under the charter of freedom act

[Winnie G]

Ok someone says the board is dry lately so I thought I ask this question.

I Live in right Canada and lived and worked for the Canadian military for years before being OK to be guy in the military became policy.

Canada does not have "The don’t ask don’t tell":rolleyes: policy it’s the we don’t care what floats your boat policy. I know of two women who came out shortly after it changed they live a as domestic couple with full benefits all around. You can get married in Ontraio.

Our old neighbor two doors down was two guy supply clerks.

My question is if Canada and other country’s can do it with out being freaked out over who sleeps in my tent during combat why is the US still so far be hide?

This is not me trying to start a fight I just wondered why?

Canada has it’s share of homophobes so if the government can come out and say Ok this is it, under the charter of freedom’s act, Gay or strait you are just as much a solder as the next guy.

Then why cant Washingtion say ok here it is live with it?

[a-train]

I have not served in the military, but most of my family is military. What it sounds like to me is that there is a concern about the base of American's who fill the ranks of the military. The concern is that many of those who would enter the military would not if homosexuality was openly allowed. Another concern is the friction between soldiers over the issue. I don't know how valid that is, perhaps it used to be.

I think the growing feeling is that there is no need for concern on the issue.

In my opinion, any sexual activity or relationship that presents a problem in our military should be treated as such regardless of its nature.

-a-train

[Winnie G]

I was the one who pulled the short straw the morning it became law and I had to be the one to bring the captain his morning coffee and paper, I placed in face down on his desk and left, a load S###* fallowed but like most it passed with a whisper instead a boom. None really cared I think we need to give members of the military credit.

[NeuroTypical]

Many of us are very leery of using our military as a tool of social change. Anything that makes the military's job harder will reduce it's effectiveness, and can get people killed.

[prisonchaplain]

For all the talk about soldiers in the barracks, or in foxholes, the real issue, imho, is that most Americans still believe that homosexual activity is immoral, and so they hate to see any government action or policy change that encourages it. Of course, the opposition cannot frame their argument that way.

[Canuck Mormon]

I'm of the opinion that no one should be denied any basic rights and freedoms no matter what. However, if you can't live by society's laws, those rights are taken away. This mean no special treatment for anyone. Everybody has the same rights as everyone else, unless you're a criminal. This includes homosexuality. Who cares what people do in the privacy of they're own bedroom, as long as it is consensual. My ex-wife is gay and is married to her partner. Does it change my life at all, no. Does it affect my son, I'm sure it does, some positive, some negative. Do I deny them human rights because of they're lifestyle, no. Do I like them, no. Am I civil to them, yes.

Just my 2 cents.

[the_jason]

So you're a proponent of gay marriage? I don't see how any endowed member of the church can actually support such an act. Marriage between a man and a woman is clearly ordained of God. Any other marriage is not, and should be viewed as immoral. As far as I can recall it's Eve, not Steve, who's mentioned in the temple. I agree with you on the civil rights part of your statement, but marriage is not just a civil right. It's a sacred ordinance, established by God.

[WillowTheWhisp]

An endowed (or for that matter even a non-endowed) member of the Church may not condone homosexuality but on the other hand surely it is against LDS teaching to enforce our own values onto other people? That means that they should have the freedom to make their own choices even if those choices are ones which we would not approve of.

[Canuck Mormon]

I never said I was for it, all I said was that my ex being "married" doesn't change my life. I am not a proponent of gay marriage, I never call my ex's partner her "wife or husband". I believe that marriage is ordained of God and should be between a man and a woman.

[the_jason]

An endowed (or for that matter even a non-endowed) member of the Church may not condone homosexuality but on the other hand surely it is against LDS teaching to enforce our own values onto other people? That means that they should have the freedom to make their own choices even if those choices are ones which we would not approve of.

I never said anything about forcing beliefs on people. Everyone has their agency to believe or act as they wish. I also have my agency to tell them they are wrong.

[the_jason]

I never said I was for it, all I said was that my ex being "married" doesn't change my life. I am not a proponent of gay marriage, I never call my ex's partner her "wife or husband". I believe that marriage is ordained of God and should be between a man and a woman.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Canuck Mormon]

Thanks for clarifying.

No problem.

btw - my wife walked past the computer the other day and saw your picture and said you were my twin . Divorce papers are being drawn up . JK.

[the_jason]

Your wife has good taste.

[selek]

The other consideration is that the United States military is a forward deployed force organized and maintained for the maintenance of peace, and to break and destroy things and people as necessary.

This differs from the Canadian forces which are largely a cardboard army designed for home defence and photo ops.

For all their squawking, the Canadian military which operated so valiantly and successfully throughout World War II and the Cold War has been systematically neutered in the knowledge that Canada is safe in America's shadow.

The greatest challenge the Canadian military has faced in the last thirty years has come from either their own legislature or a handful of stray Japanese whalers, take your pick.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I never said anything about forcing beliefs on people. Everyone has their agency to believe or act as they wish. I also have my agency to tell them they are wrong.

But by not allowing them to do their own thing, even if we think it is wrong, is that not forcing our standards upon people who don't wish to live by them?

