| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
28 Mar 2005 11:47:58 AM |
| Object: |
ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
Why would any man need another man to provide him with health care
benefits? The advantage of gay partnerships is that there are no
children at home that need attending. Let each man provide his own
health care, just like single straight people do. This notion that one
guy stays home and plays "Donna Reed" while the other one goes to work
should not become a burden on the American health care system. The
people of Michigan (and many other states) have spoken; No gay
marriage. Stop seeking "special" dispensations just because your
different.
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/gay22e_20050322.htm
Despite marriage ban, couples want health care
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Monday asking the
courts to protect same-sex couples' health benefits in light of a state
constitutional ban on gay marriage.
In the suit, filed in Ingham County Circuit Court, the ACLU asked the
court to stipulate that the ban on gay marriage does not extend to
health care benefits for same-sex partners. The amendment, they said,
is ambiguous.
The ACLU filed the suit less than a week after state Attorney General
Mike Cox issued his legal interpretation about what effect the
amendment should have on health benefits. He concluded that the
amendment bans government agencies from extending benefits to same-sex
couples in any future contract negotiations.
.
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
31 Mar 2005 10:12:05 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 02:32:06 GMT, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/polygamy.html
But besides that, if everyone involved is a consenting adult, why not?
Then why aren't you campaigning for polygamy too? Why do you only want
an exception for homosexuals? Are you a homosexual or just a flaming
homophile?
Don't jump to conclusions. I am polyamorous, and wouldn't mind seeing
the laws extended to cover all sorts of non-traditional families.
I've been married for 14 years to a wonderful woman. We're both
bisexual, and have an extended family that wraps halfway around the
world.
The reason I focus on gay marriage is that this will not require
rewriting the laws, tax codes, etc. Marriage will still be the union
of two consenting adults. To add legal polyamory would require an
extensive project to fit a family made up of several adults who are
all married to each other into the myriad laws that govern us. It's a
project for the next few decades.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
31 Mar 2005 02:42:42 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:12:05 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 02:32:06 GMT, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/polygamy.html
But besides that, if everyone involved is a consenting adult, why not?
Then why aren't you campaigning for polygamy too? Why do you only want
an exception for homosexuals? Are you a homosexual or just a flaming
homophile?
Don't jump to conclusions. I am polyamorous, and wouldn't mind seeing
the laws extended to cover all sorts of non-traditional families.
I've been married for 14 years to a wonderful woman. We're both
bisexual, and have an extended family that wraps halfway around the
world.
The reason I focus on gay marriage is that this will not require
rewriting the laws, tax codes, etc. Marriage will still be the union
of two consenting adults. To add legal polyamory would require an
extensive project to fit a family made up of several adults who are
all married to each other into the myriad laws that govern us. It's a
project for the next few decades.
So, you appear to be saying you won't campaign for polygamy because
it's "too much trouble." I think they call your kind "fair weather
fairies."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
31 Mar 2005 03:54:36 PM |
|
|
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:12:05 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
[..]
The reason I focus on gay marriage is that this will not require
rewriting the laws, tax codes, etc. Marriage will still be the union of
two consenting adults. To add legal polyamory would require an extensive
project to fit a family made up of several adults who are all married to
each other into the myriad laws that govern us. It's a project for the
next few decades.
So, you appear to be saying you won't campaign for polygamy because it's
"too much trouble." I think they call your kind "fair weather fairies."
Why should anyone campaign for polygamy if they don't want to?
--
"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats who don't know what's
going on." -- Robert Kennedy, Jr.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
31 Mar 2005 04:49:20 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:54:36 -0800, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
wrote:
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:12:05 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
[..]
The reason I focus on gay marriage is that this will not require
rewriting the laws, tax codes, etc. Marriage will still be the union of
two consenting adults. To add legal polyamory would require an extensive
project to fit a family made up of several adults who are all married to
each other into the myriad laws that govern us. It's a project for the
next few decades.
