Lamp,

You asked my opinion.

I gave it.

Read into it what you will.

But for the record, this has nothing to do with "separation of church and state."

The state isn't establishing religious doctrine and churches don't issue marriage licenses.

The two operate independently.

Lamp,

The God I believe in doesn't ordain same sex marriages.

From a biblical point of view, it's a sin.

So why would God bless or ordain something He calls sin?

Lamp,

"What do you think constitutes a "marriage?"

Marriage is ordained by God and licensed by the state.

Bull,

Some say the government made a mistake by issuing marriage licenses mixing a religious sacrament with secular legal recognition. Like you, I don't believe gay marriages are sanctioned by the Bible.

That said, gay couples deserve the same legal protections as straight couples such as hospital visitation, inheritance, property rights, tax benefits, and so on. Don't get too excited about legal recognized "gay marriage" as if it's identical to the sacrament of marriage.

For what it's worth, I attended commitment ceremonies back when I was part of the gay lifestyle where two people pledged lifelong vows, and I have no issue with that. But from a religious standpoint, marriage is reserved for a man and a woman.

Just my opinion.

Snoofy,

I can see how gays need legal protection for their relationships protecting things like hospital rights, inheritance, and taxes.

Gay marriage makes sense.

But other than feelings, why do men who believe they are women need to use women's bathrooms or compete against women in sports?

Since when is society obligated to rearrange itself to accommodate someone's chosen identity or fulfill their fantasy?

There's a difference between tolerance and forced affirmation.

We are crossing that line.

We are confusing need with want.

Kw,

"I'm not against socialist flavored actions, just not give aways."

That's a good line...going to remember it.

Snoofy,

"Next up: Getting Gays out of the military."

There's a reason I don't think the recent policy banning transgender individuals will affect gay service members.

They aren't creating a problem for themselves.

The way the transgender issue was handled by activists and policymakers was a critical misstep.

When the focus shifted from consenting adults to children and schools began implementing policies that kept parents in the dark and defied parental involvement, it crossed a cultural red line.

You don't screw around with people's kids.

That moment may have marked the beginning of the end for mainstream support of the transgender agenda.

Pushing transgender ideology onto children was a fatal mistake. It doomed the movement's long-term acceptance.

Adios amigos.

Truth,

Destroy yourself with all that hate.

It will just ruin your life no one elses.

Snoofy,

You must be really stupid to not realize that gays in those days all lied and covered up their identity.

Many still lie and who choose to keep it to themselves.

And you're too stupid to understand it's their choice.

Truth,

Your comment was just like the hateful homophobic comments I heard daily.

And the moderators here allow it.

Truth,

I've always been out.

Even today my friends all know my past.

After I was no longer on a ship and was stationed on land in a humongous barracks, the word got out about me.

For months when I would walk in the narrow halls and pass anyone, a lot of the time they'd say -- f...... under their breath.

Ironically, now the only people who say it is some liberals on this site.

I've never lied about who I am.

Enough about that.

American,

I didnt go to gay bars until I was on a ship and would dock (no pun intended).

Then I found other men on my ship who were gay.

Truth,

Who said anything about dishonorable?

When I was discharged I was given General under Honorable conditions. I could probably get mine upgraded now but there's no point.

Mid 70s there was still gays getting Dishonorable discharges.

Today that has all changed.

I don't believe trans people currently serving would be kicked out but anyone who identified as tran might be denied.

Jpw,

Medicaid?

Apples and oranges.

Laura,

Bottom line.

The fact that transgender service has become such a divisive topic is, ironically, hurting their chances of staying in the military.

It's a bit of a Catch-22.

Raising awareness brings visibility. But too much attention sparks controversy, which undermines the very case for inclusion and fitting in.

Compromise...I meant.

Laura,

The military culture is totally different than civilian culture.

It demands conformity.

Decisions that might seem discriminatory on the outside are often rooted in concerns about readiness, cohesion, and minimizing distractions that could comprise mission success.

That doesn't mean every policy is right or built around fairness.

But it does mean they operate under a different set of expectations and priorities.

Laura,

While it might seem official, it's not a legal ruling.

Laura,

From what I understand, there's a considerable possibility that it will be overturned in the future.

The ban isn't set in stone.

Matt,

That's a fair question.

I don't know the exact rationale behind their decision, but I'd guess your point shows there's more to it than just medical needs.

Laura,

Diabetics who require insulin are usually denied.

Considering both have ongoing medical needs, insulin or hormone therapy, does it raise a question about consistency in medical eligibility standards?

Try to resist the urge to deflect if you can and answer my question and explain your answer.

A friend of mine has a son who graduated high school and tried to join the service.

He was turned down due to gastrointestinal problems.

Since most transgender individuals require ongoing hormone therapy, wouldn't that also raise medical eligibility issues for military service out in the field?

Snoofy,

My opinion...

If you understood the rationale behind banning tran individuals from the military such as medical complications, combat readiness, or unit cohesion, then it should be clear why gays aren't a comparable concern.

Frankly, if there's any group that poses a risk to military effectiveness, it's not based on identity. It's ideology.

If we're throwing around bans, maybe start with the ones who undermine discipline, hate the country, or would rather protest the flag than defend it.

You know...liberals.