Jump to content

98 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline
Posted
Haven't read most of the replies, don't care to.

My sister's partner is in the reserves -- has been for over a decade. She did two tours in Iraq and is now in Kosovo. (Certainly more than the anti-homosexual civilians, yes?)

She's actually won quite a few important awards for training cadets, leadership skills.

My sister was recently diagnosed with stage four (finally decided!) breast cancer.

I guess what bothers me is that my sister's SO -they've been "married" for ten years - would not be allowed leave if my sister were dying.

There are a lot of military-spouse support groups that my sister cannot officially can access to.

(F)

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Posted
Haven't read most of the replies, don't care to.

My sister's partner is in the reserves -- has been for over a decade. She did two tours in Iraq and is now in Kosovo. (Certainly more than the anti-homosexual civilians, yes?)

She's actually won quite a few important awards for training cadets, leadership skills.

My sister was recently diagnosed with stage four (finally decided!) breast cancer.

I guess what bothers me is that my sister's SO -they've been "married" for ten years - would not be allowed leave if my sister were dying.

There are a lot of military-spouse support groups that my sister cannot officially can access to.

It's stories like this that are the hardest to hear. It's one thing to deny somebody a career where they can help and make a difference. It's quite another to deny somebody access to help, and access to their loved ones. I wish your sister well Hannah.

Thank you, mox.

We don't know yet about my sister's chemo/radiation. (They won't MRI her until she's completely done.)

But you totally get what I was trying to say. It breaks my heart to see my sister so rejected.

Their "church" marriage was easily arranged because in any larger city, there are some sects willing to give a religious marriage to a homosexual couple.

Yet they aren't legally married. It just frustrates me. Why is our government so...dense? Isn't it the religious aspects that most conservatives are worried about?

we met: 07-22-01

engaged: 08-03-06

I-129 sent: 01-07-07

NOA2 approved: 04-02-07

packet 3 sent: 05-31-07

interview date: 06-25-07 - approved!

marriage: 07-23-07

AOS sent: 08-10-07

AOS/EAD/AP NOA1: 09-14-07

AOS approved: 11-19-07

green card received: 11-26-07

lifting of conditions filed: 10-29-09

NOA received: 11-09-09

lifting of conditions approved: 12-11-09

Posted
It seems to me that the anti-gay movement (such as it is) would benefit from allowing homosexuals into the military. If gays are called into battle, there's always the chance they could die. Henceforth, less gays to "pollute" our society. Plus, the homosexual community couldn't complain since they were allowed to be gay in the military. People getting killed is a risk.

I'm not suggesting that homosexuals be used as a "human shield" of sorts, but for those who dislike gays and everything about them, this would seem to be a viable solution.

then there would probably be complaints that gays are dying in disproportionate numbers to the straights ^_^

Ahhh, Charles!

It's only hilarious when you've spent your entire life in a sheltered bubble of conservative-ness. :thumbs::star::dance:

actually, i was quite the leftist in my teen years. then i grew up.

Oh no, I agree.

I grew up when my mother lost the use of her legs and then became gravely ill. I know what it's like to grow up, because I cleaned my mom's ###### and puke from the carpet. I definitely know what it's like to wonder if you'll lose your mom, at age sixteen, while you're desperately keeping two full-time jobs to support your family and also trying to get As in your AP classes.

I totally know what it's like.

we met: 07-22-01

engaged: 08-03-06

I-129 sent: 01-07-07

NOA2 approved: 04-02-07

packet 3 sent: 05-31-07

interview date: 06-25-07 - approved!

marriage: 07-23-07

AOS sent: 08-10-07

AOS/EAD/AP NOA1: 09-14-07

AOS approved: 11-19-07

green card received: 11-26-07

lifting of conditions filed: 10-29-09

NOA received: 11-09-09

lifting of conditions approved: 12-11-09

Posted
It seems to me that the anti-gay movement (such as it is) would benefit from allowing homosexuals into the military. If gays are called into battle, there's always the chance they could die. Henceforth, less gays to "pollute" our society. Plus, the homosexual community couldn't complain since they were allowed to be gay in the military. People getting killed is a risk.

I'm not suggesting that homosexuals be used as a "human shield" of sorts, but for those who dislike gays and everything about them, this would seem to be a viable solution.

then there would probably be complaints that gays are dying in disproportionate numbers to the straights ^_^

Ahhh, Charles!

It's only hilarious when you've spent your entire life in a sheltered bubble of conservative-ness. :thumbs::star::dance:

actually, i was quite the leftist in my teen years. then i grew up.

Actually, I think that the time when I grew up was officially having to sign my mother's papers because she needed surgery and couldn't sign. It totally made me realize that I have power over others.

we met: 07-22-01

engaged: 08-03-06

I-129 sent: 01-07-07

NOA2 approved: 04-02-07

packet 3 sent: 05-31-07

interview date: 06-25-07 - approved!

marriage: 07-23-07

AOS sent: 08-10-07

AOS/EAD/AP NOA1: 09-14-07

AOS approved: 11-19-07

green card received: 11-26-07

lifting of conditions filed: 10-29-09

NOA received: 11-09-09

lifting of conditions approved: 12-11-09

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Russia
Timeline
Posted
Surely they would be doing the exact same jobs, the only difference would be that they wouldn't need to conceal their private lives from other soldiers.

