Homosexuals In The Armed Services

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1219449' date='Mar 25 2007, 04:16 PM']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[/quote]


A female solider having an abortion can also suppress her immorality, [color="#FF0000"][b]or the military "doctor" that performs the abortion[/b][/color] as to not affect there ability to "do the job." So if we allow one immoral grave sin, why not all? We maybe all sinners but we not all murders, adulterers, or sodomites, things which are grave sins. These graves sins where once all banned. Why should we as Christians dissolve the ban on any of them?

Edited March 25, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

Well I've done it, I've gotten to emotionally involved with this debate. Had one of my heart spells...


This was getting old anyway, nothing really new, but I would like to say one last thing, not to long ago in Christendom... Beastilaity, Homosexuality, and pedophilia where seen in or about the as category. These sins were all seen as gravely wicked and greatly evil . And the people that partook in these grave sins where considered wicked and gravely immoral (but I'm sure they were also real nice people, just immoral.) Holy Scripture, which is the inspired would of God Himself, condemns all these grave sins everytime they are mentioned. And it refers to the people who partook in these sins as wicked and immoral. Now Homosexuality is more condoned and accepted by Christians, thank you modern morality. And in some Christian nations, so is pedophilia. I just find it very sad that we as Christians have conceded our stance against many sins. But has God changed His stance no, so why should we?


Love your brother yes, but never condone sin, allowing homosexuals in the armed forces would condone the sin of homosexuality, because it would dissolve the ban on sodomy, thus absolutely condoning that grave and wicked sin. No reasonable response has been given as to why this would not be the case.


God Bless the Troops,
KoC

[kujo]

A couple of things here that I am thinking....

1. The whole drug-addict/homosexual correlation is ridiculous. One concerns someone who is not only living in mortal sin, but is also likely to be doing something that is expressly-prohibited by the laws of our nation (a "drug" abuser) while the other is engaging in immoral behavior.

2. If we are using some sort of moral/religious litmus test to decide who is allowed to serve and who isn't, where does the line end? Social issues? Jews? Muslims? Atheists? Pastafarians? I mean, really, what does any of this stuff have to do with one's capacity and desire to serve our country? If we are so concerned with hetersexuals being uncomfortable with homosexuals serving alongside them, shouldn't we also be concerned about men and women serving beside each other? Couldn't the morale of a unit be compromised by heterosexual-sexual tension? Couldn't the men be distracted by a woman, and vice versa? And, while we're at it, what about segregating the soldiers according to race? There are some people who are very uncomfortable with African Americans, or Asians, or Southern people. And what about those pesky-redheads...

Do you see where I'm going with this? This sort of tripe about excluding people based on this sort of stuff is, at least in my opinion, the same as being denied a job because of your age or sex or religion, etc.

Edited March 25, 2007 by kujo

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1219470' date='Mar 25 2007, 06:45 PM']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.
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.[/quote]The comparison doesn't equate. For one, homosexuality occurs a lot less frequently as hetero fornication and is not as inherently disorded because it is 2 things wrong. Fornication AND being with the same sex.

Back to Jesus. His point was that we are in control of our actions and he is telling us to go and sin no more. Why do anything to make it easier for people to sin. Banning homosexuality didn't use to be a problem, but now it is. And you did not address why the military has to address homosexuality with written protection while there is not written protection for fornicators. The problem with homosexuality within the military is about some people having to accept and deal with sexual behavior that many consider morally abhorent. There are restrictions for soldiers having relations with officers and others in the military. Having genders seperate helps. Now imagine the interpersonal dynamics if Bob has a crush on Mark who thinks homosexuality is wrong and abhorent and Alex and Jose tease Mark about it while Binh is secretly in love with Bob and resents Mark. That's why women don't often serve in the same platoons in high level fighting units. We're talking about 19 to 24 year olds.
There is no need to change and start allowing it with written protection. One, it's immoral. Two, it adds complications. Just because the military isn't perfect with fornicators, doesn't mean it should protect the same failure for homosexuals.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='kujo' post='1219527' date='Mar 25 2007, 06:46 PM']A couple of things here that I am thinking....

