[kahad]

No disagreement here. If gays want to join the military, I say let them join.

[Aiko☆Noble]

sentinel28a, on May 28 2010, 01:24 AM, said:

I find it interesting that the people who criticize this country the most and accuse it of not being free strangely have no desire to move elsewhere...because they know they could never get away with saying such foolish statements wherever they end up.

QF effing T.

But it's not related to the topic at hand so I'll keep all of my comments on that to myself. XD

[sentinel28a]

FlyingElf, on May 28 2010, 06:25 AM, said:

being religious or a particular political affiliation does not give you the right to discriminate against anyone...period. I don't care what you believe in and I don't care what side of the political spectrum you choose to associate with, if you think that homosexuals or bisexuals are any less of people because of their lifestyle choice, than you sir are a bigot.

If you're okay with being that, fine, whatever, but don't try to play it off like you aren't or that its okay that you are because your religion allows you to be.

I just think the whole thing is funny. We've made this mistake how many times in history now and yet there are people who refuse to learn. Blacks are lesser people! oops, we kinda screwed that up, well its okay because women are definitely not as good as men...oops again...A few years from now, I truly hope that gays also fall into that category and people can finally accept them as being equals with equal rights. Who a person chooses to spend time with in the bedroom can not possibly make them any better or any worse of a person. And frankly, I don't understand why you or anyone else would even care.

And stop pointing to the bible. The bible says a lot of things that are no longer applicable to the modern world. Or are they still not allowing women to speak in church?

There's nothing in the Bible that says women can't speak in church. One also has to take the Bible in context and read the whole thing. The laws in Leviticus that call on gays to be stoned are Mosaic law--which, according to St. Paul, is only applicable if you happen to be ultra-orthodox Jewish. Not Christian. Jesus is also on record for saying that "he who is without sin cast the first stone." Well...none of us is without sin. (Not even Excel.)

And before anyone makes any snide comments about Judaism, there's only one country in the Middle East that not only lets gays serve openly, it also has a gay pride week parade. That country is Israel. As the Arabs have found out to their detriment for the past 60 years, the Israelis are pretty damn good at fighting, so letting gays serve doesn't seem to have taken off the IDF's edge any. (Though the IDF did restrict gamers from serving briefly, because the idea was that anyone who plays at being an elf is probably a little crazy. A gaming group took the IDF to court and won the right to be a gamer and serve in the IDF, who failed their saving throw vs. law.)

However, Manga1 is still entitled to his opinion. As long as he doesn't go Phelps on us, let the man speak his mind.

Benjamin Donnelly

[FlyingElf]

sentinel28a, on May 28 2010, 02:39 AM, said:

There's nothing in the Bible that says women can't speak in church. One also has to take the Bible in context and read the whole thing. The laws in Leviticus that call on gays to be stoned are Mosaic law--which, according to St. Paul, is only applicable if you happen to be ultra-orthodox Jewish. Not Christian. Jesus is also on record for saying that "he who is without sin cast the first stone." Well...none of us is without sin. (Not even Excel.)

And before anyone makes any snide comments about Judaism, there's only one country in the Middle East that not only lets gays serve openly, it also has a gay pride week parade. That country is Israel. As the Arabs have found out to their detriment for the past 60 years, the Israelis are pretty damn good at fighting, so letting gays serve doesn't seem to have taken off the IDF's edge any. (Though the IDF did restrict gamers from serving briefly, because the idea was that anyone who plays at being an elf is probably a little crazy. A gaming group took the IDF to court and won the right to be a gamer and serve in the IDF, who failed their saving throw vs. law.)

However, Manga1 is still entitled to his opinion. As long as he doesn't go Phelps on us, let the man speak his mind.

Benjamin Donnelly

In 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 we read, "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church, for Adam was formed first, then Eve."

Thats the passage I was referring to.

I have little issue with people speaking their mind. What I have issue with is when people say that being religious gives them the right to be prejudice. Like I said, if you're prejudice, just say you're prejudice. Don't say that I can't help it because I'm conservative and catholic. BS, don't tell me you can't think for yourself. Don't tell me that you can't understand basic concepts of right and wrong without a priest telling you.

