Should Openly Gay People Be Allowed To Serve In The Military?

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='03 August 2010 - 09:17 PM' timestamp='1280888231' post='2151815']
I think it would be good for the US military to expel all immoral people. all the gays, drunks, guys who talk about the girl back home they sleep with, liars, blasphemers, adulterers, guys/girls that lust, everyone.

then the canadian army could walk through, kill the 3 soldiers who managed to beat the morality lie detector test, and then we get to have hawaii and alaska!
[/quote]

Fantastic!

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='God the Father' date='04 August 2010 - 02:44 PM' timestamp='1280958270' post='2152249']
Without long enough arms, broad enough shoulders, and a minimum amount of body mass, the rifleman will be unable to proficiently steady the weapon, aim, and fire accurately. Without long enough legs, a combatant will probably not be able to move as quickly as necessary to perform his duty. With so low a vantage point, he will not be able to see over a jeep dashboard, over a watchtower railing, or over the next hill without inconvenient and costly accommodations. "Height" is a structural and physical attribute, therefore pertaining with some significance to a physical occupation such as mortal combat. Some classified ads will insist that applicants "must be able to lift 50 pounds." Rarely will a classified ad insist "applicants must like girls," because none of the position's accompanying duties have the slightest thing to do with liking girls.

If the military's job was to judge Miss America, I would be outraged if openly gay men were allowed to serve, whether they were sodomites or not. What on earth would an openly gay man know about the intriguing features a woman? Concisely, it would be inconceivable. If the military's job has nothing to do with the alluring qualities of females, then I guess it's not that big a deal. A gay man, unlike a midget, is not by definition physically unable to perform the duties of a serviceman, and that is obvious.
[/quote]

well put.


[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='04 August 2010 - 03:07 PM' timestamp='1280959668' post='2152264']
Q. 928. What is the second?
A. The sin of Sodom, or carnal sin against nature, which is a voluntary shedding of the seed of nature, out of the due use of marriage, or lust with a different sex.

[/quote]

that seems as if it would include masturbation and heterosexual fornication, which if i recall earlier, you did not include as sins that "cry out for vengeance"

[aside]
and for a list of 4 sins, they are just vague enough to cover a lot of possible sins, it seems. not a very exclusive list, i was expecting it to be a bit more specific. defrauding wages? so all thievery calls out for vengeance. and the third covers a lot of different ways of being mean to people.
[/aside]


[quote name='Lounge Daddy' date='04 August 2010 - 03:32 PM' timestamp='1280961123' post='2152282']
Fantastic!
[/quote]

i think its a good strategy

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='04 August 2010 - 08:26 PM' timestamp='1280968019' post='2152344']
that seems as if it would include masturbation and heterosexual fornication, which if i recall earlier, you did not include as sins that "cry out for vengeance"
[/quote]

Still there are degrees of sodomy, as there are different degrees of sin, and earlier I did agree that sodomy between heterosexuals was still a sin that would cry out to God for vengeance.

Edited August 5, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[Jesus_lol]

i dont see how things that "cry out to God for vengeance" could have more or less weight than one another? does one shout extra loud?

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='04 August 2010 - 11:19 PM' timestamp='1280978349' post='2152455']
i dont see how things that "cry out to God for vengeance" could have more or less weight than one another? does one shout extra loud?
[/quote]

Please do not mock Christianity.

Some sins are more grave than others.

[Jesus_lol]

Why would i mock christianity? it was a serious question.

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=29"]Crying to Heaven for Vengeance[/url]
by Dr. Jeff Mirus, September 7, 2004

The Bible mentions only four sins which cry out to God for vengeance. Considering the source and the emphasis, we have little choice but to examine our consciences on these points. A cursory examination will not do; we must cast off our cultural preconceptions to see beyond the obvious.

Homicide

And the Lord said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground.” (Gn 4:10) It is hardly suprising that Cain’s murder of Abel provides the first instance of one of these sins that cries out for Divine vengeance. [b]While all sins disrupt the natural order in some way, those enumerated as crying out to God appear to be chosen because they strike at nature’s root.[/b]

It is easy to see how murder fits into this category. The unjust termination of the life of another is a profound violation of “how things should be” precisely because our very nature compels us to regard our own lives as precious. To take a person's life is to terminate in another what we instinctively regard as our own highest good.

