Posted on 02/07/2010 8:33:28 AM PST by Kaslin
There are lots of reasons for excluding gays and lesbians from the military. But current supporters of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy insist that really, it all comes down to cohesion. Keep gays out, and soldiers will stick together through thick and thin. Let gays in, and every platoon will disintegrate like a sand castle in the surf.
John McCain sounded this theme at a Senate hearing the other day, arguing that the existing law rests on the belief "that the essence of military capability is good order and unit cohesion, and that any practice which puts those goals at unacceptable risk can be restricted." A group of retired military officers said the ban on gays serves "to protect unit cohesion and morale."
Maybe this concern is what really underlies the exclusion of gays and lesbians. But I'm not so sure. In 2007, Gen. Peter Pace, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked about it, and he offered a different rationale. "I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," he said. Could the opposition stem mostly from a simple aversion to gays and their ways?
It's not completely implausible that in a military environment, open homosexuality might wreak havoc on order and morale. But the striking thing about these claims is that they exist in a fact-free zone. From all the dire predictions, you would think a lifting of the ban would be an unprecedented leap into the dark, orchestrated by people who know nothing of the demands of military life.
As it happens, we now have a wealth of experience on which to evaluate the policy. When you examine it, you discover the reason McCain and Co. make a point of never mentioning it.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
On the contrary...I think we are in agreement on most of what you wrote except, I am less likely to judge anyone at all and the last paragraph could be written about select examples from straight society as well.
Other than that, we are of one accord.
How ‘bout that?
...hmm, like Jesus did when he stopped the stoning of the prostitute...nice try.
Did God whisper that in your ear? Would that we were all so privvy. You are indeed fortunate!!
I didn’t judge Paul. I gave you my impression of Paul. Paul is incredible. Paul is amazing. But Paul is not perfect (his words, not mine). Paul judged Paul much harsher than my small impression ever did...read what he says about himself.
Paul would probably agree with what I wrote about him. If he were alive today he would probably say, “Yeah, I admit at times I was a bit over the top...but given the circumstances of the time...I guess I had to be.”
To which I would agree. You can’t have an intellectual discourse if you aren’t willing to tackle the sacrosanct...even Paul knew that.
Moral relativism (as one of my favorite Nigerian professors acknowledged existed in much of Africa) leads to chaos--no trust--which destroys the economy. Bribes and mafia-like groups control the money and there is little equity among the masses--except equal doses of misery. Prosperity can never happen for the whole culture because it is Darwin's atheistic vision of survival of the fittest--animal instincts are never curbed. Children are never safe and if they do survive they indulge in the immorality that they witnessed and learned. A never ending cycle.
In raising my children, who I unconditionally loved, I never hesitated in correcting (and by that, judging) their behavior. I think judgments are an essential aspect of all human activity and being non-judgmental in most social situations is really what is destroying our nation.
I noticed the change in the Church...in the sixties. The willingness to not condemn the deadly sins of the Bible because you may hurt someone's feelings. They did this in spite of knowing the carnage and destruction of loved ones (particularly children) left in the wake of these sins. I feel the Church, unlike most churches in the 1700's and during the Great Awakening...really took a negative turn and reneged on their sole purpose, to preach the way to eternal salvation.
Like IQ and alcoholism, homosexuality develops from some combination of both nature and nurture. It's not likely to be 100% one or the other. It's not useful to use for individual cases, but 50/50 in general is a good guess. The problem with allowing open homosexuality in the military is the 50% nurture part. The military must often order people into close living quarters for long periods of time. Just like locking up a group of Irish men inside a well stocked liquor store for 3 months at a time will increase the number of alcoholics, open homosexuals will have some success in nurturing others into it. Homosexuals shouldn't be given a taxpayer funded institution to freely operate an indoctrination trap.
The sin of envy is a significant motivation of the homosexual agenda. It's not that many homosexuals really want to be soldiers, or get married, or adopt children. It's that they want to destroy these things for others because they are denied. That is evil and wrong and worth opposing.
The cause is another discussion. Behaviors have a complex cause as you presented. One of causes that does not get discussed is imprinting. At one time in the 60’s and 70’s this was high on the discussion list.
I contend it is mostly a learned behavior but no one ever wants to talk about that. If you never take that first drink or smoke, you will will never be addicted.
Homosexuality is an addiction......................
Not in my experience. No heterosexuals even came close to being in San Quentin, or trying to kill an ex-lover. But then I chose to hang out with people who believed that the moral absolutes were an important aspect in life.
Of course, they weren't perfect, and made mistakes, but none were as seriously dangerous as the gay group whom I worked with. A lot of the straight people were well-grounded, not selfish, and had directed most of their energies into making others happy, instead of themselves.
That does it. I’m taking my toys too...
I like what you wrote. It occurred to me to ask as I read:
1. You said you have children...how many?
2. How many boys? How many girls?
3. You mentioned the church changed in the sixties. I assume you are talking about the Catholic Church, are you a
Catholic?
4. If you are a Catholic and had less than eight children, there is a good chance you practiced some kind of birth control or you had your reproductive organs removed by doctor’s decision, which was it or did you have more than eight children? If so, are any gay? Did they tell you or do you just suspect? Are any single? Why?
5. If you are Catholic and practiced birth control, you are outside the communion of the church and its teachings. According to our doctrine, you are in the same situation as the homosexual who is Catholic.
