminated against. But, wait...I'm not the one the liberals need to cater to for a vote. I get it now.
JS in SD:
I would agree with this 100% if gay couples were allowed to get married the same way that straight couples are. However, they're not. I really think the problem is that gay couples can't get married the same way a straight couple can in all 50 states, and have their marriages recognized in all 50 states and by the federal government. If we fixed that problem, then this wouldn't be an issue. Then these benefits would only be extended to married couples, whether gay or straight.
Actually, hetersexuals have done way more damage in destroying what marriage is than what the LGBT has done. The LGBT can do no more damage than what hetersexuals have done, as heterosexuals have had extra marrital affairs and multi-marriages. Keep in mind that it was the heterosexuals first who made marriage a joke before the LGBT were allowed to be married. So if you want to blame how marriage is being "destroyed", may want to look at what the heterosexuals have done so far before you go go after "how much worse" the LGBT community may make it.
To the Idiots who are saying that it's discriminatory against heterosexual unmarried couples not to get these benefits, HELLO YOU CAN LEGALLY GET MARRIED!!!!!!!! NUFF Said!
As for paying for this, it's no differant than when hetro's get married and have kids.
Marines Dad,
I failed to make my post clear. I was referring to the homosexual alert system that alerts homosexuals, and their rabid supporters, to any article that they could flood with their support or condemnation.
My mistake. I am totally against homosexual membership in the military, and any benefits to so-called "partners".
spike
DOMA is doomed and people like you are becoming more and more rare and inconsequential.
To the gay bashers. Do any of you have anyone in your family who is gay. Would you treat them like the way you post? The one thing that I have noticed is that the ones who rant about it the most are the ones who have a "private sex life." My examples The preacher who got arrested for trying to pick up guy's in Ok, City. Than the preacher who got outed by his pay for play partner. Keep bashing it says allot about you.
No Spike you made your opinion very clear.
You can be against homosexuals being in the military if you wish, its is your right to say so, and it is also my right as a "rapid supporter" to tell you you are out of line. Then I realize, your opinion is that of yesterday, resigned to history a mere sad foot note. In the case of my son, he does not have a so-called partner but a husband.
I'm proud of my son's continuing military record and the way he and this husband are bring up their son. Perhaps a thank you to him from yourself is in order. After all he is protecting your right to trample all over his.
Will some one plzzz explain this section to me, he said, "The perks, automatically available to heterosexual military spouses, will include hospital child care services, hospital visits, and the issuing of military ID cards, which will give same-sex spouses and partners access to on-base commissaries, movie theaters and gyms. The policy changes will go into effect once training on the new rules is completed, Panetta said." I am reading this as every same sex spouse and partner married or not will receive the above perks. If this is true this will be discrimination against the military men and women that have girl/boy friends and not married. Am I reading this right.?
BTW I do believe ALL married spouses should get the same perks as all others. BUT not just Partners.
Disgusting and deplorable.
We are fools to reward these immoral and wicked life styles that only a few chose to live.
There's no wonder that our country has so many problems that are only getting worse.
Don't start with the homophobe stones until you read my point.
DOMA is the law of the land, but we now have a Secretary-level bureaucrat implementing law.
Also seemingly missed in the above posts is recognition of the distinction between spouses and "unmarried partners." Do hetero troops girlfirends/boyfriends qualify for these benefits?
I believe that benefits to spouses shouldn't be based on sexual orientation.
I just wish that our goverment would play by the rules (you know - that pesky Constitutional thing) in establishing, or overturning, our laws.
The benefits rule is NOT a law it is a rule, much like the same rules your health insurance makes determining who is and is not covered.
I agree in part I feel somewhat uncomfortable with heterosexual partners not being covered.
Does that mean you're in favor of gay marriage?
A guy wants to smoke crack, he's an addict and a criminal if he does not resist the urge. That same guy wants to have sex with another guy, he's rewarded and we change our entire moral basis for his inability to control himself. It won't be long until we are rewarding pedophiles and animal rapists.
mpa
Perhaps you should go back and read the article. DOMA is still in effect for the military and certain rights still are only available to married couples. That WILL change, hopefully soon.
Of course the problem is that straight couples not only have the right to marry in all 50 states to access those military benefits if they want them, but they also don't face the divorce catch-22 which gays in the military currently face, where if they do marry in a marriage equality state they might not be able to divorce due to deployment orders and the typical residency requirements for divorce.
The reality is that providing unmarried same-sex couples (and not unmarried straight couples) those benefits merely compensates for an existing inequity, one which will hopefully be very temporary. As soon as gays have equal marriage rights throughout the country, that unmarried partner provision will no longer be necessary.
Absolute, BEST post of the day.
I salute your son for his service, and you for your love and support towards him. The world would be a better place with more parents like you.
skrekk
I see what you mean, that's why I am torn by this, its creating another level of inequality by fixing another. Now I don't want anyone to be left in out and being treated unequal, that's the point of view of my statement.
I have a feeling SCOTUS will clear this up and all those complaining how evil marriage equality is will be relegated to embarrassing foot notes in history.
I
You need to look up informed consent because it's very apparent you are not understanding that this is required to agree to a marriage or having a legal relationship. Animals, objects and children cannot give informed consent therefore it is not legally recognized. Also, any relationship with a child is illegal and there are laws against such. Homosexuals do not have laws against being with same sex partners as they are adults making informed and LEGAL consent in being with the other person. Otherwise, it would be known as rape and kidnapping if the other person is held against their will in a relationship or sexual activity.
Time for a civics lesson, JERSEY GIRL.
It might just be worth some votes though, and rightly so. Lots of us pesky liberals like to stand up for the rights of others and we are getting more and more numerous all of the time.
You are wrong when you say that what Panetta did is illegal. Read the damn article. He clearly went as far as he could WITHOUT VIOLATING DOMA.
It's similar to what many large corporations do today by compensating for the federal tax inequity same-sex couples face. Straight couples don't face that inequity so there's no reason to provide that compensation. And the need for the compensation only exists in the first place because straights are currently granted special rights and privileges which are denied to gays.
Ultimately for the DoD it's about basic fairness as well as treating all military families with compassion. Hopefully it's a very temporary measure and the underlying legal inequity causing the problem will be corrected soon.
RUN! HIDE! the gays are going to kipnap straight christian, married men and send them to homosexual reeducation camps in order to destroy marriage!
(sarcasm)
Wow it is so sad to see the moral decline of a once great Nation. And it is even worse to see the idiots supporting such ignorance. Our Nation as we once were is over and it will cause the total fall of a once great super power and you idiots will cheer it all the way to the ground, thinking it is the right thing. tolernace is not love people, We love others by directing them to live moral lives as God intended and when you encourage people to live immoral lives you are assisting in their total destruction. Once we stood for what was right now you idiots think standing for wrong is the right thing, don't be shocked when it is all over for Amercia and you wonder what happened.
Navvet
You're right. The days where not everybody in America has the same rights are quickly coming to an end and it can't happen too soon. You can feel free to live in the past but the rest of us are going to bask in the glow of life in the 21st century.
Don't you just hate it, black folks can vote, biracial couples can marry, women can vote, abortions are legal, Howdy Doody is dead and now Gay people can get married. Sorry, those might be your good old days but for many folks it wasn't a very good time. Once again, you and those like you are on the wrong side of history. We'll just move on without you. Try to catch up. If you don't want to, well, just don't then.
All of this Homophobia is so .... gay.
Just so I'm clear on your concept--you're saying that slaving, oppressing women, slaughtering native American populations, Jim Crow laws, etc. are "right"? I mean, that IS what we used to stand for. Or were we only "right" for about 8 years in the seventies when civil rights were relatively established and the gay rights movement was far-fringe?
Do you people even think before touching your keyboards?
Good! Its time has come!
This is good so that means my long time girl friend gets benefits to as long as I sign saying we are in a long term relationship correct ? After all fair is fair. We can also do away with womens berthing on ships to save money. After all how is it any different than a gay man living with 80 straight men. Equal is equal.
Sailor: part one of your post I agree with. If this is going to be extended to non-married gay couples, it should also be extended to non-married straight couples as well, otherwise it is unfair.
The second part of your post is just the typical up-in-arms hysteria of people who automatically assume that gays and lesbians are deviant animals who can't be controlled. You already berth with gay men--trust me.
Actually, until full legal marriage is afforded to gays across the ENTIRE COUNTRY, then non-married gay couples receiving certain benefits of marriage should NOT be extended to unmarried straight couples. First, straight couples at least have the option to legally marry everywhere in the country. Second, as long as one group of people is given certain privileges that are denied other groups, then other groups getting certain privileges that the first group don't get is just fair.
What about gays being @!$%#ed over by government and being treated far less than equally do y'all not understand, exactly?
So by your own logic your saying straight men are deviant animals who cant control themselves? You cant have it both ways. I have berthed with gay men your correct. On a ship 80 men live in a confined space and no one should be made to feel uncomfortable. Why do only your rights get to be taken into account?
Just another disgusting secular progressive
Who pays for the gay bowel disease and HIV treatments?
Timothy
If there is any karma in the world YOU will pay! Don'tcha just love it?
Thank you for yet another disgusting and narrow minded post. How many minds to you believe you have changed with your blatant ignorance?
what a dick u r TIMOTHY,, first off aids is an immune system disease, and not just in the bowels.. try doing some research you idiot.. actually you sound just like my brother.. he believes hiv is air borne he's a dummy republican also..
interesting comments about same sex marriage and same sex couples getting milityary benefits.. I think is wonderful that some one finally open their eyes.. now as for you and your "girl friend" you have no gripe.. you can get MARRIED any where.... so go do it or stfu
Timothy1Mil
Bowel treatments, oh you are looking up old medical books.
Who pays for the 5 million unplanned teen pregnancies a year?
Only in America would you reward this immoral and disgusting lifestyle and allow the murder of millions of babies.
And we can't understand why we have so many problems.
How about I think my buddy or friend should share in my benefits partners, especially if I was to have children with multiple persons biological and adopted. I could theoretically have a village with me as they would be partners and kin. Wow! New label to help those who don't conform.
It's not a lifestyle, it's an orientation. You have an orientation, don't you? Pretty much everyone does. We don't get to choose it, and it has no effect on lifestyle. Lifestyle IS a choice. As for being disgusting and immoral....that's nothing but an opinion. My opinion is that bigotry and discrimination are disgusting and immoral. History proves me right and you wrong on this one.
Oh grow up! Do you think abortion was invented the moment they made it legal? Abortions have been going on for as long as pregnancies have. What YOU want is for young mothers to be killed by back alley criminals trying to profit off their misery...no doubt a fitting punishment for their daring to have sex to begin with. Legalized abortion only makes it more likely the young mothers will survive to care for their other children. You people really seem to hate that.
The reasons we have problems have nothing whatever to do with pissing off your invisible friend....who seems to dump disaster and destruction on the bible belt every other week but hasn't laid a finger on Las Vegas.
Weird.
sailor-7755187
This doesn't make sense. What of your rights is not being "taken into account"? You're worried you might feel a little "oogey? because you're convinced that every gay man wants your stuff? That's something you need to work out with your therapist, not expect the military to accommodate for.
sailor
Lots of those in the military are "uncomfortable" with racial minorities too. Life is tough. Get over it. Be an advocate for the rights of others. It's not all about you.
Sexual preference is not a right nor a minority.
Just one more reason this country is going down the toilet. Welcome to the new world Sodom. I am embarrassed and completely ashamed of the leaders of this once great country... At least Michelle is finally proud of America.
@VoiceOntheLeft
It's long been shown that gay males are highly promiscuous. An article in the NYtimes, revealed may gays have an open secret and are not exclusively monogamous in relationships.
That by the way is a gay man.
@MustBeKidding
Really, what happened to consenting adults with informed consent? It's mainly an orientation until someone willfully engages in homosexual behavior, then it's a lifestyle.
Argue all you want in favor of abortions, you can't get around the fact that, in the absence of force, without consensual sex there are no unwanted pregnancies. Don't want a baby? Keep your legs closed.
How many abortions have taken place in the last decade to save the life of the mother?
@L.J Rhodes
What part of not married equals single, regardless of orientation, do you not understand. If they're not married, they're not entitled to marital benefits. Period!
@maxGiver
Promiscuity doesn't curb the spread of any disease.
@don
Biologically, and conclusively, substantiate homosexuality.
*A former homosexual.
@VoiceOnTheLeft
Are you saying gays CAN help who they're attracted to?
Do you even understand how irrational you are? This article is about granting homosexuals who are in COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS the rights based on that commitment.
Why are you ranting about promiscuity?
Imagine: If the gay had its way the human population would soon fade away! This is nothing less than an alien takeover happening right under our noses in plain sight. The sad part about it is gays are the key unwitting human participants to our own demise. Hasta la vista, baby!
If homosexuals need to, they will endure time with the opposite sex to create a child. But homosexuals are born from heterosexuals as well. The human population will not fade away. You need to go get educated on the matter before spouting off uneducated fears.
ItIsWhat!t!s
How is that any different than men of the heterosexual preference? How many of them are promiscuous and brag about their excursions and adventures in nailing the opposite sex? There is not much difference there in regards to promiscuity.
NotKidding---New rules for the special people so they do not feel left out, what is going to happen when the military goes back to the way it was. Benefits for the members only. You turds on the left are more about creating issues than solving them. How about you pay for them too. As far as your version of murder I would not give you the time of day. It is time to play fair though, no more benefits for married people. Time to go completley equal, no more preference for dorm rooms, no more variences for wieght, physical standards, or dress, none, you want fair . I am all for it. But you left wing loons, you say you are in favor of it but in the end not really.
How can you be so sure the opposite sex will endure your gay ars!
Are you a rapist too?
@Don
The article in the NY Times was about gay married couples.
@State
Promiscuity is wrong regardless of sexual identity. However, it's been shown statistically that gay males aren't even as monogamous as their heterosexual counterparts:
How is the problem going to be corrected by gay males bragging about their sexual conquest of the same sex?
ItIs
You are using the actions of some people to justify denying the rights of others ..... the others who DO have a committed relationship.
Face it, man ..... you are opposed to same sex rights and you will use any piece of information you can find to try to justify your actions. You are no better than the Old Testament Christians that mine the Bible for "useful" information they use to deny the rights of those they hate.
First off, I'm not gay. Nice try in guessing though. Too bad you have to feel empowered by accusing anyone who contradicts your thoughts as being gay. Secondly, I am not a rapist as I abhor such acts.
ItIsWhat!t!s
Can you link a source to that article? I would like to read what it says.
If Pinhead didn't extend the same benefits to the unmarried partners of straight military personnel and DOJ personnel then his actions are descriminatory and therefore unconstitutional.
What is fair for the special interest groups is fair for all!
That's pay back for Obama for not putting him on the spot in the Benghazi Massacre, there got to be a special place for Panetta in hell. NBC what are you getting for the cover up of the Benghazi Massacre, another tax free year for GE.
GOP mindset:
Gays marrying is a segue into incest and bestiality. HOW DUMB CAN YOU PEOPLE BE???
