Gays In Military

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338527911' post='2439175']
He's a dumb kid.

But he's right on this one...
[/quote]
You're making me angry... I was exposed to an extreme dose of special gamma rays one time and. .. .. GGRRRRAAAHH@H$@SL:KFSD<' sdv354$#%#^%

[kujo]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1338528562' post='2439179']

You're making me angry... I was exposed to an extreme dose of special gamma rays one time and. .. .. GGRRRRAAAHH@H$@SL:KFSD<' sdv354$#%#^%
[/quote]

See, my trick is that I'm always angry.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I click the imaginary props button, in spirit.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1338524984' post='2439151']The question being, why are we applying this to homosexuals in regards to military service?[/quote]Please forgive me for this really long post. I hope it's helpful to explaining my position. I am defending my position at this moment as a Catholic who participates in a democratic society. While I obviously would love to see everyone Catholic, I'm smart enough to know that that isn't a real possibility and is not our government's responsibility. However, that doesn't mean that I cannot rationally support what I already believe. I say this because I am responding to you as a fellow Catholic with the Church's teachings in mind. If you are more comfortable, I can also try to give a more rational defense without recourse to the Church's documents (which is how I normally end up conversing about politics, since most people put a large divide between Catholicism and politics).

I believe that Catholic teaching can be rationally defended, but I also know that I cannot expect everyone to accept Catholic teaching immediately. I think that this distinction should be made clear here because I know that Kujo, Hasan, (and Dairygirl who posted this thread) do have a legitimate point about merely enforcing my Catholic beliefs on other people. However, I believe in Catholicism both because of my faith and because I find it rationally compelling (partly driven by faith, even still). I think that the Church's teachings on the political/social sphere are both for the good of society as a whole and rationally defensible. I say all this just so that it's clear to all who actually make it through this post that I don't intend for it to be a response against the purely secular arguments that have a valid place and the right to be spoken. (I.e. please don't troll this post. )


I posted this above in response to Kujo, but the military is supposed to be an example or model of ethical and moral behavior. That's what the USMC claims anyways. If that is the case, and if we can establish that homosexual behavior is indeed wrong, and if we can establish that protecting against homosexual behavior is a good for society, then I see no reason it cannot be applied to the military.

I'll add a further comment down below.

[quote]These ideas being what exactly?[/quote]In the case of homosexuality, there were probably some bad thoughts of it being a disease or something along those lines that caused people to oppose it in the first place. I can imagine there was some prejudice against people who suffer from SSA that caused them to act out of fear.

Also, our society it definitely religious in a certain sense (this is very difficult to deny, though it ends up explained away in different ways) and regardless of how you define this "religious nature," we still seem to believe as a culture that homosexuality is wrong. There has been a shift in recent years away from this, but we have also moved toward more openness to divorce, abortion, and sex before marriage in recent years, so I think a lot of things are at place. Most importantly, I think as a society we have lost much of our perspective on morality. I don't think that the current move in favor of homosexuality is entirely ideologically driven.

[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]But an adulterous couple is also damaging to society.
I'll give you some links that helped form my opinions on this, but in brief I see this move towards open homosexuality and their relationships as damaging to society in general. I've heard most arguments about how divorce has done the same thing, etc., etc., but there are many reasons why that argument isn't valid here. Suffice it to say, the possibility of divorce doesn't mean a relationship is invalid in the beginning (homosexuality does); divorce has a purpose (homosexuality does not); and most importantly, even though one good is less than perfect does not mean that we should allow it to be degraded more. And to add to all that, I think divorce does damage society in terrible ways. That means I don't want to compound it with things like gay marriage, but want to help restore marriage in all its forms.

Here is what the Church has said recently about the family and about homosexual unions:
http://www.marriageuniqueforareason.org/ (See definitely http://www.marriageuniqueforareason.org/church-teaching/ )

This is from the Catechism:
[quote]2201
The conjugal community is established upon the consent of the spouses. Marriage and the family are ordered to the good of the spouses and to the procreation and education of children. The love of the spouses and the begetting of children create among members of the same family personal relationships and primordial responsibilities.

