Military Discriminating?

[ClydeR]

Gay and lesbian service members assigned more than 100 miles from a state where same-sex marriages are legal, or assigned overseas, will be granted extra days of leave to travel where they can marry legally, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced Wednesday.

The homosexual “marriage leave,” effective immediately and allowable only once in a member’s career, won’t count against 30 days annual leave that every active duty member earns.

Non-chargeable leave of up to seven days will be granted if the gay or lesbian member or service couple who wants to wed is assigned within the continental United States. Those wishing to marry while posted outside of the continental U.S will get up to 10 days of extra leave.

More... (http://www.stripes.com/news/us/gays-get-extra-marriage-leave-c-123-airman-wins-agent-orange-claim-1.235511)

Is it discrimination for the military to give Certain People more paid leave than others?

Republicans remain strongly opposed to such policies. It's an official part of the party platform, and any college students who disagrees will be purged from all Republican Party leadership positions, like they're doing to that college student in Alabama (http://yellowhammernews.com/statepolitics/algop-to-decide-if-pro-gay-marriage-members-of-the-partys-steering-committee-should-be-removed/).

[Sile]

"Reverse" Discrimination arguments, even when they seem valid, hardly ever work.

Like employers hiring a minority to meet "quotas" even when their qualifications are lower then say a white male. This scenario has been argued many times, I don't know of any that have set precedence in court proceedings.

Always when you try to accommodate a minority some Majority will seem they are discriminated against. It used to be ''White'' and ''Male'' that the majority would be in Canada/US. Now its Definitely ''White'', ''Male'' and "Heterosexual''.

There will never be an even playing field for all persons. Kind of like how the womens rights movement have surpassed some of the rights of males. (although I will admit women still have it harder in a lot of areas).

In the end ask your self this question. If a Straight white male got a 'benefit' in question, would some minority win a discrimination case? More often then not the answer would be yes.

[Gelston]

They should just allow homosexual marriage to be performed on Federal property. Problem solved.

[Methais]

Equal rights while getting special treatment. It's the new American way.

[Tgo01]

Just to be on the safe side, gays should receive 6 weeks of maternity/paternity leave every 1.5 years.

[Jace Solo]

Equal rights while getting special treatment. It's the new American way.

That's not new...that's been going on for a long time now.

There is a case where 6 white firefighters lost their jobs to 6 African american firefighters who were less qualified and scored lower on their testing.
The court made the city reverse their decision. I don't have an article, and I'm too lazy to find it. Just like you are...unless you're already googling it.

[Latrinsorm]

Here is what I would recommend for you hwhite folks (WWW casting cost) who feel troubled by this and similar: read the Autobiography of Malcolm X. Just do it. Have I ever steered you wrong?

The future has never, ever, ever looked kindly on the past majorities that stuck to whining about how they couldn't discriminate against minorities anymore.

You may be thinking "typical libtard! I'm not discriminating, I'm just playing it down the middle!" but you did not follow the directive of the first point. Racist assholes in the 1960s didn't think they were racist assholes... but they were, and history will look no kinder on you all. It is comforting to think you are noble steeds, but that is not how it is going to turn out. Better to get out in front of the inevitable, no? All America loves the redemption song. Won't you help to sing this song of freedom?

[Paradii]

Luckily we cannot perceive 5 dimensional space, so our past selves won't be punished by our future society.

[Latrinsorm]

But our records (of Lodoss War and otherwise) will be. <- fact derived from first principles, go sit under a tree.

[Sile]

One funny one. The Canadian military will pay the costs for a sex change. Not really an argument for reverse discrimination unless you were thinking they should do penis enlargements or breast enhancements. I personally see gender reassignment as a cosmetic elective surgery instead of an essential.

[Tgo01]

One funny one. The Canadian military will pay the costs for a sex change. Not really an argument for reverse discrimination unless you were thinking they should do penis enlargements or breast enhancements. I personally see gender reassignment as a cosmetic elective surgery instead of an essential.

Actually I can see gender reassignment as more than a cosmetic elective surgery. Let's face it, no man wakes up one day, looks down at their junk and says "That shits gotta GO!" I can't speak as a gender confused individual but I must imagine it is quite difficult to live your life as a gender you don't feel comfortable with.

[Paradii]

One funny one. The Canadian military will pay the costs for a sex change. Not really an argument for reverse discrimination unless you were thinking they should do penis enlargements or breast enhancements. I personally see gender reassignment as a cosmetic elective surgery instead of an essential.

Luckily we have a series of checks and balances to make sure no one cares what you think.

[Tisket]

Luckily we have a series of checks and balances to make sure no one cares what you think.

I think that might be the first time you've stated a majority opinion. You are slipping.

[Sile]

I'll admit my own ignorance with the topic. I agree it must be hard to live if your feel you have the wrong hardware. I just don't see the surgery as life or death. Now if it was deemed life or death. I could understand that. Not meaning to offend anyone.

[Latrinsorm]

I'll admit my own ignorance with the topic. I agree it must be hard to live if your feel you have the wrong hardware. I just don't see the surgery as life or death. Now if it was deemed life or death. I could understand that. Not meaning to offend anyone.It actually has been deemed life or death at least once by a United States court, and that was for a repulsive inmate (http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/04/health/massachusetts-sex-change-surgery-inmate) rather than a glorious and unimpeachable troop (singular) (support our).

Here is another thing I would encourage people to remember: none of us know shit about mental science, not even actual mental scientists. We've been doing physics for hundreds of years (no, Aristotle doesn't count) and we're just barely getting that right (MAYBE). We've been doing mental science for barely a hundred years, you can guaran-damn-tee that what the layman figgers isn't even barely right.

That the layman nevertheless figgers he knows what's right is a very interesting topic for mental science, of course.

[Methais]

I just wanna know how one can logically demand to be treated just like everyone else but also want preferential treatment at the same time. That's not so unreasonable to ask for an explanation of is it? I mean it's mathematically impossible for both to be true at the same time.

[cwolff]

I just wanna know how one can logically demand to be treated just like everyone else but also want preferential treatment at the same time. That's not so unreasonable to ask for an explanation of is it? I mean it's mathematically impossible for both to be true at the same time.

What preferential treatment? You talking about the anecdote of the 6 firemen or gay service members having to travel away from their duty station in order to get married?

[Tgo01]

What preferential treatment?

Did you read the story?

[Latrinsorm]

I just wanna know how one can logically demand to be treated just like everyone else but also want preferential treatment at the same time. That's not so unreasonable to ask for an explanation of is it? I mean it's mathematically impossible for both to be true at the same time.I'm glad you asked! Here is your explanation:

1. Everyone deserves to be treated equally. Surely you agree with this.

2. Dang it all, it turns out some (many) [all] minorities have been subjected to overwhelmingly discriminatory treatment in the past. Hwhy, some people even use a slur directed at a certain minority as a general insult! I'm sure this comes as quite a shock to you, a person that surely does not do so.

3. So what can we do to obtain (1) given (2)?

a. We could just say "okay from now on everyone gets (1), and if it so happens that my personal demographic gets an enormous head start due to (2) then hahahahahahahahahaha no I mean that's a shame, that is surely not what we had in mind hahahahahahahahahaha dang it why do I keep doing that."

b. Or we could say "well, even though individual members of any given demographic don't need it, we're going to pursue (1) given (2) by giving those demographics preferential treatment. In other words, we're going to give everyone a head start (either by history or by gubbmint) so no one has a head start."

4. Give me the feeling that I love (I'll turn the lights on) put your hands up; make 'em touch (make it real loud) too-uch.

5. For fighting.

6. But what if by pursuing 3b we make you be a racist? I guess you have to ask yourself if you're such a whiny little piece of shit that someone else can make you be a racist. Well... are you?

[cwolff]

Did you read the story?

Yes. Gay service members get libo which doesn't count against annual leave in order to travel away to get married in a jurisdiction where it's legal. Is that about it?

[Tgo01]

Yes. Gay service members get libo which doesn't count against annual leave in order to travel away to get married in a jurisdiction where it's legal. Is that about it?

Why did you post this then:


What preferential treatment?

[Sile]

Lets all admit. There isn't and never will be such a thing as equal rights.

[cwolff]

It's not preferential treatment. The military, part of the Federal gov't, now has a policy not to discriminate against gay service members. Unfortunately we still have states that do.

They are not giving gays preferential treatment they are letting the exercise their Federal right to marry without docking their pay to do so.

Think of it as if black people could only vote by mail if they are from certain states. Those from the states which don't allow african-american absentee votes then would have to take leave just to physically go exercise their rights. The result is that they'd be inadvertently penalized for voting.

The gay people aren't getting a bonus here. The military is just doing its best to correct a state based injustice and not let it hurt it's soldiers, sailor, airmen and Marines.


Lets all admit. There isn't and never will be such a thing as equal rights.

That doesn't mean we stop trying. If we did follow that logic we'd still have eugenics, slavery, native american genocide, inquisitions, christians fed to lions etc....

[Tgo01]

It's not preferential treatment. The military, part of the Federal gov't, now has a policy not to discriminate against gay service members. Unfortunately we still have states that do.

They are not giving gays preferential treatment they are letting the exercise their Federal right to marry without docking their pay to do so.

Think of it as if black people could only vote by mail if they are from certain states. Those from the states which don't allow african-american absentee votes then would have to take leave just to physically go exercise their rights. The result is that they'd be inadvertently penalized for voting.

The gay people aren't getting a bonus here. The military is just doing its best to correct a state based injustice and not let it hurt it's soldiers, sailor, airmen and Marines.

So you admit they are getting a bonus yet at the same time you insist they aren't getting a bonus. What if a straight service member wants to get married but they have already used up their leave for the year? Does that mean the military is preventing them from exercising their 'Federal right to marry' by not giving them more leave to get married? What if someone in the military wants to get married but they are stationed in Hawaii and their fiance is all the way in Delaware, does that person get extra leave too to travel all the way to Delaware to get married? Is the fiance just expected to travel to Hawaii to get married?

[Gelston]

What cwolff? It is free leave that isn't given to anyone else. You know what 99% of the people who I have known in the Military that have gotten married did? Took leave and had the wedding at home. They didn't get any free leave.

Seriously though, they should get rid of this crap and allow the marriages on Federal land. If their state of Resident acknowledges homosexual marriage, then they'd have it recognized by their state. If it doesn't, oh well, it wouldn't have anyways, but the Fed would acknowledge it.

[cwolff]

So you admit they are getting a bonus yet at the same time you insist they aren't getting a bonus. What if a straight service member wants to get married but they have already used up their leave for the year? Does that mean the military is preventing them from exercising their 'Federal right to marry' by not giving them more leave to get married? What if someone in the military wants to get married but they are stationed in Hawaii and their fiance is all the way in Delaware, does that person get extra leave too to travel all the way to Delaware to get married? Is the fiance just expected to travel to Hawaii to get married?


What cwolff? It is free leave that isn't given to anyone else. You know what 99% of the people who I have known in the Military that have gotten married did? Took leave and had the wedding at home. They didn't get any free leave.

Seriously though, they should get rid of this crap and allow the marriages on Federal land. If their state of Resident acknowledges homosexual marriage, then they'd have it recognized by their state. If it doesn't, oh well, it wouldn't have anyways, but the Fed would acknowledge it.

Most of our gay service members don't have the luxury of getting married in the state where they are based. Though your friends took leave to go home, they had a choice. Don't worry though. In the near future every state will allow gay marriage and this won't even be an issue.

[Tgo01]

Most of our gay service members don't have the luxury of getting married in the state where they are based.

Isn't that why God created leave in the first place?


Don't worry though. In the near future every state will allow gay marriage and this won't even be an issue.

You say this as if I fear gay marriage being legalized or something. We all know Gelston hates the gays though so there is that.

[Gelston]

Most of our gay service members don't have the luxury of getting married in the state where they are based.

Like I just said, allow homosexual marriages on Federal property.

[Latrinsorm]

That doesn't mean we stop trying. If we did follow that logic we'd still have eugenics, slavery, native american genocide, inquisitions, christians fed to lions etc....Look, if Christians would just stop forcing their lifestyle on us they wouldn't get fed to lions anymore. It's a choice, plain and simple.

[Warriorbird]

You say this as if I fear gay marriage being legalized or something. We all know Gelston hates the gays though so there is that.

If you and Latrin had an extra ten days off I bet your ceremony would be extra special.

[Tgo01]

If you and Latrin had an extra ten days off I bet your ceremony would be extra special.

Like 10 days would be enough time for a Latrin wedding. His reciting of poetry would probably last that long.

[Latrinsorm]

I don't "recite"... I slam.

[AnticorRifling]

Most of our gay service members don't have the luxury of getting married in the state where they are based. Though your friends took leave to go home, they had a choice. Don't worry though. In the near future every state will allow gay marriage and this won't even be an issue.

So change it to "Any service member that wishes to get married in a state other then the one they are currently stationed can now have X days of free leave to do so"

Until then it's special treatment.

[Latrinsorm]

But gay service members don't necessarily wish to get married in another state. They wish to get married period, and forces beyond their control make that impossible except in those states. There are no states that forbid straight marriage, so straight service members do not have this concern.

Now if you're saying we should deploy the military to guarantee the civil rights of our citizens a la Ole Miss, I'm also on board with that.

[AnticorRifling]

But gay service members don't necessarily wish to get married in another state. They wish to get married period, and forces beyond their control make that impossible except in those states. There are no states that forbid straight marriage, so straight service members do not have this concern.

Other service members don't necessarily wish to get married in some other state either they want to get married at home (unless they hate their family).

Right, wrong, or indifferent it is special treatment. Try and change the label or justify it all you want it is still special treatment.

[cwolff]

Right, wrong, or indifferent it is special treatment. Try and change the label or justify it all you want it is still special treatment.

SecDef disagrees.

“We recognize that same-sex couples not stationed in a jurisdiction that permits same-sex marriage would have to travel to another jurisdiction to marry,” Hagel wrote. So the department will “allow military personnel in such a relationship non-chargeable leave for the purpose of traveling to a jurisdiction where such a marriage may occur. This will provide accelerated access to the full range of benefits offered to military married couples throughout the department, and help level the playing field between opposite sex and same-sex couples seeking to be married.”

[Latrinsorm]

I didn't say it wasn't. I even went into pretty extensive detail in this very thread on why it has to be if we are serious about equality.

You are comparing a conditional (married at home) with a universal (married). Gay and straight service members are equal in possibly being unable to be married at home; gay people because of their states' laws, straight people because of the inability to do so without going AWOL.

[AnticorRifling]

SecDef disagrees.

“We recognize that same-sex couples not stationed in a jurisdiction that permits same-sex marriage would have to travel to another jurisdiction to marry,” Hagel wrote. So the department will “allow military personnel in such a relationship non-chargeable leave for the purpose of traveling to a jurisdiction where such a marriage may occur. This will provide accelerated access to the full range of benefits offered to military married couples throughout the department, and help level the playing field between opposite sex and same-sex couples seeking to be married.”

