Obama: IÂ’ll let gays serve openly in military

SlyOneDoofy · Post by **SlyOneDoofy** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 2:10 am

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama pledged to end the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military in a speech Saturday, but acknowledged to a cheering crowd that the policy changes he promised on the campaign trail are not coming as quickly as they expected.

Article....http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33255971/ns ... hite_house

Any thoughts?

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 2:30 am

The further downfall of our society continues sadly

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:55 am

Brent wrote:The further downfall of our society continues sadly

Yes, God forbid this liberal democracy actually act like a liberal democracy.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:57 am

SlyOneDoofy wrote:WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama pledged to end the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military in a speech Saturday, but acknowledged to a cheering crowd that the policy changes he promised on the campaign trail are not coming as quickly as they expected.

Article....http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33255971/ns ... hite_house

Any thoughts?

It is long over due, now let's see if he can keep his word.

Leatherneck · Post by **Leatherneck** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 7:28 am

Even though I am a Christian conservative and retired Marine, I really have no problem with a homosexual serving in the military. They have been for a long time. What I do have a problem with is disruption. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW, WHO WHAT OR WHY the disruption but rather that the potential is there. You cannot make all the people think a like and just because a rule says it's allowable doesn't make it work smoothly. The military is not the best climate for extra uneasiness given the already heavy workload and stressful environment. The world has changed and the younger generation has a completely different attitude towards many things that would make their parent's gasp. Homosexuals are not treated the same way as they were 20-30 years a go and quite frankly I see more liberation than the black people have received in 200 years! Time to stop whining and just "function" along side your counterpart without the need to wear a sign. Success, respect, discipline not flaunting wins the day.

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 7:38 am

No issues from me. If an american citizen wants to serve his country then by all means.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 7:55 am

Leatherneck wrote: Time to stop whining and just "function" along side your counterpart without the need to wear a sign. Success, respect, discipline not flaunting wins the day.

Well said.

No problems from me, it's always been there, now they just don't have to hide it or keep each other in the closet.

Hopefully some of the negativity that goes with this will begin to dissipate.

blebs · Post by **blebs** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:03 am

Leatherneck wrote:Even though I am a Christian conservative and retired Marine, I really have no problem with a homosexual serving in the military. They have been for a long time. What I do have a problem with is disruption. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW, WHO WHAT OR WHY the disruption but rather that the potential is there. You cannot make all the people think a like and just because a rule says it's allowable doesn't make it work smoothly. The military is not the best climate for extra uneasiness given the already heavy workload and stressful environment. The world has changed and the younger generation has a completely different attitude towards many things that would make their parent's gasp. Homosexuals are not treated the same way as they were 20-30 years a go and quite frankly I see more liberation than the black people have received in 200 years! Time to stop whining and just "function" along side your counterpart without the need to wear a sign. Success, respect, discipline not flaunting wins the day.

Exactly. You cannot turn back time, so we must move forward.

OSULLY · Post by **OSULLY** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:24 am

Leatherneck wrote:Even though I am a Christian conservative and retired Marine, I really have no problem with a homosexual serving in the military. They have been for a long time. What I do have a problem with is disruption. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW, WHO WHAT OR WHY the disruption but rather that the potential is there. You cannot make all the people think a like and just because a rule says it's allowable doesn't make it work smoothly. The military is not the best climate for extra uneasiness given the already heavy workload and stressful environment. The world has changed and the younger generation has a completely different attitude towards many things that would make their parent's gasp. Homosexuals are not treated the same way as they were 20-30 years a go and quite frankly I see more liberation than the black people have received in 200 years! Time to stop whining and just "function" along side your counterpart without the need to wear a sign. Success, respect, discipline not flaunting wins the day.

Well said

mountainman · Post by **mountainman** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:33 am

No good jokes yet? Damn.

Will be back later...

Xpunge · Post by **Xpunge** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:53 am

jeremyboycool wrote:Yes, God forbid this liberal democracy actually act like a liberal democracy.

Huh?

liberal democracy?

try again.

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 1:08 pm

You know, one time I was at a urinal with a gay man beside me and whaddya know, he immediately tried to rape me and I ran out of the bathroom feeling that I myself was becoming gay! I'm sure that in the middle of a firefight that all gay military personnel will rip off their camoes to reveal sequined jumpsuits and they'll dance to show tunes while homosexually shooting pink water pistols.

This isn't a matter of religious or cultural thumbs-up or thumbs-down, it's one of basic participation. Gays vote, gays pay taxes, gays should be able to serve without concealment. However, I bristle at the continued need to label everything, which serves only to highlight the differences that a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" tries to eliminate.