I'm a non-smoker but I don't go along with all the rules there are here which prevent smokers from smoking in places where they would like to meet together to do so. That is now illegal here in the UK, but if they are not harming any non-smokers I think they should be allowed to do as they wish. I don't like to be in a smoky atmosphere so I would simply choose not to go there.

I just feel that sometimes we take away other people's rights to live their own lives the way they want to.

[the_jason]

But by not allowing them to do their own thing, even if we think it is wrong, is that not forcing our standards upon people who don't wish to live by them?

How would I not be allowing them to live how they wish? They don't have to do what I say, but I still have the right to say it. If they choose to listen to what I say then that is their choice, not me forcing it upon them.

[NeuroTypical]

Random thoughts:

* There is no such thing as "A right to be in the military". We often confuse stuff we want, with stuff we have a right to do. But the two are often different.

* Every society since the dawn of time has defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The openly accepted homosexuality of ancient Greece was practiced outside of marriage. In polygamous societies like those found in Africa and certain muslim countries, as well as our own church's limited experience, the bond is still between the man and the woman.

Now, umpteen thousands of years since humans have been having societies on this planet, people want to change the definition of marriage. I say no. Pursue whatever relationships you desire. Shack up all you want. Make your relationship as formal or informal, binding or nonbinding, as you desire. Ensure whatever rights of visitation and property transfer you wish through the legal recognition of alternative unions. But don't try to redefine the word 'marriage'. Two members of the same sex have no more right to marry each other, than I have to call red orange, and force everyone else to call red orange also.

Attempts to redefine the word marriage is not about equal rights. It's not about being 'allowed to do your own thing'. It's about forcing societal change. Some societal change is good and needs to be forced, some doesn't. We look to our morals and values to say which is which.

LM

[WillowTheWhisp]

How would I not be allowing them to live how they wish? They don't have to do what I say, but I still have the right to say it. If they choose to listen to what I say then that is their choice, not me forcing it upon them.

If we have laws about it.

[the_jason]

If we have laws about it.

That's like saying if someone believes murder is ok then we shouldn't have a law against it. We can't cater laws to please everyone. A law is a law, and if you want to live in a certain state or country then you are obligated to live its' laws.

[a-train]

I don't like any government involvement in marriage whatsoever. Their track record isn't so good. An example being the fact that our Federal Government has imprisoned persons for polygamy and bigamy while allowing adultery and fornication to run rampant.

I can see the legal implications of property rights and tax issues. We have the further burden of governmental requirements on employers with regard to benefits such as health care.

I can see the politics involved when we are talking about giving provisions normally granted to a working man with a wife and children to a man whose companion is another working man.

Perhaps the legal instrument of marriage is what needs updating. We can hardly compare it to the holy institution given by God to our first parents. Perhaps a new legal instrument is what we need for both married couples and homosexually involved couples. After all, while the instrument of marriage isn't available to homosexually involved couples, legal instruments do exist that will allow them shared property rights and benefits usually granted to next of kin. It is the expensive cost of these instruments that has these couples asking for the marriage instrument.

In a perfect reform, I would like to see:

No IRS or income tax, social security, or any other income based program.

No government involvement in marriage whatsoever.

A new legal instrument for couples to assign property rights and next of kin regardless of their marital status.

I think that as society stops looking to the government for the benefits of marriage and child birth, it will look to marriage and child birth itself for the natural benefits. This would do a tremendous amount of good for the American family.

-a-train

[WillowTheWhisp]

But some laws are unfair. Because we believe homosexuality is wrong, some people don't and some countries have laws to make homosexual 'marriages' equal to heterosexual ones. Do we have the right to say that they are wrong just because we believe that they are wrong?

[Canuck Mormon]

Yes, you have that right. However, to refuse someone a right because of that, that's wrong. You have a right to what you believe, just as they have a right to what they believe.

Clear as mud?

[the_jason]

But some laws are unfair. Because we believe homosexuality is wrong, some people don't and some countries have laws to make homosexual 'marriages' equal to heterosexual ones. Do we have the right to say that they are wrong just because we believe that they are wrong?

If a person doesn't like the law that prohibits gay marriage then they can choose to live elsewhere. Until then, they are subject to laws where they live. We can't just pick and choose which laws we want to live. Gods laws don't work that way either.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Yes, you have that right. However, to refuse someone a right because of that, that's wrong. You have a right to what you believe, just as they have a right to what they believe.

Clear as mud?

Yes, that's what I'm trying to say, and that although we may not approve of how they wish to live we don't have the right to say they shouldn't live the way they choose as long as it is not affecting us or anyone else.

[WillowTheWhisp]

If a person doesn't like the law that prohibits gay marriage then they can choose to live elsewhere. Until then, they are subject to laws where they live. We can't just pick and choose which laws we want to live. Gods laws don't work that way either.

But if we live in a democratic country where the majority wish to change the law then we cannot insist they do not do so. We can voice our opinion but if there are more people with the oposite opinion the it is us who should go along with that. It's not about God's laws. It's about human laws.