I don't see in that statement where he disagrees. He's just allowing it. Or are you telling me everything is always fair and agreeable in the military?

1) It's happening because it was approved.
2) It's special treatment.

[Tgo01]

SecDef disagrees.

Well heck, as long as the secretary of defense says so.

[cwolff]

I don't see in that statement where he disagrees. He's just allowing it. Or are you telling me everything is always fair and agreeable in the military?

1) It's happening because it was approved.
2) It's special treatment.

Access to benefits and level the playing field. According to the Secretary of Defense, who know a shit load more about this topic than you do, it won't even make a level playing field, it will only "help" to level it.

This thread is like bitching about the crippled kid who gets to leave class early because he needs more than three minutes to get to his next class.

[Sile]

So next homosexual service people can argue since thier marriage is not legal in a certain jurisdiction, they can't be posted there.

[Tgo01]

Access to benefits and level the playing field. According to the Secretary of Defense, who know a shit load more about this topic than you do, it won't even make a level playing field, it will only "help" to level it.

This thread is like bitching about the crippled kid who gets to leave class early because he needs more than three minutes to get to his next class.

Weren't you the one telling me in the other thread to think for myself and shit and stop just letting other people tell me how to think? How hilarious it is to now see you in this thread basically saying "But the Secretary of Defense says so!!"

Also nice job comparing gays to cripples.

[cwolff]

Weren't you the one telling me in the other thread to think for myself and shit and stop just letting other people tell me how to think? How hilarious it is to now see you in this thread basically saying "But the Secretary of Defense says so!!"

Also nice job comparing gays to cripples.

Ya I encourage you to think for yourself. Unfortunately you still just react react react. Like a child constantly screaming "It's not FAIR" you take to PC to vent your perceived victimization. You'd never make it out of the Chocolate Factory. Be more like Charlie, less Veruca.

[Tgo01]

Ya I encourage you to think for yourself. Unfortunately you still just react react react. Like a child constantly screaming "It's not FAIR" you take to PC to vent your perceived victimization.

Oh I'm sorry, I thought you were the one doing that.

[cwolff]

Oh I'm sorry, I thought you were the one doing that.

Ahh, the old "I know you are but what am I" argument. How cute. Keep at it little buddy, you'll make a real argument someday. :loser:

[Tgo01]

Ahh, the old "I know you are but what am I" argument. How cute. Keep at it little buddy, you'll make a real argument someday. :loser:

You really need to stop all of this projecting dude, it can't be good for your mental health.

Perhaps take a day off, maybe Sunday, even God took a day off.

[Warriorbird]

So next homosexual service people can argue since thier marriage is not legal in a certain jurisdiction, they can't be posted there.

http://www.sirlin.net/storage/articles/slippery_slope.jpg

[Gelston]

Access to benefits and level the playing field. According to the Secretary of Defense, who know a shit load more about this topic than you do, it won't even make a level playing field, it will only "help" to level it.

This thread is like bitching about the crippled kid who gets to leave class early because he needs more than three minutes to get to his next class.

Whether or not someone knows more about a subject or not is generally irrelevant when it comes to decisions at the political level, especially an appointed position like the SecDef where they follow the President's line with very little leeway. That being said, I wouldn't say the SecDef knows "a hell of a lot more" either. Hell, I did damn near a decade in the military, I know special treatment when I see it.

Facts: They are getting something that others don't get. Sounds like that falls under SPECIAL TREATMENT just by virtue of the word itself.

[Methais]

Ahh, the old "I know you are but what am I" argument. How cute. Keep at it little buddy, you'll make a real argument someday. :loser:

Why do you always post like such a dickknob? We already have Backlash (who is just dumb, but not really a dickknob). Stop trying to 1-up him.

[cwolff]

Whether or not someone knows more about a subject or not is generally irrelevant when it comes to decisions at the political level, especially an appointed position like the SecDef where they follow the President's line with very little leeway. That being said, I wouldn't say the SecDef knows "a hell of a lot more" either. Hell, I did damn near a decade in the military, I know special treatment when I see it.

Facts: They are getting something that others don't get. Sounds like that falls under SPECIAL TREATMENT just by virtue of the word itself.

They are getting their rights assured by their employer which is the Federal Gov't. The military has interpreted this action as the best way to ensure that it's employee's can exercise their rights. You should be applauding this.

What's the story here? Why are you guys upset? Why are you choosing this to be outraged over? It makes no sense.

[Tgo01]

They are getting their rights assured by their employer which is the Federal Gov't. The military has interpreted this action as the best way to ensure that it's employee's can exercise their rights.

Why do you keep repeating this as if the military/government never gets anything wrong? For fucks sake it wasn't that long ago that we were rounding up Japanese Americans and putting them into concentration camps out of "national security." Was that right too? Do you know more about our national security than the president and secretary of war at the time?


What's the story here? Why are you guys upset? Why are you choosing this to be outraged over? It makes no sense.

I know you never get tired of this which is why I'm trotting it out again but...the only one who seems to be upset or outraged over this is you.

[cwolff]

Why do you keep repeating this as if the military/government never gets anything wrong? For fucks sake it wasn't that long ago that we were rounding up Japanese Americans and putting them into concentration camps out of "national security." Was that right too? Do you know more about our national security than the president and secretary of war at the time?

What's wrong about this? We're not suppressing anyone's liberty, we're ensuring it. This is the opposite of internment camps so why are you complaining about it.

[Tgo01]

why are you complaining about it.

Because the bible says homosexuality is an abomination.

[Sile]

There are better solutions then this. Giving one group something that another group don't have will make some people jealous. Eventually it could end up having one of the 'have nots' lash out over resentment.

Being gay is not a handicap. So they don't need any extras to make them equal. Reword or change the 'bonus' to have no allusion to same sex.

"Non-chargeable leave of up to seven days will be granted if any member or service couple who wants to wed is assigned within the continental United States. Those wishing to marry while posted outside of the continental U.S will get up to 10 days of extra leave."

Amazing what the removal of a couple words can do....

[Sile]

Because the bible says homosexuality is an abomination.

The bible also says a woman was spawned from the rib of a man.... didn't work so well for Marilyn Manson.(If the stories are true)

[cwolff]

Because the bible says homosexuality is an abomination.

You know I can't decipher humor on here. This is a joke right?

[Tgo01]

You know I can't decipher humor on here. This is a joke right?

No joke! It's mentioned several times in the bible, particularly Leviticus:

"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."

[kutter]

I spent 22 years in the military, retired in 2008. I knew several people that were gay, but obviously did not comment on it. To a person, they would not have elected to take the 'free' days granted to them by the SECDEF because they would have felt that it was giving them something that others were not ENTITLED to. I am not saying that there are not military members that are not going to utilize this ENTITLEMENT but all of the ones that I have known would not have. Say what you want about it but the fact of the matter is that you are giving one group something another is not getting, that is called PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. Personally I could not give a shit less who someone chooses to crawl into bed with at night, that is between two consenting adults, but do not tell me just because it happens to be the same sex as you that you deserve something special for it.

[Latrinsorm]

There are better solutions then this. Giving one group something that another group don't have will make some people jealous. Eventually it could end up having one of the 'have nots' lash out over resentment.If I may reiterate and expound: I guess you have to ask yourself if those people are such whiny little pieces of shit that someone else can make them lash out. If they are, what's to keep them from being whiny little pieces of shit anyway? That's the thing about whiny little pieces of shit, they don't need actual justification or provocation. They're whiny little pieces of (not to put too fine a point on it) shit.
Being gay is not a handicap. So they don't need any extras to make them equal. Reword or change the 'bonus' to have no allusion to same sex.Being gay is absolutely a handicap to getting married in the United States. I could go down to any Marriageporium in the Union tomorrow and marry a woman. A woman could not. Therefore she is impeded, hindered, or handicapped from being married.
I spent 22 years in the military, retired in 2008. I knew several people that were gay, but obviously did not comment on it. To a person, they would not have elected to take the 'free' days granted to them by the SECDEF because they would have felt that it was giving them something that others were not ENTITLED to. I am not saying that there are not military members that are not going to utilize this ENTITLEMENT but all of the ones that I have known would not have. Say what you want about it but the fact of the matter is that you are giving one group something another is not getting, that is called PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. Personally I could not give a shit less who someone chooses to crawl into bed with at night, that is between two consenting adults, but do not tell me just because it happens to be the same sex as you that you deserve something special for it.As Anticor can tell you I am a master at drawing analogies, so let's put this to rest right now:

You've got two Jeeps leaving their origin at the same time.
You want them to get to their destination at the same time.
Jeep B so happens to have a sprained transmission valve (Anticor can also tell you I am a master of automotives) reducing its average speed by 10%.
You paid attention in science class so you know distance = rate * time.
You also paid attention in math class so you know if rate -> rate * .9 and you want time to remain constant then distance must -> distance *.9.
In other words, Jeep B must get a head start of .1 * distance.

Clearly that is PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT, and yet the Jeeps reach their destination in equal time. In other words, we have obtained equality via inequality.

We could also re-pack the bearings in the sprocket carburetor, obviously, and by analogy this would mean "legalize gay marriage nationwide". If you will let me assure you, you will find no shortage of takers for this course of action on the side of the gays! The question is what we do until that inevitable outcome: nothing or something? This is how the real world works. We can't always just pick the fair option because we want it to exist. Sometimes we have to pick the least unfair option.

[Tgo01]

You've got two Jeeps leaving their origin at the same time.
You want them to get to their destination at the same time.
Jeep B so happens to have a sprained transmission valve (Anticor can also tell you I am a master of automotives) reducing its average speed by 10%.
You paid attention in science class so you know distance = rate * time.
You also paid attention in math class so you know if rate -> rate * .9 and you want time to remain constant then distance must -> distance *.9.
In other words, Jeep B must get a head start of .1 * distance.

Clearly that is PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT, and yet the Jeeps reach their destination in equal time. In other words, we have obtained equality via inequality.

Couldn't another analogy be we replace the sprained transmission (this was a jab at homosexual men with bent wrists, right?) on the gay jeep then the next time something goes wrong with the straight jeep we just laugh and say "Payback for hundreds of years of oppression, bitch!" then watch as the gay jeep, which is now a gay lamborghini, speeds away?

[Latrinsorm]

The transmission is really the hips of the automobile. The wrist is more like the central drive shaft relay.

I'm not sure what the Lamborghini of marriages would be, but you've got my attention. Would it be like instead of being able to just visit a dying spouse, gay couples would get to visit and have Obama take them off the death panel list?

[Tgo01]

I'm not sure what the Lamborghini of marriages would be, but you've got my attention. Would it be like instead of being able to just visit a dying spouse, gay couples would get to visit and have Obama take them off the death panel list?

Come on Latrin, I said lamborghini, not porsche.

[Latrinsorm]

How come people pronounce Nietzsche knee-chee but Porsche poor-shuh? Or just poorsh? What a country!

[Gelston]

They are getting their rights assured by their employer which is the Federal Gov't. The military has interpreted this action as the best way to ensure that it's employee's can exercise their rights. You should be applauding this.

What's the story here? Why are you guys upset? Why are you choosing this to be outraged over? It makes no sense.

But it isn't the best way, and at the same time it is giving out free leave to a certain group of people. If they wanted to do it the right way, give EVERYONE getting married free travel days, regardless of the sexuality of those getting married. It is ludicrous and causes a further divide, otherwise.

[cwolff]

But it isn't the best way, and at the same time it is giving out free leave to a certain group of people. If they wanted to do it the right way, give EVERYONE getting married free travel days, regardless of the sexuality of those getting married. It is ludicrous and causes a further divide, otherwise.

Keep in mind they are not just giving free leave to gay service members. The free leave is only allowed 1x in your career and for those who are stationed overseas or more than 100 miles from a state where same-sex marriage is legal. If you're stationed in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, the District of Columbia or within 100 miles of these places you don't get the leave.

[Gelston]

Keep in mind they are not just giving free leave to gay service members. The free leave is only allowed 1x in your career

What? Receiving it 1x in your career is still giving them free leave. I don't see why hetero couples can't receive it also, especially when overseas.

A good point brought up, however....

“I am unaware of any legal authority for the DoD to grant 10 days of non-chargeable leave, a benefit that offers preferential treatment to same-sex marriage over heterosexual marriage,” said Sen. Jim Inhofe (Okla.), ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, on his website. “Military leave is granted by statute, and while there are special provisions in law for adoptions, child birth and emergency situations, to my knowledge there are no special provisions for marriage, same-sex or otherwise. As I have warned before, this administration is eroding our military's historical apolitical stance by using it as their activism arm for their liberal social agenda."

Agree with gay marriage or not, I'm not sure if the SecDef has the power to give away that many days of uncharged leave. Likely the House Armed Services Committee and such will have to do something, so hopefully they will see the logic in just allowing all couples, gay or straight, the same uncharged leave. I generally thought it was kind of odd they didn't get it in the first place.

[AnticorRifling]

They are getting their rights assured by their employer which is the Federal Gov't. The military has interpreted this action as the best way to ensure that it's employee's can exercise their rights. You should be applauding this.

What's the story here? Why are you guys upset? Why are you choosing this to be outraged over? It makes no sense.

I'm not upset, I'm just mildly irritated that you can't call a spade a spade and you keep going in circles to do your best to ignore that it is, in fact, special treatment. I don't think Gelston or I have said "HOLY SHIT THAT IS WRONG ANGRY FACE GRRRRRRRRR" but rather "Hey that's special treatment".

[AnticorRifling]

How come people pronounce Nietzsche knee-chee but Porsche poor-shuh? Or just poorsh? What a country!

Because 'murica.

[AnticorRifling]

What? Receiving it 1x in your career is still giving them free leave. I don't see why hetero couples can't receive it also, especially when overseas.

A good point brought up, however....

“I am unaware of any legal authority for the DoD to grant 10 days of non-chargeable leave, a benefit that offers preferential treatment to same-sex marriage over heterosexual marriage,” said Sen. Jim Inhofe (Okla.), ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, on his website. “Military leave is granted by statute, and while there are special provisions in law for adoptions, child birth and emergency situations, to my knowledge there are no special provisions for marriage, same-sex or otherwise. As I have warned before, this administration is eroding our military's historical apolitical stance by using it as their activism arm for their liberal social agenda."

Agree with gay marriage or not, I'm not sure if the SecDef has the power to give away that many days of uncharged leave. Likely the House Armed Services Committee and such will have to do something, so hopefully they will see the logic in just allowing all couples, gay or straight, the same uncharged leave. I generally thought it was kind of odd they didn't get it in the first place.

Won't work, then straight couples are getting something gay people are getting and that's just not equal or fair. Lol.

