Why Do They Hate Our Soldiers?

[mrjarrell]

And it's crap like this that will ensure that the republicrats fade into well deserved obscurity. Democrats win on these issues and republicans continue to show nothing but hate and bigotry, even for our soldiers and their spouses and families. Here's hoping the feds do the right thing and withdraw all funding for the state until they decide to treat their soldiers with decency.

Fallin halts all spouse benefit applications at state-owned National Guard facilities - Tulsa World: Government

 

[Pooty22]

While that is extremely frustrating, I think it's interesting that at the same time the same-sex marriage amendment is in the legislature, Indiana complied with the rule change immediately.

 

[rphutchi]

Now now mrjarrell: You know they don't hate our soldiers. They do hate having the federal government ram their religious beliefs down their throats though. While it's clear from your numerous other posts, this is a hot issue for you and you've decided that anyone who believes homosexuality is immoral is a bigot, I would simply suggest that you be more open minded. The reality remains that a large majority of Americans believe that the constitutional rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness extend to the unborn citizens of this country. They believe that the biological order speaks volumes to normative sexual behavior and that a society is served by defining what is normative and what is aberrant. They believe that a society which is unable to determine right from wrong and is driven by the glandular urge of the day, is a society in decline. These are many of the same people who stand in the gap for service men and women in their hour of need weather it be care packages or programs for the physically and spiritually wounded. The question your post begs is "Why do you hate people with these values so much?"

 

[Pooty22]

"Why do you hate people with these values so much?"

The same people who have those values are very often at the same time Republicans, who claim to wish for a smaller government. Wouldn't a smaller government be more interesting in NOT being involved in marriage at all than telling people who can and can't get married?

 

[rphutchi]

The same people who have those values are very often at the same time Republicans, who claim to wish for a smaller government. Wouldn't a smaller government be more interesting in NOT being involved in marriage at all than telling people who can and can't get married?

Introducing a whole new class of benefactors to the government teet (same sex partners) is not consistent with a smaller government.

 

[Pooty22]

Introducing a whole new class of benefactors to the government teet (same sex partners) is not consistent with a smaller government.

That's why government should get out of it all together. That's what I'm saying.

 

[Pooty22]

Introducing a whole new class of benefactors to the government teet (same sex partners) is not consistent with a smaller government.

And how does getting married introduce "benefactors to the government teet?"

 

[Jludo]

Introducing a whole new class of benefactors to the government teet (same sex partners) is not consistent with a smaller government.

Exactly, abolish traditional marriage as a government institution. I don't want to pay higher taxes so joe blow over there can get tax breaks for his 7 kids. It's government social engineering at best.

 

[rphutchi]

Because the gov't is so entwined in everything from surviving spouse benefits (SSA), to tax law, to health and life insurance benefits for spouses of federal employees, etc...

CBO estimated estimated $898M over 2010-2019 if same sex marriage legal.
Extending Federal Benefits to Same-Sex Couples Will Cost $898M, CBO Says | Fox News

Get the gov't out of all the other confiscatory social redistribution of wealth and you could make the argument for a libertarian posture on marriage and the gov'ts role. Leaving the current nanny state in place and adding same sex marriage w/ the illusion that it's none of the gov'ts business is a non starter.

 

[Manatee]

Hah. You are willing to extends rights to the unborn, but not to those already exited the womb. Hypocritical logic, to be sure.

 

[Pooty22]

Because the gov't is so entwined in everything from surviving spouse benefits (SSA), to tax law, to health and life insurance benefits for spouses of federal employees, etc...

CBO estimated estimated $898M over 2010-2019 if same sex marriage legal.
Extending Federal Benefits to Same-Sex Couples Will Cost $898M, CBO Says | Fox News

Get the gov't out of all the other confiscatory social redistribution of wealth and you could make the argument for a libertarian posture on marriage and the gov'ts role. Leaving the current nanny state in place and adding same sex marriage w/ the illusion that it's none of the gov'ts business is a non starter.

Okay then let's go with the liberty argument. Why should the government not allow same-sex marriage?

 

[Jludo]

Because the gov't is so entwined in everything from surviving spouse benefits (SSA), to tax law, to health and life insurance benefits for spouses of federal employees, etc...

CBO estimated estimated $898M over 2010-2019 if same sex marriage legal.
Extending Federal Benefits to Same-Sex Couples Will Cost $898M, CBO Says | Fox News

Get the gov't out of all the other confiscatory social redistribution of wealth and you could make the argument for a libertarian posture on marriage and the gov'ts role. Leaving the current nanny state in place and adding same sex marriage w/ the illusion that it's none of the gov'ts business is a non starter.

