Gays In Military

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338261315' post='2436894']
But there's a word for systems of government that formulate laws and military policy based on religious texts: theocracy.
[/quote]
Oooh, scary!

There's a word for systems of government that formulate laws and military policy with no regard for moral principle: tyranny.

Somehow our nation managed to survive over 200 years of "theocracy."

[Socrates]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1338306336' post='2437099']
the govt is already trying to illegally force military chaplains to perform same sex 'marriages'. So much for letting everyone just be. So much for not forcing the agenda on us.


riiiight



[/quote]
It's never about simple tolerance, but always about demanding entitlements.

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1338340662' post='2437537']
I haven't had time to slog through this entire miserable thread, but officially allowing open homosexuality in our armed forces is simply another politically-motivated move by the government to officially sanction and approve homosexual conduct, and constitutes a lowering of standards of morality and honor that have been in place nearly since the founding of the American military.

For most of our nation's history, homosexual sodomy was generally recognized as behavior that is inherently dishonorable and unworthy of any man, whether serving his country in uniform or not, and thus as certainly unworthy of an American fighting man.

Yes, I'm fully aware that this very un-razzle dazzle, un-hip, and un-pc talk of morality and honor will likely draw nothing but sniggers and derision from most of the trendy pc phatmass crowd, including many of the "Catholics." And I'm sure one can always point out the hypocrisy of not allowing open homosexual behavior in the military in light of the other forms of sexual immorality servicemen are notorious for, but that still does not make this lowering of moral standards to comply with political correctness a good thing.

In addition, sexual and "romantic" tensions and relationships between combat soldiers, who must share very close quarters for extended periods of time, can create real issues. And I'm against women serving in combat units with men for the same reason.
I can only see this leading to an increase in lawsuits and such from both "gays" and "straights."

Many military officers and veterans petitioned against allowing open homosexuals in the military, including plenty of decorated vets with combat experience, and I personally know plenty of military vets who are strongly opposed to homosexuality in the military, so the usual childish ad hominems of saying the only people opposed are civilian wussies who could never make it through basic (and are probably closet homos themselves) is nonsensical, as well as largely irrelevant.

And as the US has somehow managed to have the world's best military, and win two world wars without sanctioning homosexuality in its ranks makes me seriously doubt that allowing "gays in the military" is an urgent military necessity.

The lowering of moral standards is never a good thing, and should never be applauded by Catholics.
Political correctness be damned.
[/quote]

Thank you for your courageous service in our armed forces.

[Ice_nine]

lol Soc. Would it absolutely KILL you to not attack the Catholicity of other forum members in nearly every post you make? Just because someone disagrees with your conclusions and/or thinks u r crazy doesn't mean they are less-Catholic than you, nor does it mean they are pc-friendly/liberal. It seems a bit arrogant to paint oneself as a paragon for everything that is right and good.

but hey, why listen to a hippie-dippie bleeding-heart like me?

[4588686]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1338346089' post='2437608']
lol Soc. Would it absolutely KILL you to not attack the Catholicity of other forum members in nearly every post you make? Just because someone disagrees with your conclusions and/or thinks u r crazy doesn't mean they are less-Catholic than you, nor does it mean they are pc-friendly/liberal. It seems a bit arrogant to paint oneself as a paragon for everything that is right and good.

but hey, why listen to a hippie-dippie bleeding-heart like me?
[/quote]

Watch your mouth when you're speaking to an American hero.

[kujo]

There are a precious few things that cause me to laugh harder than whenever Socrates gets pulled into a discussion on homosexuality. It's like a moth to a flame, a bee to honey, a fat kid to a piece of devil's food cake! I mean, could there be anything more ironic--and hilarious-- than a man having a stick up his butt about gayness?

You know, they say that we rebel hardest against the things that we secretly hate about ourselves. And if the litany of evidence, strewn across hundreds of threads pertaining to various homosexual topics over the years and years that Socrates has been an active participant on Phatmass are to be believed, it would seem that Good Ole Soc might have some 'splainin' to do.

Edited May 30, 2012 by kujo

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1338340906' post='2437538']
So let's eliminate all traces of any standards of honor or morality in the US military, so it can stand exposed as the fascist gang of imperialist oppressors that it is. No standards beyond the ability to be trained to Kill! Kill! KILL!!!

Now where can I buy a Che Guevera t-shirt?
[/quote]
You're right, the US Millitary, under the command of Commander-In-Chief Barack Obama, always has morality at the forefront of its intentions. I forgot how much respect you had for Obama, sorry if I happened to offend you.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1338346089' post='2437608']
lol Soc. Would it absolutely KILL you to not attack the Catholicity of other forum members in nearly every post you make? Just because someone disagrees with your conclusions and/or thinks u r crazy doesn't mean they are less-Catholic than you, nor does it mean they are pc-friendly/liberal. It seems a bit arrogant to paint oneself as a paragon for everything that is right and good.

but hey, why listen to a hippie-dippie bleeding-heart like me?
[/quote]
All who forget that homosexuality and lack of homophobia are the unforgivable sins deserve to have their Catholicity questioned.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1338340906' post='2437538']
So let's eliminate all traces of any standards of honor or morality in the US military, so it can stand exposed as the fascist gang of imperialist oppressors that it is. No standards beyond the ability to be trained to Kill! Kill! KILL!!!

Now where can I buy a Che Guevera t-shirt?
[/quote]

Here you go! http://bit.ly/KV9G3p

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1338340662' post='2437537']
I haven't had time to slog through this entire miserable thread, but officially allowing open homosexuality in our armed forces is simply another politically-motivated move by the government to officially sanction and approve homosexual conduct, and constitutes a lowering of standards of morality and honor that have been in place nearly since the founding of the American military.

