Gays In Military

[IcePrincessKRS]

Al touched in the subject in a post back in January. I had linked it in response to LD but then I deleted it because it didn't think it would be fair to throw him in the middle of the debate.

[KnightofChrist]

Perhaps we should defer to the judgement of Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, the competent ecclesiastical authority with the jurisdiction to speak on this matter. He does not support openly/active homosexual persons serving in the armed forces on both moral grounds as well as out of concern that it will lead to approval of the act of homosexuality by the United States Military.

"those with a homosexual orientation can expect respect and treatment
worthy of their human dignity. The prohibitions regarding sexual harassment and
intimidation refer just as much to homosexuals as to anyone else.

...


There is no doubt that morality and the corresponding good
moral decisions have an effect on unit cohesion and the overall morale of the troops
and effectiveness of the mission. This Archdiocese exists to serve those who serve
and it assists them by advocating moral behavior. The military must find ways to
promote that behavior and develop strong prohibitions against any immoral activity
that would jeopardize morale, good morals, unit cohesion and every other factor that
weakens the mission. So also must a firm effort be made to avoid any injustices that
may inadvertently develop because individuals or groups are put in living situations
that are an affront to good common sense.

I think that those questions require an adequate response. The effect of a repeal of
the current legislation has the potential of being enormous and overwhelming.
Nothing should be changed until there is certainty that morale will not suffer.
Sacrificing the moral beliefs of individuals or their living conditions to respond to
merely political considerations is neither just nor prudent especially for the armed
forces at a time of war. Catholics believe that nothing will be done if there is a careful
and prudent evaluation of the effects of a change.

For years, those struggling with alcoholism have benefitted from Alcoholics
Anonymous. Like homosexuality, there is rarely a cure. There is a control through a
process, which is guarded by absolute secrecy. It is an equivalent to “Don’t ask don’t
tell”. The process has worked well for some time without the charge that it is
discriminatory.

The Archdiocese for the Military Services—the only jurisdiction charged with the
pastoral care of all Catholics in the military, VA Administration, and at the service of
the Federal Government outside of the boundaries of the United States, which is also
charged with endorsing Roman Catholic priests urges the Congress not to repeal the
current policy for the Armed Forces.


--Archbishop Timothy Broglio
Archbishop for the Military Services USA"

Edited June 1, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[ironmonk]

I think the biggest issue with people who have same sex attraction in the military is best explained by the same reason you don't want an 18 year old straight male living, sleeping next to, and showering with 18 year old straight females. It's a huge distraction... not to mention at 18, with hormones raging, most guys I know (including myself), sex dominated our thoughts. I think people have a hard time articulating this reason. If people of same sex attraction can openly express their sexual preference in the military then there is no logical reason to separate men and women in the barracks.

God Bless & Pax Christi,
ironmonk

[qfnol31]

Amppax, I know you responded above and I'm just not getting to your comments.[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1338467547' post='2438619']
No, and it shouldn't have to be. In my view that's a completely different scenario.

Yes, yes, and yes.

I completely agree with you. However military =/= schools.[/quote]I think that all of those instances are cases that are meant primarily by the CDF document. Giving that the document does have practical application, it's a matter of discussing why we might want it applied to the military. I think that's the main point that we should discuss, though we haven't established a good enough foundation to push the conversation in that direction yet...

I was also trying to show you how some instances might require action while others give a little more flexibility, in response to the questions you posed.

[quote]Never said it was. In fact, if you read the beginning of the second paragraph, I said as much. But if we are so intent on banning homosexuals from the military, why aren't we banning adulterers? Or anyone else who commits grave sin, and does so in a public manner? What I'm seeing is that homosexuals are being specifically singled out here.

Also, this is related to this topic, but I read a pretty good article on what the sin of the Sodomites was. Here is a link for anyone whose interested. [url="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/the-sin-of-sodom"]http://www.patheos.c...he-sin-of-sodom[/url]
[/quote]Part of the reason they've been singled out at this point is that DADT has been revoked. We're singling them out because of the present situation.

Why have they been singled out in the first place? Probably because of the different ideas surrounding homosexuality. Homosexual actions tend to affect more people than simply adulterous ones. I disagree with the claim that a homosexual couple only commits acts in the bedroom and that these acts don't extend out further. Also, I think that this is one of the few instances where the government recognizes one thing and then acts differently in its military.