Sadly, the ease with which we understand the foulness of murder may be conditioned more by our culture than by Divine Revelation. We must take care that we do not find it abhorrent only insofar as we are creatures of society, rather than creatures of God. Abortion is a case in point.

Sodomy

Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me.” (Gn 18:20-21) The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of homosexual activity. So far gone were they in this vice that the men of the town would not even accept heterosexual license with Lot’s daughters, both virgins, as a means of sating their lust (see 19:8-9).

Here we have another case in point for cultural conditioning. It is far more difficult for our contraceptive culture to see how contrary to nature homosexuality is. Those of us who instinctively feel its deep unnaturalness rightly react to homosexual activity with disgust, but logical arguments are unlikely to produce the same reaction in those whose instincts are damaged, blunted or rationalized away.

It is precisely in such situations that Divine Revelation is so very useful, for we cannot trust our feelings when they run counter to reality. We require a better guide. Sodomy strikes at the root of human nature because of its perversion of the procreative impulse, without which the race must die. But in case we don’t see it, God does.

Oppression of Widows and Orphans

“You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you do afflict them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry.” (Ex 21-23) There is a deep truth in this passage about the relationships of husbands to wives, and of parents to children, and about how vulnerable wives and children become when their natural protection is removed.

Very probably all of us can see that it would be gravely sinful to take advantage of the weakness and vulnerability of either a widow or an orphan, and we can readily imagine the financial burdens and solicitation of “favors” with which either can be afflicted. It is much easier in every way to abuse a boy or girl who has no father and to intimidate a woman who has no husband.

Once again, however, we must remove our social blinders to see the great evil in our culture which turns so many into widows and orphans in the first place. The grave sin of divorce, by which natural protection is ripped away from women and children, surely tops the list of horrors under this heading.

Cheating Laborers of Their Due

“You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brethren or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns; you shall give him his hire on the day he earns it, before the sun goes down (for he is poor, and sets his heart upon it); lest he cry against you to the Lord, and it be a sin in you.” (Dt 24:14-15) Here we come to a principle of sound social order: those in positions of authority and wealth have serious obligations to those who depend on their decisions for their well-being. Fortunately, we live in a very wealthy society.

But does our very wealth cause this sin to appear irrelevant? Free enterprise is an excellent system, but too often it carries the completely unnecessary baggage of a callous attitude toward employees, regarding them as commodities. The social teachings of the Church have attempted to address this concern (without pointing at all toward socialism) for over a century.

Yet the latest trend, at least in the United States, is constant mergers and buyouts which throw hundreds of thousands out of work while enriching an elite few. Even temporary unemployment is both a bank-breaker and a heart-breaker. Working under an abusive or negligent boss can be a living nightmare. And most of us are well-shielded from adults who must work for a minimal wage. The Israelites were urged to remember their days in Egypt, and treat others accordingly.

Together and In Order

All of these sins cry out to God, but the four are not equal. The sequence in the text suggests a hierarchy of value, and it is a tightly linked hierarchy. One sin leads to another, from the gravest to the least, as we make objects out of persons and treat them accordingly, subverting all our natural relationships. For this reason, we cannot assuage our consciences by attending to the fourth sin while ignoring the first, or by claiming virtue on the third and closing our eyes to the second. If these sins cry out to God for vengeance and we still commit them or do nothing to restrict them in others, we mock God to His face. Of course, when we’re wearing our usual cultural blinders, it often appears to us that we can mock God with impunity. But isn’t this something else we know from Revelation—in case we cannot see it for ourselves?

Edited August 5, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='04 August 2010 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1280979000' post='2152464']
Why would i mock christianity? it was a serious question.
[/quote]

The question "does one shout extra loud?" seemed to mock, and surely looking back now if you didn't mean that you should see how it is easily seen as mocking.