Personally I look at homophobia on the same level as I look at sexism and racism. Its about looking at a person and judging them for who they are regardless of their gender, color of their skin, or who they choose to have relations with. None of those affect whether a person is good or bad in the slightest way and none of them should deny you any rights that the rest of us enjoy.

[sentinel28a]

FlyingElf, on May 28 2010, 06:46 AM, said:

In 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 we read, "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church, for Adam was formed first, then Eve."

Thats the passage I was referring to.

I stand corrected. I remember the passage about women covering their heads in church (a holdover from Judaism), but that's a new one on me. Is that KJV or another version?

Again, context. When Paul wrote this, it was in a time period when women were expected to be seen and not heard. It's like calling Lincoln a racist because he believed blacks were not yet mentally equal with whites--very few people in his time believed that all men (and women) were truly created equal. Lincoln naturally changed his mind later on, which some people *cough* one of my history teachers *cough* tend to forget.

Nice thing that God gave us, this free will thing.

Ben Da Mad Irishman
"Though it gets us in trouble sometimes"

[FlyingElf]

sentinel28a, on May 28 2010, 02:53 AM, said:

I stand corrected. I remember the passage about women covering their heads in church (a holdover from Judaism), but that's a new one on me. Is that KJV or another version?

Again, context. When Paul wrote this, it was in a time period when women were expected to be seen and not heard. It's like calling Lincoln a racist because he believed blacks were not yet mentally equal with whites--very few people in his time believed that all men (and women) were truly created equal. Lincoln naturally changed his mind later on, which some people *cough* one of my history teachers *cough* tend to forget.

Nice thing that God gave us, this free will thing.

Ben Da Mad Irishman
"Though it gets us in trouble sometimes"

Honestly, I couldn't tell you what version, sorry. Its something I've seen a couple different places now. Ironically I learned about it on King of the Hill and looked it up online to find the exact passage.

The fact of the matter is, not treating everyone equally and with respect is not an opinion. If I were to get on the forums and spew hate on a particular race or gender, I would be banned. Free will is still governed by the laws of the area, so please, tell me why spewing hate against homosexuals here is then okay? Why is this an acceptable opinion? Why is it okay to treat some people equally and not others? Who cares if Lincoln was a racist? That was over 100 years ago. If we don't learn from the past, what better are we today? Shouldn't we know better by now? Shouldn't we know better after we've made this mistake multiple times throughout world history. Jews, blacks, women, gypsies, the list goes on and on.

[TaiyakiOni]

About damn time they lifted this ban. Gay's have the right to love and protect their country as much as the next person and shouldn't be barred from entering the military because of sexual orientation. It's not like gays didn't serve BEFORE the ban was in place. They served in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam like regular soldiers and they kept ther "homo" urges to themselves without endangering anyone, same as any soldier in that position. All their guilty of is being honest with themselves and that's no reason to ban them from the military.

I think this repeal of the ban is a good thing and maybe one day America can continue to push forward some more on other issues...

Quote

Our president is mixed race, last I checked... Thought I'd throw that in.

I find it amusing how people seem to forget he's half white when they want to complain about him. Idiots.

[Lina]

Scott, on May 28 2010, 12:46 AM, said:

While I dislike labels and sub-labels of things (eg. denominations), I consider myself a Christian based on certain things I feel are truth and the way I want to live my life. I feel that judging anyone or things like the choices people make is "sin" in-of-itself, so frankly having hate in your heart for others for any reason is not a good thing based on what we believe. It doesn't follow the way of Jesus lived (aka. what the word "Christian" means). The only thing Jesus showed true anger at were hypocrites of Judaism. Saying yeah... I'm cool with *those people*, but on the inside having other un-positive feelings about others isn't probably a heart filled with love. Sure, people have varying view points and emotions that that lead to discussion and sometimes conflict, but try to pull back and feel and think before throwing out judgment as we are not in any position to do that.

I really hope you aren't saying all Jews are hypocrites.

[Kasin]

hmmm...mmm...ummm...Hurray?

idk, maybe i'm closed off, butI thought every one could be in the army before?

NVM! re...re...ummm reread? re-read? BLAH! that isn't a word...is it?

I read the article again. I get it, so they don't have to hide!