So, you appear to be saying you won't campaign for polygamy because it's
"too much trouble." I think they call your kind "fair weather fairies."
Why should anyone campaign for polygamy if they don't want to?
Why should anyone not oppose same sex marriage if they want to?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
31 Mar 2005 05:04:43 PM |
|
|
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:54:36 -0800, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
wrote:
<wbt@privacy.net> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:12:05 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
[..]
The reason I focus on gay marriage is that this will not require
rewriting the laws, tax codes, etc. Marriage will still be the union of
two consenting adults. To add legal polyamory would require an extensive
project to fit a family made up of several adults who are all married to
each other into the myriad laws that govern us. It's a project for the
next few decades.
So, you appear to be saying you won't campaign for polygamy because it's
"too much trouble." I think they call your kind "fair weather fairies."
Why should anyone campaign for polygamy if they don't want to?
Why should anyone not oppose same sex marriage if they want to?
Who's saying anyone shouldn't oppose same-sex marriage? You're trying to
shame someone for not endorsing something they clearly don't want to
endorse. What does that have to do with whether someone shouldn't oppose
something they clearly oppose?
--
"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats who don't know what's
going on." -- Robert Kennedy, Jr.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Salzberg" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
31 Mar 2005 04:57:22 PM |
|
|
In article <1jvo4157igam25p59de95841vg7u8fsgc4@4ax.com>,
says...
Why should anyone campaign for polygamy if they don't want to?
Why should anyone not oppose same sex marriage if they want to?
No reason at all, as long as you have reasons that aren't based on
falsehoods and hatred.
....Which, of course, yours are.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
31 Mar 2005 03:00:58 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:42:42 GMT, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:12:05 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Don't jump to conclusions. I am polyamorous, and wouldn't mind seeing
the laws extended to cover all sorts of non-traditional families.
I've been married for 14 years to a wonderful woman. We're both
bisexual, and have an extended family that wraps halfway around the
world.
The reason I focus on gay marriage is that this will not require
rewriting the laws, tax codes, etc. Marriage will still be the union
of two consenting adults. To add legal polyamory would require an
extensive project to fit a family made up of several adults who are
all married to each other into the myriad laws that govern us. It's a
project for the next few decades.
So, you appear to be saying you won't campaign for polygamy because
it's "too much trouble." I think they call your kind "fair weather
fairies."
No, it's called "one fight at a time." Ask the ghost of Hitler about
the wisdom of overextending.
And it's polyamory.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
01 Apr 2005 08:21:54 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:00:58 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:42:42 GMT, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:12:05 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Don't jump to conclusions. I am polyamorous, and wouldn't mind seeing
the laws extended to cover all sorts of non-traditional families.
I've been married for 14 years to a wonderful woman. We're both
bisexual, and have an extended family that wraps halfway around the
world.
The reason I focus on gay marriage is that this will not require
rewriting the laws, tax codes, etc. Marriage will still be the union
of two consenting adults. To add legal polyamory would require an
extensive project to fit a family made up of several adults who are
all married to each other into the myriad laws that govern us. It's a
project for the next few decades.
So, you appear to be saying you won't campaign for polygamy because
it's "too much trouble." I think they call your kind "fair weather
fairies."
No, it's called "one fight at a time." Ask the ghost of Hitler about
the wisdom of overextending.
Ask the Shrubbery as well.
And it's polyamory.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
31 Mar 2005 03:59:15 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:00:58 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:42:42 GMT, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:12:05 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Don't jump to conclusions. I am polyamorous, and wouldn't mind seeing
the laws extended to cover all sorts of non-traditional families.
I've been married for 14 years to a wonderful woman. We're both
bisexual, and have an extended family that wraps halfway around the
world.