1. The whole drug-addict/homosexual correlation is ridiculous. One concerns someone who is not only living in mortal sin, but is also likely to be doing something that is expressly-prohibited by the laws of our nation (a "drug" abuser) while the other is engaging in immoral behavior.

2. If we are using some sort of moral/religious litmus test to decide who is allowed to serve and who isn't, where does the line end? Social issues? Jews? Muslims? Atheists? Pastafarians? I mean, really, what does any of this stuff have to do with one's capacity and desire to serve our country? If we are so concerned with hetersexuals being uncomfortable with homosexuals serving alongside them, shouldn't we also be concerned about men and women serving beside each other? Couldn't the morale of a unit be compromised by heterosexual-sexual tension? Couldn't the men be distracted by a woman, and vice versa? And, while we're at it, what about segregating the soldiers according to race? There are some people who are very uncomfortable with African Americans, or Asians, or Southern people. And what about those pesky-redheads...

Do you see where I'm going with this? This sort of tripe about excluding people based on this sort of stuff is, at least in my opinion, the same as being denied a job because of your age or sex or religion, etc.[/quote]


Is it immoral to be a Jew? Is it immoral to be a Muslim? Is it immoral to have no idea there is a God? Is it immoral to be a Pastafarian? No. Is it immoral to be a Male? No. Is it immoral to be a Female? No. Is it immoral to be a Black? No. Is it immoral to be a White? No. Is it immoral to be a "Other"? No. Is it immoral to be a from the South or North? No. And is it immoral to be a pesky-redhead? No.

But is immoral to be Homosexual? Yes. God, clearly forbids/condemns it.

[kujo]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1219530' date='Mar 25 2007, 08:56 PM']Is it immoral to be a Jew? Is it immoral to be a Muslim? Is it immoral to have no idea there is a God? Is it immoral to be a Pastafarian? No. Is it immoral to be a Male? No. Is it immoral to be a Female? No. Is it immoral to be a Black? No. Is it immoral to be a White? No. Is it immoral to be a "Other"? No. Is it immoral to be a from the South or North? No. And is it immoral to be a pesky-redhead? No.

But is immoral to be Homosexual? Yes. God, clearly forbids/condemns it.[/quote]

Then we ARE creating an army based on Catholic morals?

I thought this was the country of the free...

[HeavenlyCalling]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1219509' date='Mar 25 2007, 06:34 PM']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.[/quote]
At least some part of America still has standereds. God Bless all our men and woman in the armed forces.

[kujo]

I want to make something clear because I fear that perhaps I am being misunderstood by some...

I believe that homosexuality is an offense against God. It is immoral in every way imaginable.

However, I do believe that homosexuals, active or not, are deserving of our respect, our love and our prayers, regardless of their state of mortal sin.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='kujo' post='1219548' date='Mar 25 2007, 09:27 PM']I want to make something clear because I fear that perhaps I am being misunderstood by some...

I believe that homosexuality is an offense against God. It is immoral in every way imaginable.

However, I do believe that homosexuals, active or not, are deserving of our respect, our love and our prayers, regardless of their state of mortal sin.[/quote]
Let's be perfectly clear. Homosexuals deserve respect as people, not as homosexuals.

[TruthSeeker777]

The problem i think you as a God fearing Christian in a dangerous battle situation might have is protection.
Say you are in a humvee and you have a practising homosexual next to you,
Is the armour of God there or not?I know from expeiriance just sharing a house with non-believers made it possible for
all kinds of "evil" to enter the house.Like anything in life the devil needs an reason for intruding and being with an homosexual is
an open door for the devil and is definetely a kink in your armour.
God detest homosexuals and they are demon infested because of their despicable sins and actions.
Being in a battle situation with such an individual must be a very "unsafe" feeling.
Just because the "society" feel that gays are "nice" people does not mean God's word have changed.
Many new bible translations are gay friendly and have taken out the word 'sodomite'
We as Christians must not hate these people but must stand up against their sins!!!!
It only takes one rotten apple.