That is fantastic, because you shouldn't have to hid yourself, or your love.

love is love, no matter who it's with.

This post has been edited by Kasin: 28 May 2010 - 02:26 AM

[Valkyrie]

Allow me to make one brief point here. This isn't about how each religion judges homosexuality. This isn't even about religion.

This is about the military and its decision to take out the "don't ask, don't tell" rule.

If you guys think that the religion argument is valid, just remember how easy it is for that to turn into a flame war. And we all know how much the mods LOVE flame wars.

Let's keep religion out of this, for the sake of keeping the discussion alive as much as possible. And for that matter...let's be respectful of each others beliefs and opinions, yes?

[Scott]

Lina, on May 28 2010, 03:12 AM, said:

I really hope you aren't saying all Jews are hypocrites.

Uh, what?

"... angered at were hypocrites of Judaism"

eg. The individuals who where selling goods in the synagogues.

Sorry I'll modify my post if as my English wasn't up to snuff it seems...

[Mystline]

No kidding!? Oh my gosh, that's so great!

[Stkbayfield]

Had something to say, but did not do full research. Don't feel comfortable with it sitting on record, so removed it. Sorry.

This post has been edited by Stkbayfield: 28 May 2010 - 08:51 AM

[kenkendazo]

On the whole topic of religion, who's to say that the Gilgamesh epic isn't as truthful as the Bible? All it comes to is what someone believes in and one's *doctrine* shouldn't be used to look at other people. It's like judging a baseball player with football statistics.

On the topic at hand, I really never saw what the need for the ban was period. I'm glad its been repealed, but should have never been there in the first place.

[XenoBlade]

It's all good and all for the gays who would want to fight. Any who knows me I'm the one not to step in this minefield that is gay right since I rather am in the middle for stuff. It's more of whatever happens, happens for me. So if this decision happens then that's good for them.

[Kaay-chan]

manga1, on May 28 2010, 12:09 AM, said:

as for same sex barricks I am just saying its like a buffet for some, like putting an drunk in a bar it could entice them.

Seriously, do you just watch the uber conservative yahoos on fox or whatever, and then unquestioningly spew whatever they say without questioning it?

[sentinel28a]

Lina, on May 28 2010, 08:12 AM, said:

I really hope you aren't saying all Jews are hypocrites.

I think he was referring to the Pharisees, who were indeed hypocrites. Whitewashed tombs and all that.

Ben Da Mad Irishman
"There's a Monty Python joke in there somewhere"

[Kitsu-chan]

manga1, on May 28 2010, 12:09 AM, said:

as for same sex barricks I am just saying its like a buffet for some, like putting an drunk in a bar it could entice them.

The way you say it makes it sound like all gays are rabid sex addicts. Sure there's plenty of 'one night stands', but for the vast majority it's a mutual attraction just like any hetero relationship. I'm Bi, but I don't go trying to get into sentinel28a's bed just cause we happen to both go to ACen. He's a great guy, but there's not attraction there... my attraction to his figure collection is a story for a different thread

Who are we to say what's right & wrong between two consenting adults?

@sent - you just happened to be the post above me. I just sorta grabbed the first name to jump out at me.

[Mr. Turnabout]

Quote

as for same sex barricks I am just saying its like a buffet for some, like putting an drunk in a bar it could entice them.

-Sighs-
Like Kitsu-chan said, You are making Homosexuals sound like rabid sex addicts. The way you make it sound, it sounds like you have some personal experience on the subject. As much of an attack as that sounded, it isn't. I don't think you should be making a generalization on something you know not too much about.
Saying this is like saying teenagers between the ages of X-Y smoke pot. It is just ignorant.

Quote

Sure there's plenty of 'one night stands', but for the vast majority it's a mutual attraction just like any hetero relationship.

Yup. Trust me, it's the same in ANY sexuality. People are going to do what they want to do, and who are we as people to judge them? Life is wayyyyy to short to be judging anyone.
Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but saying stuff like this kinda rubs me the wrong way. I'm Bi too, with a Girl I love very much. NO. I'm not off "Enjoying Any Buffets".

BUT! Back to the topic, I think this is awesome.
Personally I have my problems with the military, but this just eliminates one of those problems.
At least we're getting somewhere.