But seriously I agree that would be the best solution in order to provide the best solution WITHOUT adding an unneeded wedge between the two groups of people serving.

edit: Also screw you Gelston you don't know...only SecDef knows!

[cwolff]

Won't work, then straight couples are getting something gay people are getting and that's just not equal or fair. Lol.

But seriously I agree that would be the best solution in order to provide the best solution WITHOUT adding an unneeded wedge between the two groups of people serving.

Consider this. When hetero sexual marriage is outlawed, then heterosexual service members living further than 100 miles from a state where heterosexual marriage is legal will get uncharged leave.


I'm not upset, I'm just mildly irritated that you can't call a spade a spade and you keep going in circles to do your best to ignore that it is, in fact, special treatment.

I think the way people are expressing that this unjust, unfair or somehow reverse discrimination are really missing the point. These people were outlaws until 3 years ago. If you wanted to marry your partner during DADT or prior you were violating Federal Law. Over 13,000 people were discharged during DADT because of this. DOMA just got defeated 3 months ago. 5 days ago a Marine who lost his leg in Iraq was booed by people in TX for speaking in favor of an anti-discrimination ordinance. He lives in TX too. He wasn't some carpet bagger they brought in from CA. This is not ancient history. It's happening right now.

Enlistees from the South and the Rocky Mountain states are over represented in the service. For these people there is no option to go home and get married. It's just not the same for gays as it is for heteros.

[AnticorRifling]

I'm not talking about 3 years ago, I'm talking about today. I'm all for anyone being allowed to marry anyone but just because you both are rocking the same hardware doesn't mean you should get special treatment for said marriage. I think it will have a negative impact that is not in keeping with the intent. Special treatment is not how you get equality. Grant both parties the same thing and you don't create the rift.

[Tgo01]

Here's a post from cwolff from another thread:


The system we have in place is damn near flawless. Of all the things our government does this one works. It's obviously not broken yet the right is hell bent on fixing it. As an American citizen how can you not be enraged by this? Don't you care about things like the bill of rights?

Put the Kool-Aid down and wake up to smell the coffee. We need educated voters. I encourage you to get educated. I know it'll be uncomfortable and you have my sympathy but it's worth the effort.


This is why the typical Democrat drives me bat shit insane. You say this one week then the very next week you're acting just like the simpleton you accused me of being.

Why was this change even made? Was anyone asking for it? Were there protests? Were there demands for this change? Was it "broken"?

Sounds more like the Democrats said hey, let's give gays in the military some extra benefits then if anyone disagrees with said change we can just accuse them of being a bunch of gay bashing, hate mongers and watch our base froth at the mouth defending our action that wasn't even necessary. And hey look cwolff, the Democrats played you like a fiddle. Aren't you outraged by this?

[AnticorRifling]

There shouldn't need to be protests. If there is a situation that needs correcting and you can, while acting with integrity, make the change then you should do so. The situation was fixed, I just don't believe the fix was correctly thought out or correctly executed.

[cwolff]

Here's a post from cwolff from another thread:


[/B]

This is why the typical Democrat drives me bat shit insane. You say this one week then the very next week you're acting just like the simpleton you accused me of being.

Why was this change even made? Was anyone asking for it? Were there protests? Were there demands for this change? Was it "broken"?

Sounds more like the Democrats said hey, let's give gays in the military some extra benefits then if anyone disagrees with said change we can just accuse them of being a bunch of gay bashing, hate mongers and watch our base froth at the mouth defending our action that wasn't even necessary. And hey look cwolff, the Democrats played you like a fiddle. Aren't you outraged by this?

I always have to ask you this TG, but what's your point? The clip you copied was from a thread discussing unnecessary voter fraud prevention laws put in place to suppress voter rights of demographics that favor the Democrats.


Why was this change even made? Was anyone asking for it? Were there protests? Were there demands for this change? Was it "broken"?

This is why:
Defense Department officials will also allow same-sex troops to take nonchargeable leave “for the purpose of travelling to a jurisdiction where such a marriage may occur.”

Thirteen states and the District of Columbia currently allow gay marriages. In a memo to defense staff, Hagel called the inconsistent state rules a potential hardship for same-sex couples, and said the extra leave time would “help level the playing field.”

It ain't no riddle.

[Tgo01]

Oh, right, I forgot, the Secretary of Defense said so.


Put the Kool-Aid down and wake up to smell the coffee. We need educated voters. I encourage you to get educated. I know it'll be uncomfortable and you have my sympathy but it's worth the effort.

[Sile]

Just have to say. As a Canadian. Watching you two argue back and forth is so muh more interesting then our politics.

[Whirlin]

Just have to say. As a Canadian...
And then I stopped reading.

[Sile]

And then I stopped reading.

Sounds like someone's jealous. 8)

[Tgo01]

There shouldn't need to be protests. If there is a situation that needs correcting and you can, while acting with integrity, make the change then you should do so.

I agree, I was specifically referring to this particular change though. I don't think I heard anyone argue that gay service members should receive an extra 7-10 days of leave to get married.

If this change is just about ensuring gay partners receive the full range of benefits afforded to straight partners then there are many other ways to go about it. As Gelston said, allow people to legally get married on federal land. As you said allow everyone extra time for getting married. Another solution could be allowing a service member to designate someone as their partner without the need of getting married, this actually makes the most sense to me, remove marriage from the equation altogether.

[Tgo01]

Just have to say. As a Canadian. Watching you two argue back and forth is so muh more interesting then our politics.

What do Canadian politics consist of? Two people just agreeing over and over again until one passes out?

[Sile]

What do Canadian politics consist of? Two people just agreeing over and over again until one passes out?

Nah. We got four parties that hold power Left wing liberals. Right wing progressesive conservatives. Somewhat socialist NDP, and separatist bloc Quebec quois. Our senate are not elected but assigned, and usually life time positions. We also have a Governor General which is the queens representative who has the power to shut down parliament ( usually before an election). We are independent but with strong ties with the crown. Military and new citizens pledge allegiance to the Queen.

Our politics are quite nasty, but hardly has the star power of US politics. We are a much smaller economy so out elections are not as flashy. Much less money spent. Some of our arguments in parliament wouldn't even be water cooler talk in the US.

[Latrinsorm]

What? Receiving it 1x in your career is still giving them free leave. I don't see why hetero couples can't receive it also, especially when overseas.

A good point brought up, however....

“I am unaware of any legal authority for the DoD to grant 10 days of non-chargeable leave, a benefit that offers preferential treatment to same-sex marriage over heterosexual marriage,” said Sen. Jim Inhofe (Okla.), ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, on his website. “Military leave is granted by statute, and while there are special provisions in law for adoptions, child birth and emergency situations, to my knowledge there are no special provisions for marriage, same-sex or otherwise. As I have warned before, this administration is eroding our military's historical apolitical stance by using it as their activism arm for their liberal social agenda."

Agree with gay marriage or not, I'm not sure if the SecDef has the power to give away that many days of uncharged leave. Likely the House Armed Services Committee and such will have to do something, so hopefully they will see the logic in just allowing all couples, gay or straight, the same uncharged leave. I generally thought it was kind of odd they didn't get it in the first place.It's not a question of logic. It's a question of what we want to be equal:

1. the amount of leave a person gets
2. whether a person can get married without going AWOL

If we make (1) equal, (2) will not be. If we make (2) equal, (1) will not be. Which is more important, where "importance" is defined however you like? Which is a matter of civil rights?

.

And if I may reiterate a previous point in response to Sen. Inhofe, I am all for the federal government sending in the military to forcibly recognize civil rights in those states that refuse to do so. Surely the Senator is aware that we did this most recently in the '60s, therefore it must not count as eroding apoliticity, therefore it's a win-win-win.
If this change is just about ensuring gay partners receive the full range of benefits afforded to straight partners then there are many other ways to go about it. As Gelston said, allow people to legally get married on federal land.I don't know why people think this would work, given that not 50 years ago we had another civil rights battle with the exact same whiny bullshit excuse of "states' rights".

[kutter]

Not sure which, if any, of you have been in the military, but after thinking about this more, I find the whole thing a tempest in a teacup. I say this mainly because in all my years of service, I never knew anyone that was short on leave in their career after the first year or so, in fact, I lost leave on any number of occasions because I had more than 60 days and could not carry it over. So now you want to tell me that you are going to give people that do not need it, even more leave, when no one ever asked for it? Is that the situation? What is next, they use the 10 days, then claim they should not have to lose an extra 10 days because they were not afforded the opportunity to take it?

This whole thing goes against everything the military stands for. I do not happen to think that gays in the military will in any way degrade the capabilities, especially since they have been there all along, however actions like this will since it creates resentment, which leads to low morale, which leads to poor retention which leads to the military of the late 70's and early 80's. Right now we have the best educated most capable military in the history of the county, actions like this undermine the ability for people to see fairness and equality in the military and it will stop attracting the best and the brightest.

[AnticorRifling]

Because it is special treatment.

[Methais]

This whole thing is gay.

[Tgo01]

This whole thing is gay.

Don't let the secretary of defense hear you say that.

[cwolff]

Not sure which, if any, of you have been in the military, but after thinking about this more, I find the whole thing a tempest in a teacup. I say this mainly because in all my years of service, I never knew anyone that was short on leave in their career after the first year or so, in fact, I lost leave on any number of occasions because I had more than 60 days and could not carry it over. So now you want to tell me that you are going to give people that do not need it, even more leave, when no one ever asked for it? Is that the situation? What is next, they use the 10 days, then claim they should not have to lose an extra 10 days because they were not afforded the opportunity to take it?

This whole thing goes against everything the military stands for. I do not happen to think that gays in the military will in any way degrade the capabilities, especially since they have been there all along, however actions like this will since it creates resentment, which leads to low morale, which leads to poor retention which leads to the military of the late 70's and early 80's. Right now we have the best educated most capable military in the history of the county, actions like this undermine the ability for people to see fairness and equality in the military and it will stop attracting the best and the brightest.

I agree this is a tempest in a teacup. There just aren't that many people who are gay in the military. Roughly 66,000 and not all of them are going to be out of the closet or even interested in marriage.

I don't understand the 10 days then wanting to take ten more days. That's not an option.

No one asked for this. The DoD implemented it proactively as they are dealing with how to provide benefits and services to same sex spouses. This uncharged leave is a one time per career thing and you only are eligible if you are overseas or stationed over 100 miles from a state where same sex marriage is legal. They are offering it because there are only 13 states where gay marriage is legal yet it's completely legal for the DoD. A gay person in uniform who is stationed more than 100 miles from CA, DC, CT, DE, IA, ME, MD, MA, MN, NH, NY, RI, VT and WA has to travel there just to get married. They don't enjoy the same rights that the rest of us do so DoD came up with this to address it.

Like you said, they probably won't take it anyway.

[Tgo01]

Like you said, they probably won't take it anyway.

Really makes you wonder why this change was even implemented then, huh?

[cwolff]

Really makes you wonder why this change was even implemented then, huh?

No it doesn't. It's the smart play by the Pentagon and limits the ability of gay people to bring lawsuits against the DoD. Really you should applaud this type of forward thinking. They may have just saved the US taxpayer a shit load of money that will never have to be spent in court.

[kutter]

Cwolff clearly you missed my point, it is a solution to something that is not a problem in the interest of 'fairness' but it is not fair, it takes a very small segment of the population and gives them a privilege that others are not entitled to simply by virtue of who they choose to marry. What happens when they get divorced and they will, statistics being what they are. I know you claim it is a one time thing but the situation will be the same if some of the states do not recognize it, which by the way, I support, but I am a federalist so that is obvious. What prevents them from then trying to make the claim, it is after all as someone pointed out, not a legal issue, but something the SECDEF is doing, which as I understand it has no legal authority to do. If it is leave then it has to be approved by Congress and if it is liberty then only POTUS can authorize anything over 72 hours. Where does the legal authority to even grant it come from, I would not be even a little surprised if someone files suit challenging it on the grounds he cannot do it, that is if someone has the balls enough to stand up the indignation that will be heaped upon them. I am retired so I do not have standing otherwise I would think about, I could care less what people think.

And I am fairly certain that they would not win a case against the DOD without this. If the DOD would not grant them leave for it that would be one thing, but a suit requesting special leave to get married when they are already given 30 days a year? How many business provide employes with a month of payed vacation the first day they become employed? As I said, this is a solution to something that is not a problem and the repercussions could be severe.

[Latrinsorm]

This whole thing goes against everything the military stands for.The military stands for protecting the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Gay Americans do not receive equal rights in certain foreign countries and American states.

Hence, the military goes out of its way to ensure those rights.
Cwolff clearly you missed my point, it is a solution to something that is not a problem in the interest of 'fairness' but it is not fair, it takes a very small segment of the population and gives them a privilege that others are not entitled to simply by virtue of who they choose to marry.As I said to Gelston, fairness (or equality) depends on which part of the equation you are looking at. Here is the list, and you can pick one and only one:

1. Everyone gets the same leave.
2. Everyone can marry who they want.

Tell me which one is more important. Seriously, tell me.

[cwolff]

Cwolff clearly you missed my point, it is a solution to something that is not a problem in the interest of 'fairness' but it is not fair, it takes a very small segment of the population and gives them a privilege that others are not entitled to simply by virtue of who they choose to marry. What happens when they get divorced and they will, statistics being what they are. I know you claim it is a one time thing but the situation will be the same if some of the states do not recognize it, which by the way, I support, but I am a federalist so that is obvious. What prevents them from then trying to make the claim, it is after all as someone pointed out, not a legal issue, but something the SECDEF is doing, which as I understand it has no legal authority to do. If it is leave then it has to be approved by Congress and if it is liberty then only POTUS can authorize anything over 72 hours. Where does the legal authority to even grant it come from, I would not be even a little surprised if someone files suit challenging it on the grounds he cannot do it, that is if someone has the balls enough to stand up the indignation that will be heaped upon them. I am retired so I do not have standing otherwise I would think about, I could care less what people think.

Hello Kutter. I guess we'll find out if Sec Def has the power to do this if or when it's challenged in court. Other than that I don't get the gist of what you're saying. Do you mean that people will get divorced and demand an extra free 7 or 10 days if they happen to be stationed at Camp Lejeune for example?

The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment will supersede states rights to discriminate against a gay couple who was married in a jurisdiction where gay marriage is legal so that won't be an issue. If it is an issue it will be a loser for the states based on the current SCOTUS and they are actually a conservative court.

Military.com has a pretty good explanation of the entirety of the benefits for same sex couples here http://militaryadvantage.military.com/2013/08/special-leave-for-gay-marriage-travel/

[Tgo01]

Hello Kutter. I guess we'll find out if Sec Def has the power to do this if or when it's challenged in court. Other than that I don't get the gist of what you're saying. Do you mean that people will get divorced and demand an extra free 7 or 10 days if they happen to be stationed at Camp Lejeune for example?

