Military Gay Marriage?

[BLUEHAWK]

I don't oppose their way of life, and until Jesus himself has something to say about it I don't feel qualified to morally condemn them either. In fact, I feel a lot of compassion for the way their lives have gotten made so public, so often, so many places throughout the world... partly by their choice or permission, but mostly due to them being cynically manipulated like the rest of us for political reasons. The quiet simple lifestyles most of them live, and had lived throughout our history, got turned upside down and exposed... for no good reason other than economic and social objectives. I do not believe that anything some of them do in private can actually be regarded as being particularly bizarre when compared with what goes on some in mainstream bedrooms, if anything does. Whether it's genetic or a learned tendency or neither or both, is utterly irrelevant. It exists, and our young should know about it, right along with all the rest of their sexual education which we often miserably fail to provide them. We gotta trust our own kids to make good choices, and we must teach them to live with their own decisions too.

That horse is WAY out of the barn by now. Hardly a day goes by that there isn't some new flap about it in the papers, TV, radio or on the streets.

Mostly it's just embarassing to me, for them and for humanity to even have to discuss the matter. It is the height of hypocrisy for the Anglican church to now claim moral superiority about the election of a gay Episcopal Bishop, knowing as everyone surely always did that gays and lesbians have also staffed their, and Roman Catholic, churches and nunneries for centuries.

If the activists have their way, and they're pushin' it REAL hard here lately, there will come a day when someone tries to force the military to accept homosexual marriage. They do not have to do this, but looks like they will.

[philly]

Hi Blue,

Let's just say Gay relationships are not immoral for the sake of argument. How do you refute it being against the laws of nature? Wouldn't the male human being have been born with two sexual organs? In order for any male human being to have a sexual relationship with another male, most of them have to violate their anal cavities. The skin and muscle becomes stretched to the point that they have to wear anal plugs. There is a horrific torturous act that some of them do and it is called "Fisting". I'm not going to elaborate on what that act is but it's pretty sick stuff. So, I'm not convinced that same sex relationships do not violate nature's laws..

[BLUEHAWK]

Hi Philly -
Can't disagree with how you characterize things there... I worked & raised my family in San Francisco almost 20 years... saw some stuff that'd turn both our stomachs along those lines, IN PUBLIC no less. One of the reasons I left that area was to get away from their culture day in and day out, although most of the folks in that community are not nearly so blatant...or sick. They're just tryin' to be happy, joyous and free like the rest of us.

Maybe its a lot like war in a way, as far as being against the laws of nature? What I mean is that just because it is POSSIBLE to do any given thing, does not mean it HAS to be done. I, for one, regard war as being more disgusting and abhorent than others seem to... sorta like "fisting", or the ultimate snuff film.

Anyhow, we'd maybe agree that from all evidence some of the things heterosexuals do are pretty far out there too, and just as stigmatized. Most people recall the Jimmy Swaggart story, and, "...what the meaning of IS is.", etc., hard to get past those either.

I just would hate to see it all end up having to be sanctioned by the UCMJ is all, and it sure does appear that a steamroller is well underway toward that result, right now.

We do live in a free society, where any behavior that creates a percentage in dollars is more likely to survive than ones less so.

[Boats]

Keep it in the closet - and move along. What I don't know won't hurt me but what I do know is that this is something or a subject that can't be really understood nor accepted by the majority +1 me.

[BLUEHAWK]

Yessiree Boats!

If only...

Cover illustration for THE WEEK magazine, August 15th issue, includes these words:

"Gays At The Threshold: Just how much liberation will America accept?"

Won't be long now before "married" gay expatriots from Canada in our services will be demanding child support enforcement...

[Keith_Hixson]

There is nothing so hypocritic as those who believe in abortion and gays rights portraying themselves as morally superior. Balderdash! What is wrong is wrong. Murder is Murder, Stealing is stealing, Lying is lying, and because you believe stealing is okay makes you morally superior. People that think that way know they aren't morally superior but are just trying to cover up their own guilt.
At one time the Episcopal Church in America was one of the largest denominations in the United States. At the present time they are one of the smaller denominations. The talk in clery circles is that they will continue their downward spiral. People want to believe in values, they want to know right from wrong, they want to know their is evil and their is good. You can't always mix them make a gray that is superior. We kid ourselves when we get rid of time honored standards of morality and consider ourselves more moral. We have already observed that churches who cater to gays eventually close their doors. Gays aren't especially religious and eventually these congregations fade away and fold. Only in large cities with large gay populations do you have gay churches which actually maintain a congregation. The demise of the Espiscopal Church of America has been sealed.

Keith

[Seascamp]

This Gay rights business isn?t something I have on my ?A? list of things I worry about but it?s getting close. The full court press lately on Churches, theme parks, TV, TV commercials, Courts, boy scouts, etc., is getting ten toes over the line that separates Gay rights from Gay tyranny and I?m getting concerned that an in your face intimidation deal is coming to fruition. That isn?t going to work at all and will cause a lot of problems for everyone.

I think it would become a total nightmarish quagmire if the Military were to give serious consideration to same sex marriage. Last I checked they are light years behind the general population in even recognizing homosexuality as a reality let alone institutionalizing the practice.

Scamp

P.S.Interesting comments about the Episcopal Church Keith. I watched some of the debate over the election of the Gay Bishop and wondered how much was hype and how much was reality, but it seemed there was a lot of strong opposition to the election. But then a few years ago they got into a serious flail over ordaining female Priests. That appears to have gone down without too much aggravation but that issue may not have been as supercharged as the Gay Bishop issue is. Well see what happens I suppose

My only experience with the Episcopal Church was that it was the unofficial but preferred USN Church. So during boot camp that?s where us boots were taken for mandatory Church call. These days that Church Call round up would probably cause all kinds of grief and aggravation for the Navy, but times change.

[BLUEHAWK]

Scamp -
Like you, this deal was not on my list of high priority interests... until recently.

A day does not go by without something else coming up on the topic... but not yet (so far as I know) has the connection we are making on this thread being discussed by anyone else.

Hard to guess what might be the response of the DOD when their first gay marriage case comes up, all things considered.

"Don't ask - Don't tell" might just get blown out of the water by fiat.

[BLUEHAWK]

Update:

Yesterday it was reported that Jerry Falwell is agitating on his web site and in person for the addition of an amendment to our Constitution which would effectively ban gay marriage.

In my opinion this is a foolhardy effort, for one reason: polarizing actions of that magnitude do nothing but inflame the opposition and escalate the conflict.

[BLUEHAWK]

Update (August 21st, 2003)

New AP poll (conducted Aug 8-12) results today on this topic:

54% of us would be in favor of a constitutional amendment specifying that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

52% of us would favor a law that would ban gay marriages.

49% of us would be less likely to support a presidential candidate who favored gay marriage.

44% of us would be less likely to support a candidate who favored gay civil unions.

53% of us would oppose a gay civil union law that provided the same rights and benefits as heterosexual married couples.

A thin margin, at best. Undecideds averaged only 5%...