RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Military chaplains can perform gay marriages: Pentagon

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/art...c4193dd7119.1f1



If I ever talked to someone from the Pentagon, I'd let them know they are endangering my life with this decision. Maybe. After I fetched their coffee of course. Or maybe I would just scowl at them. Behind their back.

-Pariah

Actually, interestingly enough, all of the chaplains I talked to disagree with idea and stressed that they didn't have to perform the marriages if they didn't want to--which probably pisses you off to no end.

I do think it's pretty funny though that you didn't put this in your other thread. You knew you got your ass handed to you so you pulled an MEM: "New thread time!"

somehow I feel like there won't be very many of these ceremonies once the initial "omg we CAN?!?" phase dies down.

Great anecdote Pariah.



The article did mention that chaplains are "not required to participate in or officiate any private ceremony..."

It's the American Way to enable them to do as they choose, wouldn't you agree?

And this deserved his own thread, you bitter child, you!

Pariah User The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts 10/01/11 01:01 PM Making a new reply
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Re: Military chaplains can perform gay marriages: Pentagon



Hooked...

Thanks!



I know. I just felt it bears repeating since it kinda flies in the face of your intent.

And then when a homosexual couple cries foul when a chaplain decides he doesn't want to marry them. You'll be right there cheering the couple on, telling chaplains that--as military personnel--they have no choice but to do so.



Oh, I do. That's why I brought it up



Oh yeah. I'm sure you'll say that now.

That's strange. I don't remember ever telling a chaplain what they can or can't do...link please?





So you're cool with chaplains marrying gays? That's very open-minded of you! I'm glad to see I'm changing the way you look at things.





This deserved it's own thread.

But you have made posts in support of telling the military how it should conduct social policies. Chaplains are apart of the military. And their jobs are military business.



Haha!

JLA doesn't have a leg to stand on, so he has to troll his way through a discussion. Hilarious.



In other words: "Shit! This isn't going well....New thread time!"

You tell 'em MEM!

You think that supporting the right of gays to open serve in the military is the exact same thing as supporting the idea of forcing a chaplain to carry out a gay marriage?

Wow...


You claimed that it was perfectly fine for the chaplains to do as they choose. You didn't mention "only if they agree with me!"

It's a good idea to throw that disclaimer out there in the future.





This deserved it's own thread. Look at how I got you to melt already!

And there you have it. You think that being in the military is a right.

"Wow" indeed.

If you want to talk about rights, then how about the "right" not to be ogled by other soldiers in the exact same barracks--which is the entire reason sexual segregation is practiced. You've already admitted that you don't agree with mixing males and females and yet you would willingly violate the security of soldiers and their synergy by knowingly mixing heterosexuals and homosexuals.

For instance, what if a female soldier says, "I have a right not to be bunked with someone who is sexually attracted to me." Apparently, you disagree with that.



Backpedal, thy name is JLA!



In other words: "If you plastered me on this issue in the exact same thread where I already got my ass kicked, I wouldn't live it down. So this deserved its own thread."

Roger.

Serving in the military is the right of any citizen. Just because a little fascist janitor has a life-sized insecurity complex doesn't change that. End.

From pushing shopping carts, to being a janitor.

Our little Pariah is really going places!

He has forward vision.

Incorrect. The military does in fact discriminate between potential soldiers they feel would be appropriate as soldiers and ones they feel would not.

There's is no formal writ or fiat that says being in the military is a right.

But please, by all means, maintain your reactionary belief system that [INSERT CAUSE HERE] is a right.

Yup.

technically (in the interests of fairness) I can't be (and wasn't) allowed to serve on account of my CP. the military can screen for individuals deemed unable to serve due to particular physical or psychological impediments. it's one of the few lines of government work that's allowed to eliminate applicants in such a way - for reasons that should be pretty obvious. this is another case where right and privilege are being semantically conflated one with another. it's a really minor distinction, but I thought it'd be helpful to point that out.

STOP GOING AGAINST PROMETHEUS OR ELSE HE'S GOING TO POST GRAEMLINS AT YOU!!

Pariah User The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts 10/03/11 09:40 PM Reading a post
Forum: Politics and Current Events
Thread: Military chaplains can perform gay marriages: Pentagon

Yup

JLA. Always the passive supporter....

Doesn't look very passive. From what I've seen, from the posts in other forums as well as here, looks like he's actively humiliating you at every turn. Are you so desensitized by perpetual self-abuse, you can't tell the difference any more?

Beyond all the dull back-and-forth repetition of "Humiliated!" and "No, YOU'RE humiliated!", and and , a serious point:

A kid in school can't legally pray, even silently.
The 10 commandments can't be displayed in a public courthouse.

But... a military chaplain can opt to conduct a gay marriage?

It seems to me that the proper place for gay marriage (if any chaplain ever elects to conduct one) is not within a military setting, and in the interest of "separation of church and state" (and the Supreme Court has ruled that the gay perspective is a faith-based belief system and therefore likewise as much a religious belief system as Christianity) holding a gay wedding should be excluded from a federal institution like the military, the same way Christian prayer and scriptures are banned from schools and courtrooms.

If, y'know, there's a real interest in holding an equal and fair standard for all beliefs. And not just ramming a gay/liberal agenda down everyone's throats.

While I think questioning why Americans aren't allowed to worship their deity of choice in public is a worthy cause to fight, I don't see the correlation with the ability to marry two people in love.



