OutServe Armed Forces Leadership Summit
Yea, the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell wasn’t the entire goal of the gay “community”. They’ve gathered in Las Vegas this weekend to figure out their next step accoerding to Stars & Stripes;
A full session of workshops is scheduled for Saturday, tackling family and faith issues. Sessions also will address benefits for active-duty troops, their partners and families, as well as post-military career opportunities.
See, I thought that gays wanted to be just like the rest of us, that the most important thing was that they have the right to serve, but apparently, I was wrong. Service is not holding a conference to address problems that don’t yet exist. It looks to me like the gay servicemembers are attempting to network in order to carve out special treatment for themselves. The only reason to organize is to plan on being a nuisance and needing the protection of numbers.
Category: Military issues
So, they want the military to recognize gay marriage even though most of the country doesn’t? Yeah, I say screw them.
If I remember last time a state voted on this they defeated gay marriage (California’s Prop 8) Which was subsequently overturned by the courts in record time. Most of the country (over 60% at last poll) don’t approve of Gay marriage, and the ones that actually do, are either rabid or “eh what harm could it do”. My question is this, for the new victim “minority” how many people are “out”? I’d be willing to bet its far less that 30% of the total US pop. in fact I’d be willing to bet its below 15%
Well, Obama has already declared that to be unconstitutional, Flagwaver. He doesn’t need a stinkin’ court to say so. He doesn’t need a stinkin’ Congress to pass a law saying so. He just said so and that’s that. So, get on board. This is the New America, man.
“It looks to me like the gay servicemembers are attempting to network in order to carve out special treatment for themselves.”
Yep, wanting to have the same privileges as straight service members who are in committed and state sanctioned relationships is special treatment.
Well, not really, but the talking points never die do they?
Gay night at the Officer/NCO Club? I’ll be sitting down at the bar forgetting it’s gay night, and then a dude asks me for a dance? Gay history month? Promotion quotas due to gayness (hell they are already in place now for minorities and women… why not gays? Will flaming hurt or help one’s career? The fast track- a black butch lesbian. All three blocks checked! The heshe will be a G.O. in no time!
I considered a post to riff off of Jonn’s post (sounds kinda ghey).
Here’s the gist…
Everything, and anything, that achieves Federal acceptance WILL trickle down. This is NOT necessarily a bad thing. It took a war but slavery was pretty much ended.
I dunno how this gay effort will evolve, but there is a track record that can’t be dismissed. Lessons learned and all that. The gay issue is one of civil rights.
The gay lifestyle is also a Darwin type dead end. Population control matters.
YMMV
Frankly, I don’t really care. Marraige is (and should be) a religious institution. We should find a way for government to get out of the marraige buisiness all together. If they find a church that marries them, Great. If they meet requirements to receive care etc, they should. If the point was to be treated like everyone else, then they do have a ways to go. But, again, it doesn’t really effect me or those I care about.
@7 – Well said.
What folks seem to be forgetting is that this whole idea is preposterous. Queers are not that way by birth. It is a lifestyle choice, completely different than being black, female, disabled, etc. As such, it is NOT a civil rights issue and never will be. It is insulting to all those who fought for civil rights to even consider that a lifestyle choice should be lumped in with their sacrifices.
DADT should have never been dismantled. I can only hope that a future Congress will set aside this situation, as it is entirely within their constitutional authority to do.
Military service is NOT a right. It is a privilege, and extended only to those who meet the parameters set forth by Congress.
@9 – “What folks seem to be forgetting is that this whole idea is preposterous. Queers are not that way by birth. It is a lifestyle choice, completely different than being black, female, disabled, etc.”
You realize of course, that at best, this statement is highly debatable.
Your statement is also insulting to all who believe beyond all doubt that they were born gay, thus didn’t “make a lifestyle choice”.
CI #10: I dunno if you are correct? Doesn’t matter much either.
It’s genetic dead end for humans. Over time it MUST be a trivial divergence. Minus cloning, I admit.
I don’t much care about the arguments. Like any momentary thing it can only be disruptive for a short time.
@11 – Genetic dead ending is a trivial divergence regardless. Homosexuality isn’t a disease that can be spread from one to another. Nor is homosexuality the only paradigm that leads to an absence of procreation. We aren’t even dealing with an issue of survival of the species.
What matters is how we as a society use such trivial matters to prevent our fellow citizens from enjoying the same rights and privileges as the mainstream; relying on arguments from people who have never even had to “choose” which gender they were chemically attracted to, to dictate that standard to others who know otherwise.