Equalization-by-acclimation is one thing, but a military force can easily find itself beguiled by such accentuated differences and division.

RoundEye · Post by **RoundEye** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 5:13 pm

I’ve never had any relationship with the military, past, present and not in the foreseeable future. So the decision has no affect on me in any way. I don’t care either way if there is an “open admittance” policy in the military. However, I do wonder about the people that openly admit they are gay and their well-being in the military. Let’s see how long it is before we have our first openly gay four-star general.

9mmprincess · Post by **9mmprincess** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:00 am

You never know, though... change does come. Imagine the ppl when the civil rights laws were passed, saying "Sure, we have rights, but lets see how long it takes to have a black president", with a roll of the eyes and a bitter sigh. It took 44 years. Lets hope we get a gay four-star general a little faster

Xpunge · Post by **Xpunge** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:21 am

9mmprincess wrote:.... Lets hope we get a gay four-star general a little faster

I'll bet his uniforms looks FABULOUSSsss!

RoundEye · Post by **RoundEye** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:43 pm

Xpunge wrote:I'll bet his uniforms looks FABULOUSSsss!

RoundEye · Post by **RoundEye** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:46 pm

9mmprincess wrote:...Lets hope we get a gay four-star general a little faster ...

As a matter of general acceptance, I would hope that it doesn’t take very long.

Prey521 · Post by **Prey521** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:52 pm

9mmprincess wrote:You never know, though... change does come. Imagine the ppl when the civil rights laws were passed, saying "Sure, we have rights, but lets see how long it takes to have a black president", with a roll of the eyes and a bitter sigh.

Yeah, it's too bad that the one that was elected is a Socialist wacko. We'll be sighing till he's ousted out of office in 2012.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:04 pm

ISOlinear wrote:You know, one time I was at a urinal with a gay man beside me and whaddya know, he immediately tried to rape me and I ran out of the bathroom feeling that I myself was becoming gay! I'm sure that in the middle of a firefight that all gay military personnel will rip off their camoes to reveal sequined jumpsuits and they'll dance to show tunes while homosexually shooting pink water pistols.

.

Brent warned us about this

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:23 pm

This acceptance of gay is horrifying, let's just fly in the face of God and do our own thing

Humboldt · Post by **Humboldt** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:51 pm

Brent wrote:This acceptance of gay is horrifying, let's just fly in the face of God and do our own thing

Or we could *gasp* leave God out of politics.

brembo · Post by **brembo** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:01 pm

Humboldt wrote:Or we could *gasp* leave God out of politics.

You suck all the fun out of being a xenophope. Jerk.

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:15 pm

Humboldt wrote:Or we could *gasp* leave God out of politics.

No can do, can't trust his word half the time yet ignore it on certain topics, it just isn't possible, it either always counts, or it doesn't at all

brembo · Post by **brembo** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:18 pm

Brent wrote:No can do, can't trust his word half the time yet ignore it on certain topics, it just isn't possible, it either always counts, or it doesn't at all

What? I think you left a very important pronoum out somewhere.

Humboldt · Post by **Humboldt** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:29 pm

brembo wrote:What? I think you left a very important pronoum out somewhere.

I was thinking the same thing but realized Brent really does feel you can't trust God's word half the time yet ignore it on certain topics, it just isn't possible, it either always counts, or it doesn't at all.

So it does make sense I guess.

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:54 pm

Brent, sexual orientation has nothing to do with defending your country.

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:57 pm

Brent wrote:No can do, can't trust his word half the time yet ignore it on certain topics, it just isn't possible, it either always counts, or it doesn't at all

Good point, we should leave god and politics out of everything.

Then we'll only fight over sports and american idols!

Yay, peace!

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:03 pm

Even though I know it's a troll-job, I must say that Brent, you've fallen into the theological trap so many Christians do (assuming you don't use religion purely as troll-fuel).

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Cor. 6:9-10, NASB

Homosexuality, while a sin in God's eyes, is also far from the end-all sin you seem to believe it is. Quick examples of all the sins mentioned together (read: there's no bold italic 82-point font in Corinthians separating "homosexual" from the rest of the list), with a few of your own posts that should hit close to home...

Fornicators = Pr0n, eh?
Idolators = Obsession with sports, celebrities, even the game of politics
Adulterers = Far more voluminous than gay people in this world.
Effeminate = Match Game would've been far less entertaining without Paul Lynde.
Thieves/Swindlers = Bernie Madoff, Ken Lay, Charlie Rangel, et al
Covetous = Gadgets, houses, cars, lifestyles
Drunkards = Well, okay. "I want to get drunk and make out with someone"
Revilers = "Notice the ethnicity, i'm just sayin"

The plank in your own eye is in need of plucking, and there is plenty of equivalent evil in the world. This Westboro-level obsession of yours is patently unchristian; but then again, you seem to find poison is more attractive than honey.

stevebakh · Post by **stevebakh** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:35 pm

Leatherneck wrote:Time to stop whining and just "function" along side your counterpart without the need to wear a sign. Success, respect, discipline not flaunting wins the day.