6. Faced with this, only you can tell us if you have sinned in the eyes of the church. If you have, then in the eyes of the Church you have more important things to worry about than homosexuals. Our church would counsel YOU to concentrate on your own sins and pray for intercession and forgiveness so that one day you may be allowed to re-enter full communion with your faith...or if truth be known, the Church does have grounds to ask you to leave for possibly preventing the birth of a soul which to us is on a par with abortion.
Tough love...for ALL of us.
Cheers,
J
I agree that it is plausible that homosexuality is a combination of 50% nature and 50% nurture. Who knows if it’s 49%-51% or some other ratio but your theory is plausible. However, you didn’t just use the Irishmen in a liquor store comparison did you? My jaw dropped. LOL.
OK, here’s the Jonathan Swift logic to the nth degree:
Bring homosexuals in the military and they will turn your troops into gays.
Bring Irishmen into the military and they’ll turn your troops into drunks.
Bring blacks into the military and they will make your troops lazy wiggers.
Bring women into the military and they will make your troops less prone to fight and more prone to tell secrets.
Bring Italians into the military and they’ll make your troops talk with their hands.
Should I go on or have we established the absurdity of the argument when expanded to other groups, many who have been part of our military for over 150 years.
No one can argue with your personal experiences. They are what they are and they are legitimate. However, I lived in Emeryville, CA for five years. From my bedroom window, as I closed the curtains each night, the last lights I saw in the distance across the bay were those of San Quentin.
It’s odd that you say “no heterosexuals even came close to being in San Quentin, for trying to kill an ex-lover.” The last two people I prayed for at night were in San Quentin because I could see their windows in the distance from my own. The first was Scott Peterson, who was straight, and killed his pregnant wife and dumped her body in the bay below me. The second was Charlie Manson, who was straight and who had his straight followers kill Sharon Tate, who was also pregnant. Both are still at San Quentin.
Your personal experiences are your personal experiences and they are legitimate. But let’s not confuse them with the total reality of our world. With that, I am closing my curtains and adding you to my prayers this evening...even though I cannot see your window from my own.
Have a good night.
J
“Homosexuality is an addiction...”
...so is pooping. If you just refused to poop, you wouldn’t have to poop all the time. Problem solved.
Peterson did not live by any moral code. I doubt that I could have spent a minute with him although some people are really good at deception. Just when people stay married and their kids blossom and do great things for others, you have to know that they did something right.
That is what life is all about when you belong to a society--leaving the world a better place for the future generations.
Do pray for me; I really do appreciate it. Look towards Arizona!
Although personal I will let you know the following:
1. 2. Five children with four boys. Three married, two with children, third one trying for children but married only awhile ago. Fourth son is probably getting engaged right as we speak. Youngest daughter was in love but had heart broken. She is playing the field but wants nothing more than find the right man and have lots of kids.
3. I happen to be a lapsed Catholic. I do love the Church and loved growing up in Catholic schools for 12 years. I have taken time to read a lot of the theology and the more I read the more perfect the Church sounds—yes, I know there is corruption but all bureaucracies with humans have it.
4. I married a non Catholic so he was the one who decided to end reproduction, although I would have had more children. We were married in the Church, though, and we raised our children Catholic. I refused to take the pill—I thought it unnatural and toxic—not that I agreed with the Church at that time. Wouldn’t allow surgery either. Thought that was unnatural also—long before I studied any Aristotle or Thomism.
5. I do not worry about homosexuals. That is a ridiculous statement. I have compassion for them because I understand that they have a heavy cross to bear. Many of them probably had a very sad, early childhood, and, for me, that is extremely upsetting. (Saw Truman recently, made me cry.) Children are so vulnerable and such a precious gift from God. I think that damaging children in their early years is the most horrendous sin on earth. (I truly think Jesus thinks the same thing.)
6. Guaranteed that everyone is a sinner, so I am no exception. But I do look to my soul as all people do when they get closer to death and I am probably going to eventually join the Church again when I get a permanent residence. Then I plan to become very active in the Church and preach fire and brimstone to my kids!!! (Just kidding on that last part—they would commit me).
Using your logic if a homo does not insert his appendage in another mans anus, he would die? Or if a homo doesn't have an appendage inserted in his anus, he would die?
You're probably referring to John 8. She wasn't a prostitute. She was a woman caught in adultery. Oddly enough, he told her to "leave her life of sin."
But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
So Johnny, what do you suppose Jesus wants those trapped in the sin of homosexuality to do; would he have them remain in sin, or leave their lives of sin?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8&version=NIV
Thanks for the quotes. I appreciate it. Eventually, I will read the Bible again. It has been too long.
Geez, dontcha know, Jesus died so that we could continue to live in our sin and feel good about ourselves while we did it, and then go and preach at others who tell us that we’re wrong that they are unloving, being judgmental, and full of *hate*.
/s for the sarcasm challenged.....
Holy cow, does that analogy fall flat.
Homosexuality is a moral (or rather immoral) CHOICE.
It simply cannot be compared to a morally neutral biological function that occurs when the body functions the way God designed it.
If that’s the best you can do, you have no case.
I'm glad you found it edifying.
I know enough truth to rebut obvious fallacies; but I really need to get back into His word.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.