This post has been edited by Mr. Turnabout: 28 May 2010 - 07:53 PM

[wrexness]

manga1, on May 28 2010, 12:09 AM, said:

as for same sex barricks I am just saying its like a buffet for some, like putting an drunk in a bar it could entice them.

You mean like how in the early days of the country it was believed that if you left a black man alone with a white woman he would be irresistibly compelled by his animalistic nature to forcibly take her chastity? Oh wait, that's not true either.

How about we give our men and women in uniform a little more credit? You think that they wouldn't be able to put aside a little discomfort in order to better serve this nation that they all love and would be willing to die for? I feel this will ultimately be a bigger issue in the civilian world than it is in the military itself. However, I also feel that this is a move that had be made. The country can't progress if we continue to hold onto archaic, discriminatory laws and rules.

[sweetbeanpaste]

I'm shocked and horified that anyone would dare playing the 'being gay is wrong' card on this thread.

Like several posters thus far, I am indeed a Catholic. However, the average Catholic's absolute intolerance of homosexuals has baffled me for years. I mentioned something about gays in the car with a friend of mine with her grandma present, and the lady starts giving me a 20 minute talking-to about how being gay is 'sinful' and 'against God'. There are few things that anger me more than homophobia and prejudice.

I think it's just sad that many of the people who go around preaching about how God loves everyone, and only God can judge (which I agre with) are the same folk who go around condemning others for being 'gay'.

I have several gay friends, and let me tell you, they are some of my favorite people in the world. There is absolutely nothing "sinful" about who they are, and they can't change their orientation any more than they can change the color of their skin.

Rock on, gays defending our country!

[Matt PNiewski]

FlyingElf, on 28 May 2010 - 12:46 AM, said:

In 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 we read, "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church, for Adam was formed first, then Eve."

Thats the passage I was referring to.

The word of God is found in the Gospels, not in Corinthians. You can take knowledge from the other books, but take knowledge and a grain of salt. This isn't the word of God. This is the word of Paul.


Granted, this might be a bit fundamentalist a take for somebody who doesn't believe in "Sola Scriptura".....

Quote

I have little issue with people speaking their mind. What I have issue with is when people say that being religious gives them the right to be prejudice. Like I said, if you're prejudice, just say you're prejudice. Don't say that I can't help it because I'm conservative and catholic. BS, don't tell me you can't think for yourself. Don't tell me that you can't understand basic concepts of right and wrong without a priest telling you.

It shows a lack of knowledge about the bible anyway.


The Bible never directly speaks about Homosexuality outside of Leviticus. How can you condemn homosexuality in a language that has no word for Homosexual?

[TheRabbi]

Matt PNiewski, on 01 June 2010 - 03:11 PM, said:

How can you condemn homosexuality in a language that has no word for homosexual?

Okay, that's linguist-bait if I've ever seen it. One describes the concept, and a word comes after. (To be clear, I'm not expressing an opinion on the topic at hand; I'm giving the actual answer to the question that was asked from a point of authority. (I happen to be a linguist.))

Speaking of the topic at hand, let's make sure we stay on it, shall we?

[Matt PNiewski]

TheRabbi, on 01 June 2010 - 03:17 PM, said:

Okay, that's linguist-bait if I've ever seen it. One describes the concept, and a word comes after. (To be clear, I'm not expressing an opinion on the topic at hand; I'm giving the actual answer to the question that was asked from a point of authority. (I happen to be a linguist.))

Speaking of the topic at hand, let's make sure we stay on it, shall we?

Oh, that was a simplified take. I don't want to post a thesis paper on homosexuality in the bible here. But I did do a five page report on it once, and that had me learning words that were all Greek to me....

I get defensive when my religion is misconstrued by people who claim to practice it. I get angry when its used to justify prejudice.

[fotaku07]

With members of my family in every branch of the armed services I've gained a different view than most.

Sexuality should remain in the serviceman/woman's personal life, be it homosexuality or heterosexuality. It should not interfere with their duty. Thus why I support the literal interpretation of the rule "Don't ask, don't tell." Who cares what one's sexual preference is, it shouldn't be on the mindset of the military to play social experiment. I'd like them all to hush up, keep it to themselves and focus on protecting this nation. Pretty please with sugar on top?

