Homosexuals In The Armed Services

[Sojourner]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1219070' date='Mar 24 2007, 10:01 PM']I find this statement to be an oxymoron. By the very nature of Homosexuality being immoral means that person is in fact less deserving of respect and honor. Immorality deserves no respect and no honor. Immorality is not respectful and it is not honorable. An immoral person deserves little if any respect and honor than does a Moral person.[/quote]
Is a person defined only by his or her sinful behavior? Is that the sum total of this person's impact?

Are we all not guilty of some form of immoral behavior? Are then none of us deserving of respect or honor?

[kujo]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1219077' date='Mar 25 2007, 12:18 AM']Is a person defined only by his or her sinful behavior? Is that the sum total of this person's impact?

Are we all not guilty of some form of immoral behavior? Are then none of us deserving of respect or honor?[/quote]

Yup...good call...

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1219077' date='Mar 24 2007, 10:18 PM']Is a person defined only by his or her sinful behavior? Is that the sum total of this person's impact?

Are we all not guilty of some form of immoral behavior? Are then none of us deserving of respect or honor?[/quote]


What is your stance on Homosexual "marriage" I have talked with some that support it, your words for homosexuls in the armed forces sound close to theirs for homosexual "marriage".


When someone defines their self as a "Homosexual" and Homosexuality is itself gravely immoral yes they are less deserving of respect and honor. We all may be guilty of some form of immoral behavior, but we are not all guilty of prideful and grave immoral behavior. We as Christians, children of God, we repent, and seek forgiveness. We should not define ourselves by and be proud of our sins. Homosexuals most often define themselves by and are [b]proud[/b] of their immorality. There is nothing to be prideful about immortally. A gravely immoral person is not a honorable person.

I do not understand why it always seems Homosexuals get a free past for their gravely immoral sin, when other gravely immoral sinners do not this same pass. Why not just also allow adulterers in the armed forces too? And every other gravely lustful sin as well? If you allow one, all is only fair.

And if we are to allow Homosexuals in the armed forces why not just let them "marry" as too.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='kujo' post='1219082' date='Mar 24 2007, 10:24 PM']Yup...good call...[/quote]


I completely disagree a prideful person who is unrepenting and is a gravely immoral sinner, is not the same as a person who is a repenting, sorrowful sinner. And in most cases and which is on topic of what this debate is about, Homosexuals define themselves by their sin, are unrepenting, and prideful of their sin, which they do not even view it as a sin.

[KnightofChrist]

As children of God, when we sin we are to turn away from it, not define ourselves by it. There would be nothing wrong with "homosexual" people in the armed forces if they turned from their gravely immoral sin, and truly repented. But then they would cease to be "homosexual."

[Sojourner]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1219085' date='Mar 24 2007, 10:42 PM']And if we are to allow Homosexuals in the armed forces why not just let them "marry" as too.[/quote]
Well, if you're going to put military service in the same category as the sacraments of the church, I guess you could make that connection.

I, however, do not make that comparison.

Marriage is a sacrament, the primordial sacrament, and it involves the free, total, faithful, fruitful union of one man and one woman. It is a sacrament not defined by civil government, but encountered by civil government and should be recognized as such. I am not at all in favor of recognizing homosexual marriage. THAT is an oxymoron.

However, that does not negate the fact that homosexual persons are capable of honorable actions, just as all of us sinners are capable of honorable actions.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1219099' date='Mar 24 2007, 11:25 PM']Well, if you're going to put military service in the same category as the sacraments of the church, I guess you could make that connection.

I, however, do not make that comparison.[/quote]

The connection I am making is condoning and allowing immoral grave sin. Allowing Homosexual unions would condone the grave sin of Homosexuality. So would allowing homosexuals in the armed forces. It would say what you do is your business, sin can not just be allowed, we as Christians must do our duty for Christ, and fight against it, allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces would for go that duty.

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1219099' date='Mar 24 2007, 11:25 PM']Marriage is a sacrament, the primordial sacrament, and it involves the free, total, faithful, fruitful union of one man and one woman. It is a sacrament not defined by civil government, but encountered by civil government and should be recognized as such. I am not at all in favor of recognizing homosexual marriage. THAT is an oxymoron.[/quote]

This is awesome we are agreed on this. Yet the agruements you use for homosexuals in the armed forces are very similar to those that say Homosexual unions should be allowed.