>same rights and privileges
Everyone does not have the same “privileges” in life. The Constitution NEVER guaranteed the same outcome, only the same MINIMAL opportunity.
Marriage is not a civil right. Even the same Supreme Court who ruled on Loving v. Virginia recognized this when a gay couple sued (Baker v. Nelson). Loving v. Virginia was exclusionary as it excluded only whites from interracial marriage. Same sex couples are not excluded from marriage only marrying certain people much the same way as incest laws. The state recognized that these unions do not benefit the state.
The state has a right to regulate marriage. State doesn’t care who you “love” or who you have sex with other than procreation. Gay people already need the state for “procreation.” The need the state to deny the third party who gave genetic material any parental rights. A heterosexual does not need the state. They can procreate and have a legal connection without the state. The state has a reasonable benefit to recognize these couplings, so that it can handle inheritance and make sure the father is on the hook. Marriage is the easiest way to do this.
It is the destruction of marriage and family including gay marriage advocates that have made the children not the focus. Marriages have always been based on procreation hence why you can annul your marriage based on impotence or fraud if one didn’t tell you that you couldn’t have children.
A “loving” marriage is more the purview of religion not the state.
Let me ask you this. Marriage is the church recognition of a civil union contract. You can “get married” without requiring a marriage ceremony. It is called a civil union contract.
So, why are the same lawyers who are trying to get all forms of Christianity out of the government trying to get the government for Force churches to do something?
@13 – “Everyone does not have the same “privileges” in life. The Constitution NEVER guaranteed the same outcome, only the same MINIMAL opportunity.”
Thank you for capitalizing minimal opportunity. The Constitution doesn’t specifically guarantee a lot of privileges and liberties that most of us enjoy without thought every day. But the fundamental manner in which we treat our fellow citizens says much about our society and our evolution.
We have also evolved past what the state considers beneficial. An action that is consenting, and doesn’t steal, harm or deprive another of liberty….is of no concern of the state. I realize that many people still adhere to quite the opposite, but there is generally no intellectual foundation beneath those assertions.
What interest should the state even have in procreation? It’s not as if recognizing that homosexuals have existed throughout the history of mankind is going to reverse the birth rate. Contractual agreements in lieu of or in addition to marriage constitutes the same role as you would argue the state needs.
When the state issues a marriage license, it is explicitly granting government permission for two people to have a personal and contractual relationship. I can’t imagine that it’s only me who believes that this is in fundamental opposition to the very tenets of conservatism.
“It is the destruction of marriage….”
Apologies if I am taking this out of context…but it is a sweeping portion of fundamentalist opposition to not only gay marriage, but gays in general. How is a relationship between two homosexuals harmful [or impacting whatsoever] to my marriage?
“A “loving” marriage is more the purview of religion not the state.”
Again, I’m left wondering, what compelling interest does the state have in a consenting, healthy relationship between two adults?
@14 – I’m not sure who this was intended for, but I’ll add that you’re correct…..on one level anyway. Government shouldn’t force churches to do anything they wish not to do, in accordance with criminal law anyway.
Just as churches shouldn’t attempt to force government to act in accordance with religious tenets, when there is no secular benefit.
well I can see this devolved quickly. My $.02? I’m fine with “civil unions” but seeing as most if not all major recognized religions have a problem with homosexuality… then no it is NOT in fact marriage.