That's Camp Fort Lejeune.

[Gelston]

It's not a question of logic. It's a question of what we want to be equal:

1. the amount of leave a person gets
2. whether a person can get married without going AWOL

If we make (1) equal, (2) will not be. If we make (2) equal, (1) will not be. Which is more important, where "importance" is defined however you like? Which is a matter of civil rights?
.

What? I don't understand what going UA has to do with any of this?

[Gelston]

That's Camp Fort Lejeune.

Was it Tsa'ah that called it that? Or Back?

[Gelston]

Not sure which, if any, of you have been in the military, but after thinking about this more, I find the whole thing a tempest in a teacup. I say this mainly because in all my years of service, I never knew anyone that was short on leave in their career after the first year or so, in fact, I lost leave on any number of occasions because I had more than 60 days and could not carry it over. So now you want to tell me that you are going to give people that do not need it, even more leave, when no one ever asked for it? Is that the situation? What is next, they use the 10 days, then claim they should not have to lose an extra 10 days because they were not afforded the opportunity to take it?

.

I ran out of leave after every deployment. I once went a few years without on and acquired a lot, but between a bunch of really close deployments with PreDeployment leave and Post Deployment leave, I went negative a few times. I knew quite a few people that couldn't take the full 20-odd days we were allowed to take after my last deployment when I was in, if they wanted to beable to take Christmas leave.

[Sile]

I ran out of leave after every deployment. I once went a few years without on and acquired a lot, but between a bunch of really close deployments with PreDeployment leave and Post Deployment leave, I went negative a few times. I knew quite a few people that couldn't take the full 20-odd days we were allowed to take after my last deployment when I was in, if they wanted to beable to take Christmas leave.

Not sure how the leave system works in the US. In Canada we start off with 20 days, and it increases to 25 and 30 with time in. But those 20 days only need to be spent on weekdays. Stat Holidays, weekends, pre/post deployment, block leave etc are sort of free.

If your smart with your 20 days, you could get up to a month and a half off in a year with them. It's just depending on when you take them. I'm at 25 days myself and it can be difficult to burn them off at times. Sure I can take leave to burn off leave. But I'm a person who generally saves my leave for rainy days or for big trips.

[Gelston]

Not sure how the leave system works in the US. In Canada we start off with 20 days, and it increases to 25 and 30 with time in. But those 20 days only need to be spent on weekdays. Stat Holidays, weekends, pre/post deployment, block leave etc are sort of free.

If your smart with your 20 days, you could get up to a month and a half off in a year with them. It's just depending on when you take them. I'm at 25 days myself and it can be difficult to burn them off at times. Sure I can take leave to burn off leave. But I'm a person who generally saves my leave for rainy days or for big trips.

We get 30 a year (2.5 days a monthy) in the US. It counts no matter when you take it, weekends or not or even over holidays. You also aren't supposed to take leave the day after a Federal Holiday, and if you do, it is supposed to be dated to the first day of that holiday.

[Showal]

Since ClydeR has pointed out that homosexuality is a choice, this is not really an act of unfairness or discrimination. Every single member has the opportunity and option to try this new lifestyle of marriage to a member of the same sex, in return they get a few days off but can only do it in certain locations. Or every service member can make the choice of marrying someone of the opposite sex wherever they want without getting extra time off. As adults, we can pick out some potential pros and cons of each decision, such as whether a few extra days off is worth eternal damnation. Do you want a few days off in exchange for a lifetime of ridicule among certain populations of the country? This option of a few days off is available to everyone who deems it important enough to make the decisions necessary to obtain it.

[Latrinsorm]

What? I don't understand what going UA has to do with any of this?Suppose you are stationed in the Ukraine. How long does it take you to travel to a marriage distributor in Sweden or Denmark and back? How long does it take you to go down the street to get married in the Ukraine?

The first trip will take more time than the second.
Gay people's only choice is the first trip.
Hence, gay people need more leave than straight people.
Hence, you can plant your flag on everyone getting equal leave if and only if you want to plant your flag on discriminating against gay people.

Is that what you want?

[Showal]

That's the thing though. There are no gay people. There are only people who decided that our Lord and Savior's death and sacrifice on the cross to absolve us of our sins did not matter and they want a few extra days of vacay. And these people will be judged. But a few days of basking in the sun and having anal is worth the price of admission to hell.

[Sile]

Suppose you are stationed in the Ukraine. How long does it take you to travel to a marriage distributor in Sweden or Denmark and back? How long does it take you to go down the street to get married in the Ukraine?

The first trip will take more time than the second.
Gay people's only choice is the first trip.
Hence, gay people need more leave than straight people.
Hence, you can plant your flag on everyone getting equal leave if and only if you want to plant your flag on discriminating against gay people.

Is that what you want?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzLtF_PxbYw

I suck at hyperlinks.

[Showal]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzLtF_PxbYw

not paying attention

[Latrinsorm]

That's the thing though. There are no gay people. There are only people who decided that our Lord and Savior's death and sacrifice on the cross to absolve us of our sins did not matter and they want a few extra days of vacay. And these people will be judged. But a few days of basking in the sun and having anal is worth the price of admission to hell.Shows what your know, a sacrificed creature cannot regenerate, and yet the Lord clearly regenerated two turns later (on the third turn). Unless... are you suggesting that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob includes black in his deck, cast Raise Dead, and had enough mana after casting Disenchant (or probably Divine Offering come to think of it) on the temple curtain to re-cast Jesus of Nazareth? That's pretty implausible.

[Gelston]

Suppose you are stationed in the Ukraine. How long does it take you to travel to a marriage distributor in Sweden or Denmark and back? How long does it take you to go down the street to get married in the Ukraine?

The first trip will take more time than the second.
Gay people's only choice is the first trip.
Hence, gay people need more leave than straight people.
Hence, you can plant your flag on everyone getting equal leave if and only if you want to plant your flag on discriminating against gay people.

Is that what you want?

Or you know, just give them both the same amount of leave... Or you know, they can wait until they aren't stationed overseas anymore, like a large amount of straight people do. I'm not saying get rid of the extra uncharged leave, I'm saying give it out regardless of sexual preference.

[Sile]

Or you know, just give them both the same amount of leave... Or you know, they can wait until they aren't stationed overseas anymore, like a large amount of straight people do. I'm not saying get rid of the extra uncharged leave, I'm saying give it out regardless of sexual preference.

Here Is an option. Give military padre's the power to marry anyone at any US Consulate, or on any Federal Land. This in effect will lessen the travel time needed to arrange a marriage, and give them more time to do the fun stuff on their honeymoon.

[Gelston]

Here Is an option. Give military padre's the power to marry anyone at any US Consulate, or on any Federal Land. This in effect will lessen the travel time needed to arrange a marriage, and give them more time to do the fun stuff on their honeymoon.

Oh yeah, I mentioned that in the thread a few times, but certain individuals in this thread would rather just say "ZOMG THIS ISN'T SPECIAL TREATMENT THOUGH"

[dszabo]

They could just offer every service member a once in a lifetime additional week or ten days of leave for their wedding...

[Tgo01]

They could just offer every service member a once in a lifetime additional week or ten days of leave for their wedding...

Don't worry, I got this one Latrin.

But you aren't getting it, if you offer everyone the same thing then you're treating everyone equally and that's not good because gays are started behind everyone else, therefore you have to give them an extra "push." Think of it this way, say someone lost their hand in an auto accident but they want to compete in a rock climbing contest. Now to make things fair we don't just say "Here are some rocket packs guys!" cause then you're giving everyone the same benefit, even the guy that is missing a hand. So instead you give the guy with no hand a rocket pack and call it fair.

[Sile]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Tgo01 again.

[Latrinsorm]

Oh yeah, I mentioned that in the thread a few times, but certain individuals in this thread would rather just say "ZOMG THIS ISN'T SPECIAL TREATMENT THOUGH"I thought my rejoinder was pretty strong. That must be why you ignored it!!!11
Or you know, just give them both the same amount of leave... Or you know, they can wait until they aren't stationed overseas anymore, like a large amount of straight people do. I'm not saying get rid of the extra uncharged leave, I'm saying give it out regardless of sexual preference.This is crb's favorite fallacy; the static accounting fail. Your entire objection is based around people getting extra leave, except they don't have extra leave because they need to use it.

You have still never answered the question: which is more important, equality in civil rights or equality in leave? Please note that you are free to answer that there is another choice. Not answering at all makes it seem like you fail to recognize the distinction.

[Latrinsorm]

Don't worry, I got this one Latrin.

But you aren't getting it, if you offer everyone the same thing then you're treating everyone equally and that's not good because gays are started behind everyone else, therefore you have to give them an extra "push." Think of it this way, say someone lost their hand in an auto accident but they want to compete in a rock climbing contest. Now to make things fair we don't just say "Here are some rocket packs guys!" cause then you're giving everyone the same benefit, even the guy that is missing a hand. So instead you give the guy with no hand a rocket pack and call it fair.I don't know why people insist on this intellectually bankrupt equivocation on equality.

I mean, I have my suspicions, but I try to think well of people.

[Gelston]

I thought my rejoinder was pretty strong. That must be why you ignored it!!!11This is crb's favorite fallacy; the static accounting fail. Your entire objection is based around people getting extra leave, except they don't have extra leave because they need to use it.

You have still never answered the question: which is more important, equality in civil rights or equality in leave? Please note that you are free to answer that there is another choice. Not answering at all makes it seem like you fail to recognize the distinction.

I think there should be both, but since there isn't, there is no reason to make the other one unequal. And yes, it is extra leave, regardless of what you think. If it goes beyond the traditional 30 days per year, it is extra. I don't care what the purpose of it is, whether it is the free leave they give you from loss of dwell time due to close deployments or CoT leave. The SecDef is going about the wrong way with this and, honestly, whether it is a big deal or not it gives certain folks in the military a little more fuel to despise the gays.

[Sile]

I don't know why, but this reminds me of one of my friends. He ran a very successful retail store, his secret, was catering to the LBGT community. He himself was hetero, but argued that giving that community extra in the end gets you more because they have done without for so long.

I wonder if this is just a ploy to garner a few extra votes. Kind of like how he did it to gain a few extra sales.

[ClydeR]

Not sure which, if any, of you have been in the military, but after thinking about this more, I find the whole thing a tempest in a teacup.

I beg your pardon! Are you suggesting that I started a discussion about a trivial matter? In case you didn't notice, the issue of special rights drove politics for the last two decades.

[Showal]

They could just offer every service member a once in a lifetime additional week or ten days of leave for their wedding...

Lol but what about the non gay lifers? Certainly if those gay 2 year members get a 10 day the 20 year members should get 100. It's really only fair!

[kutter]

I beg your pardon! Are you suggesting that I started a discussion about a trivial matter? In case you didn't notice, the issue of special rights drove politics for the last two decades.

Quite the opposite Clyde, I happen to think it is a very large issue at its root, just saying that, in my experience, and it is different for some people I agree, the amount of leave I had to use was never an issue. Someone asked about using leave in conjunction with liberty, not sure how it is in other services, but in the CG, we could go liberty-leave-liberty, so taken in conjunction with a holiday weekend, I would burn 4 days and get 9, then the last 5 years I was in, I worked 3 days on 3 days off with 12 hour shifts, so I almost never took leave and managed to accrue almost 90 before I retired. So while I consider the issue itself important, anyone that is not forward deployed to a combat zone should not have an issue with running out of leave, hence my statement about the tempest in a teacup. People are making an issue out of it because they want to make an issue out of it, not because it is a real issue.

[Latrinsorm]

I think there should be both, but since there isn't, there is no reason to make the other one unequal.The reason is to obtain the more important value. Of course it would be great to have both, but that's not up to the Administrative Assistant of Defense. (Apparently even this choice isn't up to him.) You have to pick one.

If you insist on leave being equal, you are insisting on marriage being unequal.
If you insist on marriage being equal, you are insisting on leave being unequal.

This is how the real world works. You have two bad choices and you have to pick which one is less bad.
And yes, it is extra leave, regardless of what you think.I can cite six posts where I say it is extra leave. Can you cite any where I say it isn't?
...it gives certain folks in the military a little more fuel to despise the gays.Again, let's think about that premise. What kind of wimpy pieces of shit go through their life one nudge from becoming homophobes? Give me a break with this.

[Tgo01]

Again, let's think about that premise. What kind of wimpy pieces of shit go through their life one nudge from becoming homophobes? Give me a break with this.

Why not? A war erupted as a result of someone betting his friend 5 bucks he could shoot the hat off of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

[kutter]

I wonder if this is just a ploy to garner a few extra votes. Kind of like how he did it to gain a few extra sales.

I kind of doubt that, the people that will or will not vote for a certain politician will not deviate whether or not they get an extra few days off. In fact, if I were to make a wager, I would say that some that are slightly left of center in the military might be inclined to not support politicians that support this out of frustration from an 'apparent' lack of fairness.

[Showal]

Let's let gays get married at consulates. The Arab countries will love it when some gays start getting married at consulates in their country! This won't go over poorly at all!

[kutter]

If you insist on leave being equal, you are insisting on marriage being unequal.
If you insist on marriage being equal, you are insisting on leave being unequal.

There is one fallacy with your argument, the military does not guarantee that you can get married, it is not written into the Constitution nor is it anywhere in the UCMJ. In fact, if you want to be technical, you have to ask permission in the military to get married. It is a mostly formality thing now to request it, but the regulations still exist. So the military for hundreds of years has not interpreted marriage as being equal, why the need to now? Just because someone happens to be gay?

[Showal]

Why not? A war was erupted as a result of someone betting his friend 5 bucks he could shoot the hat off of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

Your version of what happened is vastly different then mine. I however like gays. It would take 10 days extra leave of marriage, 10 days for adoption, 5 days of extra leave for remodeling their homes and then boom ... fuck them gays. They think they're better than me? 3 nudges away. Don't light this powder keg

[Gelston]

The reason is to obtain the more important value. Of course it would be great to have both, but that's not up to the Administrative Assistant of Defense. (Apparently even this choice isn't up to him.) You have to pick one.

If you insist on leave being equal, you are insisting on marriage being unequal.
If you insist on marriage being equal, you are insisting on leave being unequal.

This is how the real world works. You have two bad choices and you have to pick which one is less bad.I can cite six posts where I say it is extra leave. Can you cite any where I say it isn't?Again, let's think about that premise. What kind of wimpy pieces of shit go through their life one nudge from becoming homophobes? Give me a break with this.

I am insisting on nothing. The military doesn't control the Marriage laws of states. It does control leave. It cannot do anything to effect what states allow marriage. It can keep itself equal and not give people preferential treatment based on their sexual orientation. It isn't about any of the stuff you are consistently whining about, it is about what the Department of Defense can do. If they truly wanted things to be equal within their scope, they would make it as such. Why is it so hard to get into your thick skull that any benefit offered should be available to EVERY member of the military, regardless of race, creed, religion, or sexual orientation in the scope that the military can provide?

