God grants free will and they took their free will in that direction, are they wrong, yes, are they entitled to do so yes, should you be allowed to tell them they are wrong, yes, but in a peaceful and tactful manner because some just need to be told they are wrong.Why not just tell them it’s sinful and done with it
Did the police have a right to out her to the military for whatever reason? Her sexuality is her business and hers alone. There is nothing more to this story. If you think there is then please cite a source and tell me why the officer should be validated in tattle-tailing to the military.
I meant he should tell his children that homosexuality is sinful. If you wish to convey your distaste from someone’s lifestyle sometimes silence is heard the loudest. Also, one does not have free will to be gay any more than they have free will to be straight. It’s a brain chemistry thing, it’s how you’re wired.
How dare she have even the minimum of basic rights afforded by a civil union. The nerve of that woman to want the same rights and freedoms as a straight couple
Doesn’t she know her livelihood is dependent upon total silence. She should have the decency to be alone while in the military or forced into a loveless separate sex relationship. Doesn’t she know she’s making people feel uncomfortable by being gay? Why did she have to do anything? Was she subpoenaed? Brought before a court and represented? If she didn’t want to help the police she didn’t have to until the courts told her otherwise, she did not commit a crime. You still haven’t told me why the police are still justified in their tattle-tailing
which they’re not.She had no obligation to help the police in their efforts to locate and arrest her partner.
Lynx,
Remind us all, how did she tell the military that she was a homosexual?
Sexual active homosexuals are commiting immoral acts. It is the ACT that is evil not the individual who is celebate. The same rules apply to heterosexuals who engage in sex with others than a marriage partner. Homosexuality is outside the Christian “norm” and laws of the Catholic Church.
Maybe because the US was once considered the last bastion of morality in the known world???
Well maybe not marriage but surely then they would be for civil unions and leaving it to the individual ecclesial communities (they’re not really churches anyway) whether to perform a ceremony or not.
My point is that claiming that homosexual “marriage” only effects the relationship between two people has larger ramifications than people expected. While marriage was originally for the sake of a family, narrowly identifying it simply about being about two people is not reality. She obviously would not have been in this situation if she did not have the public contract. It could have come up in a background check anyway, so it is something the military needs to address when evaluating DADT.
While it’s debated by people who have an agenda (pro-gay: born that way and anti-gay: chose the lifestyle), I think the real life histories of people are far more indicative. In my case, the only inborn factor that predisposed me to the possibility of same-sex attractions was my sensitive temperament. I tend to take things personally. Now, after I was born, I have few memories of affection or attention from my father. Where those memories should be can be found memories of continual criticism or a sense of being tired of me. Granted, there are a few good memories (3 come to mind), but most are bad (a plethora pop into my head simultaneously) and some of the bad cancel the good out. As to my mom, she was very critical of boys in the neighborhood, which fostered a fear and mistrust of other boys, closing off my belief in my ability to make friends. After all, how can one develop a friendship with someone one fears and/or mistrusts? My friends were teachers and other campus staff at school. Oh, and both my parents demonstrated obvious preference for my little brother. Hmm…no encouragement to be masculine from dad…mom sending messages that boys are bad…low priority in the family…no peer friends. Add to that the shame of being a boy developing to a man after getting the message that boys are bad and boys who grow up and have beards and such aren’t so good. Pray tell…where was I supposed to get my sense of masculinity from? A rock? Heck, how can I even desire something (masculine identity) when I’ve received the message that it’s a bad thing?
PLEASE TELL ME WHAT JUSTIFICATION THE POLICE OFFICER HAD IN REPORTING TO THE MILITARY HER SEXUALITY? You have already made it quite clear you think she brought it on herself by getting married, this is not the information i’m trying to get from you. I have done everything I can to make my question stand out in the hopes you will address it and not go off on a tangent.
I think your use of the word agenda is misplaced. For one to have an agenda one must have a plan, steps forward towards a goal. In my case, my goal is to let you know that I believe homosexuality is predominantly the work of chemical physiology. However, it would be careless to state that nurturing does not play a role. The extent of roles as to each reason though, is highly debated with just cause. But go on…
Thinking from a Nietzsche-n perspective, if one can recognize their wants and desires, and recognize that which keeps those desires from them (as you have), then you should be able to make strides towards your desires (finding women attractive). Are you in counseling or anything? It would be interesting to know what if any resolution you are seeking and what your results are.
My goodness man(?), chillax. I was not addressing the question as to whether or not the police officer was justified because that is still up for debate within the courts. It could be that they were vengeful for her did not give them all the info they wanted, it could be that they contacted her superiors because they needed her for an investigation, and through that her superiors found out about the formal documentation. Either way, the documentation is there because of the legalization of “gay marriage” - which I am not saying as a positive or a negative, but rather just stating the fact that that form of documentation did not exist when DADT was first created. I think they need to address the issue because military regulations now contradict some state laws. This does not necessarily mean that they need to officially change the idea that people should not be talking about their sexual activities at work, but rather making it so that third party information, or state documentation of that form can not be used against you. It is not getting off on a tangent, it is addressing a more pertinent question.
Cat, don’t let the name fool you
See, this was the entire point of the article that I listed. Since the officer had no right to tell the military she was gay she shouldn’t have been released from the military. She was not asked, she did not tell, but was released for being gay, regardless of a marriage certificate. There aren’t any shades of gray around here. . .
Likely.
Unlikely because her sexuality still didn’t need to be brought up. Speaking about her sexuality and cooperating with the police are mutually independent.
I would think that if the military is following DADT they would not investigate anything that would reveal one’s sexuality, as that might be misinterpreted as a question of one’s sexuality.
The most pertinent question was whether or not this woman deserves her job back, and not how can we make sure we don’t find out someone is gay. If she does deserve her job, then you must abolish gays being disallowed from that army; if not, then you must accept institutionalized sexism in military
The latter is unacceptable, which is why DADT is most likely being repealed, it’s just a matter of when.