In that vein of thought, let's take it one step further: Let's ban marriage....of any kind! That way, there's no question about the military/government's role in personal decisions made by responsible adults.



Yes, yes...it's always a "gay/liberal agenda" thing with you, isn't it? The "fair standards for all beliefs" that you champion would have to include the gays, Liberals, and Muslims. Along with their agenda to have equal rights as everyone else, and not just White-Christian-centrics. Food for thought.

It seems to me that liberals --gays among them being a prime example-- try to advance their rights by suppressing the religious freedom of Christians and others.

Where if a Christian doesn't look favorably on the gay lifestyle because his Bible-based convictions tell him homosexuality is immoral, is forced to employ gays, forced to provide them with health benefits (despite that gay men have a statistically proven astronomically high rate of HIV/AIDS infection rate, due to their chosen lifestyle), and even voicing his convictions that homosexuality is immoral is legally suppressed by the liberal Thought Police as "hate speech".

I would point out that it is consistently liberals who are engaging in violence against conservatives, consistently liberals who are utterly intolerant of conservative lifestyles and beliefs. "Tolerance" is a very one-way street for liberals.

Your posts manifest that quite nicely. In that there is no insinuation, no slander, no blatant and vicious lie that you ever hesitate to unleash.

I find it interesting how you advance your self-righteous liberal "truth" by consistently lying. In spite what I clearly post about true equality and equal standards, you consistently spin it as a "racist white-supremacist" goal on my part.

Despite y'know, that myself and millions like me who identify with the Tea Party perspective, support the likes of Allen West, Herman Cain, Mark Steele, and J.C. Watts. And years before the Tea Party ever existed, listed Colin Powell as the presidential candidate they would prefer, in 1992, 1996 and 2000, if only he would run.
How very white-racist of us.
As I've pointed out repeatedly, the Tea party has a percentage of black members of roughly 6%, and other minorities are statistically equal to the ratios of total U.S. population.

Sorry that conflicts with the "White-Christian-centrics" slander you like to perpetuate.

I have never voiced any reluctance to interact with any minority group. I support a fully equal society. My only opposition ever voiced was for racial quotas and set-asides. And immigration policies that seek to destroy America's existing culture, by importing millions who don't share our culture, who have foreign and ethnic loyalties hostile to our culture, who do not want to assimilate.

I welcome anyone, of any race who wants to LEGALLY immigrate to the United States, learn our language, fully assimilate and be one of us.

Those who want to fragment us, refer to my racial group with contempt as "white people", the Mexican separatists who want to make Spanish our second national language, the Louis Farrakhan self-segregating muslims, the Black Panthers, the black liberation theologists like Obama and his administration, the William Ayerses and hundreds of thousands of liberal teachers and professors who want to tear down America and rebuild it in a marxist-socialist model (the descendants of the Frankfurt School and the 60's revolution), all these elements who want to destroy us from within, I reject.
"Racism" doesn't play into it in any way.
I reject the liberal revisionist narrative that we are a white racist nation with a shameful past, so shameful that our nation does not deserve our loyalty. Quite the opposite, I think we are a nation that --like every other-- has had racist parts of its history, but that we have overcome them, and become as truly equal a society as the world could possibly produce. I resent people who exploit past racism (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc.) to intimidate or use guilt to drag concessions from white America, and splinter what truly is an equal society we should be proud of.

Despite your factless, slanderous and vicious insinuations.

No worries Pro. You can be assured that he is indeed supporting your cause--whatever it may be--without actually cosigning it.

That is, after all, his moral imperative. Possibly inspired by his experience in a union.

There was so much crazy, I didn't even know where to start. So, I just enhanced the most hilarious parts!

You forgot to quote the rest of my post. You must have missed it accidentally. Hold on, I'll repeat it:

You would have been an excellent propagandist for Stalin or Castro.

The "our" I clearly refer to is a shared american culture of everyone, of all races, who love this country and choose to bond together and be a part of.

Which is quite clear in my post, before you sliced and diced it to make your slanderous white-racist insinuations. I clearly refer to the "melting pot", where everyone is welcome here, who come from various races and nationalities to become one culture. Those who try to tear us apart, who hold foreign loyalties --be they islamic jihadists, Mexican separatist "reconquistas" or European marxists-- are not welcome.

Funny thing is, of everyone here, you bring Stalin, Castro, Hitler, Mao, etc. you bring them all up more than anyone else here. I think someone's got a closet political belief that threatens his socio-religious kneejerk reactionary stance on life...



All I did was hit the quote button. Those are YOUR words, not mine. Bigot.



Except for...

No, I've just done quite a bit more reading on the roots of 1960's-forward liberalism, and clearly have a better understanding of where your ideology is rooted.

It doesn't help your case that key members of Obama's administration such as Van Jones, Mark lloyd, Ron Bloom, Anita Dunn and Obama himself openly praise Chairman Mao, Castro, Hugo Chavez, and other violent marxists.
Or that Obama himself has clear and undeniable ties to William Ayers, Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky's RULES FOR RADICALS, ACORN, SEIU, and Rev Jeremiah Wright.

It also doesn't help your case that you openly praise revolution, anti-capitalism and socialist redistribution of wealth espoused in the Wall Street hippie protests, or that you post video clips and leftist manifestos from hard-left marxist websites.


The rest is more of your infantile crap trolling for a reaction, that I won't dignify with a response.

Suuure, David. Sure.

Yes Pro. "Passive" does have a meaning.