[cwolff]

Here Is an option. Give military padre's the power to marry anyone at any US Consulate, or on any Federal Land. This in effect will lessen the travel time needed to arrange a marriage, and give them more time to do the fun stuff on their honeymoon.


Or you know, just give them both the same amount of leave... Or you know, they can wait until they aren't stationed overseas anymore, like a large amount of straight people do. I'm not saying get rid of the extra uncharged leave, I'm saying give it out regardless of sexual preference.


Oh yeah, I mentioned that in the thread a few times, but certain individuals in this thread would rather just say "ZOMG THIS ISN'T SPECIAL TREATMENT THOUGH"

As gay marriage spreads across the US states this issue is going to solve itself. There's no compelling reason to give every service member extra 1 time leave of 7 or 10 days. They don't need it to get married because they can do that in any country or state in the World. Some gays, not all, but some will need it if they are posted in a no gay marriage state. By making them burn leave to go somewhere they normally never would go, just so they can get married in a legal jurisdiction you're actually penalizing the service member. Again this doesn't apply to the West Coast, DC etc... It's just for the places that don't allow it right now. This problem will self correct as more states make gay marriage legal and less gays become eligible for the leave.

There is a persistent idea floating around of just doing gay marriage ceremonies on base and problem solved. It's not that simple. Your argument assumes that the DoD just totally overlooked this as a possibility. If you're going to make assumptions assume that they explored all ideas thoroughly and came up with this as the best solution. Now think of reasons why.

A big reason why they can't just do gay marriage on bases in NC, KY, TX, FL etc... is because those states have put their foot down on the issue. SCOTUS did not say that they have to make gay marriage legal, only that equal protection applies for gay married couples. If the DoD starts performing weddings for gay people in these states they're going to run into BIG issues.

Many have said that SecDef doesn't even that power to do what he did. Well, he did it so that argument doesn't hold up. What he doesn't have power to do is break state law by performing gay marriage on their soil.

[cwolff]

I am insisting on nothing. The military doesn't control the Marriage laws of states. It does control leave. It cannot do anything to effect what states allow marriage. It can keep itself equal and not give people preferential treatment based on their sexual orientation. It isn't about any of the stuff you are consistently whining about, it is about what the Department of Defense can do. If they truly wanted things to be equal within their scope, they would make it as such. Why is it so hard to get into your thick skull that any benefit offered should be available to EVERY member of the military, regardless of race, creed, religion, or sexual orientation in the scope that the military can provide?

Since when has this become important? Doma just ended 3 months ago and the benefits for gays aren't even implemented yet. DADT ended three years ago and during DADT they still discharged over 13k service men and woman for sexual orientation. Now all of the sudden everyone's saying "lets be fair" "don't discriminate". No straight people are losing anything with this rule. If you want to complain direct your anger at the retro-grouch states who still won't allow gay marriage.

[Gelston]

Since when has this become important? Doma just ended 3 months ago and the benefits for gays aren't even implemented yet. DADT ended three years ago and during DADT they still discharged over 13k service men and woman for sexual orientation. Now all of the sudden everyone's saying "lets be fair" "don't discriminate". No straight people are losing anything with this rule. If you want to complain direct your anger at the retro-grouch states who still won't allow gay marriage.

And you are completely against straight people getting uncharged leave for marriage? You realize there would be 0 issue at all if everyone got it right?

[cwolff]

And you are completely against straight people getting uncharged leave for marriage? You realize there would be 0 issue at all if everyone got it right?

Yes I am against it. Talk about a slippery slope. Protected classes get protected because they've systematically had their god given rights denied to them. In the case of marriage, straight people are doing ok in the rights department and do not need protection.

[Gelston]

Okay. So you are for Homosexuals getting things that nobody else does, bearing in mind that the US Military has 0 to do with marriage laws in states.. Gotcha.

[Tgo01]

Protected classes get protected because they've systematically had their god given rights denied to them. In the case of marriage, straight people are doing ok in the rights department and do not need protection.

So how come all gay federal employees don't get extra vacation time every year? Or is that the next step?

[Sile]

Yes I am against it. Talk about a slippery slope. Protected classes get protected because they've systematically had their god given rights denied to them. In the case of marriage, straight people are doing ok in the rights department and do not need protection.

Sounds like you support a gayer version of the black panthers.

[cwolff]

Okay. So you are for Homosexuals getting things that nobody else does, bearing in mind that the US Military has 0 to do with marriage laws in states.. Gotcha.

What's the gotcha?

You're right though. The US military has 0 to do with states laws regarding marriage. All they can do is accommodate their service members who are posted in a place that doesn't allow them to exercise their right to get married. Which is what they've done so, Gotcha!

[cwolff]

Sounds like you support a gayer version of the black panthers.

Hungh? That makes no sense. Are you just taking the opportunity here to be add racism to your homophobia? How the hell do black panthers figure into this thread at all?

[Gelston]

No. The gotcha was that I understand your point of view. Thanks for playing, bye.


Hungh? That makes no sense. Are you just taking the opportunity here to be add racism to your homophobia? How the hell do black panthers figure into this thread at all?

And it makes perfect sense.

[Sile]

Hungh? That makes no sense. Are you just taking the opportunity here to be add racism to your homophobia? How the hell do black panthers figure into this thread at all?

You want to give one group that was wronged in the past something that another group can't have.

Disagreeing with your stance doesn't make me a homophobe.

[cwolff]

So how come all gay federal employees don't get extra vacation time every year? Or is that the next step?

I don't know TG. Civilian federal employees have more options and obviously fall under different rules than the military. The people who work for the IRS don't fall under the UCMJ for example.

[cwolff]

You want to give one group that was wronged in the past something that another group can't have.

Disagreeing with your stance doesn't make me a homophobe.

No that's not the case. This isn't to make up for past wrongs, it's to keep them from being damaged going forward. It's not a reward, it's a protection.

[cwolff]

No. The gotcha was that I understand your point of view. Thanks for playing, bye.



And it makes perfect sense.

How do the Black Panthers figure into this?

[Latrinsorm]

Why not? A war erupted as a result of someone betting his friend 5 bucks he could shoot the hat off of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.Do you know what 5 American dollars were worth in those days? He was just a crosshair... he was just a shot away from you.
There is one fallacy with your argument, the military does not guarantee that you can get married, it is not written into the Constitution nor is it anywhere in the UCMJ. In fact, if you want to be technical, you have to ask permission in the military to get married. It is a mostly formality thing now to request it, but the regulations still exist. So the military for hundreds of years has not interpreted marriage as being equal, why the need to now? Just because someone happens to be gay?As to "why now", it is because until recently the military would kick you out if you admitted to being gay, and until very recently the federal government did not recognize gay marriage. It would make no sense to clamor for leave to obtain gay marriage when doing so inevitably resulted in discharge.

As to your larger point: if you want to say that people do not have a civil right to be married, and therefore can be legally discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation, that is well within your rights. I only ask the question because so many people want to say they are for marriage equality and against this proposition. Like such as the following poster:
I am insisting on nothing. The military doesn't control the Marriage laws of states. It does control leave. It cannot do anything to effect what states allow marriage. It can keep itself equal and not give people preferential treatment based on their sexual orientation. It isn't about any of the stuff you are consistently whining about, it is about what the Department of Defense can do. If they truly wanted things to be equal within their scope, they would make it as such. Why is it so hard to get into your thick skull that any benefit offered should be available to EVERY member of the military, regardless of race, creed, religion, or sexual orientation in the scope that the military can provide?Because that is exactly akin to saying "every member of the military is granted equal access to watering fountains, and if the states in question forbid access to coloreds well aw shucks we did the best we could, it's equal within our scope". I would find both statements comically myopic. If you would be okay with both, there's nothing more I can say to you. If you wouldn't be okay with the latter, perhaps we should investigate why you hold different opinions.

Or, from another angle: it is precisely because the military doesn't control state (and foreign sovereign) marriage laws that it has to enact this prima facie unfair regulation. They understand that the external is unequal, but that by making the internal unequal they can make the external equal. Inextricable from this process is that the external (marriage) is more of a civil right than the internal (leave).

Let me propose a last hypothetical: let's say there was some hypothetical country, let's say Southwest Africa, and they had a law that any black person had to be clapped in irons while within their borders. Let's say we happened to have a base in that country. Would you say that the United States military shouldn't take any steps to ensure the civil rights of their black members at that base because, hey, the affairs of a foreign sovereign are outside their scope?

[Gelston]

No that's not the case. This isn't to make up for past wrongs, it's to keep them from being damaged going forward. It's not a reward, it's a protection.

Protection? Protection from what?

[Gelston]

Let me propose a last hypothetical: let's say there was some hypothetical country, let's say Southwest Africa, and they had a law that any black person had to be clapped in irons while within their borders. Let's say we happened to have a base in that country. Would you say that the United States military shouldn't take any steps to ensure the civil rights of their black members at that base because, hey, the affairs of a foreign sovereign are outside their scope?

Funny... Something similar to that has existed before, while not clapped in Irons, it was discrimination. The SOFA agreement generally stopped such things as the laws would apply to the nation's citizens, and not our Servicemembers stationed there.

[Latrinsorm]

You want to give one group that was wronged in the past something that another group can't have.

Disagreeing with your stance doesn't make me a homophobe.Let's be very clear on one thing: we're not talking about past wrongs and reparations. Gay Marines right now, today, cannot get married in several foreign countries and states.

Right now.

Today.

This is the world we live in. You personally cannot change that. The Secretary of Defense personally cannot change that. What you and he can do is to act such that gay Marines nevertheless have equally guaranteed civil rights.

.

That's the question you have to ask yourself. Is your faith in equally guaranteed civil rights more or less strong than your faith in equally guaranteed leave?

[Gelston]

Let's be very clear on one thing: we're not talking about past wrongs and reparations. Gay Marines right now, today, cannot get married in several foreign countries and states.

Right now.

Today.

This is the world we live in. You personally cannot change that. The Secretary of Defense personally cannot change that. What you and he can do is to act such that gay Marines nevertheless have equally guaranteed civil rights.

.

That's the question you have to ask yourself. Is your faith in equally guaranteed civil rights more or less strong than your faith in equally guaranteed leave?

There are several countries in the world that won't allow an atheist to marry a muslim. They don't get extra days of leave.

[Sile]

Let's be very clear on one thing: we're not talking about past wrongs and reparations. Gay Marines right now, today, cannot get married in several foreign countries and states.

Right now.

Today.

This is the world we live in. You personally cannot change that. The Secretary of Defense personally cannot change that. What you and he can do is to act such that gay Marines nevertheless have equally guaranteed civil rights.

.

That's the question you have to ask yourself. Is your faith in equally guaranteed civil rights more or less strong than your faith in equally guaranteed leave?

Ok let me ask this. A straight service member who's faith only recognizes marriage from a specific church/denomination in his home state/town whatever. Should he/she be granted special leave, because due to their faith he can't be married anywhere else?

Sure its not faith based why gays can't get married, but sexual orientation is a protected right just as religious choice.

[Latrinsorm]

Funny... Something similar to that has existed before, while not clapped in Irons, it was discrimination. The SOFA agreement generally stopped such things as the laws would apply to the nation's citizens, and not our Servicemembers stationed there.How delightful! So you agree that the United States military should take steps to (generally) prevent said discrimination, even when doing so is on its face PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT!!!!!!!; surely no white service members could appeal to racial discrimination while stationed in Southwest Africa. Why then do you disagree with this particular course of action?

1. It prevents discrimination.
2. It is a general action.
3. It is preferential treatment.

...?

[Gelston]

How delightful! So you agree that the United States military should take steps to (generally) prevent said discrimination, even when doing so is on its face PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT!!!!!!!; surely no white service members could appeal to racial discrimination while stationed in Southwest Africa. Why then do you disagree with this particular course of action?

1. It prevents discrimination.
2. It is a general action.
3. It is preferential treatment.

...?

I never said I was against granting extra days of uncharged leave. For all marriages. I have been saying this the entire time.

[Sile]

I never said I was against granting extra days of uncharged leave. For all marriages. I have been saying this the entire time.

Yeah, the divide here is exactly that, I don't think anyone in this thread believes there should be no extra leave. The divide is if one party should get it, or all parties.

Personally I'm all for equal rights, I believe all references to sex/race/creed/etc should be removed from any laws.

[Latrinsorm]

There are several countries in the world that won't allow an atheist to marry a muslim. They don't get extra days of leave.You (of all people) seriously want to talk to me (of all people) about the need for anti-anti-Muslim movements? Really, bro? Didn't we have a discussion a week ago about how I thought Muslims were so good and you thought they were no good?

What you could do is demonstrate that there are more Muslim service members that want to marry atheists than gay service members who want to marry anyone. Then you could at least say that my priorities are out of whack, although technically you would also have to demonstrate that I've never advocated for Muslims, and please see point 1.

tl:dr (he should have appended to every post he ever made); my advocating for one cause does not imply a lack of advocacy for another.
Ok let me ask this. A straight service member who's faith only recognizes marriage from a specific church/denomination in his home state/town whatever. Should he/she be granted special leave, because due to his faith he can't be married anywhere else?

Sure its not faith based why gays can't get married, but sexual orientation is a protected right just as religious choice.I and my close personal friend the Secretary of Defense find that hypothetical to be implausible and likely fabricated to obtain said special leave. I would hope you have such a denomination researched as a rejoinder, but I have never heard of such a one. By comparison, I have heard of many, many, many, many, many, many, many gay people, and the ratios of people lying to claim that leave vs. people honestly seeking it are acceptable.

Again, we're talking about the real world. It is messy, but nevertheless the best of a bunch of crappy solutions. What am I supposed to pick if not the best?

[Gelston]

I remember once when the SecDef found the idea of Gays being openly in the military implausible. Hey, when the position was called the SecWar he found the hypothetical situation of African Americans serving with whitey to be bad too. Stop trying to act as if the SecDef is an infallible human.

[Sile]

You (of all people) seriously want to talk to me (of all people) about the need for anti-anti-Muslim movements? Really, bro? Didn't we have a discussion a week ago about how I thought Muslims were so good and you thought they were no good?

What you could do is demonstrate that there are more Muslim service members that want to marry atheists than gay service members who want to marry anyone. Then you could at least say that my priorities are out of whack, although technically you would also have to demonstrate that I've never advocated for Muslims, and please see point 1.

tl:dr (he should have appended to every post he ever made); my advocating for one cause does not imply a lack of advocacy for another.I and my close personal friend the Secretary of Defense find that hypothetical to be implausible and likely fabricated to obtain said special leave. I would hope you have such a denomination researched as a rejoinder, but I have never heard of such a one. By comparison, I have heard of many, many, many, many, many, many, many gay people, and the ratios of people lying to claim that leave vs. people honestly seeking it are acceptable.