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1219099' date='Mar 24 2007, 11:25 PM']However, that does not negate the fact that homosexual persons are capable of honorable actions, just as all of us sinners are capable of honorable actions.[/quote]

Immoral persons may be capable of "honorable actions", but that does not make that immoral person honorable. Immoral persons are not honorable persons. And all sinners are not the same, moral sinners repent and turn from sin, gravely immoral sinners are proud of their sin and/or do not turn from it. And this is what negates Homosexuals from being capable of being Honorable persons. If the do not repent and turn from their graveful sin they can not be called Honorable persons, no matter their Honorable actions. Example an unrepented evil man saves the life of another, is that still unrepented evil man an honorable person, or Hero? No he is not, true he made an honorable action, but still remains unhonorable.

[Sojourner]

I think it is a mistake to equate allowing homosexuals into the military with allowing homosexual marriage.

As far as the honor/respect thing ... I can't help but think of Jesus' actions toward the woman caught in adultery. He did not condemn her, but rather encouraged her to turn from her sin.

I think it is a double standard to allow one form of immoral behavior in the armed forces, but to not allow another.

FYI ... don't expect many more posts from me for a while. The only reason I've been able to be so responsive tonight is that I've been stuck in the stupid airport for 6 hours ... I'll try to be on from time to time this week but won't make any guarantees.

[The Joey-O]

I voted yes. The Spartan army was arguably the greatest army ever. They developed many tactics that are still used today. For example, marching cadinces (I'm not sure that's how it's spelt), certain formations, psychological tactics, etc. (BTW, my opinion remains uninfluenced by the movie "300".) The Spartans often spoke about the "war-bond" that existed between soldiers. This war-bond was described as the "love" that existed between soldiers on the battlefield. This love was often expressed through braiding each other's hair and practicing homosexual sex. The love that existed between male and female was thought to be "dirtier". Our soldiers already emulate the Spartans in some ways. Why not in ALL ways?

****Note: This is not my actual opinion.*****

[KnightofChrist]

If we as Christians are to allow Homosexuals in the armed forces, homosexuality being a grave and immoral sin, why not also as Christians allow the armed forces to have abortions?

Why should the grave immoral sin of Homosexuality get a free pass, but not the grave immoral sin of abortion? Both abortion, and homosexuality are grave immoral sin, condemned by Christ, and Holy Mother Church.

If we allow one, why not both, and why not all grave and immoral sin?

Many of the arguments used for homosexuals in the armed forces can be slightly changed to support abortions for the armed forces. "We're all sinners, I'm against it but theres nothing you can do" being the greatest example.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1219128' date='Mar 25 2007, 12:09 AM']I think it is a mistake to equate allowing homosexuals into the military with allowing homosexual marriage.[/quote]

How? There at least use to be a understanding that serving in the armed forces was a call, a call of duty to serve ones nation, that call came from God. While it maybe no where close to the sacrament of Marriage, it was a sacramental because it was consider sacred, because God call them to duty. Is this belief dead now in America?

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1219128' date='Mar 25 2007, 12:09 AM']As far as the honor/respect thing ... I can't help but think of Jesus' actions toward the woman caught in adultery. He did not condemn her, but rather encouraged her to turn from her sin.[/quote]

Because it's easier to catch flies with honey than with vinegar, yet Christ absolutely condemns adultery, even so much as the thought is condemned, and Homosexuality would also apply. Christ is God, God condemned an whole city to dust because of their unrepented sins of Homosexuality and Adultery. God gives all sinners chance to repeat how would allowing Homosexuals in the armed force encourage them to repeat? Reason would tell us it would it would have the opposite effect.

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1219128' date='Mar 25 2007, 12:09 AM']I think it is a double standard to allow one form of immoral behavior in the armed forces, but to not allow another.[/quote]

Exactly...


