Gays In Military

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1338247797' post='2436691']
That doesn't make any sense. America is not the Vatican. I also doubt that the Vatican has Jews or Protestants or Muslims serving in the guard. By your logic we should therefore prohibit Protestants from our army. [/quote]

Morality doesn't change by one's geographical location on Earth. The logic you apply to me is invalid, as the [url="http://www.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19920724_homosexual-persons_en.html"]CDF[/url] states “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern."


[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1338248006' post='2436695']
Yeah it can, because the Vatican is not the United States. If you are against gays in the military then you're going to have to come up with a better argument than that, because that doesn't even make sense.
[/quote]

The Archbishop of Military Services in the US has the same basis as my argument against open/active homosexuals in the Military, morality.

"This Archdiocese exists to serve those who serve
and it assists them by advocating moral behavior. The military must find ways to
promote that behavior and develop strong prohibitions against any immoral activity
that would jeopardize morale, good morals, unit cohesion and every other factor that
weakens the mission. So also must a firm effort be made to avoid any injustices that
may inadvertently develop because individuals or groups are put in living situations
that are an affront to good common sense."

...

"The Archdiocese for the Military Services—the only jurisdiction charged with the
pastoral care of all Catholics in the military, VA Administration, and at the service of
the Federal Government outside of the boundaries of the United States, which is also
charged with endorsing Roman Catholic priests urges the Congress not to repeal the
current policy for the Armed Forces."

====

Also from the CDF document posted above.

...


11. There are areas in which it is [b]not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account[/b], for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in [b]military recruitment[/b].

12. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. no. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. [b]Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for [u]objectively disordered external conduct[/u][/b]...

Edited May 29, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[4588686]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1338253244' post='2436771']
Morality doesn't change by one's geographical location on Earth. The logic you apply to me is invalid, as the [url="http://www.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19920724_homosexual-persons_en.html"]CDF[/url] states “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern."
[/quote]

I applied your own logic.

[color=#282828]"The point being is that the Swiss Guard is a military, and truth is not relative. It cannot be ok for gays to serve in the US military but not ok for them to serve in other militaries such as the Swiss Guard."[/color]

[font="Segoe UI, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"][color="#282828"][size=3]By your logic any discrimination permissible in the Papal detachment of the Swiss Guard must be acceptable in the American Military. Which is what I addressed. My objection to your standard had nothing to do with the morality or disorderdness of homosexuality. Apostasy is also deeply immoral. Apostates are not allowed in the Papal detachment of the Swiss Guard. Do Catholics have a duty to oppose Apostates joining the American Army?[/size][/color][/font]

[4588686]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1338253244' post='2436771']

11. There are areas in which it is [b]not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account[/b], for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in [b]military recruitment[/b].

[/quote]

So? Not even I say it is everywhere and always unjust to take sexual orientation into account with military recruitment. For example, the Vatcan has every right to prohibit gay men from joining the Swiss Guard.

But even for a faithful Catholic, your quote doesn't help your argument. You seem to be arguing that Catholics have a duty to oppose permitting gays from joining the military. That document says no such think. It simply makes the very weak observation that taking sexual orientation 'into account' would not be unjust.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1338250435' post='2436723']
Is being gay itself immoral?[/quote]


Technically speaking [i]being gay itself[/i] is not possible. Homosexuals are in fact persons who suffer from a unnatural and objectively disordered temptation. To act on or to give approval of the unnatural and objectively disorder temptation is always immoral.

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1338250435' post='2436723']
Do all gay people act on their inclinations?
[/quote]

I very clearly referenced 'open homosexuals'. Such persons act on their inclinations and/or approve of them. Such persons should not serve in any honorable or moral military.

[4588686]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1338254067' post='2436782']


I very clearly referenced 'open homosexuals'. [/QUOTE]

Open does not mean active.