The reason I focus on gay marriage is that this will not require
rewriting the laws, tax codes, etc. Marriage will still be the union
of two consenting adults. To add legal polyamory would require an
extensive project to fit a family made up of several adults who are
all married to each other into the myriad laws that govern us. It's a
project for the next few decades.
So, you appear to be saying you won't campaign for polygamy because
it's "too much trouble." I think they call your kind "fair weather
fairies."
No, it's called "one fight at a time." Ask the ghost of Hitler about
the wisdom of overextending.
Hitler was a homosexual. Homosexuals often make very wrong choices.
For example; Anal intercourse resulting in the xmission of AIDS. US
homosexuals have been doing that over and over and over for more than
20 years and an early death.
And it's polyamory.
Only to promiscuous homosexuality is it looked on as polyarmory. To
all others the having of more than one spouse is called polygamy
Main Entry: polyamory
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: participation in multiple and simultaneous loving or
sexual relationships
Source: Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview
Edition (v 0.9.5)
Copyright © 2003, 2004 Lexico Publishing Group, LLC
****
po·lyg·a·my Key (p-lg-m)
n.
1. The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one
time. Also called plural marriage.
[French polygamie, from Late Latin polygamia, from Greek polugami :
polu-, poly- + -gami, -gamy.]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
31 Mar 2005 10:38:22 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Hitler was a homosexual.
An odd one, apparently. Marries a woman. Catches a "social disease" from
a woman. And has a thing for his niece...
Most odd.
--
Quoted in the New Scientist [1995]:
A Doctor at Yale has observed that all the fingers have names, but that only the big toe has a name. He thus proposes names for all 5 toes: porcellus fori, porcellus domi, porcellus carnivorus, porcellus non voratus, porcellus plorans domum.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
01 Apr 2005 03:08:48 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 04:38:22 GMT, Dionisio
<moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
Hitler was a homosexual.
An odd one, apparently. Marries a woman. Catches a "social disease" from
a woman. And has a thing for his niece...
Are you saying that homos never marry women for a cover?
Most odd.
Your professed ignorance isn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
01 Apr 2005 09:56:49 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Are you saying that homos never marry women for a cover?
Of course not silly. I hear it all the time at the gym. (Club Columbus,
if you want to hear it too. It's an all-male club, so you can be a
member too. (Unless you're not a male, that is. But don't worry, we have
gyms for women too.) They even have private changing rooms if you'd feel
insecure. The pool opens April 15th, if the gym should be more than you
can handle in your present physical condition. Water aerobics are a
great, low-impact way to get that body you've always wanted.)
--
Quoted in the New Scientist [1995]:
A Doctor at Yale has observed that all the fingers have names, but that only the big toe has a name. He thus proposes names for all 5 toes: porcellus fori, porcellus domi, porcellus carnivorus, porcellus non voratus, porcellus plorans domum.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
02 Apr 2005 11:05:47 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 03:56:49 GMT, Dionisio
<moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote:
They even have private changing rooms if you'd feel
insecure.
As does the military. In fact ID'ed male homo's are now REQUIRED to be
housed with the female troops while awaiting discharge. Lesbians the
opposite. Homos -- you're always asking for special rights and
benefits...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
02 Apr 2005 09:07:22 PM |
|
|
wrote:
As does the military. In fact ID'ed male homo's are now REQUIRED to be
housed with the female troops while awaiting discharge. Lesbians the
opposite. Homos -- you're always asking for special rights and
benefits...
<LOL> I'm picturing the headlines: "I sucked ***** so I could grab me a
female." Verily, desperation knows no bounds.
--
Quoted in the New Scientist [1995]:
A Doctor at Yale has observed that all the fingers have names, but that only the big toe has a name. He thus proposes names for all 5 toes: porcellus fori, porcellus domi, porcellus carnivorus, porcellus non voratus, porcellus plorans domum.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
02 Apr 2005 05:35:06 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 17:05:47 GMT, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 03:56:49 GMT, Dionisio
<moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote:
They even have private changing rooms if you'd feel
insecure.