For most of our nation's history, homosexual sodomy was generally recognized as behavior that is inherently dishonorable and unworthy of any man, whether serving his country in uniform or not, and thus as certainly unworthy of an American fighting man.

Yes, I'm fully aware that this very un-razzle dazzle, un-hip, and un-pc talk of morality and honor will likely draw nothing but sniggers and derision from most of the trendy pc phatmass crowd, including many of the "Catholics." And I'm sure one can always point out the hypocrisy of not allowing open homosexual behavior in the military in light of the other forms of sexual immorality servicemen are notorious for, but that still does not make this lowering of moral standards to comply with political correctness a good thing.

In addition, sexual and "romantic" tensions and relationships between combat soldiers, who must share very close quarters for extended periods of time, can create real issues. And I'm against women serving in combat units with men for the same reason.
I can only see this leading to an increase in lawsuits and such from both "gays" and "straights."

Many military officers and veterans petitioned against allowing open homosexuals in the military, including plenty of decorated vets with combat experience, and I personally know plenty of military vets who are strongly opposed to homosexuality in the military, so the usual childish ad hominems of saying the only people opposed are civilian wussies who could never make it through basic (and are probably closet homos themselves) is nonsensical, as well as largely irrelevant.

And as the US has somehow managed to have the world's best military, and win two world wars without sanctioning homosexuality in its ranks makes me seriously doubt that allowing "gays in the military" is an urgent military necessity.

The lowering of moral standards is never a good thing, and should never be applauded by Catholics.
Political correctness be damned.
[/quote]
So which job(s) is it okay for homosexuals to have?

Edited May 30, 2012 by USAirwaysIHS

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1338346089' post='2437608']
lol Soc. Would it absolutely KILL you to not attack the Catholicity of other forum members in nearly every post you make? Just because someone disagrees with your conclusions and/or thinks u r crazy doesn't mean they are less-Catholic than you, nor does it mean they are pc-friendly/liberal. It seems a bit arrogant to paint oneself as a paragon for everything that is right and good.

but hey, why listen to a hippie-dippie bleeding-heart like me?
[/quote]

Yes, Soc should have chosen his words better, indeed, no doubt. But lets not pretend the other side has been all suger and honey. Hassan, Kujo, USAirways, and Appax have offered up numerous rude, condescending and mocking comments against those that do not agree with their ideas.

And would it absolutely kill the Catholics here who advocate allowing openly homosexual persons to serve in the military to instead back up and submit to the only competent ecclesiastical authority with the jurisdiction to speak on this matter?

Archbishop Timothy P. Brogli, is the competent ecclesiastical authority on this matter, and he does not support openly homosexual persons serving in the military. Lay catholics should defer to his judgement and his authority on this matter. Rather than offering up a private judgement that contradicts his judgement as Archbishop of Military Services.

Edited May 30, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[EmilyAnn]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338347157' post='2437618']
You know,[b] they say that we rebel hardest against the things that we secretly hate about ourselves.[/b] And if the litany of evidence, strewn across hundreds of threads pertaining to various homosexual topics over the years and years that Socrates has been an active participant on Phatmass are to be believed, it would seem that Good Ole Soc might have some 'splainin' to do.
[/quote]

That's pop psychology and has like no hard evidence to support it.

[4588686]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1338366750' post='2437703']
Yes, Soc should have chosen his words better, indeed, no doubt. But lets not pretend the other side has been all suger and honey. Hassan, Kujo, USAirways, and Appax have offered up numerous rude, condescending and mocking comments against those that do not agree with their ideas.
[/quote]

The only arguably rude comments that I have seen would be when Kujo refereed to your argument as 'moronic' a few days ago. I don't think that I have said anything rude to you. The closest thing I can find is where I pointed out that an argument of yours didn't make sense. I have tried not to levy any personal attacks against anyone here. I may find the styles of some posters here grating but I don't have an actual problem with any body posting here and have tried to not say anything hurtful. Except for pointing out that Winchester would be the cub in a homosexual relationship with Kujo due to his relative hairlessness.

And let's not pretend that Socrates needs any provocation to start insinuating that any Catholic who disagrees with his politics is a lesser Catholic than he. And before your jump there I'm not talking about the 'non-negotiables' I'm talking about things likes, for example, should the power of the state be used to bar certain people from the military based on criteria that have nothing to do with that individuals ability to function in the military.

[4588686]

[quote name='EmilyAnn' timestamp='1338366969' post='2437706']
That's pop psychology and has like no hard evidence to support it.
[/quote]


Hypothetically, if Socrates drunkenly put his hand on my thigh and put his face uncomfortably close to mine to 'ask me a question' during the meetup would that mean anything significant?

Edited May 30, 2012 by Hasan

[Amory]

The purpose of government is to advance the common good--a good which is not just material but moral, as well. In pursuit of the commonweal, a rightly constituted government ought--while avoiding any semblance of tyranny--to encourage virtue and discourage vice. It would be impractical (particularly for public officials), oppressive (at least to many Americans), and unconstitutional (says the Supreme Court) for the government to police certain sexual acts of ordinary citizens. Nevertheless, the government exercises a much more direct control over members of the military and is able more rigorously to regulate their behavior without risk of falling into authoritarianism. It would be unfeasible for the government to prevent mere fornicators from being enlisted due to the abundance of this particular sin in most (if not all) human societies, including ours. However, same-sex intercourse is habitually committed by an almost exponentially smaller segment of the population and is thus easier to stigmatize. Because of the negligible number of practicing homosexuals (at least compared to the total number of enlisted men) and because of the egregious nature of homosexual acts (at least compared to fornication), it is expedient for the government not to tolerate in the ranks of its military those who openly commit homosexual acts.