I have a hard time imagining that there are many people in the navy/military who openly admin to being homosexual; much less flaunt it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 70_pf.html

The irony of "don't ask, don't tell" is that it protects bigots and punishes gays who comply.

...

Shop talk in the unit revolved around sex, either the prostitute-filled parties of days past or the escapades my comrades looked forward to. They interpreted my silence and total lack of interest as an admission of homosexuality. My higher-ups seemed to think that gave them the right to bind me to chairs, ridicule me, hose me down and lock me in a feces-filled dog kennel.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:35 pm

Brent is just fishing, his first cast did not generate enough of a response to satisfy his ego. So he recast except this time bating his hook with the word "God".

Further more, Brent is not a Christian, the mere fact that he would use "God" simply to create unrest, for his own personal amusement, is proof enough of this. Also, being a "Christian" would imply one is striving to be "Christlike" and, as far as I can tell, this is not his aim. Rather, it seems, he simply uses religion to evoke a reaction out of people; Brent is nothing but a poser.

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:13 am

Either that, or I'm right and most of you are wrong.

stevebakh · Post by **stevebakh** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:16 am

jeremyboycool wrote:Further more, Brent is not a Christian, the mere fact that he would use "God" simply to create unrest, for his own personal amusement, is proof enough of this. Also, being a "Christian" would imply one is striving to be "Christlike" and, as far as I can tell, this is not his aim. Rather, it seems, he simply uses religion to evoke a reaction out of people; Brent is nothing but a poser.

Nail. Head. Hit.

You couldn't be more right. He doesn't even attempt to meet his supposed religion's moral teachings and when called out on it, he just bails with cheap cop-outs like "i am flawed like everyone else on this planet". Pathetic.

Oh - seeing as it's relevant, I saw this on reddit today: [youtube]lSfFa44p96o[/youtube]

Brent, I've said it before, but here it is again:

You can't act all holier than thou when you do not even attempt to correct the faults in your own behaviour and attitude. Your post history shows, if nothing else, that you don't even try. It's easy not to post some of the crap you do. I don't do it and good many other people don't. What's the deal? Are you really just a big giant troll?

Leatherneck · Post by **Leatherneck** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:20 am

stevebakh wrote:I have a hard time imagining that there are many people in the navy/military who openly admin to being homosexual; much less flaunt it.

I agree, so why do we need a change?

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:34 pm

Brent wrote:This acceptance of gay is horrifying, let's just fly in the face of God and do our own thing

You know what landmark change happened in the church in 2006? Who can now become a lay person/priest/bishop/pastor/reverend/etc?

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:36 pm

Leatherneck wrote:I agree, so why do we need a change?

Because we are Americans and Americans pursue liberty for all. Don't ask, Don't tell has nothing to do with any "disruption". The "disruption" is a load of crap, that is just a means to get people to look the other way while the US government (the military no less, which is there to secure our liberty) oppresses homosexuals.

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:47 pm

YeOldeStonecat wrote:You know what landmark change happened in the church in 2006? Who can now become a lay person/priest/bishop/pastor/reverend/etc?

it was wrong

Paft · Post by **Paft** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:50 pm

Brent wrote:it was wrong

Why?

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:52 pm

it goes against Gods word

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 1:08 pm

Brent wrote:it was wrong

"The Episcopal Church affirmed at the 1976 General Convention that homosexuals are "children of God" who deserve acceptance and pastoral care from the church. It also called for homosexual persons to have equal protection under the law. This was reaffirmed in 1982."

"In 1994, the GC determined that church membership would not be determined on "marital status, sex, or sexual orientation". The GC also discourages the use of conversion therapy to "change" homosexuals into heterosexuals.[47]"

"On July 14, 2009, the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops voted that "any ordained ministry" is open to gay men and lesbians."

"The church court ...on May 15, 1996, stating that "no clear doctrine"[53] prohibits ordaining a gay or lesbian person in a committed relationship"

Prey521 · Post by **Prey521** » Tue Oct 13, 2009 1:16 pm

Brent wrote:it goes against Gods word

Doesn't matter what the Episcopal Church says/does. Homosexuality IS a sin according to the Word of God and any denomination that allows a homosexual Pastor is in sin.

SG Broadband Community

Obama: IÂ’ll let gays serve openly in military

Obama: I’ll let gays serve openly in military