[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1219128' date='Mar 25 2007, 12:09 AM']FYI ... don't expect many more posts from me for a while. The only reason I've been able to be so responsive tonight is that I've been stuck in the stupid airport for 6 hours ... I'll try to be on from time to time this week but won't make any guarantees.[/quote]

I pray you have a safe journey my friend. Debating on phatmass in the airport, wow, you really love us

God Bless,
KoC

Edited March 25, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1219128' date='Mar 25 2007, 02:09 AM']I think it is a mistake to equate allowing homosexuals into the military with allowing homosexual marriage.

As far as the honor/respect thing ... I can't help but think of Jesus' actions toward the woman caught in adultery. He did not condemn her, but rather encouraged her to turn from her sin.

I think it is a double standard to allow one form of immoral behavior in the armed forces, but to not allow another.[/quote]LOL. Talk about double standards...
It is okay for society to allow gays to kill for the country, but it won't be okay for gays to marry and have the same societal benefits that hertero couples do.

Jesus didn't say to the woman, 'Your contributions to society that are equivilant to the others who are sinful allows you to continue as you are." Those people were going to KILL her, not boot her out of the Army!. AND he said go and sin no more, not sin how you want, just don't rub the noses of the other sinners in your sin. Nor did Jesus say to the crowd 'Accept her sin as you accept your own.' His act to all parties was that Jesus, the Son of God, forgives those who turn away from their sin. His message to all was to STOP SINNING. There is a big difference between judging someone's actions and condemning them.

[KnightofChrist]

You know Firefox's spell checker is kurzappy

[RezaMikhaeil]

Homosexuals are not the leading cause to people being dishonorably discharged from the armed services, not even remotely. People get removed for a variety of reasons [I was a former soldier and saw it take place frequently] the most common that I'd remembered was drug use.

However, again if you deny them the rights to fight for this great country, then you also should deny them citizenship because that is what our troops are fighting for, for the rights that we have in this country, even the right to be gay.

Reza

[KnightofChrist]

Why not also allow drug addicts as well? Dont they have the same rights as all Americans? Why do homosexuals get a free pass for their immoral behavior but not drug addicts for theirs?

Edited March 25, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[HeavenlyCalling]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1219352' date='Mar 25 2007, 03:21 PM']Why not also allow drug addicts as well? Dont they have the same rights as all Americans? Why do homosexuals get a free pass for their immoral behavior but not drug addicts for theirs?[/quote]
( I am playing a bit of devils advocate here, so ,be ye warned!) You can be homosexual and not practicing, which offers no physical harm to your fellow soldiers. While under the influence of drugs you can cause serious harm to your fellow soldiers. If you are under hallucenigens, for example, you could mistaken shoot a fellow comrade, not be able to respond to orders, or otherwise be unable to do your duty. As a homosexual, you are not really causing any harm to your fellows.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='HeavenlyCalling' post='1219438' date='Mar 25 2007, 02:35 PM']( I am playing a bit of devils advocate here, so ,be ye warned!) You can be homosexual and not practicing, which offers no physical harm to your fellow soldiers. While under the influence of drugs you can cause serious harm to your fellow soldiers. If you are under hallucenigens, for example, you could mistaken shoot a fellow comrade, not be able to respond to orders, or otherwise be unable to do your duty. As a homosexual, you are not really causing any harm to your fellows.[/quote] You kinda answered the question for me... while I was in the armed forces, I'd never known someone [or experienced it myself] who'd come under harm from homosexuals [and their sexual preference]. Being homosexual didn't affect their ability to calculate targets, etc. but drug addiction did [and does] affect such.

To answer your question of: "why do homosexuals get a free pass", it's not a free pass because nobody is sinless. Therefore everyone that isn't of the right religion, and inside of that religion, everyone that doesn't live to it 100%. I'm not saying that those that engage in the homosexual behavior are the same as those that struggle with sin but are trying to get away from it but I'm saying that their sexual preference can be suppressed as to not affect their operation of a fire arm, etc.

Reza

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]First, let me say that I find validity to the argument that if you are against homosexual activity, then writing and endorsing gay marriage laws is condoning an illegal activity, and so shouldn't be done. (i don't think the same can be said about actually making a constituational amendment banning the possibility a local government might do it, but that's another topic)

That said, I don't see how allowing gay marraige would be wrong. If you don't have to write policy endorsing it, that is. I don't see how you would have to because you just shouldn't bother caring about their tendency.

