Liberalism in the military is over the top as well

[MGMorden]

Like I said a gay praticing voyeurism not a gut looking down at the wrong moment. With your line of thought it should be male and females all showering togather. I feel we should respect traditional behavior you must not.
Didn't say govt was a person , we are free from govt .

Whether it's "voyeurism" or a guy looking down at the wrong moment though, the net effect to you is unchanged.  You're worrying about the intricacies of what's going on in someone's mind.  And personally, no, I wouldn't care if the males and females were all showering together.  I've never been one to care much about traditional behavior though.

I know powder loves that term "panty wetters".  Never understood how it could be bandied about so often by people who seem so quick to get riled up about each and every action other groups tend to take.  Honestly it baffles me how some people can go through life so wired and on edge about what's going on in other people's private lives.  Focus on the joy in your own life, and not the perceived "moral" deficiencies in other people's lives that are around you, and you'll end up much happier.

[SHOOTALL]

I don't know about you but if some one was starring and finding pleasure in doing so it would have a differen't effect than someone looking by mistake. But I think I see why we don't agree you excuse the possiblity that gays and strights are different in some of the reasons they take the actions they do. 

[beerbelly]

Queers should be outlawed and the penalty should be death!

[Casull]

Honestly it baffles me how some people can go through life so wired and on edge about what's going on in other people's private lives.

That's a common misconception/lie/tactic.  It's not their private lives that we are talking about, but rather the public policy/law that they want to change/impose.

[powderman]

Honestly it baffles me how some people can go through life so wired and on edge about what's going on in other people's private lives.

That's a common misconception/lie/tactic.  It's not their private lives that we are talking about, but rather the public policy/law that they want to change/impose.

CASULL. Exactly, libs don't seem to understand that. POWDERMAN. 

[SHOOTALL]

Libs hate to cloud issues with facts

[MGMorden]

That's a common misconception/lie/tactic.  It's not their private lives that we are talking about, but rather the public policy/law that they want to change/impose.

Yes, but it's generally public policies that only affect them. 

Honestly, is a gay couple getting the legal recognition to be able to visit their partner in the hospital, handle medical consent forms, inherit their estate, etc, going to have any affect on you (outside of mental frustration which is a personal problem which can happen to anyone easily irritable) at all?

We're not talking about socialized medicine that's going to force us onto a public health plan here.  We're not talking about a welfare state that is going to increase our taxes.  We're literally talking about just letting them have the option of setting up the same contract that the rest of us do. 

Outside of a religiously based hangup (which constitutionally cannot have any recognition in our laws), there is not reason why it would affect anyone else.

Now as to military chaplains being forced to perform these, I'm of mixed opinion.  IMHO, if they're paid employees, then they should have to perform any legal ceremony that the state recognizes.  If you're a paid employee that that's part of your JOB.  That said, to me, its a conflict of interests to have an official chaplain in the military.  Being of religious nature, that type of thing should be left up to non-official community organized groups (either soldiers setting up their own services in their spare time or missionaries).  That can be donation supported or just volunteer missionary work.  Being autonomous groups with no official standing (and with the religiously rooted marriage ceremony being legally removed from the equivalent legal arrangement in civil law as I suggested), those groups would be free to marry or not marry whoever they wanted.

Put bluntly, whether or not "god" agrees with a decision or not should have absolutely no legal bearing on a situation whatsoever, because not everyone (and it's a rapidly growing not everyone - lack of religion is the fastest growing "religious" affiliation in the country) believes in that, and they all pay taxes too.

[MGMorden]

Libs hate to cloud issues with facts

The irony comes steaming off of that comment.  Rather than present these "facts", you resort to an ad hominem - a logical fallacy that is considered useless in a debate.

PS I don't consider myself a liberal.  I'm a moderate.  My opinions on fiscal matters tend to be mostly conservative, whilst my opinions on social matters tend to ere on the side of liberal - except for gun control (though IMHO by definition I don't know why "liberals" would go after guns anyways - the root word of liberal is liberty - freedom.  That basic premise of freedom is what I tend to support).

[SHOOTALL]

Religous based hang up ? Where in our consitution does it say religion can't influnce Govt. ? I fully understand Govt. can't influnce Religion but have not been able to find what you report. BTW why do we trust in God if he has no say in our Govt. Did the founding fathers put that in because they didn't believe in it ? Why do you consider the following of a religious teaching a hang up ? I suggest maybe you have the hang up with regard to religion .
As for chaplians , they should be able to do as their religion dectates not the interpetation of govt. You see that is Govt. establishing religious doctrine and pratice IE telling chaplians what to preach , which by your post is illegal with regard to the consitution. I guess you have a consitutional hang up .

[SHOOTALL]

Libs hate to cloud issues with facts

The irony comes steaming off of that comment.  Rather than present these "facts", you resort to an ad hominem - a logical fallacy that is considered useless in a debate.

PS I don't consider myself a liberal.  I'm a moderate.  My opinions on fiscal matters tend to be mostly conservative, whilst my opinions on social matters tend to ere on the side of liberal - except for gun control (though IMHO by definition I don't know why "liberals" would go after guns anyways - the root word of liberal is liberty - freedom.  That basic premise of freedom is what I tend to support).

Sorry it was a joke , forgot libs have little sense of humor.

[SHOOTALL]

As far as being paid out of public funds , should govt. be able to instruct judges how to judge in a case ? Seems same idea here.