Again, we're talking about the real world. It is messy, but nevertheless the best of a bunch of crappy solutions. What am I supposed to pick if not the best?

Westboro Baptist Church for one (note I don't condone this nutjob religion)

I'm sure there could be churches that only recognize marriage done within their congregation.

[Latrinsorm]

I never said I was against granting extra days of uncharged leave. For all marriages. I have been saying this the entire time.Please refer to the static accounting fail (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?84842-Military-Discriminating&p=1581598#post1581598) I have already addressed.
Yeah, the divide here is exactly that, I don't think anyone in this thread believes there should be no extra leave. The divide is if one party should get it, or all parties.

Personally I'm all for equal rights, I believe all references to sex/race/creed/etc should be removed from any laws.I am giving you the benefit of the doubt on American law as you are a Canadian (not because you aren't an American [Canada is America's hat] but because you're just so darned polite). The original Constitution of the United States guaranteed rights to every man, and made no reference to race, creed, etc. (Arguably they made no reference to sex, but let's leave that aside for now.) Would it interest you to learn that many men were nevertheless immediately denied every right guaranteed by the Constitution?

This is how (some) humans work. Until you explicitly forbid them from doing something and explicitly promise to rip their guts out with a fucking bayonet, they will do it.

I have only ever seen the rejoinder that these explicit conditionals foster resentment. Spoiler alert! That resentment occurs in exactly the same people who would be doing the discrimination in the first place. Racism isn't learned by adults, it's learned by children. No child pores over the UCMJ (or in your case the UCMJ's hat). By the time anyone gets to the point where these intricate legal wranglings are apparent, it's well past too late.

[Gelston]

All that I've gotten from any of this is that cwolff and Latrin hate straight marriage.

[Latrinsorm]

I remember once when the SecDef found the idea of Gays being openly in the military implausible. Hey, when the position was called the SecWar he found the hypothetical situation of African Americans serving with whitey to be bad too. Stop trying to act as if the SecDef is an infallible human.Brother, you have me at a loss. I have repeatedly said this is a crappy solution, and you say I say it is infallible. Infallible is not like inflammable, it does not mean the same thing as fallible.
Westboro Baptist Church for one (note I don't condone this nutjob religion)

I'm sure there could be churches that only recognize marriage done within their congregation.Excellent! I have two requests for citations.

1. Any marriage performed by the WBC.
2. Any convert outside of the Phelps family accepted by the WBC. (Or any Phelps family member serving in the armed forces.)

I am also sure that there could be such churches, in the same way that apples could rise rather than fall after detaching from trees... but I do not believe these possibilities warrant consideration.

[Latrinsorm]

All that I've gotten from any of this is that cwolff and Latrin hate straight marriage.When have I advocated that the Ukraine (which as we have been reminded is not weak) ban straight marriage?

[Gelston]

When have I advocated that the Ukraine (which as we have been reminded is not weak) ban straight marriage?

You want straight marriages in the US Military to be second class marriages!

[Sile]

Latrin, I have to say, I enjoy discussing with you more then cwolf. I enjoy a good discussion/argument as long as its intellectual. And you haven't called me a homophobe because I disagreed with you.

I understand how you feel, and your right it is an imperfect world with imperfect solutions. Overall I think this 'leave' will be used by a very small majority of the service men and women, and the majority will never know who used it.

I'm just against the wording of it, and tailoring it to one group. In Canada it was only recently that males can split up maternity leave with their spouse. Before 100% went to the female. Now it is up to them how they split it up. Which is overall more fair.

I don't know a perfect solution for this issue of gays being able to marry with as little hinderance as straights, and there won't be until gay marriage is accepted world wide, which to be honest it probably never will be.

[Latrinsorm]

You want straight marriages in the US Military to be second class marriages!I want everyone to have the same class marriage; that is, everyone to have them.
Latrin, I have to say, I enjoy discussing with you more then cwolf. I enjoy a good discussion/argument as long as its intellectual. And you haven't called me a homophobe because I disagreed with you.Yeah well the Canucks have not had a good go of things lately!!! But they'll probably turn it around, how about those Sedin twins, eh?
I understand how you feel, and your right it is an imperfect world with imperfect solutions. Overall I think this 'leave' will be used by a very small majority of the service men and women, and the majority will never know who used it.

I'm just against the wording of it, and tailoring it to one group. In Canada it was only recently that males can split up maternity leave with their spouse. Before 100% went to the female. Now it is up to them how they split it up. Which is overall more fair.

I don't know a perfect solution for this issue of gays being able to marry with as little hinderance as straights, and there won't be until gay marriage is accepted world wide, which to be honest it probably never will be.I appreciate that. Like I keep saying I'm hopeful that the bully pulpit will swing the big stick on these other states, that will at least solve things for America.

[Gelston]

I want everyone to have the same class marriage; that is, everyone to have them.

But everyone can already have them.

[Savrin]

Giving people preferential treatment because they are part of a protected class is crap.

The only thing I've seen come from it are people with entitlement issues and resentment from other people. A fine example of this is when a friend of the family who is a teacher traveled to an Alaska Native village. He took a poll to see what the children wanted to be when they grew up and why. He was surprised to find that the overwhelming majority of the kids wanted to be grant writers so they could get free money.

My personal experience is that almost every time I try and hold a member of an ethnic/protected group accountable I'm "Picking on them because they are (Insert race/sexual preference)"

If people would stop trying to force others to accommodate these individuals, maybe they would educate themselves or develop the skills required to, as an individual, earn the respect of their fellow man.

By giving homosexuals free leave the military has provided a small benifet to them. The cost is that a number of the other soldiers now feel slighted because they don't get free leave. Won't mean every soldier will now be anti gay, but you can bet there will be effects ranging from jokes to hard feelings and out right anger and division because of it.

The best way to stop discrimination is to stop discriminating.

[Latrinsorm]

Sorry, I'll be more specific: everyone to have them with the gender of their choice.

[Gelston]

Sorry, I'll be more specific: everyone to have them with the gender of their choice.

They can though.

[Latrinsorm]

My personal experience is that almost every time I try and hold a member of an ethnic/protected group accountable I'm "Picking on them because they are (Insert race/sexual preference)"Legally speaking timpani players aren't a protected class so you can call them out for being little bitches all you want.
If people would stop trying to force others to accommodate these individuals, maybe they would educate themselves or develop the skills required to, as an individual, earn the respect of their fellow man.They already earned that respect. As Americans they were endowed by their Go- creator! Creator. Definitely creator. ...with certain unalienable rights.
The best way to stop discrimination is to stop discriminating.You may recall that back in the 18 hundred and 60 some odds we aggressively invaded the South and ended racism... but somehow 100 years later it was still there. It turns out that about 10 years after said War of Northern Aggression Congress decided that unilateral executive actions by the President were awfully impolite and demanded the withdrawal of (the COMPLETELY apolitical) federal armed forces from the South, and for some reason every ex-Confederate state started discriminating against blacks again.

The best way to stop discrimination is with a whole lot of guns. People may feel strongly about how [minority] is inferior, but almost to a man they feel even more strongly about not getting shot in the head.

[Latrinsorm]

They can though.How delightful! As you know I strongly respect empirical data: would you care to obtain a marriage certificate in each state of the Union with another man (please feel free to substitute someone else's gay certificate)? Obviously I wouldn't ask you to travel to another country, that would...

...

...take too much time.

[Gelston]

Oh, marriage isn't about love but tax deductions?

I can create some marriage certificates, but stop trying to ask me to go get married men in every state.

[Showal]

Westboro Baptist Church for one (note I don't condone this nutjob religion)

I'm sure there could be churches that only recognize marriage done within their congregation.

You realize the WBC is composed of like 25 people. It's essentially some crazy guy, his family, a van, and some friends.

[Latrinsorm]

Tax deductions are pretty sweet.

Being able to hold the hand of the person you love more than anyone else in all of existence as they slowly die, as opposed to being forbidden from entering their hospital room? That's a little sweeter.

And I hate to appeal to emotions, but: a healthy respect for the somewhat arbitrarily determined rights (beyond insofar as rights are themselves arbitrarily defined) guaranteed by a loosely assembled corpus of documents and associated judicial rulings? Now that, brother, is the sweetest thing.

[Gelston]

You realize the WBC is composed of like 25 people. It's essentially some crazy guy, his family, a van, and some friends.

It is one of many crazy cults around the US. The reason WBC stays in the headlines is because half of the family is lawyers so they can afford lots of litigation.

[Savrin]

Legally speaking timpani players aren't a protected class so you can call them out for being little bitches all you want.

That was good for a laugh, even if I did have to look up timpani.



They already earned that respect. As Americans they were endowed by their Go- creator! Creator. Definitely creator. ...with certain unalienable rights.

They were endowed no such thing. Rights and respect are two very different things. You can't police how one person feels about another human being.


The best way to stop discrimination is with a whole lot of guns. People may feel strongly about how [minority] is inferior, but almost to a man they feel even more strongly about not getting shot in the head.

At the time that was probably an accurate statement. US Society has changed quite a bit since then. We now have different problems that require different solutions.

[kutter]

Being able to hold the hand of the person you love more than anyone else in all of existence as they slowly die, as opposed to being forbidden from entering their hospital room? That's a little sweeter.

We can discuss a lot of things on here about this, but this one will not hold water Latrin. Living Wills and Durable Power of Attorney have taken this argument and tossed it out the window. When I retired I got into the healthcare field and I can tell you, healthcare providers do not keep people from someones bedside. That is old information, maybe it used to happen a long time ago, but if people are not disruptive and they do not exceed the number of people allowed to ensure proper patient care then healthcare providers do not care who is there. Note I said not disruptive, often situations like that are a result of issues that exist between the patient and their family/partner. Hence the need for the two documents to ensure the desires of the patient are fulfilled. The irony is that we should all have both of those documents so that it does not fall to the state to make those choices for you, ie. Terry Schiavo.

[Latrinsorm]

Note I said not disruptive, often situations like that are a result of issues that exist between the patient and their family/partner.I did (mentally) note that, and I'm glad you went ahead and suggested my point for me. Are you saying that a healthcare provider (or hospital or police) would not give a life partner more leeway in those disputes if they were legally married?
That was good for a laugh, even if I did have to look up timpani.Oh uh I thought you were the cello guy. Sorry. :S
At the time that was probably an accurate statement. US Society has changed quite a bit since then. We now have different problems that require different solutions.I don't know, it seems like very much the same problem to me. The biggest difference in my mind is the same population that was so rancorous before happens to have dwindled demographically, so the legal process is going somewhat more smoothly, but it's still the same story:

Some states move toward less bigotry.
The federal government moves toward less bigotry.
Some other states become more and more stubborn and calcified.
Military action is required.

2 steps down, 2 to go.

[Showal]

It is one of many crazy cults around the US. The reason WBC stays in the headlines is because half of the family is lawyers so they can afford lots of litigation.

I really thought they stay in the headlines because they have the BEST website domain name.

[Gelston]

Right across the street from their "church" someone bought a house a painted it rainbows. I loled.

[kutter]

I did (mentally) note that, and I'm glad you went ahead and suggested my point for me. Are you saying that a healthcare provider (or hospital or police) would not give a life partner more leeway in those disputes if they were legally married?

It does not matter if they would or would not if they were married, a Living Will and Durable Power of Attorney can trump even a spouse, I know this because my Durable Power of Attorney states that my brother has the power in the event there is dispute. I spoke with my wife about this and she agreed that she might not be as objective as him in those situations, so while in a perfect world a spouse would always know your wishes and have the knowledge to make informed decisions, and the rational thought process, the reality can be quite different.

Everyone and I mean EVERYONE should have a Durable Power of Attorney and a Living Will, it has nothing to do with sexual orientation or marriage.

[ClydeR]

It does not matter if they would or would not if they were married, a Living Will and Durable Power of Attorney can trump even a spouse, I know this because my Durable Power of Attorney states that my brother has the power in the event there is dispute.

You believe it. You don't know it. To know for sure, you'll have to wait until you're in a coma and a dispute arises between your wife and brother.

[kutter]

You believe it. You don't know it. To know for sure, you'll have to wait until you're in a coma and a dispute arises between your wife and brother.

Actually I know it. It is black letter law and has already been proven in court. As for the dispute, that is the whole reason for the documents, to make sure that MY wishes are protected.

[Warriorbird]

Good enough lawyers can do all sorts of things.

[Jarvan]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/10260904/Illegal-for-US-military-to-deny-Bradley-Manning-sex-change.html

What a fucking piece of trash, they should have just killed HIM and saved the trouble. This GUY is a piece of shit.

Suddenly, out of no where, Badly Manning decides he is a woman trapped in a man's body, and wants a sex change...

paid for by The Tax Payers, btw.

We seriously need to stop this inane bullshit. Now, if you want a sex change, all you have to do is commit a crime, and go to jail, and the tax payers will pay for it. I am sorry, but this is utter horse shit. Pay for it your damn self. I wouldnt be surprised if he is going this route, so he can get sent to the woman's portion of the prison and have an easier time of his 35 years.


So.. should the Military (aka, the tax payers) have to pay for sex realignment surgery? Also.. if they do, do you think medicare and medicaid should? Where does it end?

[kutter]

Good enough lawyers can do all sorts of things.

Lawyers can try to convince judges to do things. Judges that follow the LAW protect the rights of the patient, nothing else matters, unfortunately, you are correct, the are activist judges, on both sides, that think they know better than the individual.

[Warriorbird]

Lawyers can try to convince judges to do things. Judges that follow the LAW protect the rights of the patient, nothing else matters, unfortunately, you are correct, the are activist judges, on both sides, that think they know better than the individual.

Pretty much. I wasn't speaking with a political bent. There've been inheritance cases that should have been cut and dried but weren't ever since there have been lawsuits.

[Showal]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/10260904/Illegal-for-US-military-to-deny-Bradley-Manning-sex-change.html

What a fucking piece of trash, they should have just killed HIM and saved the trouble. This GUY is a piece of shit.

Suddenly, out of no where, Badly Manning decides he is a woman trapped in a man's body, and wants a sex change...

paid for by The Tax Payers, btw.

We seriously need to stop this inane bullshit. Now, if you want a sex change, all you have to do is commit a crime, and go to jail, and the tax payers will pay for it. I am sorry, but this is utter horse shit. Pay for it your damn self. I wouldnt be surprised if he is going this route, so he can get sent to the woman's portion of the prison and have an easier time of his 35 years.


So.. should the Military (aka, the tax payers) have to pay for sex realignment surgery? Also.. if they do, do you think medicare and medicaid should? Where does it end?

Shut up, Jarvan. Go work on those skinny ass legs of yours.

[kutter]

Oh, I agree with inheritance, those cases can be so ugly as to make the Hatfields and Mccoys seem like a Sunday church meeting. I was speaking specifically about health care and patients wishes.