As does the military. In fact ID'ed male homo's are now REQUIRED to be
housed with the female troops while awaiting discharge. Lesbians the
opposite. Homos -- you're always asking for special rights and
benefits...
Um, no. Not even a little bit.
Soldiers being given administrative discharges are not given special
quarters. They clear post and leave just like anyone else.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
03 Apr 2005 04:16:05 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 23:35:06 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 17:05:47 GMT, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 03:56:49 GMT, Dionisio
<moc.rr.thgisni@5ellimd.com> wrote:
They even have private changing rooms if you'd feel
insecure.
As does the military. In fact ID'ed male homo's are now REQUIRED to be
housed with the female troops while awaiting discharge. Lesbians the
opposite. Homos -- you're always asking for special rights and
benefits...
Um, no. Not even a little bit.
Soldiers being given administrative discharges are not given special
quarters. They clear post and leave just like anyone else.
If you don't have an honorable discharge when you walk out you're
nothing. If you have honor nothing else matters. If haven't honor
nothing else matters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
03 Apr 2005 11:37:00 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 09:16:05 GMT, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 23:35:06 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Soldiers being given administrative discharges are not given special
quarters. They clear post and leave just like anyone else.
If you don't have an honorable discharge when you walk out you're
nothing. If you have honor nothing else matters. If haven't honor
nothing else matters.
Once again, you try to change the subject.
Soldiers given administrative discharges are not moved out of their
units unless there is a damn good reason, for example the soldier's
life is in danger. Since getting out of the Army requires a lot of
paperwork at the battalion level, moving them would be pointless. It
takes about a week to clear a post, if you work hard and haven't lost
any issue equipment.
Show me the Army regulation mandating that soldiers being separated
for homosexuality be placed in opposite-sex barracks.
Since the Army doesn't have gender-specific barracks, this will be a
long search for you.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
03 Apr 2005 01:57:23 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:rl605115o64q1gihaj7ieuk8tuh5kcsqms@4ax.com...
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 09:16:05 GMT, drained his beer,
Soldiers given administrative discharges are not moved out of their
units unless there is a damn good reason, for example the soldier's
life is in danger.
Soldiers who are given administrative discharges DO NOT HAVE units to which
they can be assigned.
They're civillians for Pete's sake.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
03 Apr 2005 06:58:27 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 18:57:23 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<usenet@kaufman.net> drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism
beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:rl605115o64q1gihaj7ieuk8tuh5kcsqms@4ax.com...
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 09:16:05 GMT, drained his beer,
Soldiers given administrative discharges are not moved out of their
units unless there is a damn good reason, for example the soldier's
life is in danger.
Soldiers who are given administrative discharges DO NOT HAVE units to which
they can be assigned.
They're civillians for Pete's sake.
OK, there is a period between issuing the order for separation and the
actual day the soldier leaves the Army once and for all.
Let's take PFC Snuffy. Snuffy has developed asthma, and is being
given a medical separation. Snuffy is currently stationed at Camp
Casey, Republic of Korea.
The first thing Snuffy has to do is "clear post." This means he has
to get all his paperwork in order. Everything from Finance to the
post library. Poor Snuffy spends his days with a thick folder, going
from office to office to get all the required signatures.
During this time, PFC Snuffy has to clean and turn in all the gear his
was issued upon becoming one of the Frozen Chosen. This can take
several tries, as the quartermasters are notoriously picky. If
anything is missing, it requires more paperwork.
Snuffy also needs to pack all his worldly possession for shipment
home. For most soldiers, this is books, a stereo or TV, clothing, and
the like.
Finally PFC Snuffy signs out, and gets a ride down to Kimpo. Boards a
C-17 for the long trip home, and after 24 hours reaches California!
But he's not out yet. PFC Snuffy now heads to a demobilization
station. There, everyone leaving the services from the Pacific rim
(but outside the continental US) get together to have their final
paperwork cut, final physical exams, and final send off.