Furthermore, read this: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/adultery.htm I'll look up the veracity of this soon.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='ironmonk' timestamp='1338515147' post='2439061']
I think the biggest issue with people who have same sex attraction in the military is best explained by the same reason you don't want an 18 year old straight male living, sleeping next to, and showering with 18 year old straight females. It's a huge distraction... not to mention at 18, with hormones raging, most guys I know (including myself), sex dominated our thoughts. I think people have a hard time articulating this reason. If people of same sex attraction can openly express their sexual preference in the military then there is no logical reason to separate men and women in the barracks.

God Bless & Pax Christi,
ironmonk
[/quote]What up. Good to see you around.

[Groo the Wanderer]

can we lock this one, stake it through the heart, and kill it dead?


or at least require all responses to be in haiku?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1338523466' post='2439132']
can we lock this one, stake it through the heart, and kill it dead?


or at least require all responses to be in haiku?
[/quote]Why do you want it dead?

[Amppax]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1338515618' post='2439065']
Amppax, I know you responded above and I'm just not getting to your comments.I think that all of those instances are cases that are meant primarily by the CDF document. Giving that the document does have practical application, it's a matter of discussing why we might want it applied to the military. I think that's the main point that we should discuss, though we haven't established a good enough foundation to push the conversation in that direction yet...
[/quote]

Ok that's fair.

[quote]
I was also trying to show you how some instances might require action while others give a little more flexibility, in response to the questions you posed.[/quote]

The question being, why are we applying this to homosexuals in regards to military service?

[quote]
Part of the reason they've been singled out at this point is that DADT has been revoked. We're singling them out because of the present situation.[/quote]

So we are opposing this in this instance because it is a prevalent issue right now, whereas other things aren't. Got it.

[quote]

Why have they been singled out in the first place? Probably because of the different ideas surrounding homosexuality.[/quote]

These ideas being what exactly?

[quote]
Homosexual actions tend to affect more people than simply adulterous ones. I disagree with the claim that a homosexual couple only commits acts in the bedroom and that these acts don't extend out further.[/quote]

Disagree, although I'd be willing to listen to why you think this. And I don't think that the actions of a homosexual are confined merely to the bedroom. I would agree that they also extend out further. But so do the actions of an adulterous couple.

[quote]
Also, I think that this is one of the few instances where the government recognizes one thing and then acts differently in its military.
[/quote]

Could you clarify this for me, I'm not exactly sure what you are saying.

[quote]
Furthermore, read this: [url="http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/adultery.htm"]http://usmilitary.ab.../a/adultery.htm[/url] I'll look up the veracity of this soon.
[/quote]

I read it, that's pretty interesting, thanks.

I'd just like to add a note: This post was made with complete sincerity, if it comes across as sarcastic or anything else, I apologize, that wasn't my intention.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338507895' post='2438984']
First off, props for the nerd references. Not [color=#000000][font=arial,helvetica][size=3]much of a Star Trek guy, but I a[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial,helvetica][size=3]m a pretty huge LOTR dude.[/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=arial,helvetica][size=3]Secondly, the phrase "everybody wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die," was [/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial,helvetica][size=3]meant to convey the idea that everyone has a pretty good idea of what they believe is right, but seldo[/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial,helvetica][size=3]m are they so convicted so as to [/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial,helvetica][size=3]make the sacrifices necessary to achieve [/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=arial,helvetica][size=3]those goals. [/size][/font][/color]
[/quote]

You love The Lord of the Rings? Okay, we're officially the bestest of friends.

[kujo]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1338525343' post='2439155']


You love The Lord of the Rings? Okay, we're officially the bestest of friends.
[/quote]

Dude...you don't even know the half of it.

[kujo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1338523585' post='2439134']
Why do you want it dead?
[/quote]

Because he's been outted as a bigot with nothing meaningful to add to the discussion.

I've got nothing against people with whom I disagree. But Groo hasn't offered a single thing to this debate other than repeated references to killing things.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338526120' post='2439161']
Dude...you don't even know the half of it.
[/quote]

I'm a Lord of the Rings fanatic myself. No amount of lame actors on Star Trek or dumb puns on Star Wars can ever compete with it.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338526240' post='2439163']
Because he's been outted as a bigot with nothing meaningful to add to the discussion.

I've got nothing against people with whom I disagree. But Groo hasn't offered a single thing to this debate other than repeated references to killing things.
[/quote]I take it you missed the llamas that kept showing up...

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1338526360' post='2439164']
I'm a Lord of the Rings fanatic myself. No amount of lame actors on Star Trek or dumb puns on Star Wars can ever compete with it.
[/quote]
Watch yourself...

[kujo]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1338526705' post='2439169']

Watch yourself...
[/quote]

He's a dumb kid.

But he's right on this one...