Gays In Military

[kujo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1338401243' post='2437865']
Why doesn't the purpose matter?
[/quote]

Because the U.S. military isn't in the business of being a model for healthy, godly sexual behavior. No one takes their cues on sexual mores from the armed forces, nor is that the reason for their existence. Their purpose is to protect and preserve the safety and freedom of American citizens and their allies around the world. If they can do that well, I don't care if they rub one out to pictures of nuns and their cattle. Doesn't affect me, doesn't affect you, and doesn't affect the world we live in.

[qfnol31]

The USMC says that they are to be models in ethical and moral values. Why don't sexual ethics or morality apply?

[quote name='USMC Press']Honor: Honor requires each Marine to exemplify the ultimate standard in ethical and moral conduct. Honor is many things; honor requires many things. A U.S. Marine must never lie, never cheat, never steal, but that is not enough. Much more is required. Each Marine must cling to an uncompromising code of personal integrity, accountable for his actions and holding others accountable for theirs. And, above all, honor mandates that a Marine never sully the reputation of his Corps.[/quote]

Sorry, here's the link that wouldn't work above: http://www.usmcpress.com/heritage/corp_values.htm

Edited May 30, 2012 by qfnol31

[Amory]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1338392859' post='2437807']
So would a masturbator fall under the same 'incompatibility'?

And since when is a 'lifestyle' a sin?

I was always under the impression that SSA is not sinful, only the ACT of homosexuality is sinful. People with SSA can live chaste lives, can they not? And being chaste is perfectly compatible with catholicism....
[/quote]

There is a privacy to masturbation that makes it nearly impossible to regulate by any external authority. Many--probably most--sexual relationships are public to some degree, in that at least one's closer friends probably know about them. Thus, those who partake in intrinsically immoral sexual relationships (such as those involved in sexual relationships with those of the same sex) are much easier to take note of and punish.

Also, there's the purely practical aspect of it. Because of the small number of those who perpetually engage in same-sex intercourse, it's an easy enough vice to stamp out without eliminating an excessive number of servicemen. Masturbation is so common among all people that it would be excessively burdensome to try to discipline (or even fire) everyone somehow caught doing it.

There are all sorts of "lifestyles" that entail the perpetual commission of mortal sin, such as the lifestyle of a prostitute, or the lifestyle of a woman in a sexual relationship with another woman. If by "homosexual lifestyle" one means "the regular and constant engagement in same-sex intercourse" then such the "homosexual lifestyle" is indeed sinful.

[EmilyAnn]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1338396653' post='2437825']
Am I an active heterosexual?
[/quote]

I'm not really privy to that information.

[MIKolbe]

then how would you be privy to homosexual information?

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Amory' timestamp='1338402716' post='2437882']
Also, there's the purely practical aspect of it. Because of the small number of those who perpetually engage in same-sex intercourse, it's an easy enough vice to stamp out without eliminating an excessive number of servicemen. Masturbation is so common among all people that it would be excessively burdensome to try to discipline (or even fire) everyone somehow caught doing it.
[/quote]
pragmatic morality..

got it

[EmilyAnn]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1338403096' post='2437891']
then how would you be privy to homosexual information?
[/quote]

If they advertise it. You have never (thankfully) advertised your sexual activities in my presence. I can tell you for a fact whether most of my friends are sexually active or not because they've told me.

[MIKolbe]

maybe this is a function of youth, maybe not.

I have known and do know multiple homosexuals...most of whom are dear friends.

none have ever told me of their exploits. maybe i am an anomoly?

[EmilyAnn]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1338403764' post='2437904']
maybe this is a function of youth, maybe not.

I have known and do know multiple homosexuals...most of whom are dear friends.

none have ever told me of their exploits. maybe i am an anomoly?
[/quote]

For heterosexuals, being in a dating relationship does not presume they are being unchaste or inappropriate. For homosexuals it does because they have no place being in such relationships, even without knowledge of their sexual exploits.

[Papist]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1338400209' post='2437853']
ok, so I suffer from SSA. (let's say)

I will tell you this if you ask.

I will most likely tell you this if you don't ask.

I will not tell you if I have ever been engaged in homosexual sex. That is none of your business.

what then?