As for extending benefits, why not? Maybe if we lay off all the slow, unmotivated postal workers sucking the funds out of the gov't, maybe we can funnel that money into SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS.
kkwilson nailed it, this is the govt at it's best....worst is yet to come
How wonderful now old perverts can pass along Uncle Sam's Tax money to young little perverts. Best news is America is a deadbeat broke sick nation. Now that's "progress". How many 20 yr perverts will be looking for a old pervert in green? Oh no not perverts they have strong morals lol More sick utopia brought on by idiot liberals.
If the people who are whining so hard about gay people being allowed to live in this country and have equal rights, there are plenty of other countries you can feel free to pack yourselves up and move to. Of course, most of them we are busy bombing right now for being "backward," but if the shoe fits....
By the way, the spread of AIDS is predominantly higher in the homosexual community - why - due to promiscuity.
It's lower in the heterosexual community - because even though we are promiscuis - we are more committed, in general, than the homosexual community.
And that's not my OPINION, that is actual FACT...google it.
Precisely what gays have been trying to tell the straight folks who currently enjoy special rights.
More BS politically correctness...
"as well as to the unmarried partners"... so much for equlity. Opposite sex couples can't even get that!
What a sad day for a military that supposedly is superior to others. Huh, watered down is more like it. This is how the cancer from within dilutes the effectiveness of what once was right and proud. Homos run the show, what a shame.
Kombo thats 100% FICTION! The reality is exactly the OPPOSITE.
That's because opposite-sex couples can marry to access those benefits, but gay couples can't.
Apparently equal rights aren't important to you as long as you already have yours.
Irvmani
Then I'll suppose they'll have to pay a living wage, or they will have to force a draft where every single 18 year old is forced to serve. If they want to make it fair. Or...they could just recognize that military families make enormous sacrifices, both economic and social, in order for their members to serve...and they could try to make things easier on them so that more will be willing to serve. Those sacrifices have nothing to do with what sort of plumbing they have in their pants...so it's ludicrous to say only some get compensated and some don't...based on something so stupidly arbitrary.
Turds? Really? So...caring about other people makes you a turd? Interesting.
I would happily pay more in taxes if they spent them on helping others and not oil company give away's and military no-bid contracts. Wouldn't you? There are a lot of people struggling...and since I'm not, I'm more than happy to help whoever I can. Isn't that the right thing to do? Or have you had so much kool aid that you actually believe greed and selfishness are virtues and compassion and generosity are vices?
My version of murder? I haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
Or benefits for ALL married people. (Including those prevented by law from getting married).
You are confusing equal with identical. We aren't all identical, and some need the ground leveled for them before they can have an equal chance. Why do you hate that so much? Are you afraid that you wouldn't stand a chance if you didn't have all your advantages?
Foolish. It's easy to hand out benefits when you're not giving away your own money. An art in which Obama and his administration are masters at. Also simple to figure out why we have a deficit of over $16 trillion of which Obama has added more than any other President in history (I hear the excuses coming already - that's all they are is excuses). If someone in the administration hasn't figured out this policy is biased towards the gays they will when it hits the courts who will rule any girlfriend, or boyfriend, is now eligible for benefits. Oh well at least these people will be able to have access to military resources while Congress gets to decide what funding needs to be eliminated for less important defense items (like aircraft, ships, trucks, ordinance, etc.).
And it's easy to deny the rights of others when you enjoy full rights yourself.
Sounds like you're just another greedy bigot.
You mean, unlike those "family values" Republicans such Newy Gingrich?
Whether or not this is true, you can't use the actions of a group to determine whether individual service members receive equal benefits.
The policy isn't biased because heterosexuals have the option to marry their opposite-sex partner in order to receive benefits. When gays everywhere are permitted to marry and DOMA is repealed/overruled AND this policy is continued, then that would be biased.
If those same service members were heterosexual and married, the expense would be the same (more, actually, since same-sex partners aren't eligible for medical care, housing allowances, etc...). So, what are you complaining about? Are you saying that you are glad that there are gays in the military so as to help hold down costs?
Oh, one last thing before a I go...BAM! Some people are gonna be pissed.
Yep, many wingnut heads will explode today......but just wait until the end of June when the supreme court rules. The bigots will be very disappointed.
Bad day to be a Republican, good day for liberals.
Yep. About time they recognize reality.
Thumbs up for the military.
But if they rule the other way SKREKK, (probably won't) SCOTUS will be labled by you and other supporters as, (wait for it) BIGOTS. Never mind that they are omni-wise and Roberts found a cynical way of referring to obamare as a tax. Never mind that they are supposed to interpret the constitution in a fair and unbiased manner(they often don't). Never mind that they often lean in favor of laws that actually give minorities special rights that the (ruling) majority are forced to relinquish, like hiring or college admissions even when they're more qualified. In spite of their past rulings in these matters, if they come up with a reason to uphold DOMA or California's ban, they will still be BIGOTS. Correct?
Most of the racist bigots I see on here are Liberals. They hate anyone who disagrees with them and cannot have a civil conversation without spewing their hatred.
Funny how the DOMA does nothing to elimanite the biggest threat to marriage. Straights divorcing.
JERSY GIRL 1
Miss I would say I have not seen much in the way of racism on this current topic, but it does irritate me some what in that there is no grey area when it comes to equality, you can't let someone be a little equal or kind of equal, and I would like to say you are generalizing incredibly and others have been very civilized and some have not, that goes for both sides. However on this issue there is no compromise, why becasue equal is equal, period. This country was built on equality.
If you do not like the though of gay marriage you are welcome to not get married to another woman if you so choose. See that is called equality.
"Most of the racist bigots I see on here are Liberals. They hate anyone who disagrees with them and cannot have a civil conversation without spewing their hatred."
As opposed to all the love and peace you are spewing???
@Marines dad?
Really? Regardless of gender identity no one can marry someone of the same sex. Everyone has exactly the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex, so I don't see where there is not marital equality. If you're asking to change the federal recognition of marriage based on a sexual identity, or ideology, than you're opening up the floodgates for other groups.
I'm a Republican. I'm not entirely opposed to the decision. My only question was why Panetta didn't have the guts to deal with making a decision like this at the beginning of his term instead of sliding it in as he crawls out the back door.
The military code of conduct on "maintenance of a marriage" should also apply and be maintained if equality in the military work place is to be rewritten with inclusion.
ItIsWhat!t!s
This is the same argument used when woman were given the right to vote, the flood gates will open! Some actually questioned whether goats would be next or perhaps mops would be allowed to vote, give it up.
No that argument is not valid, a gay man is not romantically attracted to a woman why would he want to marry her? With that argument you would be happy that the freedom of religion said you had the right to be religious only if it involved paganism. After all by your argument everyone would have the right for religious expression but only one is available.
If you think everyone has the right to marry the opposite sex so they are equal then that is kind of sad that you think its ok to belittle and side line a group of people.
Funny. They said the EXACT same thing about interracial marriage... "Everyone has exactly the same right to marry someone of the same race, so I don't see where there is not marital equality."
Just like interracial marriage opened the "floodgates" to goat marriage, chair marriage, tree marriage. Except that it DID NOT "open the floodgates" to any of that... and every conservative who said the SAME EXACT things about interracial marriage were proved wrong. Apparently you fail to learn from your previous mistakes, and thus you are doomed to repeat history.
DADT was still in force at the beginning of Panetta's term. And while it's been gone for just a little over a year now, it took a while for the DoD to determine which benefits it could offer same-sex spouses without violating DOMA.
To the freaks that oppose this: Please answer this: HOW is allowing equal treatment for gays and lesbians going to AFFECT you? How is that taking away anything that you already have? IT won't!!! This is a good thing. However, if you are an ignorant, backwards bigot- you will STILL come up with some hate filled rant that has nothing to do with anything OTHER THAN showing your inner black, cruel heart...remember that- your rants say everything about YOU- nothing less.
How does this affect everyone, H3321278; ummm - higher taxes comes to mind immediately!
If they were straight and married, it would cost the exact same amount. I don't see you complaining about straight military members, and the costs associated with their benefits.
The taxpayers could save even more money if we denied military benefits to the spouses of dumb bigots in the military.
Did it open the floodgates to gay marriage?
skrekk,
DADT was an executive order under Clinton. DADT could have been changed or dropped by Obama at any time. Obama just used Panetta on this executive mandate rather than taking the issue on himself and exposing himself to negative press. The blame will now be put on the SCOTUS if the initiative is found unconstitutional. It's just another display of a President with no backbone or real agenda other then to get more votes with the use of taxpayer money. I'm all for "equality" if the issue of "equality" is actually being served. I don't think that is the real agenda hear, and the way this has been brought to the table by the Obama administration doesn't support the "equality for all" position either. This just stinks of pure politics at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer. We have much bigger issues with the fiscal budget and spending without diluting the focus with a diversion that ultimately has very little effect on the general populous.
Marines-Dad...First of all, I thank your son for his service (I am a Desert Storm Vet.)so I know the sacrifice) and I really don't have an oppinion on this topic, other than if the military is going to recognize same sex marriage..the same benefits should apply as traditional marriage)...Second, You stated that "it's a rule not a law,"...that's not entirely true, if you look at the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) there are articles that defend the DOMA as well as articles against sodomy...In the military UCMJ is the law, It goes above and beyond domestic laws put in place by civilian systems. The military is supposed to be held to a higher standard than civilians.
To..Jersey""""
Stop baiting.. flaming and insulting liberals out here then... gotta love the cons always squawking like castrated roosters and plucked hens when they get back a little of what they been dishing out for years
Excellent comment, mguy. People who claim that extending benefits to the partners of gays will cost money are implicitly saying that they are depending on the presence of gays (as opposed to married heterosexuals) to keep expenses under control.
Mguy as an African American person I can definitely relate to discrimination, but please don't compare the struggles of people of color to that of the LGBT community. It's disrespect in its highest form. And if you're wondering why I feel that way it's because no one knows you're gay unless you tell them. And who you choose to love and who you do what you do with in your bedroom is no one's business but yours, that person, and God.
True...but let's not forget that Clinton wanted to simply make it legal for gays to serve openly and that DADT was a compromise with the republican congress who vehemently opposed open service.
Obama campaigned on repealing it. And he did. He announced that he wanted this to be done through the military, on their timetable, so that it wouldn't disrupt the military at a time of war....but that it must be done. Do you now object to his handling of it?
You must watch fox. They never show Obama's speeches, so you clearly have no clue just how many times he has openly addressed the issue of gay rights. The only "negative press" comes from fox, and that's all they spew no matter what he does. The rest of the country actually supports gay rights, so there is no negative backlash for a President who does what he was elected to do.
What initiative? Giving gay spouses military ID cards? Or DOMA? Neither one of those are initiatives....?
Really? He's on his second term...votes aren't any use to him. He is the one driving the bus on gay rights, but he's letting the military handle the particulars. Do you think the military is not competent to judge when and how to do that for themselves? Or would you prefer a president who just issued orders from on high with no regard to how disruptive that might be to the military? You are confusing back bone with stupidity.
In what way?
Right...it has very little effect on the majority of the population...so why sweat it? It doesn't effect you. It's not as if the government is all sitting in lawn chairs waiting for this to take place, they are actually working on the budget and the economy as well. They can do more than one thing at a time....and if you're point is that this should be ignored until everything else is to YOUR satisfaction...then that's a pretty egotistic view to take.
And it's not "pure politics" when millions of law-abiding, tax-paying, voting members of our society are being treated as if they weren't full and equal citizens...just because *some* people aren't emotionally mature enough to deal with the fact that we aren't all exactly the same.
Wrong. DADT was a law, part of the 1994 National Defense Authorization Act. It was prior to DADT that the ban on gays was merely an executive order which the President could have changed unilaterally.
Only Congress or the courts could repeal DADT, not the President.
Made In America!
Firstly thank you for your service, an awesome sacrifice for this country that I myself did not take part so I can only imagine what its like! Thank you again.
Thanks for clearing that up for me! I am leaning towards the benefits should be applied to only those that are married, I really don't like the idea of heterosexual unmarried partners not qualifying while unmarried homosexual partners do qualify,
I don't believe the situation you describe qualifies as bigotry. But don't you think it's interesting that liberals always seem to be standing up for the rights of others and your brand of conservative is always working on denying rights for people who share some characteristic that makes them different.
Who else's rights are you ready to deny? Women? African Americans? Muslims? Atheists? Gay and Lesbian citizens?
I'll bet you are standing up to protect YOUR right to bear arms, but the rights of others are not so important. You think it's important that you have a right to marry, but marriage equality is something you oppose. Kind of selfish, huh?
Made in America
How about the military holding a higher standard of protecting the rights of ALL Americans? You seem to believe in the Catch-22 that same sex couples find themselves in. Except in a few states they are denied the right to marry, but you would deny them their rights unless they are married. How's that for a no-win situation?
NM-817
I was not comparing the struggles of African Americans to homosexuals, I was saying the arguments against interracial marriage... which covered ALL races, not just yours... are the same arguments against gay marriage.
I was comparing the arguments of the past, which have been proven false, and the fact that people use those same arguments today. It is more a comment on the inability of the anti-gay crowd to learn from the past, and that history has already shown us that their arguments are pointless and hold no truth.
This link proves the point mguy is making:
http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/Marriage-Equality-Same-Sex-Lesbian-Gay-Marriage/Arguments_Against_Interracial_Marriage_and_Equal_Marriage.pdf
The homophobes today are in fact using the exact same erroneous arguments which the racists used 50 years ago.
NM, mguy may not be willing to make that comparison, but I am.
You seriously think that being capable of opting to be psychologically crippled is a legitimate option? You do realize that people knew I wasn't straight before I did. It wasn't that I was flaming either, people notice if you're not acting quite right or aren't adequately responding to talk about the opposite sex. Hiding something like this isn't something which is a realistic option in many cases, people tend to be really good at figuring out who's hiding things and who isn't.
Face it, the black community has a serious homophobia issue and expecting my support with your rights when you guys turn around and stab us in the back is just disgusting. This self entitled, we're entitled to help but don't have to help anybody else is something which would cause MLK to roll in his grave if he knew about it.
Fortunately, I'm not the sort of person to bear grudges.
Fine. Make same sex marriage legal nationally...and the problem is solved. Until it is though...gays are not allowed to marry, and not allowed to have benefits unless they are married...so many of our military are being denied the same benefits that those standing next to them, doing the very same job, receive.
That's blatant discrimination....and it's wrong.
It seems to be a case of "I've got mine, so screw you!"
What the black homophobes forget is that not only do all Americans deserve the same rights they enjoy, but MLK chose a gay rights activist to run his national civil rights campaign. Bayard Rustin did a great job.
My wife & I suspected one of our daughters was gay three years before she realized that herself. Since it was a non-issue in our family and community, it was a non-issue for her too.
@Shrek
Racism isn't based on actual science and neither is homosexuality. Homophobia isn't a clinical condition either.
@Marines_Dad
Really? I don't remember women being denied the right to vote over sexual orientation. If gays are permitted to marry, on the basis of sexual identity, why are polygamist denied the same right?
Why would a lesbian have sex with a male? Lesbians have been shown to be at a higher risk of diseases such as BV and get the disease from their lesbian partners who have had multiple male partners. Homosexuality is mainly self diagnosed. A majority of homosexuals vary throughout their lifetimes.