Also, if you make gays who act on their behavior to get out, then it'd seem you'd have to make straights who act on it with female counterparts.
Also, the idea that gays would be distracted is somewhat a valid argument, but I doubt it's as serious a problem as people make it out to be. Is there any evidence for this assertion other than speculation? Plus, if you allow men to serve next to women, shouldn't that be banned? (then it'd all crumble)
Also, gay in the military is different than the priesthood, I might think, because priests are going for purity, and are in a time of discernment and don't want distracted. I think they are different animals.
Also, as to the idea that you should allow fornication type things because they are less wrong, is essentially the argument. They are still grave sins, even if "less" wrong. Catholics usually aren't willling to speculate into those types of things, why do they here?

So overall, unless you are against women in the military, which I might find to be valid after consideration, I don't see how it's in anyway consistant to think gays shouldn't be allowed.[/quote]

No one has responded to these important points.

The most anyone has said is that officially allowing it is condoning it. I agree that would be the case, and a Catholic couldn't do that. But, I haven't heard yet why it has to be official? Don't ask them them orientation. If they act up, kick em out. Same goes for women and men who fornicate.

Without the officially condoning it argument, there's not much left, it seems. That's why no one has responded to the points above. They're relying on something that does not have to be.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1219206' date='Mar 25 2007, 08:31 AM']LOL. Talk about double standards...
It is okay for society to allow gays to kill for the country, but it won't be okay for gays to marry and have the same societal benefits that hertero couples do.

Jesus didn't say to the woman, 'Your contributions to society that are equivilant to the others who are sinful allows you to continue as you are." Those people were going to KILL her, not boot her out of the Army!. AND he said go and sin no more, not sin how you want, just don't rub the noses of the other sinners in your sin. Nor did Jesus say to the crowd 'Accept her sin as you accept your own.' His act to all parties was that Jesus, the Son of God, forgives those who turn away from their sin. His message to all was to STOP SINNING. There is a big difference between judging someone's actions and condemning them.[/quote]
I still don't consider marriage and military service to be equivalent. One is a sacrament instituted by God. The other is not even close to that, no matter how deserving of respect our servicemen and women are. Allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces does not condone homosexuality and more than allowing adulterers and fornicators to serve condones those immoral behaviors.

And my point in bringing up Jesus and the woman (which incidentally was this week's reading) was not to say that Jesus condoned her actions, but rather that he saw her as worth of respect and in possession of dignity despite her sinful behaviors. I'm not saying that we should encourage homosexual behavior. But I am saying that because a person is homosexual should not prohibit him or her from being able to serve his or her country.

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1219352' date='Mar 25 2007, 02:21 PM']Why not also allow drug addicts as well? Dont they have the same rights as all Americans? Why do homosexuals get a free pass for their immoral behavior but not drug addicts for theirs?[/quote]
OK, now you're just getting ridiculous. As has been noted, drug addiction (or alcohol addiction) has a very real impact on a person's ability to do the job. The line here, the way I see it, is physical and mental ability to do the job. And I'd sure as heck rather have a sober homosexual behind the trigger than a drunken heterosexual. I'd feel much, much safer.

A better comparison is to adultery and fornication, which is why I have been using those examples as I've posted throughout the thread. If we are not going to allow homosexuality, then any open instance of fornication or adultery should be grounds for immediate separation. Period.

[KnightofChrist]

So using drug addicts is weak, however no one supporting homosexuals in the Armed forces has answered why if we allow the immorality of homosexuality in the armed force, why not also the immorality of abortion? And before it said that one deals with two conceiting adults and the other kills a child [i]and also two conceiting adults[/i], both are strictly forbidden by Christ, and He does not consent to either.

Allowing homosexuals in the armed forces would allow all homosexuals in the armed forces practicing or not, and thus would allow sodomy, which would be condoning it, like it or not.

Should we also as Catholics allow homosexuals in the Swiss Guard?

And I agree fornication and adultery should be grounds for immediate removal from the armed forces. It was my understanding this is the case, someone I know was indeed court marshaled and removed for the army dishonorably for adultery.