A billion dollars over 10 years? In federal budget terms that's nothing. That's like .01% of what we'll spend on the military. Besides, those are tax cuts, I'll take a tax cut for the average person any place I can get it. /

 

[rphutchi]

Pecksniffian logic would demand that gays be killed to make the comparison valid. I don't recall anyone advocating that. I am saying however that an open mind requires thoughtfulness and a serious evaluation of the outcomes to the unctuous thinking that says I must never be denied my desires and to do so violates my rights. As citizens of the republic gays are accorded all the rights protected under the constitution. This current movement is an attempt to have declared normative what societies for millenia have declared aberrant.

 

[Trooper]

Lets say that gay soldiers or lesbians get a bit pushy. It is not uncommon for soldiers to do corrective actions.

This could lead to accidents happening. Or the gay/lesbian soldier being discharged for the good of the service. I have seen this happen.

I have been in a number of units with lesbians. Most of the time no one cared. But if they became a bit pushy, people pushed back. One soldier was sexually harassing other females. she was gone! Others tried pushing for restrictions on other soldiers. That did not work out well either.

What many gays and lesbians fail to understand is that the military is a team effort. No room for prima donnas or drama queens. If you **** off your team, they will get rid of you.

 

[Jludo]

Lets say that gay soldiers or lesbians get a bit pushy. It is not uncommon for soldiers to do corrective actions.

This could lead to accidents happening. Or the gay/lesbian soldier being discharged for the good of the service. I have seen this happen.

I have been in a number of units with lesbians. Most of the time no one cared. But if they became a bit pushy, people pushed back. One soldier was sexually harassing other females. she was gone! Others tried pushing for restrictions on other soldiers. That did not work out well either.

What many gays and lesbians fail to understand is that the military is a team effort. No room for prima donnas or drama queens. If you **** off your team, they will get rid of you.

Couldn't this just as easily be said about anyone? Gay straight or otherwise? Anecdotal evidence isn't going to make your case for you here.

 

[rphutchi]

Okay then let's go with the liberty argument. Why should the government not allow same-sex marriage?

You are mistaken if you think this is about liberty and live and let live. The news wires are already full of stories of citizens who for conscience sake have chosen not to engage in commerce with gays and have been forced into court and forced to provide services and pay fines. The question you are really asking is "Why would we allow the gov't to proscribe or sanction anything?" It is what societies that live together have done for millenia. They agree on the values that define them as a people and they create entire cultures around what is believed to be normative vs aberrant. We are a culture that is abandoning it's historical understanding of mores and true liberty. My original post was simply to point out OP's straw man argument and that there remains a large portion of the population that continues to hold those values and in fact loves this nations soldiers.

 

[Jludo]

The question you are really asking is "Why would we allow the gov't to proscribe or sanction anything?" It is what societies that live together have done for millenia. They agree on the values that define them as a people and they create entire cultures around what is believed to be normative vs aberrant.

Hah yess an appeal to history, because there's nothing abhorrent about how societies have acted in the past.

 

[Trooper]

Couldn't this just as easily be said about anyone? Gay straight or otherwise? Anecdotal evidence isn't going to make your case for you here.

It is that the military has not had a good experience with gay soldiers. After WW2, we had a number of gays who stayed in become sexual predators. Not that we haven't had the same problem with straights as well. Power corrupts.

A few years back the 82nd Airborne had to kick out a number of troopers over a gay porn video that 11 of them made. And we have had too many issues with lesbians causing issues with female soldiers.

It is not that gays and lesbians can not be good soldiers. But too often they create problems far more often than the straight soldiers do. It is like soldiers who wear their religion too openly. they cause problems thus are asked to leave the service.

And remember it is easy for the military to chapter a service member out for the good of the service.

 

[Jludo]

A straight soldier went on a psychotic civilian killing spree in Afghanistan, makes a gay 11 man porno look like heaven.
Anyone is capable of doing bad things, gay straight or otherwise.
U.S. soldier accused of Afghan killing spree - CNN.com

 

[Trooper]

A straight soldier went on a psychotic civilian killing spree in Afghanistan, makes a gay 11 man porno look like heaven.
Anyone is capable of doing bad things, gay straight or otherwise.
U.S. soldier accused of Afghan killing spree - CNN.com

Lets say that we have more issues with gays than straights. While we have straight soldiers doing things, that killing spree does not justify the problems we have had with gays.

Long term, I really doubt that most gays will join the military. It is not a lifestyle that is very comfortable. A few gays will stay in but after a few years we will have less gays than we had before the ban was lifted.

Remember that under the UCMJ there are lots of crimes that would not be a crime for civilians. Like having a relationship with someone going through a divorce. Until the divorce is finalized, it is a crime for a soldier to date that person. It is also a against the service regulations to have any public display of affection, in or out of uniform. You are expected to keep your private life private. Military service means having very little personal freedom. It means always being on duty. And far too many years deployed, even in peacetime.


Anything you do, if it disrupts the order of things, is grounds for chaptering you out of the service!