Congress can make no law inhibiting the free exercise of religion, but where is there a complete federal recognition of any specific religion?
Group of people or a group of people and their ideology?
Can you conclusively biologically substantiate racism or homosexuality?
@Shrekk
And he did so to support being gay or to fully approve of homosexuality?
That doesn't make it a non-issue though.
How is extending benefits to less than 1% of the service helping the other 99%?
ItIsWhatItIs
Racism, no... there is no biological reason for hating someone else. That is a learned trait, usually with a religious base.
Homosexuality, yes. It is EASY to conclusively prove the biological substantiate for homosexuality.
Homosexuality, or heterosexuality, deals with the attraction to the same sex. Attraction is the resulting feeling people experience from the release of dopamine and serotonin in their brain. This release is a physiological response triggered by an external stimuli. You CAN NOT control the physiological release of dopamine and serotonin in your brain... hence the reason it is "physiological".
Because attraction, and thus your sexual identity, is dependent on the release of these chemicals, it is a biological function. You can not control the release of those chemicals, you can not "choose" to release them, it is just the way you are born. Some men experience the release of these chemicals when they see a woman who might be skinny and blonde, or fat and brunette, or a red head, or tall, or short... some men experience the release of these chemicals when they see a man who might be skinny, or fat, or tall, or short, or whatever attribute triggers the release of those chemicals.
There is your biology lesson for the day. You didn't actually think that the attraction you feel for your wife was the result of some choice you made, or some magical destiny, or divine religious intervention... did you? I hate to burst your bubble, but any feeling of attraction you experience is purely the result of chemical excretions in your brain... nothing more.
First, I'm not sure what all this DADT garbage is about. The full title of the policy was "Don't ask, don't tell, don't harass, don't pursue.", and was never revealed to the public. Without the full title of the policy can we ever say the public's opinion was ever genuine informed consent? I'm in the military, and I can tell you for certain homosexuality is by no means accepted. It's tolerated. Soldiers might not say anything, but no one is recognizing gays or asking them out the closet. Regardless of your orientation, your sex life is your choice, and it needs to stay in the bedroom and out of the work environment. Generally, lesbian soldiers irk me worse than gays because of the hostile environment they create. They manipulate to gain power, and try to sabotage anyone they don't like or are paranoid of. Should we repeal the fraternization policy next?
There's not a job in the military that requires anyone to be gay, and you're not serving your country in bed. The repeal passed during a lame duck session in congress, and unmarried gays are still single. Also, a lot of people don't know that the Missionary position is the only authorized sexual position in the military. A lot of people complained about all the heterosexual conversations taking place? Do two wrongs make a right? You mean they're not interested in professionalism, they just want to air their dirty laundry as well? Spare me! Case in point, if you couldn't tell that person their conversation is offensive, or laughed with them, then you have no right to complain about it. I'm not enthused about hearing about anyone's sex life. Do I hate gay people? No! Do I want to hurt them? Nope. Do I want to hear about sexual exploits or your mixed up ideology on being gay, or be in close quarters with someone with same sex attraction? Definitely No!
Oh really?
Then why do we have all these laws especially for people whose only difference is who they love and what they do in their bedroom? DADT, DOMA, all the state laws against same sex marriage....even the freaking boy scouts wants to have their nose in other people's private business.
To say that LGBT do not suffer discrimination (unless they can somehow successfully hide who they are) is ludicrous. Fifty years from now there won't be laws discriminating against them...but there will still be people discriminating against them...just as there are still racists today. No laws will change that. But that is no reason to not change the laws.
This is just AWESOME.... I'm gay and really LOVE a guy in uniform. This country is FINALLY starting to do some great things in benefit of ALL.
Panetta is one sick a-s licking bho pimp. How this poor excuse for a man can even live with himself, hard to understand. after bho, has to be the most useless/vile poor excuse for a man ever, even worse than reid- add pelosi, thought npt a man most are better looking
We all knew the full title. It's shortened for expediency. Not that it matters, MORE gays were discharged for being gay under DADT than before...so the don't harass and pursue part was completely ignored by the military.
You speak for the entire military? No one particularly cares if you "accept" reality or not. That's up to you.
I would hope they aren't "asking them out of the closet". It's none of their business.
I'm pretty sure sex on the job is against the military's code of conduct. No problem there.
Wow. Can you HEAR yourself?
How many of those jobs require you to be straight?
Unless they WOULD be married if it was LEGAL for them to marry in their home state. In that case, they are not single.
So are you suggesting that the military prosecute every straight soldier that gets a bj or has the woman on top? How will they enforce that?
That's not a "case in point". The issue was that some military personnel...who did the same job as everyone else, suffered the same deprivations, ate the same food, slept in the same quarters, got the same pay....couldn't MENTION their family or they'd get FIRED. No pictures of their loved ones, have to hide letters from home, no attending military functions together, etc. Most couldn't even be seen in public on their time off where someone might see them and report them. You think that's fair? Straight guys didn't have those restrictions.
I don't believe you. Every single thing you've said loudly proclaims that you do. Although, you may be in denial and unaware of just how disgustingly hateful your remarks are.
Too bad. They get to behave the exactly same way straight soldiers behave, so if any of them want to share their sexual exploits....you'll just have to find a way to live with it. Or...here's an idea....why don't you....
I can't wait to see the divorce rate among all these gay marriages. Any law enforcement officer can tell you there is no more violent domestic dispute than between gay partners. As many have said, all this demanding this and demanding that is to MAKE people accept your way of life and view it as acceptible, not going to happen. People may have to tolerate this kind of thing but down deep they can be as disgusted as ever and there is absolutely nothing you can do about that.
When we use divorce as a reason to withhold opposite sex marriage...then you'll have a point. Many of those end up in death, not just of the spouse, but often the children are murdered as well...and we still encourage marriage.
Shaking my head- what? gays and lesbians make up approx. 10% of the population...You are saying that gays and lesbians have more domestic violence than straights? Are you kidding me? So ALL these women we see beaten daily or worse, raped or killed are by gays and lesbians? You are a fool....Just another non-fact based on ignorance...Stop blaming gays and lesbians. Look at the straight males that violate, rape and kill our women and children...THAT is the real problem...you cannot push that on gays, you fool...stop the bigotry.
All they are demanding is to be treated exactly the same as everyone else...no more "special" laws singling them out for different treatment. You can't "accept" that? You don't believe in equality? You think the founders were wrong? It doesn't matter. No one cares if you "accept" it or not. Really.
Perfect! As long as you are legally prevented from TREATING people differently, then what you THINK...only serves to make you miserable. And since you are the one with the entirely invented problem that you wish you could inflict on others....then you should be the one to deal with the consequences. Carry on thinking whatever hateful things you want, about things that are none of your freaking business, and just see how easy it is to keep yourself from being happy. Brilliant.
So far the marriage equality states have the lowest divorce rates while the bigoted bible-belt states have by far the highest.
In fact the first marriage equality state has had the lowest divorce rate in the country for several years.
News flash - he's not alone.
I served more than 25+ years in the military and work on a military base.
And he's right, they are TOLERATED, not accepted. We don't talk about it and we are not asking them to come out of the closet.
So he's more on target than you think. You're not in the military, you have no clue - but WE DO.
@must be kidding.
Really? I doubt any american on the street knows the last two clauses.
Less than 1% of the military was discharged under the Don't ask, don't tell, don't harass, don't pursue
Are you even in the military? I speak for more of the military than you can.
Military Jobs don't require a sexual orientation, so there no real reason to reveal being gay.
To serve the people of the United States...not be homosexual.
To include their close relatives? FYI, My entire military career my family has not attended one military function.
Yes. There's several non professional relationships that happen, because people are people. Adultery is cause for UCMJ, so is fratranization. Yes, soldiers can be prosecuted. (for getting a bj) Yes, heterosexuals do have restrictions. The heterosexual soldiers just know how to keep their mouths closed most of the time and don't try to repeal the policy to suit their orientations.
Please cite a specific example of anything HATEFUL I've said.
Learn to read! Where did I say I listened to any straight or homosexual sexual exploits?
That makes you one of the older guys. Younger guys are far less bigoted as a rule.
Why on earth do you think anyone wants you to "ask them to come out of the closet"? I would think they would prefer that you minded your own business. I expect they "tolerate" people like you, as well.
But I have to ask...since this is such a recurring theme ...what do you think your refusal "to accept" the reality that some people are gay, accomplishes? Does it make all gay people disappear from your experience? Does it turn them all into bowing and scraping servile second class citizens for you to feel superior to? What is the point of pretending that they need or want your "acceptance" for anything? Is it just because it makes you feel better to withhold it...even though no one even wants it?
No...I'm not. Far too old for that and never had an interest. But I am capable of reading and talking to others, and I've seen the polling. There are still those like you...but your kind is dying off. The new guys aren't so hung up on what other people do in bed. Not all, of course...some are raised to hate, but most have enjoyed the benefit of access to global views growing up, and have other sources of information than a bigoted church or parents to consider. People our age weren't so lucky.
How clever....
You must be joking. You really think that? You have an incredibly low opinion of your fellow Americans. I'm pretty sure quite a few read Wikipedia....
"The "don't ask" part of the DADT policy specified that superiors should not initiate investigation of a service member's orientation without witnessing disallowed behaviors, though credible evidence of homosexual behavior could be used to initiate an investigation. Unauthorized investigations and harassment of suspected servicemen and women led to an expansion of the policy to "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass"."
It's not like it's a secret or anything. I always thought it was fairly common knowledge...certainly common to anyone interested in the subject.
Over 13,600 service men and women, who were honorably and ably serving their country, lost their careers over this ignorant piece of blatant bigotry. Even one would have been too many.
You still don't speak for all of the military. You only speak for yourself. Just like everyone else.
Nor any reason to HIDE it.
And you're not being paid for being straight...you have a point?
Sucks for you, but lots of family members attend graduation ceremonies, they show up to see their spouses and lovers off at the airport, or greet them when they return.
So...a guy on leave goes and visits his girlfriend (or his wife) and gets a bj...and the MP's come crashing through the door? How about if he is seen walking hand in hand down the street with her? Does he get fired? Don't even begin to try the utter and complete BS that straights and gays were treated equally under that horrendous law. The law ONLY applied to gays. Nuff said.
There is no law (and never has been one) that says a straight soldier cannot (on his own time) have sex with a consenting person of the opposite sex without getting fired for it.
You entire post....but for the most obvious and glaring example, check out how you lumped all "lesbians" together, gave them all the same hateful personality and used that to justify your bigotry. All lesbians aren't any more alike than all straight women. But no doubt...you have a single personality lined up for them too.
No...you said you didn't want to listen. I just gave you the same advice you gave to gay guys who didn't want to listen to straight exploits. My reading comprehension is just fine. Yours is a bit faulty. I never said you listened to anything...in fact, I'd be far more inclined to think you don't. My point was that whether or not you listened...or wanted to listen...they now have the same right to speak about it as anyone else.
So happy! Great Day to be an American!!
Why is that? Homosexuality isn't rooted in either American heritage of tradition.
Equality is.
Equality on the basis of what? Sexual behavior and/or ideology?
Maybe you should read the 14th Amendment some time.
Equality means everyone has the same rights and freedoms....no matter what your opinion is of them.
The only time rights or freedoms should ever be withheld, is if someone has abused the rights and freedoms of others by harming them. The only way to protect our own rights and freedoms...is to protect everyone's.
NotKidding
Well said and absolutely correct. ItIsWhat!tIs wants to base decisions about whether to grant rights and freedoms based on some single characteristic of that person, which is by definition bigotry. People have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness along with rights and freedoms granted by the Constitution because they are citizens of the United States. Nothing else. They have, as you stated so well, done nothing to warrant removal of those rights and freedoms.
Another domino in the path of equality falls! Hopefully, DOMA is next in line!
Not if the SCOTUS interprets the constitution based on the history and tradition of the U.S.
"The history and the tradition of the U.S." also originally had only white male landowners as the only citizens who could vote. In the 1850s the SCOTUS ruled that slavery was legal because blacks were only 3/5 of a U.S. citizen.
These and many others were the "tradition" of the U.S. But as time has passed the country has slowly come to realize for the Constitution and the promise of what the country was founded on to really mean anything you cannot treat another human being as less than any other regardless of their sex, ethnicity, and now sexual orientation.
Is this America for just a few or is for everybody?
Gee, ItIsWhat!t!s, which history and tradition did you mean? Do you mean the history and tradition of 18th century white land owners with a limited understanding of the world and diversity who also owned slaves, or do yu mean the ongoing tradition of expanding freedom and equality to celebrate the diversity of American culture? The second one is the country I am proud to live in and be a citizen of. The first one sounds more like Iran. Which one do you like living in?
Hi ItIs!
Are you referring to the Constitution and the subsequent 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal rights of citizenship to all Americans? That being the case (no pun intended), the Supreme Court should return with a 9-0 finding that DOMA is unconstitutional.
Not to mention Loving v Virginia where the courts pretty clearly stated that marriage is a fundamental civil right. While I am no lawyer, from my layman's perspective the case law seems to be in favor of overturning DOMA. However, since I have no experience or training in law the rationale of our Supreme Court does mystify me some. So I can not state with any certainty which way the court will rule on this matter.
But, maintaining "history and tradition" doesn't qualify as an overwhelming government interest, which is needed to justify discrimination.
It does when you consider the rational test basis of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
Not according to the courts. As Judge Tauro, Judge Walker and others have ruled, "Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis for a law."
In fact the courts are increasingly finding that the "history and tradition" of anti-gay animus in this country is evidence which supports treating sexual orientation with heightened scrutiny. In other words, bigots like you have unwittingly shot yourselves in the foot.
What factual evidence does he have to support that conclusion? Activism doesn't count.
Gays as a whole aren't powerless.
I guess that explains why the majority of states have passed laws or constitutional amendments against legal equality for gays, because gays aren't a disfavored minority.
Sounds like you bigots have shot yourselves in the foot.
A good move. A very good move.
amazing, no haters have posted any of their usual diatribe yet...
Michael Kohl - and by "Hater", you mean anyone with a differing opinion? Ah, yes, the locked stepped liberal mantra of "How tolerant we are" - well; until anyone disagrees. Right?
When the leadership of NAMBLA cry how they're being discriminated against, are you then going to defend them, as well? How about the neighbor who wants to marry his cousin? or German shepherd?
You and every other "Free-thinker" (read what C.S. Lewis thinks of an open-mind) are not going to like the world that you think you want. You and every one else can push the border of what's acceptable, but it still doesn't make it right. This is the emperor's new clothes, and you people have no delineation of what is right or wrong: No boundaries.
@arslp
I know this may be hard for you to grasp, but since animals and children cannot give consent, it is quite easy to see how there would be laws against marrying them. And people marry their cousins all the time. It varies state by state, but most states only disallow first cousins from marrying.
Let loose the hordes who practice carnality, and let the debauchery begin. Famous quote?
To..arslp""""
NAMBLA ...really ...or are you talking about the Roman Catholic Church.....?