2202
A man and a woman united in marriage, together with their children, form a family. This institution is prior to any recognition by public authority, which has an obligation to recognize it. It should be considered the normal reference point by which the different forms of family relationship are to be evaluated.

2203
In creating man and woman, God instituted the human family and endowed it with its fundamental constitution. Its members are persons equal in dignity. For the common good of its members and of society, the family necessarily has manifold responsibilities, rights, and duties.[/quote]

This is from the CDF document cited above:
[quote]From the social order

8. Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.

The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.(16) The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.

Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.[/quote]

I believe that marriages and the families that follow is a fundamental aspect of society. I think that it is the beginning of a good society and is necessary. I've posted before how even our present government promotes a health family, which just points out that my view isn't just reasonable, but it's also commonly accepted.

Now I can apply this all to DADT as USAirways requested above. All intimate, sexual relationships are aimed towards marriage, and more particularly towards the family as a whole. I don't mean just those relationships that include coitus specifically, but those that become physical in a sexual way (real kissing, holding hands, etc.) and are exclusive with the knowledge of dating. Again, even our society seems to recognize this fact from time to time, though we often wish we didn't. I can point to numerous instances where the government has tried to recognize this particular good. Implicit in the revocation of DADT is that government is giving its approval to homosexual relationships in general. It's in effect using the military as a mouthpiece for something that it (the government) does not officially recognize.

That is, the government is doing two things. First of all, it is implicitly pushing towards a recognition homosexual unions by making licit the relationships that are driven towards unions. Second of all, the government is saying that an act, which we (as Catholics) believe can be harmful to society, is perfectly valid. The military is supposed to be held to a higher standard than the rest of the US, but in this case they are not.

Now let me add in my earlier caveat that perhaps the government doesn't (want to) recognize the detrimental effect homosexual relationships/unions have on society. That doesn't mean that I am wrong to see this effect. It means I have an obligation to speak out against the government's actions.

[quote]Could you clarify this for me, I'm not exactly sure what you are saying.[/quote]
See my previous paragraph for my explanation.
[quote]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.[/quote]That's fine, I took it as completely serious.


I guess at this point I should just come out and say my point of view. I answered no to the first question and second to the next. I did that because I don't think that as a Catholic the military must ban openly homosexual individuals.

However, as an American I think that the government's actions were driven by an agenda more than anything, could have a harmful affect (perhaps not directly on soldiers, but in general), and aren't quite consistent (for reasons I explained above).

If you made it through this post I am amazed. If you're interested, I can explain any of the earlier points in greater detail.

[EmilyAnn]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338528817' post='2439184']
See, my trick is that I'm always angry.
[/quote]

Dude, serious props for that. Stop being Phishy so I can give you real props!

[Vincent Vega]

Hopefully I'll respond to this in full later today, but at this juncture, thank you all for making me realize why I love you again.

[Groo the Wanderer]

[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]



aint a bigot

just tired of all the SSA ranting lately. gets old. i guess nambla is next

[MIKolbe]

you want to talk about nambla?

wow.....

[Groo the Wanderer]

no. just figured this would all degenerate further.

first tolerance, then acceptance, then forced acknowledgement and hate speech, now suppression of real marriage. yeah nambla is next.

[MIKolbe]

so you wanna talk about nambla next?

[Groo the Wanderer]

no. wanna talk about llamas next

[MIKolbe]

llamas are welcome in nambla?

why are you talking about nambla?

[kujo]

Because clearly there's some connection between allowing an adult gay male to marry another consenting adult gay male, and allowing an adult pedophile to molest and sexually degrade a young boy.

Edited June 1, 2012 by kujo

[Groo the Wanderer]

finally you are seeing the connection. its about time. mebbe you'll stop being phisy soon too.

there is a connection yes.

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1338560359' post='2439301']
Because clearly there's some connection between allowing an adult gay male to marry another consenting adult gay male, and allowing an adult pedophile to molest and sexually degrade a young boy.
[/quote]

what if they both consent?