[QUOTE] Such persons act on their inclinations and/or approve of them. Such persons should not serve in any honorable or moral military.
[/quote]

That's classy.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1338254067' post='2436782']
Technically speaking [i]being gay itself[/i] is not possible. Homosexuals are in fact persons who suffer from a unnatural and objectively disordered temptation. To act on or to give approval of the unnatural and objectively disorder temptation is always immoral.



I very clearly referenced 'open homosexuals'. Such persons act on their inclinations and/or approve of them. Such persons should not serve in any honorable or moral military.
[/quote]I was in fact clarifying what was not originally clear in your post. You referenced gays in general in the first half, and then openly homosexual men.

I agree with Hasan (who responded as I am) that being openly gay is not necessarily the same as acting on one's homosexuality.

I have yet to disagree with you (or really anyone for that matter), but that doesn't mean that we don't have to clarify our positions very well on this point.

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1338253244' post='2436771']The Archbishop of Military Services in the US has the same basis as my argument against open/active homosexuals in the Military, morality.[/quote]He was on TV today. Also, I think that Archbishop Broglio, while not in disagreement with you by any stretch of the imagination, might also have a lot more to his argument than what you've posted above. I've had a chance to listen in on about 20 of his homilies over the last several years. He's a very intelligent person and so I'm sure he also clarified that unjust discrimination on sexual orientation alone ought to be avoided.

Edited May 29, 2012 by qfnol31

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1338254019' post='2436781']
So? Not even I say it is everywhere and always unjust to take sexual orientation into account with military recruitment. For example, the Vatcan has every right to prohibit gay men from joining the Swiss Guard.

But even for a faithful Catholic, your quote doesn't help your argument. You seem to be arguing that Catholics have a duty to oppose permitting gays from joining the military. That document says no such think. It simply makes the very weak observation that taking sexual orientation 'into account' would not be unjust.
[/quote]

Yes it does and you're just reading it with a weak understanding of Catholic Teaching. The Church's teaching against 'homosexuals' adopting children is also found in this document, but your weak understanding of Catholic teaching would also allow this teaching to be a option to take into account. Cafeteria Catholicism isn't razzle dazzle.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1338254517' post='2436789']
I was in fact clarifying what was not originally clear in your post. You referenced gays in general in the first half, and then openly homosexual men.[/quote]


I did refer to 'open' in the same post and in posts before and after that post, I have been clearly consistant. Context is king.

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1338254517' post='2436789']
I agree with Hasan (who responded as I am) that being openly gay is not necessarily the same as acting on one's homosexuality.[/quote]


I do not agree with Hasan, or you on this point, the word open implies approval of and or freely acting on something. Perhaps if the word Chaste was added to the term it could mean otherwise. I would again referece the CDF document on the topic of making the temptation public, [i]as a rule, the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize their sexual orientation.[/i]



[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1338254517' post='2436789']
I have yet to disagree with you (or really anyone for that matter), but that doesn't mean that we don't have to clarify our positions very well on this point.

He was on TV today. Also, I think that Archbishop Broglio, while not in disagreement with you by any stretch of the imagination, might also have a lot more to his argument than what you've posted above. I've had a chance to listen in on about 20 of his homilies over the last several years. He's a very intelligent person and so I'm sure he also clarified that unjust discrimination on sexual orientation alone ought to be avoided.
[/quote]

Of course there is much more to the Church's teaching on homosexuality and those that suffer from that unnatural disorder. I cannot write of every detail. But to be clear I never advocated or stated that unjust discrimination was ok, that [color=#282828]being gay is itself immoral or that [/color][color=#282828]all gay people act on their inclinations. Nor will I ever. [/color]

[kujo]

LOL at KoC telling us what "openly gay" means. I've got a bunch of friends who are "openly heterosexual" but that doesn't mean that they are having premarital sex or anything like that.