And why do you decry everyone who has a different opinion then you... playing just another poor victim of liberalism card
you poor victim of liberalism
Caligula: Longinus, you're not having any fun! Enjoy yourself! What is your preference?
Longinus: Everything and nothing Caesar.
Password!
Caligula: Scrotum. or if you prefer scotus.
arslp,
I think by "haters", Michael was referring to those who would happily deny their fellow Americans equal rights and protection.
@DaFoo
So me an animal or child legally responsible for itself.
Well...since the topic is whether or not to treat some of the men and women who serve in our military with equality....then anyone who disagrees with THAT....is a hater, yes. What other reason is there to want to treat millions of people as second class?
Ah....you have NOTHING to say about same sex couples, then? Not one single argument against their equality? You have to bring in a lot of COMPLETELY UNRELATED crap to try and deflect from the actual topic? Sad.
Pedophilia, bestiality and incest have as much to do with straight marriage as gay marriage: Nothing.
So...a children's novelist is your moral guide? Explains much.
Honestly....do you people really believe this nonsense? Legalizing same sex relationships doesn't make pedophilia or bestiality or any other CRIME "ok". It doesn't change anything else.
It is morally wrong to discriminate based on nothing more than bigoted opinions...not harm. Same sex relationships don't harm anyone and there is no moral justification to treat people as any less worthy because of them. But you already know that....since you couldn't come up with ONE reason why they should be treated differently. All you could do was attempt some fear mongering about a bunch of other stuff that has nothing whatever to do with same sex marriage.
I cannot speak for "You people"; only myself, and I choose to follow Christ. If you do not, that is your business, but I will not compromise because it is (again) the popular thing to do. If you think that God's Word is a "Bigoted opinion" then that's your business. If you choose to tell Him that He is "Morally wrong to discriminate" that is your business. When the time comes for you to take that up with Him; you'll have your opportunity to tell God how and why He is wrong, but that is not a position I envy. I do not think myself (as the created) equal with the Creator; obviously you do. Again; you will have your opportunity to take that up with Him. Same sex relationships are strictly forbidden; and that didn't start - or will it end - with me. If I tell others I do not condone this and God sees it as wrong, why is it hateful rather than caring? After all; as a Christian and holding the belief of an eternity, that is far longer than a temporal 20 or 30+ year relationship.
If I warn a diabetic not to eat a pound of divinity, does it make me hateful or caring if I tell that person it will be bad for them? God gave instructions on marriage in the Old Testament and instructions were given in the New Testament, as well. God said He was the same yesterday, today, and forever; He changed not. So, while you think yourself so wise and enlightened - and qualified to determine what's acceptable as "Moral justification", I'll take what God's Word says about the matter over what you think - and the entire "world" for that matter. The "fear mongering" I feel is for those who do not think of their eternal lives, and see themselves as the created rather than the Creator.
Thank you for your service to all that serve in the military.
arslp, it sounds like your imaginary friend is a huge bigot. It also seems that other people have a better god than you do.
Funny too that you think your cult is relevant to the policies of the DoD.
Fine. It's your life.
Yes it is.
So you think equality is all about being popular? You don't think that's minimizing the plight of people who have suffered centuries of marginalization primarily because YOU and others like you..."follow christ" ?
It's also true.
I don't try to communicate with imaginary beings. It's silly.
Ah...here we go. The threat. "You better do/think/say what I want you to, or my great big magical, invisible bully friend will punish you FOR EV ER." You people never seem to understand...that only works on people who already believe that stuff. The rest of us aren't going to be askeered of something we know doesn't even exist.
My parents created me.
No matter how many times you try to toss that threat around....it will never work. It just makes you look silly and a bit desperate.
No one can forbid same sex relationships. Your precious gawd certainly hasn't been able to. They go on all over the world, every day...and always have.
Because you are choosing to ignore all the passages in your bible that tell you to love your neighbor, to not judge others, to treat others as you'd like to be treated, and so on. You are also ignoring all the passages that tell you that wearing blended fabrics is an abomination (equal to homosexuality) or that you should murder your children if they are disobedient. You pick and choose what you "won't compromise" on...and so YOU....not your religion....are responsible for deciding that millions of people who have never harmed you...are somehow less worthy than you are. That's not "caring".
And if you're wrong? You just ruined the only life that these people have. When you can PROVE your god exists...then we'll talk. Until then, you are using your belief...nothing more...as an excuse to harm others.
It makes you rude. Diabetics are well aware of what they can eat and can't....they don't need busybodies pointing it out for them.
God gave instructions on marriage in the Old Testament and instructions were given in the New Testament, as well. God said He was the same yesterday, today, and forever; He changed not. So, while you think yourself so wise and enlightened - and qualified to determine what's acceptable as "Moral justification", I'll take what God's Word says about the matter over what you think - and the entire "world" for that matter. The "fear mongering" I feel is for those who do not think of their eternal lives, and see themselves as the created rather than the Creator.
What your religious beliefs are....have nothing to do with our laws. You are free to live your life by whatever loony beliefs you want..it's your life. You are not free to impose them on others.
Unless you're gay.
And you're lazy if you haven't investigated for yourself. There were writers who were contemporaries of the disciples that were not Christian; and they have written of Christ's peers and events that occurred at the time. Read the writings of Josephus. The Dead Sea scrolls have also aided a great deal in clarifying points. Archeological evidence has uncovered the layers of bricks that the Egyptians required the Jews to make - exactly as described in Exodus. You have done nothing truly of any investigative efforts; but there will come a day that you will know.
You hope against hope that there is no god; and would rather believe that this wonderfully designed world is a crap shoot. I can truly understand why you and so many absolutely must believe there is no god; but there is.
Dissect the part about being told that God said IF you seek Him, you will find Him. Dissect the part where He says that you are the created; and He the Creator. Shall you instruct Him? On judgment day, all the focus will be on each one of us. Who then will care what is popular? Who then will it matter to whether you were wrong or right? The consequences are eternal.
arslp,
I'm not lazy. I've investigated and aside from the Josephus reference (which most scholars consider a forgery) and the Dead Sea Scroll, which may have been written about the same time, I found no credible scientific discovery of the Hebrew bricks from Exodus.
Could you please help me find a citation for this?
Also, I know you're not talking to me, but not many atheists "hope against hope that there is not god", most just see that the (poorly) designed world, as is, needs no god to explain it.
Thanks, however, for the threat of eternal punishment. If anything sways my personal beliefs, it's threats of damnation.
It's a pretty safe bet that I've done a bit more research than you have.
Here is the paragraph that currently appears in The Antiquities of the Jews,written by Josephus around 95 C.E.:
"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named for him are not extinct to this day."
If this is the strongest and earliest extra-biblical evidence for the historical Jesus, then the scholarship is on the shakiest grounds. That passage from Josephus has been shown conclusively to be a forgery, and even conservative scholars admit it has been tampered with. But even were it historical, it dates from more than six decades after the supposed death of Jesus.
...scholars have largely discounted the Josephus paragraph- as a later interpolation. The passage, although widely quoted by believers today, did not show up in the writings of Josephus until centuries after his death, at the beginning of the fourth century. Thoroughly dishonest church historian Eusebius is credited as the real author. The passage is grossly out of context, a clear hint that it was inserted at a later time.
All scholars agree that Josephus, a Jew who never converted to Christianity, would not have called Jesus "the Christ" or "the truth," so the passage must have been doctored by a later Christian--evidence, by the way, that some early believers were in the habit of altering texts to the advantage of their theological agenda. The phrase "to this day" reveals it was written at a later time. Everyone agrees there was no "tribe of Christians" during the time of Josephus--Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.
So yes...I have investigated it. It appears that you haven't, or you would never pull "josephus" out as proof of anything except theological lies.
Just what do they clarify? There's nothing in them that proves there's a gawd. Nothing that provides any evidence at all. Just what some people believe...no different from any other society that invented gawds to explain what they couldn't understand. In fact...if anything, the Dead Sea Scrolls do nothing more than prove that the bible wasn't written "as claimed"....
News items are circulating about how "hints" and "insights" contained in the famous Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in caves near the ancient site of Qumran can be found in the Bible. In other words, certain ideas in the scrolls also appear in the New Testament, meaning, of course, that the impression of Christianity as a "divine revelation" appearing whole cloth miraculously from the very finger of God is clearly erroneous.
Few scholars today claim that any of the Dead Sea Scrolls ("DSS") date to the time after Christianity was allegedly founded by a "historical" Jesus in the first century of the common era. Indeed, it is agreed that most of the scrolls pre-date the turn of the era and that none of them show any knowledge of Jesus Christ or Christianity.
http://freethoughtnation.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=280:dead-sea-scrolls-prove-bible-unoriginal
Never heard of this one...but jews building bricks doesn't equal existence of gawd.
No...actually I don't. I just know there isn't one. Certainly not one that resembles anything mankind has invented. Your biblical gawd is a narcissistic bully whose only response to any problem is mass murder. Nothing that ignorant could have invented toilet paper let alone the complex universe.
No...that's not what I believe. You haven't got any idea of what I believe...only what I don't believe.
I "must" believe there is no gawd? You are showing a lack of understanding here, I can't believe something I know isn't true. I either believe it's true, or I don't. And I don't. Never have, never will. It's just too obviously unbelievable.
Right.....in your head. That's the only place you'll find him. You don't see the flaw in that? It's called self delusion. If he's real, he could just show up. He did in the bible...he walked in the garden, gave dictation to Moses, parted seas and such. But not one appearance before...or after. Not ONE. He only shows up in that one book of stories and not a single peep in thousands of years. Don't you find that a tad suspicious?
Well "he" doesn't say anything. The story book does. In the real world...my parents created me. It took sex, not divine intervention. Just like nearly every living thing on the planet. No wonder theists hate sex so much...it's their real world proof that creation is biological and not magical.
You don't get it....he doesn't exist. He is a character in a book, nothing more. It's like asking what I'll say to Harry potter or Hannibal Lecter.
It's fine if you want to believe this. You can live your own life any way you want.
Just leave other people alone. You don't get to impose your religious beliefs on them through our laws or any other way. You really don't. I realize that you are so completely gawd-soaked that you think you have the right and the obligation to go out and do as much harm to as many of those "sinners" as you can reach...but you're wrong. Your gawd has no power in the real world. None. You are entirely free to believe that you have an invisible friend that has picked you to be all special and saved and will let you live forever, if it makes you feel better, but fictional characters don't dictate social policy or secular law, because they don't really exist.
You believing that he does...doesn't make him real. It only makes it your belief. He can't show himself, because he's imaginary...he can only be "seen" or experienced mentally by people who choose to describe their subjective experiences within the gawd framework. Choosing a magical unicorn framework or an aliens from space framework would be just as valid and far less harmful to others.
vet bills for the pets that will be recognized as domestic partners are next, and then it's curtains for the US,
if that has not already happened.
There he is! We knew an irrational homophobe that somehow equates homsexuality with pets would be on here to complain.
Show me a pet that can give informed consent to be married.
Until you do, your argument doesn't really hold water.
@Human ... the homophobes' fixation with animals really concerns me. I certainly wouldn't leave one of my pets alone with them.
HAHAAHAH ! oh its Walter !
i bet your head is exploding :) ROFL !!
its ok walter, just pray to your god.. it will all be ok.. ROFL
Walter, tell your dog to bark twice for "I do". If he doesn't bark, it's still a maybe.
Walter P Orielly Jr.
SO when women were given the right to vote I don't think there was a big concern about a mop then being given the right to vote, or perhaps a horse, or maybe even a tree.
That comment merely makes you sound as ignorant as you possibly are in real life.
Would you like some crackers with that crock of sh!t?
Gee, Michael Kohl, whence the term "haters"? I don't hate you or any gay; I simply think that your sexual behavior is balatantly unnatural and distasteful. If there are any haters involved in this issue, they are the gays who try to shove their agenda down the throats of those of us who don't agree with you.
spider-737231
I am not gay and I disagree with you totally. I don't agree with religions that "shove it down my throat" on a daily basis, however i have this understanding that we live in a country that offers basic rights and freedoms.
The terms you use are hateful and hurtful words, you can dress it up and deny it however you like. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck then well, you know the rest.
One last word this can go for both sides of the argument.
"Gee, Michael Kohl, whence the term "haters"? I don't hate you or any gay; I simply think that your sexual behavior is balatantly unnatural and distasteful. If there are any haters involved in this issue, they are the gays who try to shove their agenda down the throats of those of us who don't agree with you."
As opposed to your trying to "shove your adenda down the throats" of those who don't agree with YOU?
Thank you spider.
Laugh and enjoy, your day will come.
Some might find your sexual behavior unnatural and distasteful.
@Marines_dad
I find the fallacious comparison of opposition to homosexuality and racial bigotry to be disingenuous. Ethnicity has been biologically substantiated, homosexuality has not been conclusively substantiated. Disagreement with homosexuality doesn't immediately equate to hatred, so how besides appeal to emotion do you equate it as such, unless you imply that anyone in disagreement with homosexuality is automatically going to go out and hurt a gay person?
@ScubaSteve
Show me a pet that's legally responsible for itself.
Again thank you spider, and to the marine dad! your understanding that we live in a free country, correct. Then why in the heck is is that I have to pay for others failures in life, so they can be equal, with me and everyone else. So you don't make any sense at all in the times we live in now. The gays can be gay and just don't push your garbage on me, stop complaining about it isn't fair, they have more things then me. Leave the Boy Scouts alone, Leave Marriage alone between a man and woman, Leave things that are moral alone, start your own club like boy friends of world group, call being married to the same sex, two of the same contract. Just leave us alone, but you can't with all the liberal garbage that is taking this country down, and down.
People who are relatives could give consent to marry. Do you think this would be a good idea? If you don't does that make you a bigot who is full of hate?
ItIsWhat!t!s
Ahhhh now you have stumbled into my area of expertise biology and innate behavior. First word I did not mention race so I am not sure where you plucked that from.
Let us assume for one second that being gay was a choice, so they do not deserve equal rights. . .well this is awkward, religion is a choice, should we remove equal protection then becasue it is a choice, of course not!
However, we know that sexuality is not a choice, we are merely trying to find out how! People proclaim no one has prove there is a biological basis for homosexuality, I first say hogwash and secondly say no one has found a biological cause of heterosexuality either. Well actually there are some startling markers for both.
I would hasten to say if you disagree with homosexuality and say it so on here you are hurting people, their dignity and their self worth, and their right to be treated equally, there is physical hurt and there is other ways of hurting people.
However you have a right to say what you wish, but you do not have a right to say them with out being challenged. My son is gay he is a marine just so you know where I am approaching this issue from.
@Marines_dad
Look, I know you mean well, and I am sure you love your son, however; love isn't justification for any actions.
So, pedophiles can argue they can't help who they're attracted to either. Per the APA:
Even if sexuality isn't a choice, that doesn't validate acting on sexual desire.
I agree every person should be treated equally, but not every sexual orientation. In fact, the original qualification of homosexuality was an ego-dysentonic mental disorder where the sufferer experienced the inability to tell themselves apart from their orientation. Homosexuality can still technically be diagnosed as such provided a person feels "distress".
Too bad the supreme court disagreed with you in Lawrence v Texas and Romer v Evans. You clueless bigots have been losing ground ever since.