Total time? 7-15 days.
During Snuffy's time in Korea, he still slept in his barracks, showed
up for morning formation (although short timers are generally excused
from PT) and had to be there for 1700 formation.
Even if Snuffy was getting bounced for being gay, the routine would be
the same. The only exception is people who are being bounced as a
result of a courts-martial decision. They are either confined in a
disciplinary barracks or placed in a special unit of people waiting to
be sent home/discharged. This only happens if keeping the soldier in
his unit would place the solider or the other troops in imminent
danger of harm.
Why yes, I did have to process a few of these in my day.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
04 Apr 2005 01:15:45 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:u301519hrjo1bdcd2ti6nkaoaoiq7k2t05@4ax.com...
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 18:57:23 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
<usenet@kaufman.net> drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism
Even if Snuffy was getting bounced for being gay, the routine would be
the same. The only exception is people who are being bounced as a
result of a courts-martial decision. They are either confined in a
disciplinary barracks or placed in a special unit of people waiting to
be sent home/discharged. This only happens if keeping the soldier in
his unit would place the solider or the other troops in imminent
danger of harm.
Why yes, I did have to process a few of these in my day.
Ditto.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
03 Apr 2005 02:49:22 PM |
|
|
Sanders Kaufman <usenet@kaufman.net> wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:rl605115o64q1gihaj7ieuk8tuh5kcsqms@4ax.com...
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 09:16:05 GMT, drained his beer,
Soldiers given administrative discharges are not moved out of their
units unless there is a damn good reason, for example the soldier's
life is in danger.
Soldiers who are given administrative discharges DO NOT HAVE units to
which they can be assigned.
They're civillians for Pete's sake.
They do until their seperation date. The military works like that. You
are granted an admiistrative discharge, and that discharge gives you a date
of seperation. Sometimes that date of seperation is a few days, sometimes
weeks, and occasionally it may be months from the date the discharge was
granted depending on the circumstances.
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
religion capable of scientific truth."
Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
03 Apr 2005 05:35:51 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 16:37:00 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 09:16:05 GMT, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 23:35:06 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Soldiers being given administrative discharges are not given special
quarters. They clear post and leave just like anyone else.
If you don't have an honorable discharge when you walk out you're
nothing. If you have honor nothing else matters. If haven't honor
nothing else matters.
Once again, you try to change the subject.
Soldiers given administrative discharges are not moved out of their
units unless there is a damn good reason, for example the soldier's
life is in danger. Since getting out of the Army requires a lot of
paperwork at the battalion level, moving them would be pointless. It
takes about a week to clear a post, if you work hard and haven't lost
any issue equipment.
Military personnel are often removed from their units to be discharged
in other than honorable conditions. If they are section eighted, or
***** canned for disciplinary reasons or the unit is deployed...and
every grunt that has ever served knows there are dozens of other
reasons for what you say CAN"T HAPPEN, happening.
Show me the Army regulation mandating that soldiers being separated
for homosexuality be placed in opposite-sex barracks.
Did I say Army, ***** for Brains? Did I specifically mention any branch
of the Armed Forces, *****-Wipe?
Since the Army doesn't have gender-specific barracks, this will be a
long search for you.
Your ***** is hanging out 3 miles, boy. Instead of kicking it so far up
between your shoulder blade that you'll have to take your hat off to
*****, I'll just watch your foolish ***** bump on down the hard road.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
03 Apr 2005 07:08:14 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 22:35:51 GMT, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
Soldiers given administrative discharges are not moved out of their
units unless there is a damn good reason, for example the soldier's
life is in danger. Since getting out of the Army requires a lot of
paperwork at the battalion level, moving them would be pointless. It
takes about a week to clear a post, if you work hard and haven't lost
any issue equipment.