Anyway the article provided should give you a more clearer idea to your question. As well as the other one asked about the poor earlier tonight.

Edited August 5, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[Jesus_lol]

hmm, that article focused on homosexuality, while the previous one you posted included other sexual sins.
though that did better explain how murder is a more grave sin(though, thankfully i have figured this one out a while back ) than sexual sins and cheating/etc.

didnt really seperate out the sexual sins in order of "graveness" though.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Jesus_lol

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='04 August 2010 - 11:35 PM' timestamp='1280979352' post='2152472']
hmm, that article focused on homosexuality, while the previous one you posted included other sexual sins.
though that did better explain how murder is a more grave sin(though, thankfully i have figured this one out a while back ) than sexual sins and cheating/etc.
[/quote]

I'm sure a more in depth article would be too long to post on PM. And even it would lack something. This does not mean however what both do have is not truth on the matter. Only that each focus upon different parts of the same subject.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='04 August 2010 - 08:39 PM' timestamp='1280979547' post='2152474']
I'm sure a more in depth article would be too long to post on PM. And even it would lack something. This does not mean however what both do have is not truth on the matter. Only that each focus upon different parts of the same subject.
[/quote]

It seems a little misleading for the second article to 'forget' to mention other sexual sins. gives the wrong impression, to me.

well, if you find a more in depth article, i would read it. can always PM me.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='04 August 2010 - 11:42 PM' timestamp='1280979722' post='2152476']
It seems a little misleading for the second article to 'forget' to mention other sexual sins. gives the wrong impression, to me.

well, if you find a more in depth article, i would read it. can always PM me.
[/quote]

It does not forget, it focuses on the gravest act of sodomy.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='God the Father' date='04 August 2010 - 05:44 PM' timestamp='1280958270' post='2152249']
Without long enough arms, broad enough shoulders, and a minimum amount of body mass, the rifleman will be unable to proficiently steady the weapon, aim, and fire accurately. Without long enough legs, a combatant will probably not be able to move as quickly as necessary to perform his duty. With so low a vantage point, he will not be able to see over a jeep dashboard, over a watchtower railing, or over the next hill without inconvenient and costly accommodations. "Height" is a structural and physical attribute, therefore pertaining with some significance to a physical occupation such as mortal combat. Some classified ads will insist that applicants "must be able to lift 50 pounds." Rarely will a classified ad insist "applicants must like girls," because none of the position's accompanying duties have the slightest thing to do with liking girls. [/quote]
You do know the military is much more than shooting guns and hopping in and out of Jeeps? There are tons of desk jockey jobs.

Height requirements is one of a number of ways the military discriminates. Discrimination is not always a dirty word.

[quote]If the military's job was to judge Miss America, I would be outraged if openly gay men were allowed to serve, whether they were sodomites or not. What on earth would an openly gay man know about the intriguing features a woman? Concisely, it would be inconceivable. If the military's job has nothing to do with the alluring qualities of females, then I guess it's not that big a deal. A gay man, unlike a midget, is not by definition physically unable to perform the duties of a serviceman, and that is obvious.[/quote]
But a gay man could compromise the integrity of the military, on and off of the battlefield. For example, someone in intelligence could be blackmailed into handing over secrets. "Supply me the goods or your family back home finds out who you are." I know. There's a fix for that. Right? Just remove the social stigma of being homosexual, and families will accept with no qualms their homosexual sons and daughters. And isn't that the real reason opening the military to homosexuality is being pursued?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='04 August 2010 - 04:59 PM' timestamp='1280951976' post='2152137']

I know some think discrimination is a dirty, but there is justified discrimination. To keep on topic, Winchester mentioned midgets. Did you know there are height requirements to get into the military? "But what's height got to do with shooting a gun?!" Oih.

[/quote]
My daughter is about 5'2' and is a qualified sharpshooter, without the laser scope.

[Semper Catholic]

Sure is civilians acting like they know what they're talking about in here.

Psst no one cares anymore.

The same amount of people who get butthurt about gays joining are the same people who got butthurt about Women and Blacks. They'll get over it. You should too.