Posted on 12/18/2010 6:39:44 PM PST by madprof98
Word that the world's largest military power will allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military brought strong and swift reaction Saturday, with supporters declaring a civil rights milestone and detractors insisting it would weaken and divide the armed forces.
***
Warren Arbury of Savannah, Ga., served in the Army for seven years, including three combat tours, before being kicked out two years ago under "don't ask, don't tell." But he said he planned to re-enlist once the policy is officially abolished.
"As soon as they give me the go, I'm going to march into the recruiter's office," he said. "And I want retroactive pay and rank."
Arbury said a fight for other social changes — such as allowing gays to marry and easing obstacles they face in adopting and raising children — still lies ahead, however.
"I think it's one step in a very long process of becoming an equal rights citizen," he said. "Even though this is really huge, I look at it as a chink in a very, very long chain."
(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...
I highly recommend that you post these sentiments on this thread.
I am sure Jim Robinson will personally get back with you.
I highly recommended that you go over to this thread and make your feelings known. I am sure Jim Robinson will personally get back to you.
When I saw news of this repeal I thought to myself “central_va is not going to be happy in the morning.” Guess I was right.
Sorry about the repeal of DADT, it really shouldn’t have happened.
The entire US Senate has always been a “Whore-for-Hire.”
The last tiny little thread of loyalty and trust in FedGov™ has been severed. In an odd way, this is liberating.
Interesting that you should mention “after a night on the town” because on a previous thread someone else mentioned the problems with our military getting drunk and lowering their guard.
Oey vey!!! I know JimRob been on FR since 98, if he wants me off, he’ll let me know. You didn’t read everything posted did you? I don’t support their agenda, by the way, not all gay’s are for this radical agenda. If you’d taken the time to read my posts, instead of jumping to conclusions you’d know that.
ah, but you consider “cured” as becoming a normal heterosexual.
I consider “cured” like that of an alcoholic: Asking God for the grace to live one day at a time without sinning/drinking/having immoral relationships.
(The same thing could be said for single men, and given the huge number of children without fathers, I think this needs to be addressed by churches a lot more than worrying what happens in the local gay bar, where the only societal problem will be STD’s).
Ten percent of the male population is bisexual, but often they think they are “gay”. These can be worked with to change their sexuality. Most of the cases that are worked with by ministers etc. are in this group.
However, I am leery about it, because I’ve seen too many miserable women who for awhile were happily married to such men, until the man succumbed to temptation or decided he was in love with another man, so insisted that she “accept” his lifestyle choice.
One to two percent of men are homosexual. They can’t be “cured”, but they can try to live chastely and keep the commandments.
A homosexual man who tries to live chastely will probably end up higher in heaven than a lot of self righteous homophobes.
Catholics don’t believe if you are “born again” you never sin again. They see their commitment to Christ something that has to be renewed and lived one day at a time, with faith that even if they fail, Jesus is there to forgive them and help them start over.
We all have secret sins, and the worst sins are not sexual ones but pride.
I think you are correct that soon all Christians will be driven to the edge. I see Christians moving away from military service altogether.
This is an extremely important point that isn't getting as much attention as it deserves. Pre-DADT policy barring gays from serving was not based on a Congressional enactment at all, but rather on policies endorsed by the President and military leadership. Repealing DADT will not take us back to pre-DADT policies as long as the current trio of the President, Sec/Def, and CJS are in place. But there is nothing in this repeal that would bar a future President from restoring a gay ban even without Congressional approval.
The best arguments against gays in the military have nothing to do with moral condemnation or approval of their actions. And the problem with making such arguments is that they are not persuasive to people who don't share those moral views. To try to preserve or restore the ban, we've got to focus on those arguments that will appeal even to those people who personally don't have a problem with homosexuality.
The issue is not "can they help being gay". The issue is "will having gays in the military help or hurt accomplishment of the mission?". Most people familiar with the military will answer that it will hurt.
Yes, I realize this... and this is exactly the reason why the homosexual ministries that are faithful to the Church's teachings actually work. The goal is exactly what you suggest: to live chastely and to keep the commandments.
ah, but you consider “cured” as becoming a normal heterosexual.
Yes, I would consider "cured" to be returning to the state of a normal heterosexual. The alcoholic living one day at a time without a drink is not in the most complete sense "cured" - nor is the homosexual who lives one day at a time without an immoral relationship.
Living while abstaining from those things is laudable, and I don't think could be done without particular Grace from God - but if God permits a true cure to be found in the future, (assuming it were otherwise morally acceptable) I would be surprised if the Catholic Church spoke out against its use.
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.