I'm going to assume you have not been in the military, Forgive me PD if I am wrong.

The reason I say that is; I don't think that you appreciate that in the Military, you don't really have a "private life", at least not until you are able to get off-base housing which usually is for the married.

Some of the comments made by many sound as though the military is a "job" where you perform a task and go home. The fact is the people you work with ...you eat with... you share a room or barracks with. IN the field it my be a tent. Peoples private lives as you put it, effect everyone.

This is why people in the military do not have the same freedoms to associate with organizations that civilians do. Could you imagine a Klansman serving openly? Even if he kept his views to himself and served with distinction, it would create problems within the unit.

We live in a country where people are racing to STOP homosexuals from marrying, so accepting

homosexuals is not a done-deal yet.

Click here to watch the trend.

post-33443-1231900752_thumb.png

Again, I point out that the Military is a unique situation and when Gays do serve openly we will see a multitude of problems and legal challenges.

Another area no one has brought up is the "health" aspect.

For some reason people are posting as if the assumption is that the average Gay sex life is comparable to straight. While this might be somewhat true of gay women, it certainly isn't with gay men.

Even though AIDS has been in the USA since the 80's there is a reason almost all new cases have one thing in common GAY MEN.

Gaymen are very sexually active (about as much as straight men would be... if they could). :yes:

I would imagine outbreaks of AIDS could take place in pockets within units or on bases.

I don't say that to be alarmist but because the military has historically battled all types of STD's

but with AIDS, it doesnt go away with a round of shots.

Would a service member who contracts aids qualify for a paid retirement? (i'm bettin yes)

Certainly if gays serve openly there will be gay clubs (as there are other clubs) and what will the regs say about gay men having sex in the barracks? When I was in,.. females were not allowed in the barracks.

You think this won't cause problems when gays are having sex with each other legally and for the rest of the guys, they can't even invite a girl in their room for a drink?

This thing is "way" more complicated than most people realize because the military is not like a place of employment.

The bottom line question should be; will it be good for the military?

type2homophobia_zpsf8eddc83.jpg




"Those people who will not be governed by God


will be ruled by tyrants."



William Penn

Posted

Wow, Danno is not good for the military.

we met: 07-22-01

engaged: 08-03-06

I-129 sent: 01-07-07

NOA2 approved: 04-02-07

packet 3 sent: 05-31-07

interview date: 06-25-07 - approved!

marriage: 07-23-07

AOS sent: 08-10-07

AOS/EAD/AP NOA1: 09-14-07

AOS approved: 11-19-07

green card received: 11-26-07

lifting of conditions filed: 10-29-09

NOA received: 11-09-09

lifting of conditions approved: 12-11-09

Posted

Danno, you speak as though there are no gays in the military - there are so, how come there are no 'gay aids epidemics'? You think because they have to be secretive that means they don't have sex?????

The military should have no use for hypocrisy, and that's what this is.

If sex is not allowed in the barracks, why would gays be allowed while 'straights' are not? Your understanding of gay relationships also leaves an awful lot to be desired.

Hannah, I am sorry that some people feel the need to deny personal rights to people like your sister. That is truly disgusting.

Refusing to use the spellchick!

I have put you on ignore. No really, I have, but you are still ruining my enjoyment of this site. .

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Russia
Timeline
Posted
Danno, you speak as though there are no gays in the military - there are so, how come there are no 'gay aids epidemics'? You think because they have to be secretive that means they don't have sex?????

The military should have no use for hypocrisy, and that's what this is.

If sex is not allowed in the barracks, why would gays be allowed while 'straights' are not? Your understanding of gay relationships also leaves an awful lot to be desired.

Hannah, I am sorry that some people feel the need to deny personal rights to people like your sister. That is truly disgusting.

Maybe you missed it.

Here, let me try again... lean close this time.

"It's not about personal rights", if it were, there would be handicap toilets in the latrines (you do know what latrines are?)

type2homophobia_zpsf8eddc83.jpg




"Those people who will not be governed by God


will be ruled by tyrants."



William Penn

Filed: Other Country: United Kingdom
Timeline
Posted
Danno, you speak as though there are no gays in the military - there are so, how come there are no 'gay aids epidemics'? You think because they have to be secretive that means they don't have sex?????

The military should have no use for hypocrisy, and that's what this is.

If sex is not allowed in the barracks, why would gays be allowed while 'straights' are not? Your understanding of gay relationships also leaves an awful lot to be desired.

Hannah, I am sorry that some people feel the need to deny personal rights to people like your sister. That is truly disgusting.

Maybe you missed it.

Here, let me try again... lean close this time.

"It's not about personal rights", if it were, there would be handicap toilets in the latrines (you do know what latrines are?)

It should be about individual rights. What it IS about justifying institutional prejudice.

Perhaps the US Military should take a leaf out of Israel's book. They don't seem to have a problem with openly gay people serving in their military.

Posted

Let me lean close and explain it more fully:

I was referring in particular to the case of the denial of assistance to Hannah's sister because her partner is gay, the fact that her partner is the same sex is the ONLY reason she is denied access to medical care. Now, you can make of that what you wish, but my take? Yes, that is disgusting - and has absolutely nothing to do with whether the army would/should recruit physically challenged individuals.

Refusing to use the spellchick!

I have put you on ignore. No really, I have, but you are still ruining my enjoyment of this site. .

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...