[Latrinsorm]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/10260904/Illegal-for-US-military-to-deny-Bradley-Manning-sex-change.html

What a fucking piece of trash, they should have just killed HIM and saved the trouble. This GUY is a piece of shit.

Suddenly, out of no where, Badly Manning decides he is a woman trapped in a man's body, and wants a sex change...

paid for by The Tax Payers, btw.

We seriously need to stop this inane bullshit. Now, if you want a sex change, all you have to do is commit a crime, and go to jail, and the tax payers will pay for it. I am sorry, but this is utter horse shit. Pay for it your damn self. I wouldnt be surprised if he is going this route, so he can get sent to the woman's portion of the prison and have an easier time of his 35 years.


So.. should the Military (aka, the tax payers) have to pay for sex realignment surgery? Also.. if they do, do you think medicare and medicaid should? Where does it end?It ends at the point of prisoners' health care. We can't refuse them antibioitics if they have typhus, we can't refuse them bloodletting if they have hypertension, and we can't refuse them hormone therapy if they are transgender.

If you are asking the larger question of where health care ends, like every science it is always in flux.

Not only for this issue but in the larger sense of "look how easy criminals have it!!!", I feel like it would be pretty easy to empirically determine if that is a criminal thought process: how many of the accused refuse counsel and file no appeals? If their goal is to be in prison, it would make no sense for them to even accept (let alone actively pursue) a way to get out of prison.

[Gelston]

Transgender isn't a disease as far as the CDC is concerned. Are you saying homosexuality is a disease, Latrin?

[Paradii]

Transgender isn't a disease as far as the CDC is concerned. Are you saying homosexuality is a disease, Latrin?


Transgender =/= homosexuality. And transgender is recognized by the APA. As it should be. Because it is not a disease. It is a issue with a person gender identity. Stop talking.

[Gelston]

Transgender =/= homosexuality. And transgender is recognized by the APA. As it should be. Because it is not a disease. It is a issue with a person gender identity. Stop talking.

Latrin said "It ends at the point of prisoners' health care. We can't refuse them antibioitics if they have typhus, we can't refuse them bloodletting if they have hypertension, and we can't refuse them hormone therapy if they are transgender." So, fine, Transgender isn't homosexuality, either way... Latrin is calling it a disease. I haven't really heard of a man being Transgender and hooking up with women though, and as far as the US Government is concerned, a transgender person is still their original race, so my original question stands. Stop talking.

[AnticorRifling]

It ends at the point of prisoners' health care. We can't refuse them antibioitics if they have typhus, we can't refuse them bloodletting if they have hypertension, and we can't refuse them hormone therapy if they are transgender.

If you are asking the larger question of where health care ends, like every science it is always in flux.

Not only for this issue but in the larger sense of "look how easy criminals have it!!!", I feel like it would be pretty easy to empirically determine if that is a criminal thought process: how many of the accused refuse counsel and file no appeals? If their goal is to be in prison, it would make no sense for them to even accept (let alone actively pursue) a way to get out of prison.
How many just want to cause headache and cost money by filing appeal and lawsuit after appeal and lawsuit?

[Savrin]

Transgender =/= homosexuality. And transgender is recognized by the APA. As it should be. Because it is not a disease. It is a issue with a person gender identity. Stop talking.

The APA also recognizes Anti Social Personality Disorder. And the last time I checked, at least one expert and author considered it to fall in the realm of the correctional system and not the mental health system within prisons to cope with it.

You can find the reference in "Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us"

[Savrin]

It ends at the point of prisoners' health care. We can't refuse them antibioitics if they have typhus, we can't refuse them bloodletting if they have hypertension, and we can't refuse them hormone therapy if they are transgender.

If you are asking the larger question of where health care ends, like every science it is always in flux.

Not only for this issue but in the larger sense of "look how easy criminals have it!!!", I feel like it would be pretty easy to empirically determine if that is a criminal thought process: how many of the accused refuse counsel and file no appeals? If their goal is to be in prison, it would make no sense for them to even accept (let alone actively pursue) a way to get out of prison.

Shades of grey sir. Sometimes, though not always, that is the criminal thought process. One example would be the HIV/Hep C/Diabetic petty criminal who goes on a binge when he gets out. When his health starts failing he does something blatant enough to force his return to jail where he turns into a thorn in everyone's side, gets his treatment until he is fairly stable, then gets out and repeats the process.

[Parkbandit]

So, why can't people get married during regular paid leave? We have to come up with special gay leave now to make them feel more special?

Fucking stupid.

[4a6c1]

Gay marriage is not legal in some states. The extra time is to allow for travel to a gay marriage state.

[Parkbandit]

Gay marriage is not legal in some states. The extra time is to allow for travel to a gay marriage state.

http://www.zgeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/captain-obvious.jpg

Point is, if you need extra time to get married because you are gay, then figure it out. If you are travelling to another state, then plan it out and then once you are on leave, get your ass moving.

The military shouldn't have to give you special days off just because you are gay.

[4a6c1]

Heh, sorry. With all the hype I'm just never sure who knows the actual military reasoning behind the extra time allowance.

For my part I think anything that helps veterans cope with their personal lives and thus brings down the horrific high suicide rates for veterans cant be bad.

[Tgo01]

For my part I think anything that helps veterans cope with their personal lives and thus brings down the horrific high suicide rates for veterans cant be bad.

True true. Is there some sort of study that indicates gay service members are more likely to commit suicide than non gay service members?

[Parkbandit]

Heh, sorry. With all the hype I'm just never sure who knows the actual military reasoning behind the extra time allowance.

For my part I think anything that helps veterans cope with their personal lives and thus brings down the horrific high suicide rates for veterans cant be bad.

I CAN'T HAVE A COUPLE MORE DAYS OFF SO I'M GOING TO BLOW MY HEAD OFF!!!!

[4a6c1]

True true. Is there some sort of study that indicates gay service members are more likely to commit suicide than non gay service members?

Not that I've seen. But its probably a given that gay veterans are suffering greater amounts of stress due to the systematic restrictions of their personal lives until recently.

[4a6c1]

I CAN'T HAVE A COUPLE MORE DAYS OFF SO I'M GOING TO BLOW MY HEAD OFF!!!!

Please dont do that. :(

[cwolff]

The vehemence with which you guys protest this over the top. Frankly it's alarming. Is there really this much angst within your demographic?

As has been pointed out before:
1) This provision will expire on it's own as more states legalize gay marriage.
2) It's not a benefit for Gay people. It only applies to gay people serving overseas or more than 100 miles from a jurisdiction where gay marriage is legal.
3) It's a 1x per career allowance. It's not like gay people can marry, divorce, marry divorce as a way to play the system for free leave throughout their career.
4) There a 1.4 million people on active duty of which 66k are gay (this number comes from a gay rights group. Could actually be less than this figure since they have a dog in this fight). Not all of them will marry during their time in uniform. Some of the 66k are or will serve in CA, WA, DC and other jurisdictions where gay marriage is legal thus making them ineligible for the leave. How many of the 1.4 million are stationed within 100 miles of or in CA for example.

Gay Marriage is a right of all gay Americans. Gay service people who may have to burn leave just to exercise their rights are adversely impacted by states which discriminate against Gay marriage. They will suffer damages for exercising their rights and they will have case if they decide to press it. This accommodation is saving you, me and all taxpayers the costs of fighting this out in court.

Some have said that it will negatively affect morale and we'll lose the best of our service members because of it. This logic failed when the military de-segregates and it will fail now. The US military is not going to collapse into a pile of shit just because a few gay guys get a free week off of work.

[Tgo01]

It's not a benefit for Gay people. It only applies to gay people

<insert forehead smack here>

[Parkbandit]

The vehemence with which you guys protest this over the top. Frankly it's alarming. Is there really this much angst within your demographic?

As has been pointed out before:
1) This provision will expire on it's own as more states legalize gay marriage.
2) It's not a benefit for Gay people. It only applies to gay people serving overseas or more than 100 miles from a jurisdiction where gay marriage is legal.
3) It's a 1x per career allowance. It's not like gay people can marry, divorce, marry divorce as a way to play the system for free leave throughout their career.
4) There a 1.4 million people on active duty of which 66k are gay (this number comes from a gay rights group. Could actually be less than this figure since they have a dog in this fight). Not all of them will marry during their time in uniform. Some of the 66k are or will serve in CA, WA, DC and other jurisdictions where gay marriage is legal thus making them ineligible for the leave. How many of the 1.4 million are stationed within 100 miles of or in CA for example.

Yea.. because if we disagree, we must be over the top.

[/quote]Gay Marriage is a right of all gay Americans. Gay service people who may have to burn leave just to exercise their rights are adversely impacted by states which discriminate against Gay marriage. They will suffer damages for exercising their rights and they will have case if they decide to press it. This accommodation is saving you, me and all taxpayers the costs of fighting this out in court. [/quote]

Are you suggesting that there is no way for gay people to get married with "only" 30 days leave time?


Some have said that it will negatively affect morale and we'll lose the best of our service members because of it. This logic failed when the military de-segregates and it will fail now. The US military is not going to collapse into a pile of shit just because a few gay guys get a free week off of work.

The only thing weaker than your argument is your obvious use of hyperbole.

[Vorpos]

Not that I've seen. But its probably a given that gay veterans are suffering greater amounts of stress due to the systematic restrictions of their personal lives until recently.

And since you are such a good hearted person I'll bet you spend countless hours helping gay veterans deal with said stress.

[HeyJoe]

I'd be all for allowing this rule to be changed to let straight people more than 100 miles from a state where opposite-sex marriages are legal be granted the extra leave time.

[Latrinsorm]

Latrin said "It ends at the point of prisoners' health care. We can't refuse them antibioitics if they have typhus, we can't refuse them bloodletting if they have hypertension, and we can't refuse them hormone therapy if they are transgender." So, fine, Transgender isn't homosexuality, either way... Latrin is calling it a disease. I haven't really heard of a man being Transgender and hooking up with women though, and as far as the US Government is concerned, a transgender person is still their original race, so my original question stands. Stop talking.Being pre-op transgender is certainly a disease, in very much the same way untreated PTSD is. Being transgender has nothing to do with homosexuality, otherwise people would say LGB and be done with it.

I would certainly hope the government considers a post-op transgender their original race, to my knowledge vitiligo is not a side effect of transgender treatment. Ha! Ha! No but seriously, what the government considers their gender is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. The only relevance is whether the disease is treated or untreated. They can call it transgender in remission if they like, or hamburger time deluxe.
How many just want to cause headache and cost money by filing appeal and lawsuit after appeal and lawsuit?There's always a chance with appeals that they'll go free, though, and if they profit from being in jail they cannot possibly pursue something that would prevent that. It's called the profit motive, sheesh, haven't you ever read one of crb's diatribes? Filing civil suits would be okay though.
Shades of grey sir. Sometimes, though not always, that is the criminal thought process. One example would be the HIV/Hep C/Diabetic petty criminal who goes on a binge when he gets out. When his health starts failing he does something blatant enough to force his return to jail where he turns into a thorn in everyone's side, gets his treatment until he is fairly stable, then gets out and repeats the process.Someone playing Russian roulette is not someone I would consider acting rationally, and we by definition can't anticipate the forms of irrational response.
Point is, if you need extra time to get married because you are gay, then figure it out.This is discrimination. It is almost so obvious a formulation of the concept that I think you are joking, but... you're not joking.

[4a6c1]

And since you are such a good hearted person I'll bet you spend countless hours helping gay veterans deal with said stress.

Last week I called a gay veteran a fag, slapped his butt and then tried to pimp out his ass to about five straight coworkers. I'm really hoping this counts for something in the good hearted contest.

[Vorpos]

Last week I called a gay veteran a fag, slapped his butt and then tried to pimp out his ass to about five straight coworkers. I'm really hoping this counts for something in the good hearted contest.

At least you were sober long enough to remember it. That's a start.

[Latrinsorm]

At least you were sober long enough to remember it. That's a start.I like when Vorpos wakes up from his haterade-induced coma. A brief interlude of oddly directed anger really accentuates how sweet certain other people are.

[Vorpos]

I like when Vorpos wakes up from his haterade-induced coma. A brief interlude of oddly directed anger really accentuates how sweet certain other people are.

It's nice to know I make a difference.

[Warriorbird]

It's nice to know I make a difference.

http://i707.photobucket.com/albums/ww73/blikestro/chappelle-player-haters-ball.jpg

[Gelston]

Being pre-op transgender is certainly a disease, in very much the same way untreated PTSD is. Being transgender has nothing to do with homosexuality, otherwise people would say LGB and be done with it.

I would certainly hope the government considers a post-op transgender their original race, to my knowledge vitiligo is not a side effect of transgender treatment. Ha! Ha! No but seriously, what the government considers their gender is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. The only relevance is whether the disease is treated or untreated. They can call it transgender in remission if they like, or hamburger time deluxe.

Pretty sure the Government doesn't consider it a disease. Otherwise the CDC would be out trying to eradicate transgenders. Should the American taxpayer pay for him to change his sex? Hell no. YOU can send him money to do it if you care so much though.

[4a6c1]

At least you were sober long enough to remember it. That's a start.

Now you're just going overboard. How dare you accuse me of sobriety.

3 whole days left of summer, afterall. AHH! :[

[Latrinsorm]

As near as I can tell the CDC just chills in their research bunkers waiting for survivors to come along and blow them (the survivors) (also the bunkers) up.

No but seriously, the CDC can't personally eradicate every disease. For this topic they do provide links (http://www.cdc.gov/lgbthealth/transgender.htm), my personal favorite (http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=692) of which has the #1 concern for transgender health as "Access to Healthcare". If we compare transgenderism with (for instance) HIV, we notice that there are 1.2m HIV+ to 0.7m trans and HIV is transmissible. Obviously the CDC would devote more resources to HIV, that's just triage...

...but they do devote resources to it. I would call that trying to eradicate the problem, and trying justifiably hard given the other issues on their plate.

[Gelston]

Okay, so transgenders are disease infested then?

On a side note, I just can't get over how much Assange looks like a damn supervillian from a comic.

[Savrin]

Someone playing Russian roulette is not someone I would consider acting rationally, and we by definition can't anticipate the forms of irrational response.

Sometimes you're just to smart for me sir. I'm not quite following. Are you saying the example provided was that of an irrational person? If that's what you're saying I'd have to disagree because it's a reasoned response to their needs. Sort of like the influx of homeless that all of a sudden get booked for petty crimes when the snow starts falling.

I'll however agree that I don't see most transgender people getting themselves thrown in jail just to get a free sex change operation. What I can see is a multitude of transgender prisoners coming forward saying they need a sex change operation and demanding that the state/federal government pay for it since they are incarcerated which is crap.