And your moronic comment is identical to saying "I agree every person should be treated equally, but not every race."
Ten minutes since the first posting, and no complaints from the homophobes. Must be a new record. I think they're busy bashing the pope.
(edit) Oops .. I see that I spoke 30 seconds too soon. Still, I think the record of 10 minutes stands.
Sorry Barry......Walter beat you by a microsecond.
;)
barry: we've only had the "next it will be animals" stupidity, we have yet to get the "gays = pedophiles" or "what about incest" or "what about more than 2 people" nonsense.
Don't worry, there is PLENTY of time for the irrational homophobic bigots to chime in. :)
Scubasteve58001
Show me a pet that can give informed consent to be married.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
show me a law where it says I have to
pets consent to lots of things and many species will only mate with 1 partner for life.
============================================================
walter - your ignorance was answered below. :)
Homophobes? racists? everyone who disagrees with the most intolerate groups like gays and blacks just because we know God will act in due time .. not according to your idea of a god based on homosexuality or other sin ... you've gained nothing except the assurance God will deal with you and a once mighty country that turned from the true and still living and all powerful God ... we all will suffer for the Obama and democrat foolishness ... this is a disgrace and a very sad day and time for America .. real Chriatians knew this time was coming and soon will be the rest of the story
Walter: Show me .....
That you have an correctly firing neuron.
Looks like your imaginary friend is impotent and unable to enforce his sharia laws against gays. What a pathetic bigot you have for a god.
Leviticus 18v22 "Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination.
===============================================================
@Steve West, My God love gays as equals. Your God sounds like a royal jerk-off.
Steve West,
I know exactly how you feel! I saw a women the other day wearing a beautiful polyester blend jacket but when I tried to stone her to death (Leviticus 19:19) all these sinners tried to stop me!
And then I was explaining to an African American friend of mine that he was going to hell because his ancestors, who were slaves, revolted against their masters and god doesn't like that. (Peter 2:18)
And last Sunday, some lady was trying to say something in Church and nobody told her to shut up! (Corinthians 14:34-35) I walked right out of there.
But the worst part was when I was taking the subway home and asking all the women if they were menstruating, so I'd know not to come near them (Leviticus 15:19), they got mad and threw me off the subway!
I can't believe all the moral degradation in this country. It's appalling!
skrekk
like your imaginary friend is impotent and unable to enforce his sharia laws against gays. What a pathetic bigot you have for a god.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
that's because he's a loving, caring God and he's still giving you time to repent and obey, but that time is running out.
==========================================================
God is perfect, right?
God is omnipotent, right?
God is our creator, right?
Well if God is perfect, omnipotent, and he created us, then we must act exactly like he intended us to act.
If we have a weakness, god must have intended for us to have a weakness when he created us.
If we sin, it must be because god intended us to sin.
that's right, and your going to spend an eternity in Hell IF you don't repent and obey.
============================================================
So are you. Hating is a sin, so is judging.
Ever eat crab, shrimp, pork, rabbit, snails, eel, etc? Do you keep STRICTLY kosher? Do you keep round the corner of your head? Do you shave your face? Have you ever divorced? Christ actually forbade that. Have you ever sold your daughter?
You know what? Sex is gross. Straight or gay, and children shouldn't be exposed to sex period.
Amazedandalarmed hates gays because of a gut feeling. And that's what it boils down to.
For your information, gays have rights because they are also human beings and deserve to be treated like human beings. They are not criminals. They are not badguys. You would know that if you ever had an honest conversation with one, but more likely the bigotry in your speech turned them off. They are people, just like you and me, and if the Pentagon wants to offer them the same benefits that straight couples get--I don't see why that hurts you.
Ah yes--repentance and obedience.
In other words, you try to make everyone to do what you want.
Listen up, bub, the world has more than just Christians in it. And those people aren't wrong to believe as they do. What makes someone a bad person is committing a crime or enjoying the suffering of other people. Or denying someone their basic human rights.
You want people to do what you tell them to. It isn't going to happen. People have free will and reason, and will come to understand goodness through the application of those powers. Take your bigotry and stick it where the sun don't shine.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess
slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring
nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I may remind you of the "SERMON ON THE MOUNT"
Matthew 5:17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come, I did not come to abolish the laws of Moses
or writings of the prophets, I came to fulfill them. I
assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest of God's laws will remain UNTIL
IT'S PURPOSE IS ACHIEVED.
Is slavery and it's purpose achieved you ask, talk to God.
========================================================
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery,
as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a
fair price for her?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I may remind you of the "SERMON ON THE MOUNT"
Matthew 5:17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come, I did not come to abolish the laws of
Moses or writings of the prophets, I came to fulfill them. I
assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest of God's laws will remain
UNTIL IT'S PURPOSE IS ACHIEVED.
Is slavery and it's purpose achieved you ask, talk to God.
========================================================
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a
woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24.
The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I may remind you of the "SERMON ON THE MOUNT"
Ceremonial Law, as opposed to Civil Law, Study Matt. Chapter 5 and "PRAISE GOD!"
========================================================
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice,
I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my
neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I may remind you of the "SERMON ON THE MOUNT"
More Ceremonial Law, as opposed to Civil Law, Study Matt. Chapter 5 and "PRAISE GOD!"
========================================================
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on
the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. Clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally
obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Neither yourself or the Police need worry, God will take care of the sinner as "ALL SIN IS PUNISHABLE BY DEATH" Now "READ THE BIBLE" and "PRAISE GOD!"
========================================================
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating
shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of
abomination?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
God needed to separate Jews for the Gentiles in the old testament, and shrimp being bottom
feeders and full of junk he forbid the Jews as that is what the
old testament referred to before the coming of Christ.
Read Matt 15:10 and in Mark and others:
"Listen to what I say and try to understand, you are not defiled by what you eat, but
by what you say and do, what defiles YOU is your evil heart and
thoughts, you know murder, adultery, "OTHER SEXUAL IMMORALITY", etc.
================================================================
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the
altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear
reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room
here?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I may remind you of the "SERMON ON THE MOUNT"
More Ceremonial Law, as opposed to Civil Law, Study Matt. Chapter 5 and "PRAISE GOD!"
========================================================
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed,
including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly
forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
God didn't want his people resembling other PAGAN nations of the time thus the reason for this passage.
I may remind you of the "SERMON ON THE MOUNT"
More Ceremonial Law, as opposed to Civil Law, Study Matt. Chapter 5 and "PRAISE GOD!"
========================================================
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin
of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Pigs have no or very little sweat glands at all, thus everything they eat is stored in them for good,
thus the reason, and yes you may play football provided they workout the current labor strife their having
I may remind you of the "SERMON ON THE MOUNT"
More Ceremonial Law, as opposed to Civil Law, Study Matt. Chapter 5 and "PRAISE GOD!"
========================================================
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by
planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
come on I don't have to explain Pollination to you do I?
those mixed fabrics did not breathe right and everyone was breaking out in rashes.
You're as bad as the Taliban.
Scratch that--you sound just like the Taliban.
Were those number 11 and 12? Guess I missed them.
So, if you disagree with gay marriage you are a hater, but if you mock someone's religion, or ideals, or beliefs, you are justified, and somehow a lover of equal rights for all? Excuse me, but your hypocrisy is showing. And in the meantime, while we're here arguing about this and calling each other names, the government is laughing while they take away more and more rights from ALL of us and put us on shorter leashes. They have us just where they want us all...arguing amongst the peons while the high echelons plan to enslave us all.
The difference is that we're just ridiculing bigots like you, not trying to deny your legal rights or treat you as a 2nd-class citizen.
Weird skrekk totally seems like you are trying to take others freedom of speech away if they don't agree with you, but ridiculing them and calling them names.
Excellent post, Junecleo!
If we said: Catholics should not be allowed to marry because it is gross and unnatural--then we'd be guilty of what you accuse.
As it is, catholics can get married, even if I find that disgusting. They can also go to church instead of worshipping at home--I find that disgusting. But no one is taking away your rights with the pentagon's decision.
Tom-Plymouth
ooohhhh !! i get it now ! only people like YOU can say that homosexuality is wrong, its against your god, its against nature etc etc.. and its perfectly fine for you to condemn them for a myriad of reasons.. but if they decide to fight back - then its taking away YOUR freedom of speech ! i see how it goes ! freedoms only apply to YOU and whoever you like.. anyone else who you don't like, or think is wrong or "icky" or whatever don't get that freedom - they are in fact infringing on your rights, is that correct ?
weird Tom-Plymouth, seems like you are trying to take others freedom of speech away if they don't agree with you, BY (not but) ridiculing them and calling them names (among other things like condemning them).
Skrekk: You claim the "difference is that we're just ridiculing bigots like you". First of all, ridicule is a form of bullying; secondly, calling someone with a point of view different than yours a bigot is an insult. Again, the liberal "tolerance" is well at hand.....
Actually it's a form of freedom of speech. Your comments lend themselves perfectly to ridicule and mockery.
If you don't want to be ridiculed for your bigotry, don't act like a bigot.
This cartoon seems to express your point of view perfectly:
http://s1172.beta.photobucket.com/user/dmillerparker/media/glbt-religious-freedom.jpg.html
Awesome comic.
Phony, - "YOU can say that homosexuality is wrong,"
I actually don't think there is anything wrong with being gay.
"its against your god"
Don't believe in God
"its against nature etc'
Don't believe that either.
"perfectly fine for you to condemn them for a myriad of reasons."
I don't condemn Gays at all
"but if they decide to fight back"
Actually calling people names isn't fighting back at all it is a form of bullying.
"freedoms only apply to YOU and whoever you like"
I believe all people should be FREE of bullying.
"anyone else who you don't like, or think is wrong or "icky" or whatever don't get that freedom"
Wrong again, best friends brother is gay as is my first cousin, don't think either of them are "icky" or doing anything wrong.
"they are in fact infringing on your rights, is that correct"
That is not correct, but bullying people is not acceptable they actually teach that in elementary school these days, my daughter has to wear an orange anti-bullying shirt to school one day a month.
If skrekk was man enough to say these things in a people place there is a good chance he/she could be arrested for assault.
and finally your attack on my character based on me pointing out that skrekk was being rude and bulling was completely wrong!
Tom Plymouth,
upset ? well i'm sorry for your luck. Skrekk actually is fighting back against the bullying of the crowd who are anti-homosexual for whatever their reason is.
are you stating you can bully a bully ? are you stating that your daughter wearing her orange shirt once a month is bullying those who bully ?
exactly, she's not. she's fighting against bullying and letting them know its not acceptable to bully another person due to whatever reason - be it their gender, skin color, whether they wear glasses, sexual orientation etc.. no matter the reason it is wrong and she is letting them know that by wearing that shirt.
guess what ? so is skrekk, except he's not wearing an orange shirt, he's verbally fighting back against it.
so try again :)
It is no surprise that some people here sound like the Taliban. Religious extremists, regardless of the religion in question, pretty much sound alike because they all share one common belief: they, and they alone, know what God wants. Of course, they haven't the faintest idea of what She's thinking.
No matter how you spin it or how much pandering you get politicians to do, gay will never be the same as straight, period. You are a different group and nothing will change that. Most of don't really care what you do as long as you leave us the heck alone. So stop with the trying to win approval, aint happening.
I seriously doubt any gay person seeks the "approval" of an ignorant bigot. They seek equal rights under the law as our constitution demands, not your approval.
Black will never be the same as white, period. Male will never be the same as female, period. Left-handed will never be the same as right-handed, period. And so what? None of those differences are reasons for the government to treat some people as 2nd-class citizens, even though you bigots would like to do so.
disappointed my foot, we need the same-sex marriage crap to pass the SCOTUS so God will act.
PRAISE GOD!!
Oh so now G-d follows the SCOTUS and acts accordingly?
C'mon Walter, you sound ridiculous even to those of us who believe in G-d.
walter,
are you serious ?? ROFL !! you are hilarious !
now your god follows SCOTUS and acts based upon their decisions ?? ROFL !!!!
oh, please walter, don't stop ! keep going ! LMAO !!!
haters like walter just can't WAIT for humans to be destroyed. They take some kind of perverse pleasure in thinking of all of us being destroyed or something.
Creepy isn't it? I wouldn't leave my kids OR my pets with most of the crazy homophobes like him.
Praise Allah Walter, your God's equal has spoken.
Really?
Did your god act when Canada, much of Europe, and several other countries in the world legalized same-sex marriage?
Please provide your answer in the form of a long essay with appropriate details and explanation. You will be graded on the quality of your work, so don't overuse ellipses, exclamation points, bad spelling, and random capitalization.
I am sure SCOTUS will rule for equality. I believe in God, but I am baffled by this view to only focus on some few passages about homosexuality in the Bible. It sure sounds just like how Islamic terrorist like to use only some passages to justify their actions. Gay people want equal rights to marry who they love. They are not forcing you into gay marriage. You wish to prevent them from marrying and therefore violate the rights of gay taxpayers and our gay soldiers who put their lives on the line for their country. They deserve to know that their partner will be OK if anything happens to them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess
slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring
nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I may remind you of the "SERMON ON THE MOUNT"
Matthew 5:17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come, I did not come to abolish the laws of Moses
or writings of the prophets, I came to fulfill them. I
assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest of God's laws will remain UNTIL
IT'S PURPOSE IS ACHIEVED.
Is slavery and it's purpose achieved you ask, talk to God.
========================================================
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery,
as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a
fair price for her?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I may remind you of the "SERMON ON THE MOUNT"
Matthew 5:17 "Don't misunderstand why I have come, I did not come to abolish the laws of
Moses or writings of the prophets, I came to fulfill them. I
assure you, until heaven and earth disappear, even the smallest of God's laws will remain
UNTIL IT'S PURPOSE IS ACHIEVED.
Is slavery and it's purpose achieved you ask, talk to God.
========================================================
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a
woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24.
The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I may remind you of the "SERMON ON THE MOUNT"
Ceremonial Law, as opposed to Civil Law, Study Matt. Chapter 5 and "PRAISE GOD!"
========================================================
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice,
I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my
neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I may remind you of the "SERMON ON THE MOUNT"
More Ceremonial Law, as opposed to Civil Law, Study Matt. Chapter 5 and "PRAISE GOD!"
========================================================
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on
the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. Clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally
obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Neither yourself or the Police need worry, God will take care of the sinner as "ALL SIN IS PUNISHABLE BY DEATH" Now "READ THE BIBLE" and "PRAISE GOD!"
========================================================
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating
shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of
abomination?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
God needed to separate Jews for the Gentiles in the old testament, and shrimp being bottom
feeders and full of junk he forbid the Jews as that is what the
old testament referred to before the coming of Christ.
Read Matt 15:10 and in Mark and others:
"Listen to what I say and try to understand, you are not defiled by what you eat, but
by what you say and do, what defiles YOU is your evil heart and
thoughts, you know murder, adultery, "OTHER SEXUAL IMMORALITY", etc.
================================================================
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the
altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear
reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room
here?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I may remind you of the "SERMON ON THE MOUNT"
More Ceremonial Law, as opposed to Civil Law, Study Matt. Chapter 5 and "PRAISE GOD!"