Sorry for the shotgun approach here...
[/quote]
Yes. It ain't none of my business. But, is it the military's business? Is the goal to have the most effective force on the battlefield? Of course. So the concern is, does having homosexuals in this force compromise the effectiveness of the force on the battlefield. Either right or wrong, just or unjust, the fact is you can't force young men to feel at ease fighting side-by-side with an homosexual. Someone's sexual orientation should not be a factor of another's performance. But does it? If so, then maybe the military believes it must take it into consideration. The farther away from the battlefield the less of a factor sexual orientation is.

This is the best reasoning I have come up with. Does anyone know/have the military's reasoning?

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='EmilyAnn' timestamp='1338404154' post='2437905']
For heterosexuals, being in a dating relationship does not presume they are being unchaste or inappropriate. For homosexuals it does because they have no place being in such relationships, even without knowledge of their sexual exploits.
[/quote]

So 2 guys can't have dinner together? They cannot have a relationship?

And two homosexual guys cannot be in a chaste relationship? Is this what are trying to say? By the virtue of their homosexualty, they are INCAPABLE of being in a chaste relationship? In order for a gay man to be chaste he must be perpetually alone his entire life? Really?

[EmilyAnn]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1338404418' post='2437908']
So 2 guys can't have dinner together? They cannot have a relationship?

And two homosexual guys cannot be in a chaste relationship? Is this what are trying to say? By the virtue of their homosexualty, they are INCAPABLE of being in a chaste relationship? In order for a gay man to be chaste he must be perpetually alone his entire life? Really?
[/quote]

I didn't say they can't have a friendship or a platonic relationship. Nor did I say there are incapable of being in a chaste. But a [i]dating[/i] relationship is a discernment for marriage, and they cannot marry so have no place dating. Not to mention the scandal.

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1338404331' post='2437906']
Yes. It ain't none of my business. But, is it the military's business? Is the goal to have the most effective force on the battlefield? Of course. So the concern is, does having homosexuals in this force compromise the effectiveness of the force on the battlefield. Either right or wrong, just or unjust, the fact is you can't force young men to feel at ease fighting side-by-side with an homosexual. Someone's sexual orientation should not be a factor of another's performance. But does it? If so, then maybe the military believes it must take it into consideration. The farther away from the battlefield the less of a factor sexual orientation is.
[/quote]

I have heard this argument before, and of course my opinions come from NEVER being in the front lines of battle, nor even being in the military. So I must temper my opinion with that. But... isn't the military supposed to invoke discipline? Can't discipline 'over rule' thoughts about whether the guys next to me is homosexual?? I've worked with homosexuals before and even roomed with them on business trips. No big whoop. Again, I have never had to advance on a hill or fight back the enemy, so maybe I am wrong... but a part of me still wonders about the discipline aspect of it all....

[quote name='EmilyAnn' timestamp='1338404569' post='2437911']
I didn't say they can't have a friendship or a platonic relationship. Nor did I say there are incapable of being in a chaste. But a [i]dating[/i] relationship is a discernment for marriage, and they cannot marry so have no place dating. Not to mention the scandal.
[/quote]

So you can tell when 2 sets homosexual men are at dinner; which ones are 'on dates' and which ones are just going to dinner?

or any 2 men having dinner and going to the movies are dating, no matter what?

[EmilyAnn]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1338404734' post='2437913']
So you can tell when 2 sets homosexual men are at dinner; which ones are 'on dates' and which ones are just going to dinner?
[/quote]

That depends on their behaviour. Sometimes you would be able to tell, sometimes you wouldn't. The same goes for a heterosexual man and woman dining together.


[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1338404779' post='2437913']
or any 2 men having dinner and going to the movies are dating, no matter what?
[/quote]

Again, not what I said. If that were the case I've been on dates with a lot of my friends.

Edited May 30, 2012 by EmilyAnn

[Amory]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1338403173' post='2437893']
pragmatic morality..

got it
[/quote]

All public policies have to be made with attentiveness to practicality. Yes, the government should encourage proper morality (particularly among its servicemen, who are under its more direct control), but only to the degree that such encouragement does not prevent it from carrying out its other essential tasks. It would be contrary to the common good to have such stringent morality rules for the military that a country could not be defended due to lack of servicemen. The government's promotion of proper morality needs to be balanced against the other functions of government and needs of the people.