[MGMorden]

Where in our consitution does it say religion can't influnce Govt. ? I fully understand Govt. can't influnce Religion but have not been able to find what you report.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It's the in plain text.  The constitution says nothing about a national religion (which I know is where you're wanting to take this).  It says that CONGRESS. SHALL. MAKE. NO. LAW. respecting an establishment of religion.  If the root of any law is in religion, then it's unconstitutional.  End of story.  Given that any other government agency can only exercise powers granted to it via congress (and congress has no ability to grant any authority regarding religion), then no government agency can act in that fashion.

As for chaplians , they should be able to do as their religion dectates not the interpetation of govt. You see that is Govt. establishing religious doctrine and pratice IE telling chaplians what to preach , which by your post is illegal with regard to the consitution. I guess you have a consitutional hang up .

Not at all.  I think that chaplains should be free to preach or practice whatever they wish.  HOWEVER, to me, when they are given official and salaried positions by the government, then the 1st amendment is already being ignored.  They are a federally employed religious figure - something that should be an oxymoron according the the first amendment.  As such if they're keeping them on the payroll then I think it only correct that they have some say in their actions (hard to have a good working relationship with an employee when you're not allowed to have them do what you need), but the REAL solution would be for the government to completely wash their hands of the matter.  Religious officials become an extracurricular activity of the service members with no government involvement, just like for the rest of the population.

[MGMorden]

As far as being paid out of public funds , should govt. be able to instruct judges how to judge in a case ? Seems same idea here.

Judges don't just get to bang their gavel and do whatever they want.  They have a set framework of laws which they must operate within, and on the things where they CAN exercise judgement, the government most certainly can change a ruling.  That's the whole point of the appeals process.  Don't let that fact cloud the issue though.

[SHOOTALL]

Didn't say govt was making a law said religion can influnce govt. big difference. An example if the christians got togather and voted as one they could influnce govt. They could in effect get a consitution convention and change the consitution 
Chaplains , you don't address the idea that Govt. has no right to prescribe what they preach as noted in the consitution. They are there to offer service to those in need . There pay like a judges does not give right to rule them. They offer a service the govt. picks up the expence.
When was the last time the decision of the SC over turned ? So it would seem that the appeals arising from chaplian issues should be decided by chaplians like it is with judges appeals to higher judges ?

So it seems to be your opinion that we should send men to war with out chaplains to tend their needs and give last rights .

[MGMorden]

Didn't say govt was making a law said religion can influnce govt. big difference. An example if the christians got togather and voted as one they could influnce govt. They could in effect get a consitution convention and change the consitution 

Indeed, the people can vote based on their religion, but in the end, we're not a democracy - we're a republic.  The people's votes elect congress.  One those people's representative have that seat, they can no longer base any legislation based on their religious leanings. 

Chaplains , you don't address the idea that Govt. has no right to prescribe what they preach as noted in the consitution. They are there to offer service to those in need . There pay like a judges does not give right to rule them. They offer a service the govt. picks up the expence.
When was the last time the decision of the SC over turned ?

Not sure what you're trying to get at.  The "government" isn't a nebulous entitity.  It has specifically defined parts.  The Supreme Court is the absolute highest authority within the Judicial branch.  Asking whether the "government" can reverse their ruling is circular nonsense.  They ARE the government.  That's like asking the age old question "Can God create a boulder that even he cannot life?" (with the implication being that if he can't lift it, then he's not all-powerful, but in turn, if he can't create such a rock, then he's ALSO not all-powerful).  In the end the question is a useless loop with no true meaning.  Yes, there comes a point in the government when there is no higher level to tell them what to do.  That doesn't mean that along that chain they can't very well tell the lower levels what to do though.  It also doesn't address at all the entire premise that as a religious body, federally employed chaplains are a on the darker side of a very gray area in the first place.

So it seems to be your opinion that we should send men to war with out chaplains to tend their needs and give last rights .

Not really.  I'm saying the GOVERNMENT shouldn't send those chaplains.  If a group of christian ministers wishes to head over there with them to administer religious rites then they are more than welcome to do so.  I bear religious individuals no ill will.  I pity them to some degree, but I don't think they shouldn't be free to practice their religion as they wish - not via the taxpayers dime however.  Donations and volunteers manage to organize missionary work all over the place - surely they'll make due (and surely if there is a divine power as you believe, then he, rather than the American tax payers, can afford it).

[Casull]

Honestly, is a gay couple getting the legal recognition to be able to visit their partner in the hospital, handle medical consent forms, inherit their estate, etc,

Again, another misconception/distortion/lie used by those who want to change public policy/law.  A "gay couple" can do all these things, WITHOUT requiring a change in public policy/law.  All it takes is a power of attorney and/or will.  No, the reason they want "gay marriage" to be legal is to force government and/or the public to accept their lifestyle.

[Casull]

If the root of any law is in religion, then it's unconstitutional.  End of story.

That is simply, and absolutely, untrue.

[Casull]

One those people's representative have that seat, they can no longer base any legislation based on their religious leanings. 

Where did you get this gem?  That is patently false.  Of course a representative's actions/votes are going to be affected by their religion (or upbringing, education, etc.).  You must have been listening to those lib's who claim that they don't let their religion affect their vote (usually when voting on abortion or some such matter that conflicts with their religious "beliefs").

[powderman]

Again, another misconception/distortion/lie used by those who want to change public policy/law.  A "gay couple" can do all these things, WITHOUT requiring a change in public policy/law.  All it takes is a power of attorney and/or will.  No, the reason they want "gay marriage" to be legal is to force government and/or the public to accept their lifestyle.


CASULL. Thats it exactly. It has nothing to do with rights, it's all about convincing everybody that their deviate, perverted, abominable lifestyle is normal, which it is NOT. Even if they convince man, it's God they have to worry about. POWDERMAN.