You don't see big boned prisoners getting free liposuction because being overweight hurts their self image. You don't see ugly prisoners getting free face lifts because their feelings get hurt every time they look in a mirror.

I'd be willing to bet that most health insurance programs wouldn't cover a sex change operation. Why should our tax dollars?

[Latrinsorm]

Okay, so transgenders are disease infested then?I recommend you use whatever terminology you would use to describe someone with PTSD. Since you ask, I personally would not say one disease counted as an infestation.
Sometimes you're just to smart for me sir. I'm not quite following. Are you saying the example provided was that of an irrational person? If that's what you're saying I'd have to disagree because it's a reasoned response to their needs. Sort of like the influx of homeless that all of a sudden get booked for petty crimes when the snow starts falling. The homeless are avoiding a dangerous situation by doing that. Homelessness minus exposure is just about as dangerous as being in jail, so it makes sense they would want to get out. Someone with HIV who intentionally goes off their meds is in my expert and legally binding medical opinion (as a random person posting on a message board) borderline suicidal. It's unbelievably dangerous and therefore irrational. How would you reason with someone like that? "If you keep doing what you are doing you will surely die." They already know that, so that conversation is already over.
I'll however agree that I don't see most transgender people getting themselves thrown in jail just to get a free sex change operation. What I can see is a multitude of transgender prisoners coming forward saying they need a sex change operation and demanding that the state/federal government pay for it since they are incarcerated which is crap.

You don't see big boned prisoners getting free liposuction because being overweight hurts their self image. You don't see ugly prisoners getting free face lifts because their feelings get hurt every time they look in a mirror.There are non-surgical alternatives to obesity and ugliness. If prisoners were not allowed exercise time, then I would absolutely be for them being provided liposuction, but they are, so I'm not.
I'd be willing to bet that most health insurance programs wouldn't cover a sex change operation. Why should our tax dollars?Your bet would probably win you money. The answer to your question is that the United States government has always stood for more than a business' bottom line. Slavery, then workers' rights, then welfare, now (more) prisoners' rights. None of these were profitable decisions, but they were the right decisions.

[Savrin]

The homeless are avoiding a dangerous situation by doing that. Homelessness minus exposure is just about as dangerous as being in jail, so it makes sense they would want to get out. Someone with HIV who intentionally goes off their meds is in my expert and legally binding medical opinion (as a random person posting on a message board) borderline suicidal. It's unbelievably dangerous and therefore irrational. How would you reason with someone like that? "If you keep doing what you are doing you will surely die." They already know that, so that conversation is already over.

If most people who went to jail were reasonable by the standards of you and I, many of them wouldn't keep going back, or ending up serving time in prison. I didn't say they were reasonable, however they can reason. They have different goals and motivations than most individuals. For many criminals doing time isn't the deterrent that many people think it is. Think of it in terms of reputation. Winning an appeal can be more about earning status, and supporting ones self image of infallibility than it is about actually getting freedom to go commit more crime.

Try thinking in terms of immediate self gratification. In that light, you could see why IV drug users, meth heads, and other substance abusers with failing health will push themselves right to the point where their body is failing, then get remanded to clean up and get healthy enough to go on another binge. As a side note, health issues go hand in hand with substance abuse.


There are non-surgical alternatives to obesity and ugliness. If prisoners were not allowed exercise time, then I would absolutely be for them being provided liposuction, but they are, so I'm not.

Is counseling not a non-surgical alternative to how someone feels?


Your bet would probably win you money. The answer to your question is that the United States government has always stood for more than a business' bottom line. Slavery, then workers' rights, then welfare, now (more) prisoners' rights. None of these were profitable decisions, but they were the right decisions.

A sex change operation does not treat a condition which is potentially dangerous to the prisoners life. It doesn't grant relief from chronic pain. It doesn't prevent loss of motor function. It doesn't really do anything other than make the person feel more comfortable with who they are. It's cosmetic.

[Gelston]

Awesome, Latrin comparestransgender to PTSD. Awesome.

[4a6c1]

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/eric-alva2-e1376675515143.jpg

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/marine-war-hero-eric-alva-excoriates-a-texas-crowd-who-booed-him-because-he-is-gay/news/2013/08/16/73326?goback=%2Egde_43780_member_268063115#%21

:)

[Savrin]

Oh sure, go right for the heart you sappy Liberal. :p

Awarding people free stuff because they are from a protected group does not make for fair treatment.

[Tenlaar]

Awarding people free stuff because they are from a protected group does not make for fair treatment.

Where does a protected group having to endure extra hardship due to bigoted states/countries fall in your spectrum of "fair treatment?"

[Methais]

Where does a protected group having to endure extra hardship due to bigoted states/countries fall in your spectrum of "fair treatment?"

Then they should stop saying they want equality and just say they want special treatment, because you can't have both.

[Warriorbird]

Where does a protected group having to endure extra hardship due to bigoted states/countries fall in your spectrum of "fair treatment?"

I feel like a certain portion of those who consider this a "serious issue" are just upset that the military gives equal rights to homosexuals now.

I think everybody should just have that 10 days though. Makes me think about that one episode of Mad Men Season 6 where a soldier has like 4 hours of freedom to get married in. I feel like the half of the people responding who don't hate gay people would be fine with that.

[Tgo01]

Somewhere right now Obama is saying "Dance my little monkeys! DANCE!"

[Latrinsorm]

If most people who went to jail were reasonable by the standards of you and I, many of them wouldn't keep going back, or ending up serving time in prison. I didn't say they were reasonable, however they can reason. They have different goals and motivations than most individuals. For many criminals doing time isn't the deterrent that many people think it is. Think of it in terms of reputation. Winning an appeal can be more about earning status, and supporting ones self image of infallibility than it is about actually getting freedom to go commit more crime.

Try thinking in terms of immediate self gratification. In that light, you could see why IV drug users, meth heads, and other substance abusers with failing health will push themselves right to the point where their body is failing, then get remanded to clean up and get healthy enough to go on another binge. As a side note, health issues go hand in hand with substance abuse.Well, I disagree, and I don't believe we can come to an accord on this matter.
Is counseling not a non-surgical alternative to how someone feels?In the same way that a tourniquet is a non-surgical alternative when your leg gets blown off. Better than nothing, but not by much.
A sex change operation does not treat a condition which is potentially dangerous to the prisoners life. It doesn't grant relief from chronic pain. It doesn't prevent loss of motor function. It doesn't really do anything other than make the person feel more comfortable with who they are. It's cosmetic.The ruling I mentioned before set precedent that it was a threat to life, and in my opinion very plausibly. Motor function is okay though, that's true.
Awesome, Latrin comparestransgender to PTSD. Awesome.That's not the first time I've made that comparison, and I think it's more apt than you'd like to admit. Both are legitimate psychological disorders that are horrible to live with, both have a long history of being pooh-poohed by society, and if I were a wagering man I'd wager you couldn't tell the difference between reported distress when the causes were scrubbed. Speaking of, let's play Pascal's Wager!

If I'm wrong and you're right, we're being overly generous. We're the richest country that has ever existed (and probably will ever exist), is that such a bad thing?
If I'm right and you're wrong, you're literally no different than the people that told Mr. Stewart to "pull yourself together, man".

I don't know, man, I think playing the percentages is the way to go here.
Then they should stop saying they want equality and just say they want special treatment, because you can't have both.You can't have either, you can only have both or neither.

It is a fact that homosexuals are treated unequally in certain American states and certain furrn countries. Let's call that -2.
It is also a fact that heterosexuals are never refused marriage on the basis of being heterosexual. Let's call that 0.

Now, what single finite number could you add to -2 and 0 to reach 5 in each case? The answer does not exist. You must add 7 and 5 to obtain sums of 5.

.

Of course, I recognize that you are making these complaints facetiously and are aware of doing so, but as you know I am easily provoked.

[Gelston]

Latrin, no.

[Latrinsorm]

Sir, I must protest! Do you know who the enemy is, Dmitri? DO YOU?!?

Alright. Now I will engage our respected neutral third party, the google. I will take the first three results for transgender symptoms and the first three for PTSD symptoms, randomize with our distinguished neutral third party of X-L, and you tell me which is which (obviously, without yourself googling to engage our absolutely reviled third party, The Cheat). You are so knowledgeable about psychiatry, eh?

1. disliking or refusing to take part in activities and games; feeling extreme distress; many may experience depression or suicidal feelings.
2. are rejected by their peers, feel alone; have depression or anxiety; withdraw from social interaction
3. suffer from high rates of psychiatric symptoms, such as depression and suicide attempts; those without treatment are prone to psychiatric disorders, including depression, suicide, self-mutilation, anxiety.
4. symptoms can be terrifying, they may disrupt your life and make it hard to continue with your daily activities, it may be hard just to get through the day; you may not have positive or loving feelings toward other people and may stay away from relationships; feelings of shame, despair, or hopelessness.
5. loss of interest in activities and life in general; feeling detached from others and emotionally numb; depression and hopelessness / suicidal thoughts and feelings
6. feeling emotionally numb; avoiding activities you once enjoyed; hopelessness about the future; difficulty maintaining close relationships; overwhelming guilt or shame

Go on, tell me which is which and why. This is your chance to show us how it's so different.

[Gelston]

I said no.

[Latrinsorm]

And I said sir, which as you know is an acronym for Defense Minister Mishkin. (It's funnier in the original Cyrillic.)

You believe the two disorders are different. Okay, prove it.

[Gelston]

Latrin, no.

[Latrinsorm]

Brother, your intransigence (very much like Scott Summers' language) bespeaks a limited mentality. Excuse me while I shave my head.

[Gelston]

Make sure to use the correct razor.

[Latrinsorm]

I am hurt by your refusal to neither examine your predilections nor recognize that I am not allowed the sharps (and no professori, dictori [SPEAK ENGLISH] has such disgustingly wild hair). They will surely cut my tongue, and I will lose no less than ten concussion points.

And the serpent whispers they will not surely cut my tongue.

[Gelston]

No, you can't have by XBox.

[Latrinsorm]

You speak to a shi'ah al-Tendo, sirrah! (Too much? The royalist Big Fish and I can never tell.)

[Methais]

I can't help but wonder what an average day is like for Latrin.

[Gelston]

I can't help but wonder what an average day is like for Latrin.

Quiet shame masked by loud euphemisms.

[Tisket]

I'm going to say, quite affectionately, and not at all in a negative way, that Latrinsorm is the biggest troll on the boards.

If the measure of a troll is to take a provocative stance in order to elicit reactions, then he wins the PC.

[Latrinsorm]

There have been many days when I said no words, which makes the Day of Silence somewhat indistinguishable. I think it would help if you consider my blathering from the position of one who is thoroughly un-im-pressed, as King Herod of the Jews was before us.

The lettuce turns to Rome... because lettuce is un-in-hibited by a brazen military dictatorship.

[Gelston]

Stop using hyphens.

[Tisket]

It's fun-ny watching Gelston get trolled.

[Gelston]

It's fun-ny watching Gelston get trolled.

I hope a meteorite destroys something precious to you.

[Tisket]

haha

[Latrinsorm]

I'm going to say, quite affectionately, and not at all in a negative way, that Latrinsorm is the biggest troll on the boards.

If the measure of a troll is to take a provocative stance in order to elicit reactions, then he wins the PC.The one thing I would wish for is world salvation, then world peace, then world at least tolerance, then world a-ppre-ciation na kimochi yo todoke for Tisket's fucking amazing art(), then that I would be taken seriously when I am being serious and taken for laughs when I am joking.

I am being serious in this thread, okay everybody? Transgender is a real thing, and I am so frustrated that we have to play out the same old bullshit about sneezing a minority that we have passed down our family line FOR GENERATIONS.

Look around you (GELSTON AND METHAIS). This has all happened before. Minorities were all ew and gross but oh wait, 30 years later we are horribly embarrassed by the people who say that.

And please do not under-estimate my ability to include hyphens for lyrical or etymological lols. I will destroy you (STILL GELSTON), my hated enemy. :grr: (naw I'm actually pretty psyched by you.) (Not mutual, I'm sure.......)

[Gelston]

I think feet are gross.

[Tisket]

taken seriously when I am being serious and taken for laughs when I am joking.

Oh I would never imply that a troll can't believe what whatever stance they decide to take is right and true. But come on, you cannot deny that you enjoy eliciting reactions from other posters.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[Tisket]

I think feet are gross.

They are. Unless they are shod in expensive designer shoes.

[Gelston]

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Nightline/ht_iris_schieferstein_hooves_gold_jp_ss_110511_ssh .jpg

[Tisket]

I'd totally wear those.

[Latrinsorm]

Oh I would never imply that a troll can't believe what whatever stance they decide to take is right and true. But come on, you cannot deny that you enjoy eliciting reactions from other posters.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.The only reactions I have ever (helplessly) hoped to elicit are:

1. Oh, that is interesting, please excuse me while I think about that for a moment longer in private.
2. Well, thank you! I appreciate being appreciated in a way that also indicates an acknowledgment that our relationship is that and nothing more involved. Shall we have a hearty handshake?

Of course, I would never reveal these hidden yearnings except in exclusive private to you as one of approximately 3 people I trust, and certainly not without the caveat that I hold no umbrage to anyone who has not fulfilled these (again) hidden yearnings.

Jah bless, Jah guide, Jah bring terrifying wrath and punishment on anyone who doubts my platonic devotion to Tisket.

[AuctionBot2000]

The one thing I would wish for is world salvation, then world peace, then world at least tolerance, then world a-ppre-ciation na kimochi yo todoke for Tisket's fucking amazing art(), then that I would be taken seriously when I am being serious and taken for laughs when I am joking.

I am being serious in this thread, okay everybody? Transgender is a real thing, and I am so frustrated that we have to play out the same old bullshit about sneezing a minority that we have passed down our family line FOR GENERATIONS.

Look around you (GELSTON AND METHAIS). This has all happened before. Minorities were all ew and gross but oh wait, 30 years later we are horribly embarrassed by the people who say that.

And please do not under-estimate my ability to include hyphens for lyrical or etymological lols. I will destroy you (STILL GELSTON), my hated enemy. :grr: (naw I'm actually pretty psyched by you.) (Not mutual, I'm sure.......)


As a non-practicing homosexual I found trannies strange but I've come to realize that after the transition the person seems to be much happier in regards to their personal being. If you're not flamboyantly obnoxious in behavior I have respect for you as a person instead of oppressing your being.

[Tisket]

As a non-practicing homosexual I found trannies strange but I've come to realize that after the transition the person seems to be much happier in regards to their personal being. If you're not flamboyantly obnoxious in behavior I have respect for you as a person instead of oppressing your being.

lolwut...

You are a non-practicing homosexual? What do you even mean by that. You acknowledge your homosexuality but you don't engage in homosexual sex? Why? What's the point?

Seems like you are missing out on a lot of fun.

[Fortybox]

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BKMAHuICQAAACOo.png:large