West Point men become first to marry at academy

[Jeff]

I sat here reading this and just couldn't feel right about it, IMO this stuff is making our military look like clowns ( we are more interested in being politically correct than we are in being the #1 military in the world)

Two graduates of West Point became the first men to marry each other at the military academy when Larry Choate III married Daniel Lennox Saturday afternoon at the U.S. Military Academy’s Cadet Chapel.
Both men are out of the Army and both wore tuxedoes for the ceremony. About 20 guests attended, some in uniform. There have been two previous gay marriages performed at the Cadet Chapel but they involved females.

http://allenbwest.com/2013/11/west-p...YSTZQ9vm30W.99

[fj1200]

( we are more interested in being politically correct than we are in being the #1 military in the world)

One doesn't preclude the other.

[Missileman]

One doesn't preclude the other.

Everybody knows gays don't shoot "straight"!

[jimnyc]

[fj1200]

Everybody knows gays don't shoot "straight"!

But that's a good thing right?

[Arbo]

One doesn't preclude the other.

That some think that is interesting, but of more interest is the simple homophobia behind the 'outrage' of this story.

[jimnyc]

That some think that is interesting, but of more interest is the simple homophobia behind the 'outrage' of this story.

You might be able to make an argument for people being outraged over something like this when it perhaps isn't something worthy of being outraged over. With that said, save the "homophobia" term meant to vilify those against homosexuality. I don't know of anyone myself that has any type of fear over homosexuality or gay marriage. There is no fear here, only disgust, disagreement and differences. Twisting a term like this to suit ones own agenda was wrong and transparent on day one and remains so today.

You can call me "anti gay marriage" maybe. Or one who disagrees with homosexuality. But you would be wrong if you stated or implied that there was any type of fear at all involved. Using terms like that is like when liberals refer to those in the tea party as "teabaggers". It's a label only meant to degrade the opponent or person who disagrees.

[Arbo]

You might be able to make an argument for people being outraged over something like this when it perhaps isn't something worthy of being outraged over. With that said, save the "homophobia" term meant to vilify those against homosexuality. I don't know of anyone myself that has any type of fear over homosexuality or gay marriage. There is no fear here, only disgust, disagreement and differences. Twisting a term like this to suit ones own agenda was wrong and transparent on day one and remains so today.

You can call me "anti gay marriage" maybe. Or one who disagrees with homosexuality. But you would be wrong if you stated or implied that there was any type of fear at all involved. Using terms like that is like when liberals refer to those in the tea party as "teabaggers". It's a label only meant to degrade the opponent or person who disagrees.

Considering you defended the term 'queers' as if it was not being used in a derogatory manner, that it was just fine… well…

As for you saying that this is worthy of being outraged over. OMG, two guys got married! They served there country and it is outrageous they would ever be free to do such a thing.

[jimnyc]

Considering you defended the term 'queers' as if it was not being used in a derogatory manner, that it was just fine… well…

As for you saying that this is worthy of being outraged over. OMG, two guys got married! They served there country and it is outrageous they would ever be free to do such a thing.

So somehow out of that you figure I have some sort of fear about gay people? You're calling people names that are factually inaccurate. It's obvious that it's more the person not liking another members position on an issue, so they label them as homophobic as a result. Someone disagreeing with homosexuality and/or gay marriage comes nowhere in the same universe as meaning they therefore are afraid of either.

[Larrymc]

You might be able to make an argument for people being outraged over something like this when it perhaps isn't something worthy of being outraged over. With that said, save the "homophobia" term meant to vilify those against homosexuality. I don't know of anyone myself that has any type of fear over homosexuality or gay marriage. There is no fear here, only disgust, disagreement and differences. Twisting a term like this to suit ones own agenda was wrong and transparent on day one and remains so today.

You can call me "anti gay marriage" maybe. Or one who disagrees with homosexuality. But you would be wrong if you stated or implied that there was any type of fear at all involved. Using terms like that is like when liberals refer to those in the tea party as "teabaggers". It's a label only meant to degrade the opponent or person who disagrees.

Jim There's nothing ligament our traditional about Homosexuality, that's why they have to make up phobias and names for their Opposition old enough to know the Deviance of their behavior and try to indoctrinate the younger generation. Making it plan that they know this, other wise there would be, no reason to fight so hard for ligament recognition, as it would already be accepted by society, like protection from violence and abuse, no one has a problem with that.

[Trigg]

That some think that is interesting, but of more interest is the simple homophobia behind the 'outrage' of this story.

I've never understood the hostility that comes from simply saying I am against Gay Marriage. People automatically start throwing out the "homophobic" line.

Marriage has been and should always be between one man and one woman. If gay people want to make a commitment to one another, I have no problem with that, if one man and 4 women or one woman and 4 men want to live together and do what they do, more power to them.

WHY TRY TO CHANGE THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE??????

[Arbo]

WHY TRY TO CHANGE THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE??????

At one point it meant a man and a woman of the same race. At one point it meant 'together forever'. The 'meaning' changes all the time, why are so many hung up on a word? Why do so many stand on the same side as the 'horrible' muslims when it comes to this topic?

[Trigg]

At one point it meant a man and a woman of the same race. At one point it meant 'together forever'. The 'meaning' changes all the time, why are so many hung up on a word? Why do so many stand on the same side as the 'horrible' muslims when it comes to this topic?

I could ask you the exact same question, WHY are gays hung up on the word?


There are civil unions that afford people the same rights as a married couple, but gays don't want that. They want the WORD.


There are laws against polygamy, WHY????? If the word marriage means nothing and everything than all the laws need changed, correct?

[logroller]

I've never understood the hostility that comes from simply saying I am against Gay Marriage. People automatically start throwing out the "homophobic" line.

Marriage has been and should always be between one man and one woman. If gay people want to make a commitment to one another, I have no problem with that, if one man and 4 women or one woman and 4 men want to live together and do what they do, more power to them.

WHY TRY TO CHANGE THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE??????

From a policy perspective, WHY SHOULD MARRIAGE BE DEFINED AT ALL?

Quite simply, why does it matter to you whether gays are 'married'; how does it affect you; what is the adverse effect that gay marriage has on others who engage in traditional marriage?

[jimnyc]

From a policy perspective, WHY SHOULD MARRIAGE BE DEFINED AT ALL?

Quite simply, why does it matter to you whether gays are 'married'; how does it affect you; what is the adverse effect that gay marriage has on others who engage in traditional marriage?

I don't think some sort or measurable adverse affect is necessary in order for this subject to matter to people. I don't think it needs to affect someone directly in order for them to want to preserve the traditional marriage. I believe that any answer given will not be sufficient to those asking these questions. They've been asked for years now and the answers are never accepted as good enough. For example, if I say that it matters to me as now the "marriage" I entered into has now changed it's meaning a bit, it's sacredness, if you will. This of course will not be good enough, or be disputed, but it's why it matters.