Gay Army couple says chaplain barred them from marriage retreat
Your thoughts? Should Chaplains have the right to do this to soldiers?
A same-sex couple at Fort Irwin, Calif., says they have been denied participation in an Army marriage enrichment program because of their sexual orientation, even though they are legally married.
Marriage
Chaplain
LGBTQ+
It's a fine line, but I see unequal treatment here.
I say if it was an Ecumenical class then no. If it was specific to a religion with those beliefs then yes. From what I read of the artical it was Ecumenical, in which case all should be welcomed.
What I am seeing a lot of in this thread, is that religious doctrine makes it okay to look down on or discriminate against certain groups of people and that we should respect that, because of beliefs...
Okay.....
SSG Burns,
#2 Still states "rather than on individual merit" which H/W, PT, failure to complete AIT, etc is all based on. No one takes the APFT for you.
I doubt we will see eye to eye on this.
I did not leave off any definition other than one regarding electronics which I felt was useless to make note of. I tend to use the Oxford Dictionary when I look into definitions of the English language.
SFC Weems, is your citizenship based off of individual merit?
What if I have diabetees or I'm blind? Is that based off my own merit?
Does the WNBA discriminate against males? Can you control your sex? (acutally now I guess you can)
SSG Burns,
Your statement was:
"We discriminate against fat folks, folks that can't pass their APFT, who cant say no to drugs, adultrous folk, those who can't pass a board, who fail the AIT, yup even those who are too can't speak english."
Then when I claimed it was not discrimination, you followed with:
"...failing APFT and all those are things that you arent sure how they are discrimination is simply the definition of discrimination (google it). Whatever those reasons are is irrelevant. It's still discrimination."
I posted a definition of discrimination stating that when you use the word AGAINST instead of the word BETWEEN, the intent is then inferred that you mean:
"the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex:"
you then state that you felt that I wasn not using the appropriate definition for the argument you were making and replied with a definition that was "more appropriate"
"treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination."
I then state:
#2 Still states "rather than on individual merit" which H/W, PT, failure to complete AIT, etc is all based on. No one takes the APFT for you.
You then change your original examples for your argument to:
"...is your citizenship based off of individual merit?
What if I have diabetees or I'm blind? Is that based off my own merit?"
This fails to show me where I was wrong in my original argument:
Your original examples do not show discrimination.
Why change them now to citizenship, diabetees, and blindness?
At this point you are simply arguing to argue and are no longer bringing anything of merit to the discussion.
I think we both agree that there is a need for their to be a separate class for same sex couples than for singles or traditional married couples. I think, from reading your posts, we also agree on the Chaplain Corps does not need to be the one leading the program for same sex couples based upon Religious conviction.
We are at odds on your original examples of discrimination. We just see things differently.
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google