also point brought up before. Legal and moral implications might become even murkier for adoption, and I’m totally against artificial conception. Its one thing if a husband/wife have some physical defect that prevents them from having a child, but I’m against it for single mom’s and those that never intended to have a baby “the natural way”
>. An action that is consenting, and doesn’t steal, harm or deprive another of liberty….is of no concern of the state. And thus should not be recognized by the state.. Homosexuals can make any contract they want to, but the state need not recognize their union. >What interest should the state even have in procreation? Who do you think is the next generation of “state.”– Procreating couples contribute by making the next generation of tax payers and citizens. If the state does not take interest than fathers are off the hook for children etc. >How is a relationship between two homosexuals harmful [or impacting whatsoever] to my marriage? The state recognition of such marriage effects ALL of us. Small businesses have to support these unions by insurance for both partners. Catholic Charities was forced to close their doors in Massachusetts. Once you make it a constitutional right then it takes some rights away from those of us who do not believe the union is on the same level of heterosexuals. Photographers are forced to take pictures at a wedding that they don’t believe in. Churches are forced to make accomodation. My children are forced to listen to “gay history” or learn about homosexuality when they are too young to cognizantly understand heterosexual sex. Once you give them Constitutional preference for their sexuality which involves a BEHAVIOR…you take away someone’s right to object to that behavior. The destruction of marriage was started by moral relavists who said there was no wrong or right. The state must become “daddy” to all who have kids even if they aren’t responsible. That you could end your marriage for any reason and forget the consequences. The agenda has progressed from there. If you think gay marriage is the end..you are sadly mistaken. >Again, I’m left wondering, what compelling interest does the state have in a consenting, healthy relationship between two adults? None, but that also means they don’t have to recognize it. You can’t have it both ways. Nobody cares who is swinging with who in the bedroom. This is a monetary agenda with “acceptance”… Read more »
CI: To date, not ONE single study has confirmed the existence of a “gay gene”. No one is born gay. In fact, a study by the Albert Einstein School of Medicine of 10,000 self-identified homosexuals showed that the most common trait among homosexual men was a domineering mother and a weak or absent father.
Homosexuality is very clearly a life-style choice, with many using it as a crutch or excuse for their situation(s) in life.
Hey CI–
I know you’re not a liberal and all, cause you told me. I just found this quote interesting:
“An action that is consenting, and doesn’t steal, harm or deprive another of liberty….is of no concern of the state.”
Then why can’t a serviceman have an earring? It’s consenting, it doesn’t harm others or deprive them of liberty.
I’ll wait for your answer before I give you mine.
I know how keen you are on having debates. You’re so keen on it that even when I debate you point for point you accuse me of not debating. It’s the most curious thing.
Oh, and CI–you choose you sleep with. Homosexuality is a choice. All sexuality is a choice. Your pecker can end up in many different places, but only by your own free will.
And that is why it’s not like having black skin. Never will be.
#21. Ben what if I’m really really REALLY drunk. Can I help if my pecker ends up in a butter face?
@18 – “And thus should not be recognized by the state.. Homosexuals can make any contract they want to, but the state need not recognize their union.” Then why shouldn’t heterosexual enjoy the same contractual status? Why does that state grant “special rights” to heterosexuals in the form of marriage. “Procreating couples contribute by making the next generation of tax payers and citizens.” Recognizing gay marriage doesn’t affect that in the least. “Small businesses have to support these unions by insurance for both partners.” And the difference is what if the employee were straight? “Catholic Charities was forced to close their doors in Massachusetts.” Catholic Charities makes it’s own choice in denying support for certain segments of society; but as a corollary, I don’t want government intrusion in lawful charities. This wouldn’t be a gay problems, it’s a state problem. “Photographers are forced to take pictures at a wedding that they don’t believe in.” Nope, free market. Photographers are forced to take no job. “Once you make it a constitutional right then it takes some rights away from those of us who do not believe the union is on the same level of heterosexuals.” I’d say that you’ve failed to make this case. “Once you give them Constitutional preference for their sexuality which involves a BEHAVIOR…you take away someone’s right to object to that behavior.” Define object. You or I can object all we wish. “The destruction of marriage was started by moral relavists who said there was no wrong or right.” If an alleged destruction of marriage is the point [which I admittedly don’t see happening], then why haven’t politicians sought to ban divorce? I’ll tell you why, it’s because that action could have consequences on their lives and possible courses of action. Instead, they would rather ancient religious texts to deprive their fellow citizens of the same status they enjoy. I don’t believe the state has a compelling interest in marriage. But as long as it claims to, it should mete out that interest to consenting adults in a just manner. @19 – True, but we have other… Read more »
@20 – “I know you’re not a liberal and all, cause you told me.”
Your nonsensical assertion needed to be corrected.
“Then why can’t a serviceman have an earring? It’s consenting, it doesn’t harm others or deprive them of liberty.”
For the same reasons that we as service members voluntarily consent to be required to have a uniformly presented appearance.
“Oh, and CI–you choose you sleep with. Homosexuality is a choice. All sexuality is a choice. Your pecker can end up in many different places, but only by your own free will.”
I’m not disagreeing that the physical act is possible, but you’re conflating a physical act with orientation, attraction, physiological reaction, etc.
I’m not sure if you’re coming out to us a bisexual, but the key components for a successful sexual act would be missing for me, were I confronted in that situation with a man. If all sexuality is a choice, that means you can have the ability to be attracted to both genders. Again, if you’re coming out to us, kudos.