[kujo]

[quote name='Truthseeker777' post='1219554' date='Mar 25 2007, 09:40 PM']The problem i think you as a God fearing Christian in a dangerous battle situation might have is protection.
Say you are in a humvee and you have a practising homosexual next to you. Is the armour of God there or not?I know from expeiriance just sharing a house with non-believers made it possible for all kinds of "evil" to enter the house.Like anything in life the devil needs an reason for intruding and being with an homosexual is an open door for the devil and is definetely a kink in your armour. God detest homosexuals and they are demon infested because of their despicable sins and actions. Being in a battle situation with such an individual must be a very "unsafe" feeling. Just because the "society" feel that gays are "nice" people does not mean God's word have changed. Many new bible translations are gay friendly and have taken out the word 'sodomite'. We as Christians must not hate these people but must stand up against their sins!!!! It only takes one rotten apple.[/quote]

I don't really know what to make of your post. On own hand, I would agree that our society has become too permissive of sin, to the point where it is encouraged rather than detested. However, I don't think that allowing a person to serve his/her country as an AMERICAN who happens to be a homosexual does anything but give us one more soldier. I would concede that we would want to be careful so as to make sure that a homosexual subculture does not occur, I simply don't agree with excluding them outright.

And I also applaud your views on these new "translations" of the Bible. It's amazing how some of these Evangelicals who are so "into" the Bible would stoop so low as to change around the Word of God (case in point: "The Word" translation....which makes me want to vomit Rev 3:16 style).

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1219057' date='Mar 24 2007, 09:35 PM']Actually if you read the article that I linked to earlier, it has the stats you're looking for
While it certainly is not the only or even the largest cause of people being separated, it is a cause. Just because there are other reasons people leave the military doesn't mean this one can't be addressed.

And I hear what you're saying, I really do, and I understand that you have a great respect and honor for the military, which is great. But in the conversations I have had with people who are in the military now, the reality does not match up with the ideal (it rarely does). If you think that there is not already a "gay subculture" in the military, you are grossly mistaken. Every one of the service people I know in the military knows gay and lesbian service members. The subculture is there, and people know about it. And, since homosexuality is not a new thing, I am certain that there have been homosexuals in the armed forces in the past -- especially since several of the wars we've fought involved a draft.

And I don't think that education or aptitude are considerations that should be tossed aside lightly. I still think that the main purpose here is to do the job. Simply because a person is gay or lesbian does not mean that they cannot acquit themselves on the field of battle, and do so honorably. All the generals you mentioned -- is it their sexual orientation that made them honorable, or the actions they took in service to their country? And I am certain that some of these war heroes were adulterers or philanderers -- should their proclivities serve to strip them of their honor? I don't believe so.

Homosexuality is immoral. I am not arguing that in the least. But I don't think that a person's sexual orientation means they are less deserving of respect and honor.[/quote]
Look, I've known plenty of people in the military myself, and I am not under any illusion that the military is any bastion of sexual morality. And of course, the reality of any institution rarely lives up to its stated ideals. However, is that reason to abandon the ideals altogether? Of course people can and do break the military's rules against homosexuality (and other things as well), but the fact that people break the rules does not mean the rules should be done away with altogether. It does not mean that the military should end it's time-honored rules against homosexuality. Should we now end rules against anything whatsoever simply because some people disregard them? That would be the logical conclusion of your line of reasoning. It is similar to the arguments of people who say that while abortion may be killing innocent human beings, the law should do nothing against it, because after all, plenty of women would get illegal abortions. (I believe abortion to be a more serious issue, btw, but you follow my argument.)
And while there may be an existing "gay" subculture in the military, this does not mean that is a good thing, and the problem would likely become much worse if homosexual activity were openly allowed and condoned.