========================================================
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed,
including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly
forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
God didn't want his people resembling other PAGAN nations of the time thus the reason for this passage.
I may remind you of the "SERMON ON THE MOUNT"
More Ceremonial Law, as opposed to Civil Law, Study Matt. Chapter 5 and "PRAISE GOD!"
========================================================
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin
of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Pigs have no or very little sweat glands at all, thus everything they eat is stored in them for good,
thus the reason, and yes you may play football provided they workout the current labor strife their having
I may remind you of the "SERMON ON THE MOUNT"
More Ceremonial Law, as opposed to Civil Law, Study Matt. Chapter 5 and "PRAISE GOD!"
========================================================
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by
planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
come on I don't have to explain Pollination to you do I?
those mixed fabrics did not breathe right and everyone was breaking out in rashes.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
that's because he's a loving, caring God and he's still giving you time to repent and obey, but that time is running out.
==========================================================
Actually a football is make of cowhide....
Oh great, now the Hindu's will be in a tizzy. /sarcasm/
Walter, I may remind you of Mark 12:31, "And the second [is] like, [namely] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." You may recall that this was Jesus' answer to what the greatest commandmants were.
Hey Walter,
I know you believe that two men shouldn't be married because of Leviticus 18:22 but...
I may remind you of the "SERMON ON THE MOUNT"
More Ceremonial Law, as opposed to Civil Law, Study Matt. Chapter 5 and "PRAISE GOD!"
your imaginary friend isn't going to "Act" any more than the tooth fairy is
Walter -
I'm willing to wait "Him" out. Personally, I don't believe any god exists, much less your pathetic excuse of a tantrum-throwing two year old deity. And if your god did exist and was somehow the only god in existence, well, I'd take the bible as a totally legitimate excuse to declare war and lay waste to the bastard. If "He's" alive, then "He" can be killed.
even as a non-believer, that is certainly a great "commandmant", and one that more people should be living by
right walter? i'm talking to you
Scubasteve58001
Show me a pet that can give informed consent to be married.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
show me a law where it says I have to
pets consent to lots of things and many species will only mate with 1 partner for life.
============================================================
Umm ... because marriage is a contract and to consent to a contract, you have to be able to give informed consent.
Is that concept really so difficult for you?
Secular, legal marriage is a legal contract, and a fundamental principle of contracts is that you have to have two consenting parties.
I'm sorry you are so ignorant of basic principles here. :)
Maybe he still believes marriage requires a dowry consisting of cattle.
myopinion-13
Umm ... because marriage is a contract and to consent to a contract, you have to be able to give informed consent.
Is that concept really so difficult for you?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Umm...Where is the law?
=====================================
when I ride my horse, is she not giving "INFORMED CONSENT" by not bucking me off?
i call my dog to pet him does he not "CONSENT"?
MANY SPECIES ACCEPT ONLY 1 PARTNER FOR LIFE, IS THAT NOT CONSENT?
======================================================
Is that concept really so difficult for you?
==============================
As we study more animal we are finding out that many animal do
stay with one partner for life but and it is a big but that partner may not be
the parent of the offspring.
Walter, if your dog had any sense, when you called him, he'd lift his leg on you and bite you.
timothy clark
thanx for the into, but irrelevant for conversation at hand, as to parent of offspring or not I was pointing out ability to consent to life long partnership (marriage)
=================================================================
Walter,
An animal cannot sign a contract. Law states that a contract is only legally binding when both participants are of mental capacity to sign such an agreement understanding all of the nuances of said agreement. This is why a contract, or any legal paperwork, that is signed under questionable mental standards is tossed out in court. I.E. A contract with a mental disabled person will not stick and only through a power of attorney can an agreement be signed. So the law is specific, one must be mentally competent to sign a marital contract. NOW, if you want a Holy Matrimony, no such process is in place.
I think that there is a big difference between Legal Marriage and Holy Matrimony.
When the slaves of the antebellum South obeyed their overseers instead of killing them, were they giving their "informed consent" to being enslaved? Was the Emancipation Proclamation pointless?
rossj503
Walter,
An animal cannot sign a contract.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
so a human that cannot write, therefore cannot get married by your logic.
=====================================================
Law states that a contract is only legally binding when both participants are of mental capacity to sign such an agreement understanding all of the nuances of said agreement.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
so a human that cannot write, therefore cannot get married by your logic.
and what does consent mean anyway with all the divorces.
=====================================================
This is why a contract, or any legal paperwork, that is signed under questionable mental standards is tossed out in court. I.E. A contract with a mental disabled person will not stick and only through a power of attorney can an agreement be signed. So the law is specific, one must be mentally competent to sign a marital contract.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
so your saying that someone that is mentally competent but cannot write still cannot get married.
have you ever heard of power of attorney for pet care.?
=====================================================================
NOW, if you want a Holy Matrimony, no such process is in place.
I think that there is a big difference between Legal Marriage and Holy Matrimony.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
yeah, you and me both.
===================
Barry-NJ
yeah
not to the slaves.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
not saying they can, but they do have "MENTAL CAPACITY" (by taking only 1 partner for life in several species) to give "INFORMED CONSENT" (my horse back riding example) which gives them the opportunity to get "POWER OF ATTORNEY" to get married.
======================================================================
Walter,
You are mixing up legal with instinctual. Informed consent is not the same. Informed consent is an understanding or and the application of an agreement. An animal cannot do that. I understand why you are trying so hard to hold on to this example, but you're wrong. Animals do not have the capacity to understand a contract and sign their name to a contract. Riding your horse will not provide you any legal protection nor would your horse understand legal protection. Your horse could not make life or death decisions for you if you were in a health crisis. Furthermore, your horse cannot sign, assume, or amass financial wealth or property. Your horse cannot become financially self sustaining. Again, I know what you are trying to do, but please admit that you are wrong on this. Frankly, trying to equate a mutually loving relationship that does have mental capacity for contractual obligation to your reaching for beastiality as a reason to deny gay people legal marriage is quite offensive.
rossj503
Walter,
You are mixing up legal with instinctual. Informed consent is not the same. Informed consent is an understanding or and the application of an agreement. An animal cannot do that.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
your telling me the "YOU" know that all species "DON'T KNOW" your so called "UNDERSTANDING OR APPLICATION OF AN AGREEMENT"
YOU SAY Instinctual can happen without understanding? Why and how? and you don't know and can't answer truthfully.
====================================================================
I understand why you are trying so hard to hold on to this example, but you're wrong. Animals do not have the capacity to understand a contract and sign their name to a contract. Riding your horse will not provide you any legal protection nor would your horse understand legal protection.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I've said twice now that "I'M NOT SAYING THEY DO" Remember "POWER OF ATTORNEY" for pet care.
And I don't ask my horse for legal protection when I ride her.
====================================================================
Your horse could not make life or death decisions for you if you were in a health crisis.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now that's a ridiculous comment-I can make the decision.
==============================================================
Furthermore, your horse cannot sign, assume, or ao mass financial wealth or property. Your horse cannot become financially self sustaining. Again, I know what you are trying to do, but please admit that you are wrong on this. Frankly, trying to equate a mutually loving relationship that does have mental capacity for contractual obligation to your reaching for beastiality as a reason to deny gay people legal marriage is quite offensive.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So what, I don't know what your trying to say, it makes no sense to tell me my relationship with my horse is not a loving relationship with mental capacity for contractual obligation, I have proven to you it is and you won't acknowledge that. And my horse does not have amass wealth for that to happen.
=======================================================================
And you know that bestiality is one of the next rungs on the ladder, no question.
======================================================================
Lets just remember Equal not special. Get in line like everyone else.
A great move by a great leader. Mr. Panetta will be missed.
To be covered by this medical, Barry's wife says homosexuals have to pack low calorie fudge.
I thought the 12 year olds were in school at this time. Apparently truancy is still a problem in low-information areas. :)
Must be home schooled.
I heard he has a crush on his teacher...
vermontguy,
If Letterman had told the same joke you would have been LOL. Why not give your insulent pontification a rest.
There goes the US Military, up the creek.Most career military will be leaving Ellen Degeneres will be made a General and put in Charge and her wife Rossi will be a Colonel.In the next war the Gays and lesbians will be taking time out to feel up each other and the straight troops who will have to wear body armor over their backsides.Contrary to popular political beliefs most people in the military are totally against this, the military is going to go to @!$%#.
Funny, how the repeal of DADT doesn't seem to have caused a mass exodus from the ranks, or a reduction in recruitment.
It's almost like most people in the military are professionals who can do their jobs without worrying who their coworkers are sleeping with.
right. We heard the same about letting in blacks and women too. LOL.
Hopefully the all too many rapists will resign.
john, "Contrary to popular political beliefs most people in the military are totally against this." Please provide references to this statement, or did you just pull it out of your ---?
Please note, I am a straight, 35 year Navy vet.
Pulled out of his gaping ass, would be my guess.
The
troops that have a problem with are old. The younger one who came in after do
not ask do not tell knew the day was coming when the guy/gal next to them was able
to be open about who they are.
timothy clark,
The real question is; will gay guys/gals defend and protect the Constitution and protect their fellow comrades in the field both to the right and to the left or are they more interested in just protecting the issues supported by the left? I think the true intent remains to be seen.
dr821 -
So far, they have protected the bigots' right to call them all sorts of nasty @!$%#, make @!$%# up about them, link them to pedophiles and rapists, etc. And they've stood their ground and done this in spite of @!$%#s like you pontificating about whether they're military-worthy or just political hacks. And they've stood their ground and done this in spite of their wives and husbands not being recognized and receiving no benefits. And they've done this in spite of being constantly worried that they would be drummed out of their homes and families if they got caught holding hands with the people they love. And they've done this in spite of the constant christian invasiveness present in the military that continually attempts to otherize them.
I'd say they've earned more of a right to kick your ass than you've earned to be heard. But they would disagree.
Janstince,
The so called "bigots" (your words), that by far make up the majority of the military complex of the U.S. government, continue to protect your worthless ass so you can continually denigrate against their sacrifices and very existence without remorse. These "bigots" have also allowed you the freedom to be insolent and caddy. Why don't you show a little respect for these so called "bigots" that have sacrificed so much to allow for your first amendment rights, instead of trying to shove your gay mandates down all our throats.
There is no question of your being a political hack, but there is still the question as to why there is a need for gays in the military, since it could very well create risks in the field for the very reasons stated in #15.7.
Sounds like dr821 only supports those soldiers who were defending the rights of straight Americans, not the rights of all Americans.
The problem in the military Janstince is your not allowed to say anything about this issue while in the military or working as a civilian DOD employee or you will be punished. That right there is the difference between being in the civilian world and being in the military world. Your freedom of speech is out the window. If you say something you will suffer the consequences because the UCMJ says so. This is not being held to higher standards either whomever said this before. This is a standard we must uphold?
skrekk,
You're so wrong. Over 25% of my employees are gay. I do the hiring. I'm all for "equality for all" in the workplace. I appreciate the discussions we have together both at work and away from work (and their opinions are markedly different and at times extremely biased and offensive). So, why bring that into a military climate.
My question has always been; why increase risk or put undo stress in a military situation when it's just not necessary. There should never be a question in a combat situation, with the decision on who to protect, gay vs straight on either side of the sexual preference coin. I just don't think you can guarantee that problem wouldn't surface. That is a big problem, and that is why I have a question why gays are in the military, especially in a combat situation.
Your only goal here is to rant at conservatives and be a liberal hack. We're just not approaching this issue on the same level, and you refuse to accept me having a conservative point of view, especially when it involves peoples lives when related to a combat situation.
dr821,
since when did your sexual orientation matter when bullets are flying at you in a combat zone ? are you stating that some people in the military would rather be shot than have themselves protected by someone who could be a homosexual ?
if that's the case, i wouldn't worry about the homosexuals, i'd worry about the heterosexuals. if sexual orientation matters THAT much to someone who is in the military to defend our country and uphold our constitution - they probably shouldn't be in the military to begin with.
its not high school, the immaturity of high school should be left there - in high school. if you are in the military, then you do your job and if you are in a combat situation - the least of your worries should be if there is a homosexual nearby you.
anything else ?
Phoenyx13,
You supported my point. Your worried on the whether the heterosexual has the homosexuals back, and the heterosexual is worried if the homosexual has his back. Either way there is no place for that lack of focus to be part of the military, but you demand this increased risk. Why, and for what goal? What purpose is served with gays in the military leading to increased tension and higher risk. You can't deny the problem exists and yet you want the problem to escalate.
Are you that naive or are you just another liberal hack that would jeopardize a life just so your political position is served. Maybe the problem continues because Obama has never served in the military and he just doesn't get it. The promises Obama has made with initiatives and mandates aren't always in the best interest of the people it effects most.
Sounds like it's only dumb bigots who are stressed by knowing the sexual orientation of their fellow soldier, and I fully agree that the military would be better off without such cowards - regardless of whether they're racists, misogynists, or homophobes.
Seriously, we need to raise our recruiting standards to weed out such people since they're clearly not focused on the mission or on being part of a team. If they can't behave professionally and work with people who are different from them, they definitely don't belong in the military.
skrekk,
I totally agree. The problem is, there is no screening or for that matter sexual preference standards. The military does not even allow for a discussion of sexual preference to exist or to take place.
So, ultimately we have weakened our military structure by demanding inclusion (which isn't necessarily a bad thing if handled properly). But, without creating an arena to ask the right questions we can't develop a cohesive personnel profile that will benefit the military complex.
The inclusion is also creating animosity in the ranks because it favors only a particular group and does not include everyone, as has been pointed out by others on this post. Politicians are just slamming this through without first reviewing and they are totally ignoring the cause and effects of this rather biased and partisan decision, and really for what purpose other then to strengthen the Democratic appeal in future elections with a niche group. But is that what is best for our military? That should be the main focus in question.
dr821--
They did studies. They investigated. They spent several years deciding if the end of DADT was OK or not, and in the end, military experts figured out it wasn't an issue. People like you, who seem to honestly believe that sexual orientation or political affiliation is going to have an affect on a soldier's willingness to be a part of his or her team are just messed up in the head. If that is an actual, real fear for you, it probably says far more about you than it does about anyone else. You have that fear, because you'd happily let someone die who doesn't meet your standards.
Logical, rational human being don't do that. Anyone who does, shouldn't be in the military to begin with, regardless of their beliefs or political leanings.
And stop calling people liberal hacks until you're willing to stop writing like a conservative hack. The conservative tact of pulling things from the Department of Making S--t up and then pretending it's a real concern isn't even childish at this point. Children even think it's ridiculous.
No evidence of that whatsoever.
No evidence of that either. Apparently the dumb bigots learned to suck it up and do their job, just like the racists did when Truman integrated the army.
As the military has observed, there have been essentially no problems resulting from DADT repeal. Apparently our cowardly bigots aren't quite as fragile as you think they are.
