Homosexuals In The Armed Services

[thessalonian]

[quote name='kujo' post='1214999' date='Mar 17 2007, 01:30 PM']Playing devil's advocate here...

To the homosexual, their relationship is not adulterous so long as it is monogamous. I would agree with the implication that homosexual relationships, in the moral and religious sense, are adulterous; however, I don't see how we can justify this in the secular world.[/quote]


Quite easily. God's laws are implanted on all men's hearts such that they have no excuse. Romans 2:14-16. I don't by this we need to separate secular people from religious people with a different set of laws. Further whether one thinks that running a car 100 miles an hour in to a brick wall won't kill them or not it matters little in the end. Mankind is hurting themselves and we need to warn them.

Edited March 17, 2007 by thessalonian

[kujo]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1215170' date='Mar 17 2007, 07:43 PM']Quite easily. God's laws are implanted on all men's hearts such that they have no excuse. Romans 2:14-16. I don't by this we need to separate secular people from religious people with a different set of laws. Further whether one thinks that running a car 100 miles an hour in to a brick wall won't kill them or not it matters little in the end. Mankind is hurting themselves and we need to warn them.[/quote]

I cannot disagree with anything you've said here.

However, as it relates to serving one's country in this capacity, how does it apply? I thought we were enlisting a group of people to defend our country. I don't see how their religious/moral/political dispositions (no matter how immoral and wrong in the eyes of the Lord) have anything to do with their capacity or worthiness to be soldiers.

[Maggyie]

I believe one of the main arguments against allowing "out" homosexuals to serve in the military is the potentially devastating effects on morale. Any "romance in the trenches" would cause serious problems (we see these problems when women are allowed to serve alongside men, as well).

My brother is a Marine and he doesn't dislike homosexuals, but I'm not sure he would appreciate bunking and showering with someone who might find him attractive.

[kujo]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1215174' date='Mar 17 2007, 07:50 PM']I believe one of the main arguments against allowing "out" homosexuals to serve in the military is the potentially devastating effects on morale. Any "romance in the trenches" would cause serious problems (we see these problems when women are allowed to serve alongside men, as well).

My brother is a Marine and he doesn't dislike homosexuals, but I'm not sure he would appreciate bunking and showering with someone who might find him attractive.[/quote]

I see some merit in this argument. I know that I would be uncomfortable as well. But I think that there are homosexuals who would scoff at the notion that they would be attracted to everyone or anyone they served with. It reminds me of a scene in American Wedding--Stifler goes to a gay bar and says that every gay man wants to get with him. And then a gay guy laughs and basically cuts him down to size.

Just like every woman isn't attracted to every man, so to every gay man/woman isn't attracted to every man/woman.

[jeffpugh]

Interesting point Kujo. It raises the question about the origin of SSA (ie, is it inherited or not)... any thoughts there?

[kujo]

SSA? What is that?

[hoosieranna]

[quote name='kujo' post='1215252' date='Mar 17 2007, 09:54 PM']SSA? What is that?[/quote]

Same Sex Attraction, I'm guessing.

[Socrates]

Homosexuals should not be allowed to serve in the military. Besides the whole moral issue, there are problems that can arise within the ranks when soldiers are serving in close quarter conditions under intense circumstances. Sodomistic "relationships" and the complications arising therefrom complicate the integrity of the close-knit fighting unit.

I consider the current "don't ask-don't tell" policy something of a weak compromise, but it's not quite so problematic as it essentially continues to bar homosexual activity without invading people's privacy.

And the idea that homosexuals have an intrinsic "right" to serve in the armed forces is absurd. There are plenty of conditions that bar people from military service. I myself washed out of USMC OCS (whole other topic).
(Similar issues come up with the whole homos-in-the-priesthood debate.)

Military policy must not be dictated by civilian standards of political correctness if we want an effective, honorable fighting force.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1215216' date='Mar 17 2007, 07:33 PM']Interesting point Kujo. It raises the question about the origin of SSA (ie, is it inherited or not)... any thoughts there?[/quote]
This has actually been debated many times ad nauseum on these boards. I'd suggest running a search if you're interested. The evidence for homosexuality being inborn is weak at best, and I'd say that whole issue is rather irrelevant to the current "gays-in-the-military" policy debate.

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1215613' date='Mar 18 2007, 09:44 PM']Homosexuals should not be allowed to serve in the military. Besides the whole moral issue, there are problems that can arise within the ranks when soldiers are serving in close quarter conditions under intense circumstances. Sodomistic "relationships" and the complications arising therefrom complicate the integrity of the close-knit fighting unit.

I consider the current "don't ask-don't tell" policy something of a weak compromise, but it's not quite so problematic as it essentially continues to bar homosexual activity without invading people's privacy.

And the idea that homosexuals have an intrinsic "right" to serve in the armed forces is absurd. There are plenty of conditions that bar people from military service. I myself washed out of USMC OCS (whole other topic).
(Similar issues come up with the whole homos-in-the-priesthood debate.)

Military policy must not be dictated by civilian standards of political correctness if we want an effective, honorable fighting force.[/quote]

I don't so much think that a person (homosexual or not) has an intristic "right" to serve; however, if they meet the physical and psychological requirements, I don't think that their sexual orientation really matters.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' post='1215665' date='Mar 18 2007, 09:37 PM']I don't so much think that a person (homosexual or not) has an intristic "right" to serve; however, if they meet the physical and psychological requirements, I don't think that their sexual orientation really matters.[/quote]
Sexual "orientiation" falls under "psychological" (Though I realize this will likely start the repeat of another old debate).

And if one never acts on his homosexual inclinations, then this is not an issue under "don't ask-don't tell."

[catholicinsd]

Lesbians should be able to serve, gay men probably not.

[Maggyie]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1215673' date='Mar 18 2007, 11:49 PM']Lesbians should be able to serve, gay men probably not.[/quote]

But there are women in the military and that causes the same problems in terms of romantic relationships. And hypothetically speaking, it really would be discriminatory to let lesbians in and not gay men.

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1215676' date='Mar 18 2007, 10:53 PM']But there are women in the military and that causes the same problems in terms of romantic relationships. And hypothetically speaking, it really would be discriminatory to let lesbians in and not gay men.[/quote]

Who would to rather have in combat: a lesbian like Aileen Wuornos or a gay guy like Bobby Trendy?

[Jaime]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1215678' date='Mar 18 2007, 08:57 PM']Who would to rather have in combat: a lesbian like Aileen Wuornos or a gay guy like Bobby Trendy?[/quote]

Well I think that wins for the most ignorant statement of the day..


Way to go kiddo!!