Military personnel are often removed from their units to be discharged
in other than honorable conditions. If they are section eighted, or
***** canned for disciplinary reasons or the unit is deployed...and
every grunt that has ever served knows there are dozens of other
reasons for what you say CAN"T HAPPEN, happening.
Section 8? You watch too much MASH.
As I said, a damn good reason. A unit deploying overseas would be
one. A medical reason would be a good one. Being gay is not a good
one. I used to be a NCO. I've dealt with administrative discharges
before.
Show me the Army regulation mandating that soldiers being separated
for homosexuality be placed in opposite-sex barracks.
Did I say Army, ***** for Brains? Did I specifically mention any branch
of the Armed Forces, *****-Wipe?
Show me in the UCMJ then. You do realize that each service makes its
own rules. I'm most familiar with the Army rules.
Since the Army doesn't have gender-specific barracks, this will be a
long search for you.
Your ***** is hanging out 3 miles, boy. Instead of kicking it so far up
between your shoulder blade that you'll have to take your hat off to
*****, I'll just watch your foolish ***** bump on down the hard road.
How many years did you serve, and are you ready to post your DD-214 to
back it up? Segregated barracks for units with both genders are
things of the past. Separate latrines, and same-sex rooms, but
soldiers mingle in the halls. We're soldiers, we can control
ourselves.
I'll wait for the UCMJ references along with those fertility laws you
said existed.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
03 Apr 2005 09:39:00 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 00:08:14 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 22:35:51 GMT, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
Soldiers given administrative discharges are not moved out of their
units unless there is a damn good reason, for example the soldier's
life is in danger. Since getting out of the Army requires a lot of
paperwork at the battalion level, moving them would be pointless. It
takes about a week to clear a post, if you work hard and haven't lost
any issue equipment.
Military personnel are often removed from their units to be discharged
in other than honorable conditions. If they are section eighted, or
***** canned for disciplinary reasons or the unit is deployed...and
every grunt that has ever served knows there are dozens of other
reasons for what you say CAN"T HAPPEN, happening.
Section 8? You watch too much MASH.
As I said, a damn good reason. A unit deploying overseas would be
one. A medical reason would be a good one. Being gay is not a good
one. I used to be a NCO. I've dealt with administrative discharges
before.
Show me the Army regulation mandating that soldiers being separated
for homosexuality be placed in opposite-sex barracks.
Did I say Army, ***** for Brains? Did I specifically mention any branch
of the Armed Forces, *****-Wipe?
Show me in the UCMJ then. You do realize that each service makes its
own rules. I'm most familiar with the Army rules.
Since the Army doesn't have gender-specific barracks, this will be a
long search for you.
Your ***** is hanging out 3 miles, boy. Instead of kicking it so far up
between your shoulder blade that you'll have to take your hat off to
*****, I'll just watch your foolish ***** bump on down the hard road.
How many years did you serve, and are you ready to post your DD-214 to
back it up? Segregated barracks for units with both genders are
things of the past. Separate latrines, and same-sex rooms, but
soldiers mingle in the halls. We're soldiers, we can control
ourselves.
I'll wait for the UCMJ references along with those fertility laws you
said existed.
Contrary to what you have stated the UCMJ doesn't vary from service
to service. Do you think the Navy still operates under Reefs & Shoals?
You know nothing about the making of civil law. You know nothing about
military service and jurisprudence --- YOU KNOW NOTHING! I'm had just
about enough of your boring ignorance, boy. You too will drop off the
reading list if you ***** up once more.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
04 Apr 2005 10:38:08 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 02:39:00 GMT, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
How many years did you serve, and are you ready to post your DD-214 to
back it up? Segregated barracks for units with both genders are
things of the past. Separate latrines, and same-sex rooms, but
soldiers mingle in the halls. We're soldiers, we can control
ourselves.
I'll wait for the UCMJ references along with those fertility laws you
said existed.