Really it's no surprise since none of our allies had any problem when they allowed open service.
dr821,
no, you missed my point. there is NO need to worry about it ! if they are worried - they don't belong in the military. when you are in the military you have bigger things to worry about in a combat zone than whether or not there's a homosexual near you. if all you have to worry about is if there is a homosexual near you - then you aren't doing your job and don't belong in the military.
out of all the military i know and the ones i work for, NONE of them were concerned about a homosexual being near them when in a combat zone - they had bigger things to worry about, like bullets hitting them.
I beg to differ. I live in a military town that also includes many retirees. I have had discussions in my work with military personnel (both active and retired), about homosexual preferences in the military. Many of them have concerns about the value it brings. Some active military are also concerned that they can't openly express their opinions. To have a different opinion or bring into question concerns certainly doesn't make them bad soldiers however, it does point out a problem within the system. There's my evidence.
This exercise does however show how biased and closed minded all three of you are in pursuit of your liberal position. When will you liberals learn how to discuss issues without becoming extremely defensive, then spinning the framework of the discussion, and concluding by hacking up the opposition with trite name calling.
It's like reading a badly written play.
I know, right? It's just amazing that us libs think all Americans deserve the same legal rights, and think that the consensual sex lives of other adults are none of your business.
@DR8212, no one else has mentioned this, but I will. I find it offensive that you'd question the loyalty of gay Americans to the Constitution of the United States. Actually, appalled is a better word.
dr821,
I too live in a military town. In fact, our soldiers are the ones who get called in first to fight. I teach plenty of them as students in my classes, and given a forum where they are allowed to speak their mind, the overwhelming majority of them think DADT was ridiculous. They have friends who are LGBT they have served with and respect them. Occasionally, there is some narrow minded prick who thinks that somehow gays and lesbians are just prowling for sex by being in the military, but they are a very small minority.
You question whether LGBT soldiers would be willing to defend the Constitution, while you attempt to use it to wipe your ass with. How hypocritical is that?
dr821
so you are talking to retired military personnel ? i hope they haven't been retired too long, the military has changed quite a bit. this is what happens with progress, you learn to adapt, that's not easy for people to do who have become set in their ways, they are usually left behind with dinosaurs.
nope, different opinion is fine. if you are apart of the military, you have a job to do, and that's what you concentrate and focus on - your job. if you have a bigoted viewpoint against homosexuals and are too worried about being near a homosexual especially during combat - then you shouldn't be in the military. you are there to fight for your country, which includes everyone - not just the people you like. that should be your focus, not whether or not you happen to be near a homosexual when you are in a combat zone.
and like i said, along with another poster, the people who are concerned are a very small minority. i work for the military and i know a lot of military (family), they all agree that whether or not they may or may not like homosexuals - in a combat zone it DOES NOT matter, they have bigger things to worry about - like bullets flying at them. they don't care if the person helping them or saving their ass is gay or straight, they are just happy to live another day.
it definitely sounds like the people you know in the military definitely need to get their priorities straight or just get out, the military needs a job done and people who will focus on getting the job done - not people who will focus on your sexual orientation. that is why this shouldn't even be an issue to begin with. this isn't high school, we aren't children anymore. this is real life and we are now adults - act like it.
Phoenyx,
There are still questions about your maturity level. You keep proclaiming your maturity while everyone else that doesn't conform to your way of thinking is a child. So whose the adult here?
voiceontheleft,
Again, as stated before, "Why add the stress to a combat situation, it is just not necessary." Everyone thinks the DADT was ridiculous, that's a given. What's more ridiculous is we spent millions of dollars doing studies to figure out DADT is ridiculous. From your post, I guess your military friends are more important to the discussion then my military friends. What you're trying to do is denegrate the people that don't agree with your viewpoint, but the problem still continues to exist whether you like it or not. That is the reason for the negative comments. Wouldn't you agree. BTW are you this trite with your students.
Barry,
You're too late in the discussion. Go dump your bias elseware.
skrekk,
There was never a question on equal rights for liberals but why are you trying to limit mine? Your sexual preference is your business, why do you continue to try and make it my business?
How any of you stand on sexual preference is your business. The fact that you demand my support publicly is offensive. I don't have to support you and if I do support it will be done privately and individually. Regardless of your beliefs and demands, the problem will continue to exist and you can't change that.
dr821,
my maturity level isn't up for debate. this is a perfect deflection from the actual issue. please stay on task. the task is:
you are claiming its undue stress to the current military members and adding on to stress of current military members because they will suddenly (or in your opinion, continually) be scared that a homosexual will "have their back" in a combat situation. is this correct ?
it has been proven you, in the same manner you have proven the situation exists to us, that this is not an issue. and my point is not only is it not an issue, but it should never be an issue. when you are in a combat zone, you are focusing on your mission and not if there is a homosexual near you.
when you are in the military, you are expected to do your job and act professionally like any other job. this does not include running to your boss because you suspect there's a homosexual near you and you think they are icky. that is immature. if you cannot work with people on a professional level and do your job which should be your focus, then you should leave your job.
that is the debate and that is the discussion. i am sticking to the topic like an adult and not questioning your possible maturity level, i expect the same respect in return.
BarryNJ has a valid point and you should be able to debate and discuss it like an adult as well.
now, that's my question to you.
when you are able to actually handle a debate, get back to me, i look forward to it. right now, all you have are unfounded biases and fears and nothing logical to back it up.
dr821:
I said nothing about my military friends "trumping" your military friends. You, however, tried to pass off anecdotal information as applying to the entirety of the military community. I pointed out that the people you were describing were not the only voices in the military, and that I hear plenty of alternative views to what you were trying to pass off as a pervasive ideology.
As for being "trite"--go buy a dictionary and learn your own damned language. That doesn't even make sense in the context you're using it in. Are you always this superior minded and full of yourself, or is it only when you're emotionally jacking your ego off at your keyboard?
dr821 -
Um, how am I not respecting them? By calling them bigots? That's just the proper name. It's like the criminal system. Just because you do a good deed doesn't get you out of jail for a crime you committed. Just because you serve in the military doesn't mean that I have to condone your bigotry. Don't like being called a bigot? Thank you for your service, and stop being a bigot.
About freedom of expression in the military - yeah, they are more limited. And it's not just the military that cannot discuss sexual preference (or marital status, or religious preference, or any other protected minority status) when hiring, that applies to almost all businesses. There are certain questions your employer is required to ask (legal work status, etc.), certain questions they can ask (education, work ethic, etc.), and certain questions they are forbidden to ask (race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.) when considering a person for employment. Now, I'll agree that once inside the organization, those questions can come out. Then again, if the company is doing it, they may face a harassment lawsuit, so there are limits in the private sector, as well.
No, I'm not a political hack, by the way. I'm a military brat, not in the service myself. Personally, I'm an engineer, and I work in construction (so you know that I know about racist, sexist, homophobic @!$%#s). The problems I see with your line of questioning is this:
1) When Truman integrated the forces, many of these same arguments came up. There are still significant portions of our military that are racist. Yet they serve alongside minority soldiers. Should we begin investigating the minority soldiers? Or the racist ones? Tell me, do we have a big race problem in the military?
2) When DADT was in place, everyone kept trumpeting the line that you keep repeating: "Stop shoving your orientation in my face." Yet, at every event that the military attends, where officers get to bring their wives or girlfriends, when friends got together to barbecue, when people were just out and about on leave, the straight people were flaunting their sexuality. They introduced their wives and husbands and children, they even mentioned them at work, just in passing talking about going to the ballgame with their families, or what have you. The gay people? Yeah, they were hidden. They had straight people rubbing their faces in their restrictions, because even a hint you were gay could get you booted. If you said the wrong thing to the wrong person, you would find yourself kicked out of possibly the only family you had ever known. That's what you don't get about this: it isn't equality to just say "keep it out." People talk, in the military and out. They have conversations. And if only one side is allowed to be honest in their conversations, I'd think that wouldn't really promote unit cohesion, now would you?
3) Why do the bigots get special protection? This is giving them a heckler's veto. They won't cover a gay person's behind when in combat just because of that person's sexual orientation? Sounds like the UCMJ should try them and imprison or hang them, not the gay person. It's not the homosexual person's fault they're gay, but a bigot has more control. The bigot can suck it up and deal with it, or ask for a transfer, or quit the military, or do something out of combat situations, or *gasp* try to get around or through their bigotry and see the gay person as a person, not as "a gay."
My post was relevant in pointing out that there have always been gay people in our military, protecting your bigotted ass saying your bigotted things, and they have given their all to do so, and under much worse conditions than the bigots for reasons listed above. So show them a little respect, and next time, if you don't want me to be so condescending, then maybe you shouldn't be such a dismissive @!$%#.
voiceontheleft and Phoenyx,
I'm bigoted because I don't support your flawed opinions of gays in the military? That is exactly the closed minded and bigoted belief system that you have displayed in this posting excercise yourselves.
It is obvious that you both sterotype without hesitation. I'm sure you both do that in person as well and I'm sure it's done in your classroom "voiceleft". That strongly brings into question your maturity, Phoenyx.
Trite: hackneyed, sterotyped, threadbare; implies falling into the same pattern or form. "Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary".... The word certainly was used correctly in the above posting.
"Voiceleft", You don't have the market on superior intelligence just because you're a homsexual in a classroom with military personel. You obviously have an above average brain. Why not use it to mend fences rather than tear down the foundations of change taking place. I have things to work on but so do you.
dr821,
are you kidding ? can you provide actual proof my opinion is flawed as compared to yours ? you provided your "proof" as people you work with who are currently active in the military and retirees you talked to, so i responded with a counter with the people in the military that i currently work for. so how is your opinion any better than mine ? unless you can provide other proof or better proof then it is not.
and just for you, here is more proof: www.cnn.com/2012/09/20/opinion/singer-belkin-dadt-repeal-anniversary
now if you accept it, ok. if you reject it, your choice. i have not called you bigoted, i did, however state:
which is true currently since you have provided no other "proof" than hearsay. currently, as of this moment, i have provided more than hearsay (refer to link i just posted for you).
so please tell me again how i called you bigoted or anything else of that nature, i'd love to hear it :)
and my point is plain and simple, if you are in the military you are there to do a job, period. just like in the private sector - you have a job to do and you have to act professional at your job, there is no room for irrational immature fears of other co-workers whether they are homosexual or african-american or anything else. you are there to get your job done and are evaluated accordingly.
in the military this is ESPECIALLY true if you are in a combat zone. you don't have time to worry about a homosexual being near you, you have much bigger things to worry about like (for example) bullets flying at you.
if you are too worried about homosexuals and that interferes with your job then your only option is to leave your job and find more suitable employment, period. those are the facts and especially in the military - there is no room for anything else.
i am not stereotyping at all, i am just stating the plain and simple facts. you are allowed to have your opinion and your personal viewpoint, nothing wrong with that, but you cannot allow that to interfere with your job and that's the point. you are there to do a job, period.
now that you are done trying to degrade everyone and employ projective psychology (questioning my "maturity" which isn't even an issue to begin with, the issue is homosexuals in the military that we are currently discussing) onto everyone else, are you willing to have an actual logical discussion on it or would you rather continue to try to be insulting, stamp your feet and act immature about it ?
i do not have anything against you and do not think you are a bigot. i do think you have irrational unfounded fears and biases concerning homosexuals in the military and i have proven thus in two different capacities (news article, hearsay from current active military personnel that i work with/for).
Cost of living increases are being cut back across the board for troops this year. They are basically getting a pay cut and we're supposed to celebrate this?
Equal rights is always a reason to celebrate.
if you have a problem with pay for military (which is a fair concern) that's a different discussion.
Equal rights is a reason to celebrate. But you have failed to see the forest for the trees. When a military leader makes it a priority to help a few under his command, while at the same time does nothing to help the whole, he is encouraging dissent and eventually a weaker, divided military.
Sounds like Panetta is trying to make sure that all his soldiers and their families are treated fairly. That only strengthens the military, but it sounds like that concept is far over your head.
skrekk,
See "forest for the trees" line above. Your short-sightedness is baffling! It's good you are not a soldier, for you would be too busy engaging the lone enemy in the distance to see the battalion right in front of your face.
Panetta doesn't control the budget. You want a bigger pay raise? Talk to Congress.
Wait a minute - the military does not offer benefits to unmarried 'partners' of heterosexual troops.
So now it is OK to 'shack up' & get bennies from the govt., but only if one is gay?
...yeah...the Roman Empire was destroyed from moral decay from within too.
Valid point except that many gays cannot legally be married, while all non-gays do have that option.
lol, not more of this "romans were destroyed by gays and so will we" stupidity. :)
If gay people were allowed to get married, they wouldn't be allowed to get bennies just by "shacking up". It works the same way for those who work for corporations that extend benefits for gay partners. One often has to signed a notarized "affidavit of domestic partnership" or something similar.
Heteros can get married. Gay people can't. I imagine that will change when DOMA is overturned.
The Roman Empire actually fell from overextending itself.
@vermontguy - I am extremely sorry you cannot understand that those who chose not to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Sexual immorality (of which being 'gay' is only one example) is only the tip of the iceberg.
If you honestly believe that 'America' as a country will exist / be better in 50 - 75 years - I'm sure we all would be interested in you sharing this vision of utopia you have convinced yourself is on the horizon.
Wow....is all I can say "ComradeChaos"!! I'm glad I am no longer serving because I would be #$%^&^$#$%^.......... I have spoke of this for several years. If you cant bring down the enemy with military might, you must infiltrate and destroy from the inside (yes, like the Romans)! A simple, but effective military like attack like this, is how you can do it! This has been happening for decades with the world's destructive input on our culture, our faith, our morality, and most of all our military! Our military protects our country from foreign invaders, domestic and abroad.....if you cause infighting in the military, accept less then adequate members, then the military cant be as effective in providing defense and security! Now, less people are going to sign up for the military and make it a career. (Weak military= no defense=country eventually crumbles....plain and simple.) The funny thing is that most of the liberals praising this haven't served one minute in our military and don't have the balls to do it! Its just another way for them to cause a stir and force their abhorrent lifestyle on our society and children......Grab a beer and some popcorn, the show is about to begin.
I spent 20 years in the Air Force and have no problem with this.
It is not like this has not been coming for a long time.
The Roman Empire fell because of a number of reasons. Lead was
a major factor it that it lead to mental retardations, and decrees childe births.
Other factor were loses of wealth do to the trade of gold for spices somewhat
like US dollars for mid-east oil or cheap Chines goods. A big factor was the
snowfall blocking the pass in the Alps.
@Nectarine - And lead water pipes
The Roman empire fell for a few key reasons and none of them had to do with homosexuality.
1. Expanse of territory- The Roman Empire was massive. They did not have planes, trains, cars, etc and tried to govern vast expanses of land with limited communications. This led to easy uprisings. The Roman Empire fell due to greed of expansion and the ability to govern vast amounts of land.
2. Introduction of Christianity- The introduction of the Christian faith had a vital part to play in the fall of Rome. For centuries, even millenium, pagan religion ruled over the lands. After the introduction of Christianity as the state religion, there was a great uprising in the Empire. It's worth noting that the conversion to Christianity had little to do with true conversion and was more about politics and what was to be gained.
