• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US: military chaplains may perform same-sex unions

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON —
The Pentagon has decided that military chaplains may perform same-sex unions, whether on or off a military installation.
Click to expand...

In the wake of the repeal of DADT, this move by the Pentagon is going to really piss off the religious right, but is it wrong? Discussion?

Article is here.
 
I am almost entirely for anything that pisses off the religious right.
 
danarhea said:
In the wake of the repeal of DADT, this move by the Pentagon is going to really piss off the religious right, but is it wrong? Discussion?

Article is here.
Click to expand...

It's not wrong, unless chaplains are forced to perform same sex marriages, against their will. We start stepping off into the whole freedom of religion thing at that point.
 
apdst said:
It's not wrong, unless chaplains are forced to perform same sex marriages, against their will. We start stepping off into the whole freedom of religion thing at that point.
Click to expand...

What are the rules concerning chaplains performing religious ceremonies? I don't understand the obligations of the position.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
What are the rules concerning chaplains performing religious ceremonies? I don't understand the obligations of the position.
Click to expand...

The Chaplain has to agree to perform the ceremony, I'm not sure if the Chaplain can require the couple to do anything regarding pre-marriage acts but I know he can refuse if he doesn't want to marry them. That being said, if he refuses he still would be required if the couple asked to use resources in his position and community to find another chaplain they may find acceptable whether on or off post.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
What are the rules concerning chaplains performing religious ceremonies? I don't understand the obligations of the position.
Click to expand...

The rules are, a chaplain isn't required to perform an ceremony/commit an act that he feels is contrary to his religious beliefs. Hence the reason that chaplains aren't forced to serve under arms.
 
Wiseone said:
The Chaplain has to agree to perform the ceremony, I'm not sure if the Chaplain can require the couple to do anything regarding pre-marriage acts but I know he can refuse if he doesn't want to marry them. That being said, if he refuses he still would be required if the couple asked to use resources in his position and community to find another chaplain they may find acceptable whether on or off post.
Click to expand...

That is correct. He couldn't deny them the use of a post chapel...I don't think he could, anyway.
 
apdst said:
It's not wrong, unless chaplains are forced to perform same sex marriages, against their will. We start stepping off into the whole freedom of religion thing at that point.
Click to expand...

This is my feeling exactly. As long as it remains 'may' and doesn't become 'must' then I have no issues with military chaplains performing same-sex marriages.
 
apdst said:
It's not wrong, unless chaplains are forced to perform same sex marriages, against their will. We start stepping off into the whole freedom of religion thing at that point.
Click to expand...

From the source article:

The Pentagon says a military chaplain may officiate at any private ceremony, but isn't required if it would conflict with his or her religious or personal beliefs.
Click to expand...

Your concern was taken into account, and that is the absolute correct way to handle it: allow, don't mandate.
 
danarhea said:
In the wake of the repeal of DADT, this move by the Pentagon is going to really piss off the religious right, but is it wrong? Discussion?

Article is here.
Click to expand...

The Religious Right is a social entity. DADT is not a social policy. It doesn't matter if one pisses off the other. They are mutually exclusive.
 
Redress said:
From the source article:



Your concern was taken into account, and that is the absolute correct way to handle it: allow, don't mandate.
Click to expand...

I was simply pointing out how the system worked. Did you miss that part, or are you under the assumption that since I'm a Conservative, that I was concerned about it?

Actually, I had no concerns over it because, 1) I don't give a rats ass if gays get married, nor if a chaplain officiates the ceremony, 2) To force a chaplain to marry a gay couple, against his will, would be...eee-lee-gul.
 
Jerry said:
The Religious Right is a social entity. DADT is not a social policy. It doesn't matter if one pisses off the other. They are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

DADT is already dead. This is about chaplains and gay marriage, which are topics which do piss off the Religious right.
 
apdst said:
I was simply pointing out how the system worked. Did you miss that part, or are you under the assumption that since I'm a Conservative, that I was concerned about it?

Actually, I had no concerns over it because, 1) I don't give a rats ass if gays get married, nor if a chaplain officiates the ceremony, 2) To force a chaplain to marry a gay couple, against his will, would be...eee-lee-gul.
Click to expand...

You used the word "unless", so I suspected you where unaware that the exception was made. I was not criticizing your stance, since I absolutely agree with it.
 
Redress said:
You used the word "unless", so I suspected you where unaware that the exception was made. I was not criticizing your stance, since I absolutely agree with it.
Click to expand...

But, you still had to get a dig in there, though, huh?

You flew right through the first three words of that sentence where I said, "It's not wrong...".
 
apdst said:
But, you still had to get a dig in there, though, huh?

You flew right through the first three words of that sentence where I said, "It's not wrong...".
Click to expand...

You are seeing things beyond what I said. I was in no way criticizing your comments. I in fact called your attitude "absolutely correct".
 
Redress said:
You are seeing things beyond what I said. I was in no way criticizing your comments. I in fact called your attitude "absolutely correct".
Click to expand...

After, you pointed some fabled concern that I'm supposed to have.
 
apdst said:
After, you pointed some fabled concern that I'm supposed to have.
Click to expand...

The concern you listed in your first post in this thread.
 
Redress said:
DADT is already dead. This is about chaplains and gay marriage, which are topics which do piss off the Religious right.
Click to expand...

The religious right was pissed off when the left created DADT, so I guess the religious right is just going to be pissed off no matter what.
 
Jerry said:
The religious right was pissed off when the left created DADT, so I guess the religious right is just going to be pissed off no matter what.
Click to expand...

I'm as convinced of the existence of the, "Religious Right", as I am that all Tea Partiers are racists and disagree with Obama's policies, because he's black.
 
apdst said:
I'm as convinced of the existence of the, "Religious Right", as I am that all Tea Partiers are racists and disagree with Obama's policies, because he's black.
Click to expand...

You never heard of the Moral Majority?
 
apdst said:
Yeah, I've heard the Libbos drone on-n-on about that, too.
Click to expand...

SO you know the religious right exists, but you are not convinced of their existence.
 
Redress said:
SO you know the religious right exists, but you are not convinced of their existence.
Click to expand...

Sure it exists, just like all Tea Partiers are racists and all Conservatives want to see children starving in the street.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom