Gays In Military

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1338432348' post='2438340']
Do you have a source for this? I'd like to know for sure, but it isn't easy to tell what is and isn't binding. For instance, this: [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2ordin.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/...oc/jp2ordin.htm[/url]
is binding, but it also is much more strongly worded at the end:


This document has nothing nearly as grave sounding.

Of course, that document is about an absolute teaching of the Church, and this one is about what jobs a gay person should have, so I can see why the gravity of one might be greater than of the other.
[/quote]


I'm not sure you understand the proper duty of the CDF and why it issues documents if you believe this one document is is not binding upon those in the United States, or other non-catholic states. Its duty is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on faith and morals in the whole Catholic world, and it has competence in things that touch this matter in any way. It safeguards the truth of faith and the integrity of morals, and takes care lest faith and morals suffer harm through errors that have been spread in any way whatever. It also has authority over documents or statements of the other dicasteries of the Roman Curia, insofar as they touch on the doctrine of faith or morals. When we hear the phrase "Roman has spoken the matter is closed" the authority it refers to is often the Pope or the CDF. Its duty is not to issue suggestions but rather clarifications on Doctrine pertaining to faith and morals and rebukes errors or dangerous false doctrines. The letter in question clearly gives clarification on doctrine/faith, deals with faith and morals and rebukes error as it pertains to homosexuality and society. With all that in mind it would also not state as a suggestion that it was sometimes obligatory for the State or Civil Authority to limit rights that are not absolute because of objectively disordered external conduct. That would be a contradiction, something that is obligatory is not a suggestion.

Edited May 31, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[kujo]

[img]http://qpdx.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/gays-military-coffin.jpg[/img]

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1338437915' post='2438457']something that is obligatory is not a suggestion.
[/quote]

[quote][i]sometimes [/i]obligatory [/quote]
"Sometimes obligatory" "obligatory" non est.

[kujo]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1338434173' post='2438376']
I'm going to answer this with a question/analogy.

Should a Catholic school hire a teacher/professor who constantly flaunts the authority of the Church? Should such a school be open to all points of view, regardless?

If a university has that privilege, then does a high school have it as well? What about a middle school? An elementary school?[/quote]

I reject the validity of your analogy because it involves a privately-funded Catholic institution, which ought to be free to use whatever standard they choose in hiring their e[color=#282828]mployees. Si[/color][color=#282828]miliarly, they ought to be able to choose not to offer health insurance plans that include coverage abortion services and birth control. But that is for another discussion.[/color]

[quote]Also, the document KoC has posted could also be extended to pedophiles. Pedophiles ought to be discriminated against when hiring. It's not a reflection of the person, but of his actions. That's what's at stake here and why discrimination can be licit.[/quote]

Again, pedophilia =/= ho[color=#282828]mosexuality. One is a cri[/color][color=#282828]me; the other is not, [/color][color=#282828]much to the chagrin of people like A[/color][color=#282828]mory.[/color]

[quote]Discrimination based on a person's actions is not wrong in and of itself. It just can't be.
[/quote]

When the actions are cri[color=#282828]minal in nature, vigilance and consideration ought to be involved in the hiring process. This, in itself, is proble[/color][color=#282828]matic, because not all cri[/color][color=#282828]mes are so heinous that they ought to prevent or endanger future e[/color][color=#282828]mploy[/color][color=#282828]ment. Nevertheless, I don't have [/color][color=#282828]much sy[/color][color=#282828]mpathy for felons who can't get work.[/color]

[color=#282828]However, as I said before, your analogy here is weak because even being the [/color][color=#282828]most gayest of gays is still [u][i][b]NOT[/b][/i][/u] a cri[/color][color=#282828]me. It's apples and oranges....or, actually, apples and bananas, as it were.[/color][/font][/size]

Edited May 31, 2012 by kujo

[Groo the Wanderer]

good freaking night.

c'mon sloppy folks. yer tossing out words for shock value and using them incorrectly.

please look up the meaning of the word 'discrimination' before using it.

discrimination is not the same as prejudice.

get it right. carry on....






and add a llama somewhere...sheese!

[kujo]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1338439417' post='2438485']
good freaking night.

c'mon sloppy folks. yer tossing out words for shock value and using them incorrectly.

please look up the meaning of the word 'discrimination' before using it.

discrimination is not the same as prejudice.

get it right. carry on....
[/quote]

Why don't you define the difference between the two, as I did earlier with the terms "homosexual," "open homosexual," and "active homosexual?"

[Laudate_Dominum]

ghey is as ghey does.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338439164' post='2438476'][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I reject the validity of your analogy because it involves a privately-funded Catholic institution, which ought to be free to use whatever standard they choose in hiring their e[color=#282828]mployees. Si[/color][color=#282828]miliarly, they ought to be able to choose not to offer health insurance plans that include coverage abortion services and birth control. But that is for another discussion.[/color]

Again, pedophilia =/= ho[color=#282828]mosexuality. One is a cri[/color][color=#282828]me; the other is not, [/color][color=#282828]much to the chagrin of people like A[/color][color=#282828]mory.[/color]

When the actions are cri[color=#282828]minal in nature, vigilance and consideration ought to be involved in the hiring process. This, in itself, is proble[/color][color=#282828]matic, because not all cri[/color][color=#282828]mes are so heinous that they ought to prevent or endanger future e[/color][color=#282828]mploy[/color][color=#282828]ment. Nevertheless, I don't have [/color][color=#282828]much sy[/color][color=#282828]mpathy for felons who can't get work.[/color]

[color=#282828]However, as I said before, your analogy here is weak because even being the [/color][color=#282828]most gayest of gays is still [u][i][b]NOT[/b][/i][/u] a cri[/color][color=#282828]me. It's apples and oranges....or, actually, apples and bananas, as it were.[/color][/font]
[/quote]Well my point was twofold. One is that the discrimination is against action and depending on the circumstances, even discriminating against gay sexual action can be legitimate. I don't think that an action has to be against the law for a group to disapprove of it. I don't think it's necessarily fair to limit discrimination against illegal actions only, but it sounds like you're willing to concede this point might be valid in certain circumstances.

The second was just to illuminate the CDF document in light of Amppax' comment at the bottom of the last page. It wasn't really to further any argument.


As far as I know, I have neither condemned being gay in itself, nor spoken about what the military should do directly. I have responded to comments, but I don't think I've necessarily made my own opinion or vote known yet about military hiring practices.

Edited May 31, 2012 by qfnol31

[kujo]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1338439948' post='2438496']


ghey is as ghey does.
[/quote]

That icon is homophobic!

:Flamesuit ACTIVATE:

:Realize that the term "flamesuit" might be scandalous in the given conversation:

:Changes the name of the suit to "Gear to Protect Individuals Against Socrates' Self-Effacing Waxings About How Being a Faithful Catholic Leaves You Vulnerable to Being Called a 'Homophobe' By the Liberal/Pinko/Socialist Elite.":

[kujo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1338440142' post='2438499']
Well my point was twofold. One is that the discrimination is against action and depending on the circumstances, even discriminating against gay sexual action can be legitimate. I don't think that an action has to be against the law for a group to disapprove of it. I don't think it's necessarily fair to limit discrimination against illegal actions only, but it sounds like you're willing to concede this point might be valid in certain circumstances.[/quote]

I said it would be fine for parochial institutions to use their own standards when hiring people, though I am not sure whether the caselaw would back up that statement.

In any case, to your main point, I'd like you to enumerate a few actions that aren't illegal that you would find to be a legitimate cause for discrimination in secular businesses, organizations and other areas of public life.

[quote]The second was just to illuminate the CDF document in light of Amppax' comment at the bottom of the last page. It wasn't really to further any argument.

As far as I know, I have neither condemned being gay in itself, nor spoken about what the military should do directly. I have responded to comments, but I don't think I've necessarily made my own opinion or vote known yet about military hiring practices.
[/quote]

No problem, dude. I was just responding to your argument, which, as I said, isn't valid, since the analogies you base it off of are shaky, at best.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338440629' post='2438505']
I said it would be fine for parochial institutions to use their own standards when hiring people, though I am not sure whether the caselaw would back up that statement.

In any case, to your main point, I'd like you to enumerate a few actions that aren't illegal that you would find to be a legitimate cause for discrimination in secular businesses, organizations and other areas of public life.[/quote]I think that a person who publicly supports President Obama should be fired/not hired by the Romney organization.

I think that a Philadelphia Eagle worker who says nasty things about the organization publicly shouldn't be hired by the organization (and it's been grounds for firing before).

I think that the Boy Scouts have the right to discriminate against openly homosexual men (or even women in general) leaders of their troops if they desire. I use this example because it's been upheld as legal.

[quote]No problem, dude. I was just responding to your argument, which, as I said, isn't valid, since the analogies you base it off of are shaky, at best.
[/quote]I was actually using the pedophilia example to explain the CDF document. I don't mean for it to be applied to homosexuality. I agree that the analogy doesn't quite work. I probably should have chosen a different example because I know how the two work back and forth, but I was lazy.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Does the Vatican actually say that homosexuals ought to be excluded from military service? I saw the CDF thing posted which basically says that it can be okay to discriminate against homosexuals because sexual orientation isn't like race or whatever. I didn't get the sense that banning homosexual people from military service is required by Church teaching, just that it's not wrong when institutions decide to make such a ban. No?

And yes, I'm lame at reading tl;dr threads before posting so sue me if this is repetitive stuff.

[Laudate_Dominum]

And maybe I've been unwittingly influenced by George Takei (I follow him on FB and Pinterest) but I was kind of offended by that document. It's okay to be Takei.

[Laudate_Dominum]

All states should legalize gay marriage because I would watch the cr@p out of gay divorce court.

[kujo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1338441000' post='2438513']
I think that a person who publicly supports President Obama should be fired/not hired by the Romney organization.[/quote]

Private organization.

[quote]I think that a Philadelphia Eagle worker who says nasty things about the organization publicly shouldn't be hired by the organization (and it's been grounds for firing before).[/quote]

I think all of the Philadelphia Eagles should be fired anyway...

But seriously, that person would either be fired or not hired due to disparaging remarks which, while not illegal, are certainly detrimental to your employment efforts. Then again, knowing the way Eagle fans are about their, I don't think there's a single soul in kelly green who could get a job with that outfit.

And who'd want to anyway, when they can drive north to Big Blue Country and work for an organization that has actually won some championships!

(Sorry...I'm a Giants fan!)

[quote]I think that the Boy Scouts have the right to discriminate against openly homosexual men (or even women in general) leaders of their troops if they desire. I use this example because it's been upheld as legal.
[/quote]

Boy Scouts are a private organization that receives no funding from the government. Thus, they, like the Catholic Church, can hire and fire whoever they please. There was a case settled today in Orlando on this very issue, with the Girl Scouts not allowing a lesbian scout leader.