It is worth noting that your using homosexuality as a causation of fall could be applied to any and all empires and rules. The general reasoning is that all empires and rules had homosexuality in them. The Celts, the Vikings, the Romans, etc all had different governing rules about homosexuality in them. Mostly because they were trying to populate their tribes, they would require the young men be partnered to a female for procreation and turned a blind eye, and in some cases blessed, the extra marital attentions they gave their male counterparts. It was said of the Celts, one of the fiercest warrior groups in history, that they were given to affection more to their male counterparts than to their females. The point is, using homosexuality as your measuring device for the fall of a civilization is a really poor gauge to follow.
Didn't the Roman Empire adopt Christianity shortly before it fell?
Which should have been a lesson to the US before it got involved in both Afghanistan AND Iraq.
All I see are hypocrites here. You feel heterosexuals should not denigrate you but it is ok for you to denigrate the POPE. Explain to me how that is different. You believe in same sex marriage he doesn't. But somehow you are better?
i'm not denigrating the pope. If "all" you see are hypocrites, you aren't looking hard enough. :)
Maybe they will install a gay Pope. Oops...been there, done that.
Isn't the POPE the bigoted nutball who lobbies against gays having equal legal rights?
I can see why he'd be upset by a good Catholic Italian-American like Panetta treating all his employees equally under the law.
And who gives a flying crap about what the pope says? Let him speak to the people who worship him and leave the rest of us alone.
And YOUR sin is not greater or no less than any other sin. Sin is sin.
Idiots. If your god really cared, we would have seen a response a long time ago. But I guess such interference from the imaginary being stopped about 2,000 years ago. Ah, well. I guess we'll just have to muddle along without it.
I have an idea...let's buy an island and send all of you queers their. Then normal people will never have to put up with you ever again because you will not be able to procreate and will become extinct!
Idiot Queers!
You do realize they are citizens just as you, equal under the Constitution, with all the attendant rights?
Do you not support the Constitution?
They have the equal right to be condemned under & by God the same as me...the difference, I'm saved through Jesus and they are not. BIG DIFFERENCE
I have an idea,...let's buy an island and send all you haters their (sic). The people will never have to put up with your hate.
clue for the cluless: gays come from straight couples ya know? lol. Apparently you don't. Gosh you're ignorant. :)
Read your BIBLE. ALL are saved through Jesus who accept him, and all sin,EVERYONE sins. No one is incapable of being sin free. It is Jesus who is the PROPITIATION for the sins you commit. Your sins are no lesser than theirs. Gay or straight, if they accept Christ as their personal savior, they are still saved, and you are still a sinner saved by the blood whether you understand it or not. I suggest you find a Clergy who isn't brain dead and teaches you at least a layman's understanding of the Bible. As it is, it sounds as if you haven't read it at all. NO sin is greater than any other. Being GAY doesn't change their salvation no more than being bigoted removes your own. Very sad that people twist the Bible to fit their own agenda.
Hope you realize that your "brilliant" plan will not work as homosexuals are born of heterosexuals. There will ALWAYS be homosexuals in the world. And many of those homosexuals will bite the bullet if they have to and sleep with the opposite sex to have a child if push comes to shove. But it still doesn't correct the issue of being accepted by people of your calibur. Time to grow up and accept that homosexuals are going no where.
I am hetero with six children and 12 grandchildren. Is there a point to this ? Just because I denounce hate and bigotry doesn't mean I am anything but a decent human being, something beyond your comprehension. CHRIST had compassion for ALL of human kind and didn't discriminate, and I doubt seriously if he would approve of "your kind " who breathe hate. Why can't YOU live and let live? What's in YOUR closet that you don't want to get out? And why the CHILDISH accusations towards those who don't agree with your hate filled rants ?
So you think they will become extinct since they can't procreate? Newsflash: they were never able to procreate to begin with, and therefore, it is not genetic and gays will never become "extinct" as you put it. In your rage you've revealed your ignorance and idiocy. Looks like you're just going to have to deal with it and accept equality.
Who says gays can't procreate? It may take a plugged nose and a turkey baster, but Marcus Bachmann has shown us it can be done.
@countryfirst.... a bit harsh but still quite humorous!! lol
Judging whether or not a gay lifestyle is moral in the eyes of God, is way above our pay grade. Please wait and let God deal with this issue. In the mean time, get on with your life and let everyone else get on with theirs, all knowing that God will, eventually, judge all of us and His is the only judgment that really counts!
Luke 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
1st Corinthians 4:5 "Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."
Good for them.It's just not marriage
It will be soon, no matter what you think, its not really stoppable at this point. Just a question of when, not if.
So our gutless leader leads us into queerdom. They(the queers) are affraid to put it on a national ballot. May God help us, as the god of queerdom will NOT. FILTH & PERVERSION prevails in the government of the United States. Is there any wonder we have a muslem President. Everyone is created equal, some choose to be queer and most do NOT. And majority rule is what.......the past.
Talk about perversion and disgusting filth: That art thou!
In a Constitutional Republic, you don't vote on rights in a "national ballot". Please try to understand our system of gov't before posting. :)
Defense Department decisions don't go on a National Ballot. The Secretary of Defense is delegated the authority to make decisions he deems fit for the good of the morale and welfare of the troops who serve. The public has no reason to make defense related decisions. Nor are RIGHTS voted for. They are already guaranteed by the Constitution.
There isn't a "national ballot" of any kind in the US. Even our national election for President is conducted via 51 state/DC ballots.
Freddy4life...you are frightening. Live and let live. So there are gay people who want their love and commitment to their partner legally acknowledged. Why not? Why shouldn't they? Aren't they humans who want only the same benefits as a heterosexual couple gain when they marry?
Freddy can't be for real, right? Seriously--no one is that stupid. In just a few sentences, he demonstrates massive paranoia, complete lack of understanding of the system of governance on even a grade-school level, and a willingness to buy into outdated tabloid conspiracy theories. If he is for real, he seriously must be posting from inside a cave somewhere.
The pros and cons of the decision aside, how does the Secretary of Defense have the Authority to dictate such things? Could a future secretary rescind the order or decide to carve out of the defense budget money for all parents to take 2 years paid leave after the birth of a child?
I think the answer to both is yes.
The SECDEF has authority to create, modify, and impliment policies and procedures for the DoD.
So yes to both of your questions, but I don't see either of those things happening because each would be political suicide.
Obama had the military do this today to honor the resignation of Pope Benedict.
yea how does think work if im GAY and not married i can still get a housing allouwance and med and dental but if im i have a live in girl friend i cant just what is going on here? look i have no issues with GAYS serving openly but the tree huggers on left side seem to be running roughshod over the military now, i find the unmarried part of this plain not fair!
Many states prohibit gays from marrying, but the guy shacking up with his girlfriend certainly can.
Perhaps you should read the article. Gays, whether married or not, are still denied 90% of the benefits that hetero marrieds get. The only things they get with this are a military card that allows them to use base retail stores, to visit their spouse or friend in the hospital, etc. And don't forget: Many of these couples are what we would call Common Law marriages and they would be formally married, but it still isn't allowed in most states.
So straight shack ups will get this same deal? Fair is fair.
When I was on my union bargaining committee back in the day, we recognized this imbalance and started working to gain benefits for opposite-sex domestic partnerships. It's an effort worth pursuing, but nothing comes for free.
"So straight shack ups will get this same deal?"
Nope. Straights can get married, gays cannot.
How will they ever be able to cut the defense budget when they add more non weapons expenses?This sounds like the worst time to ask for these .
But a bloated Military is A Okay
jdp, gays certainly can get married, just not to the same sex as themselves. Which is the same exact right you and I have. (hence equality)
I am not against gay marriage, just pointing out that you are wrong.
Can I legally marry another man I am not in love with just for medical benefits?
Actually CWater, they might. If you have lived with your partner (hetrosexual relationship) for the required time in a state that acknowledges common law marriage, then that is recognized by the military as the equivelent of being married - even though you've never officially performed the ceremony. So yes, it is fair.
Sounds like the exact same "bigot logic" the racists of Virginia tried to use when they said that everyone had the same right to marry someone of the same race as themselves.
FYI, you bigots lost that time too as the court easily recognized odious bigotry masking as equality.
Sure. The state doesn't care why you get married and doesn't ask. No love is required.
skrekk, so I am a bigot because I am NOT against it?
I was pointing out that currently every MAN and every Woman has the same exact rights.
Which is a fact!
Now it is true that is you happen to be Gay you can't marry another man, but as Straight man I can't marry another man either. Hence equal rights!
But it is also True if you happen to be bisexual you can't marry more than one person. Just like a straight person can't marry more than one person. And the DOD has now discriminated against a different group. Correct?
Weird I was able to make a point without naming calling.
FYI- a black Man having the right to marry black women and a white man not having the right to marry a black women, is two different set of rights based for Man. Hence that is why that didn't stand.
Why does the gender have to come into it at all? We should all be able to marry the person we want to. What gender the individual members of the couple are (or what race, or whatever) shouldn't even be an issue.
That said, I don't actually think there should be any perks, or benefits, or tax breaks for being married at all. That is discrimination against people who don't want to be married.
Your comment history speaks for itself. You're a bigot, and a rather clueless one at that. It certainly explains your bizarre non sequitur about polygamy at #1.30
And you're wrong about that, as the courts have consistently ruled that equal application of the law isn't the same as equal protection of the law, particularly when different classes are differentially impacted. Just ask Richard and Mildred Loving whether they had the same right to marry as other couples in Virginia.
Tom, you're no different at all from the racists of 50 years ago. You definitely have the same mindset and ethics.
Back to name calling, very mature on your part, if somebody doesn't agree with you they are an idiot. If somebody believes something different they are a bigot. Plus you use big Latin words that makes you feel good about yourself so that is good?
Weird the case you point out is the same exact thing I am saying.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
They didn't rule on a sub category of MAN or WOMAN.
And again since you must have a reading disability, I am not against it, just pointing out that people saying this is about equally are missing the point.
So Gay is good and bisexual is bad in your world? and why should we discrimate against those that love both sexes, or two other men, or two other women?
Unlike you, I understand that the government has no legitimate interest in the race, gender or sexual orientation of your spouse.
That must be why you used the exact same erroneous logic the racists used 50 years ago. FYI your side lost that time too, just like you're on the losing side with this issue.
skrekk - since you don't know me, you might find it hard to believe but I don't believe Government should be involved in the marriage business at all. I think they should be in the business of enforcing contracts. So if two men want to get involved in a contract that Government should have no right to say no, they should enforce it.
I believe if states want to decided to get into the Marriage business it is their right and if people don't like they laws voted in by the citizens of that state they can lobby to have them changed or moved to a state that is closer to their beliefs.
And guess what skrekk I live in MN and voted AGAINST the MN constitutional amendment to have marriage between one man and one woman.
But again I guess I am a bigot.
So keep calling people names that actually might agree with you and see how far that gets agenda.
Ummmm..........marriage is a legal contract. What did you think it was?
Good for you for doing the right thing. The larger question is whether you'd support marriage equality without regard to race or gender.
Certainly all the arguments you've made so far are the exact same arguments other homophobes and racists have made. Maybe you should use a different play book?
"Ummmm..........marriage is a legal contract. What did you think it was?"
I meant a contract you and I could sign saying we were going to split our assets however we choice and I could make you my legal guardian not the legal marriage contract that Government decides.
"The larger question is whether you'd support marriage equality without regard to race or gender."
I am pretty sure I already answered that like 3 times. I am for anybody signing a contract, man and man, woman and man, three men and a woman, whatever.
I think marriage is a religious ceremony best left up to the church to enforce before what God somebody might believe in or not believe in.
My wife and I went before a Judge to enter into a contract called "Marriage" in the state of MN, but we also signed a prenup (not the tradition one for rich people) stating our beliefs on how our contract should be upheld.
and lastly what I have been pointing out is that the current way is completely equal, all men have the same rights (right or wrong) and all women have the same rights ( again right or wrong)
If you believe the current way is discrimination then just adding gays couples into the current way is just moving the discrimination to the next group of people.
You tell'em Tom!
Well, you're flat wrong. You've obviously confused the legal contract of marriage with the irrelevant religious rite of "holy matrimony." The state doesn't give a @!$%# what your cult does, and churches don't enforce or regulate legal contracts like marriage or mortgages.
Actually all you've done is reveal that most states and the feds unconstitutionally discriminate on the basis of gender in regards to marriage, just like they used to unconstitutionally discriminate on the basis of race. Women and men don't have the same rights to marry except in the marriage equality states.
Tom,
If I might interject a thought in here.
While it is indeed true that every man has the equal right to marry a woman, and vice versa, there are legal aspects to other relationships that are legally already in place.
1. Incest- Let's say a brother and sister wanted to be a couple. They already would have more rights legally than a gay or lesbian couple because they are blood family. Courts have overturned the wills of gays and lesbians that have died stating they were neither blood family or a spouse and awarded the blood family the inheritance. They can legally leave possessions and whatnot to one another. They would have the right to make medical decisions in an emergency. Their assets and wealth are already protected. LGBT people don't have this luxury or protection, even when willed.
2. Polygamy- According to most polygamous relationships, first wife makes all the decisions if a husband were to die. Legally, the first wife has all the protections of marriage. There is no law stating that someone cannot have multiple religious ceremonies to tie the other wives to the husband. This family has legal protections that LGBT families cannot have. Polygamy is generally speaking a religious affair and union but under current laws have far more legal rights than a devoted and loving same sex couple can have. There are also no laws saying they cannot have as many children as a man can father by multiple women and the children are legally protected by being blood family to the father.
Yes, the finer points can be argued and all things being equal there are flaws. I'm not going to try to fake or flub my way through this and not say there aren't holes. But there are holes in heterosexual marriages too. With a 53% divorce rate, I would venture to say that the heterosexual model of marriage has work to do as well.
The big concept here, in my opinion, that is being confused is the difference between legal marriage and Holy Matrimony. A Catholic priest is not obligated and can refuse to marry a heterosexual couple that has not undergone education and show faith in the Catholic Church. This means the priest is not obligated to perform the marriage of two Southern Baptists. The same is true with same sex couples. There are churches that do bless and perform same sex marriages, while others do not. There are no laws that an officiant must marry anyone and is left up to that individual.
This is where we get into murky waters of what is equality based and what is not and with the legal system already set up the way it is, the LGBT family is left with the weakest set of protections and reach to legal security. I don't think everyone who doesn't agree with homosexuals or their relationships is a bigot. I can understand how and why people would have a problem with it to be honest. It's not what they know. They also have certain beliefs from their upbringing and/or their religious points of view. Having a strangers blessing on my relationship neither makes it or breaks it. I support everyone to have their own feeling on this matter. Where the line has to be drawn is when law is made based on religious or personal belief. Please allow me to counter some arguments that are going to be made based off of my analysis.
1. Incest- illegal
2. Polygamy- illegal
3. Beastiality- illegal
4. Homosexuality- NOT illegal
In each of the 3 top examples why gay marriage is being fought against, they are illegal. So before they can even be considered for legal marriage, those relationships have to become legal in the first place. (Beastiality carries its own legal challenges for those that would want that. Animals cannot sign a contract, etc.) For me, the offensive part is that my relationship is being compared to illegal relationships that already enjoy more legal protections than my relationship that is not illegal.