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 ...
That is why this site is so great. The accumulated knowledge is awesome! Debate is the best way to move towards the Truth.
Pooping is an addiction? I'm not sure what your problem is, but I bet it's awfully hard to pronounce and a pharmecutical compound makes a chemical compound to treat it.
I asked him if he would like to smoke some dried poison ivy leaves. Then I offered him a nice hemlock salad.
If you want to do something, and you're going to do it regardless of consequences, just do it! Don't play childish, legalist games to justify it. Remember, however, that denying the consequences won't make them go away.
NO...I missed all of that but I will pray for you and I trust you’ll pray for me as well!!
Thanks,
J
Wow...thank you for your frankness. Don’t let your husband keep you from your faith. Thanks for the courage.
I don’t know, you’d have to ask them. Though it’s not hard to imagine where the fecal analogy came from. Have you seen some of these posts? They are laced with the suggestion. LOL.
J
He would first ask you to put down your stones.
Some would argue that heterosexual intercourse were a neutral biological function. Some would argue that homosexual intercourse were a neutral biological function. Just because you keep saying over and over again: Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE...doesn’t make it 100% so. I say keep saying Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE,Its a CHOICE for a thousand years...and still there is not 100% certainty that it is so. Therefore, you must give room for the percent of doubt to exist in God’s creation. Otherwise, you are being God yourself and I am at least 99% certain you are not.
I say before you ask homosexuals to give up their inclination, why don’t you give up your own. There are a great deal of posters on this thread who are quoting the words of St. Paul. Well here’s a passage for you:
In the Holy Bible, Saint Paul says that Christians should remain single and abstain from sex. The New Testament says that people should get married only if they are too weak-willed to abstain from sex:
“It is well for a man not to touch a woman…. It is well … to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.” (I Corinthians 7:1, 8-9)
Be Christian, follow the Bible to its fullest. Condemn a homosexual? Sure. But first foreswear your wife and be abstinant for a year or more. Otherwise, for God’s sake shut the hell up and read the Bible, this time with the intention of actually practicing what you preach to the letter. Stop making excuses for your own weakness while condemning weakness in others. Take the log from your own eye.
It all keeps coming back to you and your actions.
Sure will! I think God has been very kind to me and has answered many of my prayers.
I'm not throwing stones at anyone. However, I'll counsel a thief to change his ways. I guess you consider his activities acceptable. He was just born that way.
“It is well for a man not to touch a woman…. It is well … to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.” (I Corinthians 7:1, 8-9)
Excellent quote. Paul admitted that all people can't live as he did. He counseled men to marry women. He didn't tell them to buggar other men. Incidentally, if men and women didn't "know one another" in the Biblical sense, the human race would die out. If men would quit buggering each other, the STD rate would drop phenomenally (compare the different STD rates of homosexual vs heterosexual men, and not Kinsey's propaganda).
Look, in the grand scheme of things, I don't care if other men's butts turn you on. If you're going to do it, that is your choice. However, don't pretend it's natural or healthy. Look up "Gay Bowel Disease/Disorder." Our creator did not design us for this activity. Since you're so interested in my personal life, I lived a very sinful life. I found it empty and "shook my fist at God." I challenged him to show himself and prove his way was better. This led to one helluva a ride!
I turned away from the life I lead and changed the places I frequented. Eventually, I filled my time volunteering in the community. That's where I met Mrs Bear. She had been going through the same situation. We started attending Church. Soon, we were both born-again.
Before committing to Christ, I read the Bible cover to cover. The first time through, much of it pissed me off. I picked up additional resources (including Strong's concordance and Henry's commentary). Once I understood the "why" and the settings of the Bible, it was easier to accept. When in doubt, I prayed for guidance. You should try that sometime; the results are both terrifying and amazing.
By the way, Paul never said his suggestion came from God. If you read further he says not everyone can do this. In fact, he cautions husbands and wives not to deny each other except in times when they need deep prayer and meditation. Paul is telling men and women, in their marriage, to enjoy sexual intercourse with each other.
Now run along with your "cherry picking basket," and see what else you can find.
1 Timothy 11 - 15
As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge.
Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to.
So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.
So Cherry-Picker, it seems that Paul counseled young widows to marry. I've been looking, but I still can't find any verse that promotes men buggering each other.
I also tried to find the warning against calling good evil and evil good. It seems pertinent to today's world; unfortunately, posting it to you would be like throwing a brick into the Grand Canyon.
I'm looking forward to your typical liberal response in which you ignore my comment and point your finger at me in a manner reminiscent of a zotted paleo Freeper named "Dane."
Enjoy it while you can. You won't have that luxury when you stand before His throne. However, I would prefer you shake your fist at Him. Go ahead, try it. I did and I got one helluva ride!
Then they'd be wrong. It's not a neutral biological function in the same way that breathing, your heart beating, your digestive tract processing food is. God never said that any of those bodily functions is a moral issue. He said that sex was a moral issue, good when within the confines of a heterosexual marriage, wrong when outside it.
Some would argue that homosexual intercourse were a neutral biological function.
It isn't for reasons listed above.
Just because you keep saying over and over again: Its a CHOICE, etc,........and still there is not 100% certainty that it is so, ad nauseum, doesn't make it so.
Therefore, you must give room for the percent of doubt to exist in God’s creation.
No, I don't have to. Telling people what God already said and passed judgment on is not playing God or judging them. HE already determined that homosexual sex is morally wrong, among the worst, demonstrating a depth of depravity of character among the worst.
Romans 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Normal involuntary biological functions are not moral issues. Sex doesn't fall into that category.
People have sex because they choose to, even though there are some who no doubt would challenge that. However, at the very least one chooses WHO he or she has sex with.
Homosexual sex is WRONG. Period. God has clearly established that in His Word. No amount of excuses, reasoning, justifying, contorting, or explaining away Scripture will change that.
The gay lobby may be able to convince men of that and even to get men to accept or acknowledge it. It won't work with God. They'll NEVER be able to convince God to accept it, nor will they be able to lay the blame for it at God's feet by claiming that He made them that way.
Sin is ALWAYS a choice.
For that matter, who should expect a murderer or rapist or child molester to stop doing the evil they are doing? Sheesh, you might as well ask them (or command them) to repent.
I guess when Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to *Go, and sin no more” that HE was judging her as well.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see some on this thread for criticizing Jesus for being too harsh and judgmental.
Shouldn’t He have have just been more compassionate and tolerant and loving than to make her feel bad about herself like that? I mean really, she couldn’t help her normal biological function. Who does He think He is, God or something?
read the Bible, used Strong’s, Henry’s is not a really good commentary so skipped that for better commentaries...familiar with it all. The one thing that was consistent through your comments was the exceptions in your life and Paul’s writing. You both had your “Road to Damascus” moment and you both strengthened your faith through those experiences. Great.
Just don’t mistake that for a right to dictate absolutisms, Paul didn’t. I’ll skip commenting on your ancillary polemics, they weren’t real useful.
Whatever...you still sound like you are filled with anger and issues...so congratulations on your journey but obviously there’s more work to be done. Good luck with that.
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.