Contrary to what you have stated the UCMJ doesn't vary from service
to service. Do you think the Navy still operates under Reefs & Shoals?
You know nothing about the making of civil law. You know nothing about
military service and jurisprudence --- YOU KNOW NOTHING! I'm had just
about enough of your boring ignorance, boy. You too will drop off the
reading list if you ***** up once more.
Really? So all those Army regulations exist for what reasons?
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armyreg/
Hey! It's the Navy!
http://neds.daps.dla.mil/regs.htm
Wow, I guess they do operate under unique sets of regulations! You're
wrong again!
I'm a retired NCO. What did you do in the service, coward?
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
06 Apr 2005 02:02:29 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 15:38:08 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 02:39:00 GMT, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
How many years did you serve, and are you ready to post your DD-214 to
back it up? Segregated barracks for units with both genders are
things of the past. Separate latrines, and same-sex rooms, but
soldiers mingle in the halls. We're soldiers, we can control
ourselves.
I'll wait for the UCMJ references along with those fertility laws you
said existed.
Contrary to what you have stated the UCMJ doesn't vary from service
to service. Do you think the Navy still operates under Reefs & Shoals?
You know nothing about the making of civil law. You know nothing about
military service and jurisprudence --- YOU KNOW NOTHING! I'm had just
about enough of your boring ignorance, boy. You too will drop off the
reading list if you ***** up once more.
Really? So all those Army regulations exist for what reasons?
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armyreg/
Hey! It's the Navy!
http://neds.daps.dla.mil/regs.htm
Wow, I guess they do operate under unique sets of regulations! You're
wrong again!
I'm a retired NCO. What did you do in the service, coward?
He serviced the chiefs.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
31 Mar 2005 05:40:23 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:59:15 GMT, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:00:58 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
No, it's called "one fight at a time." Ask the ghost of Hitler about
the wisdom of overextending.
Hitler was a homosexual. Homosexuals often make very wrong choices.
For example; Anal intercourse resulting in the xmission of AIDS. US
homosexuals have been doing that over and over and over for more than
20 years and an early death.
You can get AIDS from any mixing of bodily fluids.
And Adolf Hitler had several female loves, most notably his
long-running affair with Eva Braun.
And it's polyamory.
Only to promiscuous homosexuality is it looked on as polyarmory. To
all others the having of more than one spouse is called polygamy
No, ploygamy is having one man with many wives.
Polyandry is one woman with several husbands.
Polyamory is multiple spuses of both genders.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
01 Apr 2005 08:23:07 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:40:23 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:59:15 GMT, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:00:58 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
No, it's called "one fight at a time." Ask the ghost of Hitler about
the wisdom of overextending.
Hitler was a homosexual. Homosexuals often make very wrong choices.
For example; Anal intercourse resulting in the xmission of AIDS. US
homosexuals have been doing that over and over and over for more than
20 years and an early death.
You can get AIDS from any mixing of bodily fluids.
And Adolf Hitler had several female loves, most notably his
long-running affair with Eva Braun.
And it's polyamory.
Only to promiscuous homosexuality is it looked on as polyarmory. To
all others the having of more than one spouse is called polygamy
No, ploygamy is having one man with many wives.
Polyandry is one woman with several husbands.
Polyamory is multiple spuses of both genders.
Poly wanna cracker? <sqwak>
(sorry, couldn't resist the straight line)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
02 Apr 2005 10:19:25 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 18:23:07 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Polyamory is multiple spuses of both genders.
Poly wanna cracker? <sqwak>
(sorry, couldn't resist the straight line)
http://www.polyamory.org/
Old joke, my friend.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
02 Apr 2005 03:12:58 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 16:19:25 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 18:23:07 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Polyamory is multiple spuses of both genders.
Poly wanna cracker? <sqwak>
(sorry, couldn't resist the straight line)
http://www.polyamory.org/
Old joke, my friend.
I know. An oldie and moldie. :)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