In any case, the fundamental breakdown here involves 2 simple answers to a very simple question: is sexual orientation--or whatever you want to call it-- a valid reason to discriminate against the admittance of an individual into the armed service.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1338254067' post='2436782']Such persons act on their inclinations and/or approve of them. Such persons should not serve in any honorable or moral military.
[/quote]
[img]http://introtosociology.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/abu-ghraib.jpg[/img]

[qfnol31]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1338257242' post='2436807']
I did refer to 'open' in the same post and in posts before and after that post, I have been clearly consistant. Context is king.

I do not agree with Hasan, or you on this point, the word open implies approval of and or freely acting on something. Perhaps if the word Chaste was added to the term it could mean otherwise. I would again referece the CDF document on the topic of making the temptation public, [i]as a rule, the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize their sexual orientation.[/i]

Of course there is much more to the Church's teaching on homosexuality and those that suffer from that unnatural disorder. I cannot write of every detail. But to be clear I never advocated or stated that unjust discrimination was ok, that [color=#282828]being gay is itself immoral or that [/color][color=#282828]all gay people act on their inclinations. Nor will I ever. [/color]
[/quote]I agree with the CDF and you on the point about chaste lives, though to be honest, I have a couple friends who have been highly encouraged to tell people of their homosexual tendencies (why, I'm not sure, but anyways...) and they both lead chaste lives. That's why I want to be clear on the meaning of "openly homosexual."

As for serving in the military, you say that such a ban is a ban based on their actions alone, then, is that correct?

[Groo the Wanderer]

keep it in the closet. outside the closet and in the trenches, act like a man. unless you are a woman.

[kujo]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1338258577' post='2436823']

[img]http://introtosociology.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/abu-ghraib.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

See, that's ok because it's a LADY doing it to MEN. Thus it's a heterosexual activity. Like watching Downton Abbey. See the distinction?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1338258577' post='2436823']
[spoiler][img]http://introtosociology.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/abu-ghraib.jpg[/img][/spoiler]
[/quote]

The persons who committed these grave offenses against the dignity of their fellow man also should not serve in any honorable or moral military.

Edited May 29, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[kujo]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1338258911' post='2436833']
keep it in the closet. outside the closet and in the trenches, act like a man. unless you are a woman.
[/quote]

Are gay men not men unless they're not gay?

Just looking to see where your head is at. Actually, given your posts in this thread, I've got a pretty good idea where it is. Do you have a LCD screen behind your small intestine or something? How else could you see from up there?

[Groo the Wanderer]

you make no sense and seem to know what I mean about acting like a man. dear fellow, let me assure you , you do NOT.

so for you my friend

[kujo]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1338259221' post='2436842']
you make no sense and seem to know what I mean about acting like a man. dear fellow, let me assure you , you do NOT.

so for you my friend
[/quote]

Speaking of not making sense, can I request a revision of that first paragraph into something resembling a cohesive thought?

[Groo the Wanderer]

no. you have no credibility in my universe.


and i am somewhat dyslexic. this finds its way into my typing. good on ya for making fun of handicaps

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1338259110' post='2436840']
The persons who committed these grave offenses against the dintiy of their fellow man also should not serve in any honorable or moral military.
[/quote]
I don't know exactly which country operates an honorable and moral military, but I know the US military serves to protect the interests of the USA, and above all, the interests of the USA's government. Perhaps, at times, decisions are made to have the appearance of honor or morality for the purposes of PR, and certainly there are many honorable and moral individuals who are in the armed forces of the US and other nations, but I do not buy into the religion of statism, so I reject the concept that the US armed forces are some beacon of morality to a world of heathens.

[kujo]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1338259404' post='2436846']
no. you have no credibility in my universe.


and i am somewhat dyslexic. this finds its way into my typing. good on ya for making fun of handicaps
[/quote]

You have your own universe?

And don't pull the "mystery dyslexic card" as guilt on me. I've seen you form many well thought out posts on here before. Your handicap was unknown to me, but it doesn't make that post any less intelligible.