And are you suggesting that the military's code against adultery should be done away with as well? (And the men I mentioned were epitomes of morality and honor, not adulterers and philanderers, btw.) And are you suggesting that all the military leaders who maintained the code against sodomy and adultery didn't know what they were doing?
Should we likewise do away with other standards of honor and morality as well (such as rules against lying and stealing), so long as the soldiers are effective battlefield killers?

If we are simply to abandon any standards of morality because there are people not following them, we quickly wind up with complete nihilism.

And if a segment of society is at least trying to maintain [i]some[/i] ideals and standards of honor and morality, why are so many Catholics here so quick to oppose that??

That just boggles the mind, and is quite frankly very depressing.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[b]why not also the immorality of abortion?[/b] How does someone having an abortion have to do with this thread?

[Socrates]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1219308' date='Mar 25 2007, 01:50 PM']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[/quote]
There is no "right" to commit sodomy - not in the natural moral law of God, nor in the U.S. Constitution.

The American Founding Fathers would have been horrified at the suggestion that they were fighting for a "right to be gay."

(Even Thomas Jefferson, that great champion of "liberty," recommended that sodomites be punished by the state with castration.)

The American military code forbade homosexuality from the beginning, so treating homosexuality in the military as a basic American freedom is ignorant and false.

[Socrates]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1219575' date='Mar 25 2007, 08:04 PM'][b]why not also the immorality of abortion?[/b] How does someone having an abortion have to do with this thread?[/quote]
Abortion should be banned too, for that matter. I was making a comparison. If you can't follow it, start another thread on abortion.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1219575' date='Mar 25 2007, 08:04 PM'][b]why not also the immorality of abortion?[/b] How does someone having an abortion have to do with this thread?[/quote]

Because both are immoral grave sins, that is what it has to do with this topic. If one is allowed, both is only fair.

[kujo]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1219632' date='Mar 25 2007, 11:28 PM']Because both are immoral grave sins, that is what it has to do with this topic. If one is allowed, both is only fair.[/quote]

Well, one could argue that the circumstances surrounding the two are different--one is a violent act while the other, at least on the surface, has is a victimless. Thus, they would not be on level ground.

Edited March 26, 2007 by kujo

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='kujo' post='1219543' date='Mar 25 2007, 07:20 PM']Then we ARE creating an army based on Catholic morals?

I thought this was the country of the free... [/quote]


I don't understand your point here, murder is immoral so it is banned, homosexuality is immoral so it is banned in the armed forces. And both are gravely wicked. The argument you use sounds very secular to me, I do not mean to offend but Pro-abort's use the same line of argument when it comes to abortion, "Oh your trying to put your Catholic morals on me."


And we're not "creating" an army based on morals, its an already existing army with morals against immoral sin, ie sodomy. Rather the question should be, why should we create an army based on anti-catholic immorality?

[kujo]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1219645' date='Mar 25 2007, 11:39 PM']I don't understand your point here, murder is immoral so it is banned, homosexuality is immoral so it is banned in the armed forces. And both are gravely wicked. The argument you use sounds very secular to me, I do not mean to offend but Pro-abort's use the same line of argument when it comes to abortion, "Oh your trying to put your Catholic morals on me."
And we're not "creating" an army based on morals, its an already existing army with morals against immoral sin, ie sodomy. Rather the question should be, why should we create an army based on anti-catholic immorality?[/quote]

Once again, I agree that homosexuality is immoral; however, there are no safety issues involved in it. Banning or allowing homosexuals will not affect the safety of the other servicemen and women. However, abortions are an offense on human life and are immoral because of it.

And some arguments are valid in some circumstances and not in others. Case in point, my argument here. It does not hold any water in arguing for abortion "rights." I do feel that it applies here.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='kujo' post='1219641' date='Mar 25 2007, 09:35 PM']Well, one could argue that the circumstances surrounding the two are different--one is a violent act while the other, at least on the surface, has no victim. Thus, they would not be on level ground.[/quote]


They are both gravely immoral sins, banned by God. Thus, they are mighty close to being on the same level ground. And both have real victims, but only one has a innocent victim. And two consenting adults is the lamest accuse man has ever used to commit grave sin.