[fotaku07]

Khemia, on 27 May 2010 - 09:51 PM, said:

I don't ever recall mentioning anything about religion Manga, you really should keep things like that under the table....If you don't like it, ignore it, let me teach you a little history lesson.... The Roman army promoted same-sex relationships within their services BECAUSE.....A) It boosted morale to have someone you care about along side you on the field of battle, and It caused them to fight harder to protect the ones they love, sorry but I just don't think I can validate your reasoning based on religious beliefs.

It's interesting though that later in the Roman Empire Justinian's Code said that anyone caught in a homosexual act was to be executed, unless they repentant.

edit - sorry for the double post

This post has been edited by fotaku07: 01 June 2010 - 09:27 PM

[wrexness]

fotaku07, on 01 June 2010 - 09:05 PM, said:

With members of my family in every branch of the armed services I've gained a different view than most.

Sexuality should remain in the serviceman/woman's personal life, be it homosexuality or heterosexuality. It should not interfere with their duty. Thus why I support the literal interpretation of the rule "Don't ask, don't tell." Who cares what one's sexual preference is, it shouldn't be on the mindset of the military to play social experiment. I'd like them all to hush up, keep it to themselves and focus on protecting this nation. Pretty please with sugar on top?

I agree that it shouldn't be important what a person's orientation is, but the other half of don't ask, don't tell (and the part I have issue with) is the fact that if you are outed (even against your will), you can be kicked out. If it is irrelevant (and I think it is), why can the military kick you out? Even if you are the perfect soldier in every other definition of the word, you can be removed from the military because you can't control who you are attracted to. How is that fair? How is that right? How does that help our military when you take out fine soldiers just because they like people of the same gender? It doesn't. More than 13 THOUSAND soldiers have been discharged because of their orientation, including more than 1000 interpreters and engineers (end of article). Don't Ask, Don't Tell above all gives the military an reason to kick out a homosexual member just because they are homosexual, and that is wrong.

The fact of the matter is, Defense Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen both agree that DADT has outlived its usefulness and are both in favor of a repeal (though both would've preferred to see the end of this "Pentagon report" first). Furthermore, the House version of the appeal leaves the exact timing of the repeal up to the people who should be deciding it: the President and top military leaders. It's a political move because the Democrats have no guarantee they'll be able to push this repeal through after the mid-terms, but at least they're providing a safety net for the people at top to have some discretion.

Not to mention that this is not the first time the military has been used as a "social experiment". Harry S. Truman signed EO 9981 - which officially desegregated the military - in 1948. This was 6 full years before Brown v. Board of Education was even decided. Sometimes you can't just wait until everyone is "ready" and "comfortable", because if you don't confront the status quo, it will never change.

I was a military brat for my first 16 years of life, and I only left because my parents split up at that point (had no choice but to go with my civilian mom - dad was about to be deployed to the desert). My dad served 20 years and retired as a MSgt in the US Air Force. It's 100% true that in the military, the focus should be on the group and not the individual, but this doesn't mean that the individual should be totally lost either. Military men and women still get married, have families, practice their faith, get educations, etc, all while serving their country. There's no reason for homosexuals to be cast out for doing the same thing that everyone else in the military does.

This post has been edited by wrexness: 01 June 2010 - 09:58 PM

[Alkaren Hyralt]

tl;dr but you all know there's a chance Obama may veto this due to it continue to fund projects Robert Gates has cut.

Plus it still has to pass the senate.

[wrexness]

Alkaren Hyralt, on 01 June 2010 - 10:00 PM, said:

tl;dr but you all know there's a chance Obama may veto this due to it continue to fund projects Robert Gates has cut.

Plus it still has to pass the senate.

*siiigh* I have seen this, yes. Our government at work, don'tchaknow. Even if we have a general consensus on something that should be done (not saying that this repeal in particular is that "something"), we can't accomplish it. I think Congress would find a way to fail to pass a "kicking puppies is bad" declaration because they'd try to attach it to a Senate pay cut bill.

This post has been edited by wrexness: 01 June 2010 - 10:03 PM