Homosexuals In The Armed Services

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1216836' date='Mar 21 2007, 08:43 AM']How is it condoning an immoral choice? Here's how:
People are asking the military to create, put in writing, and enforce a clear policy that addresses open and active homosexuality as not being immoral and being perfectly acceptable within the military code of conduct.

Comparing open homosexuality to premarital sex is a bit of a stretch from the Roman Catholic perspective. Premarital sex is immoral because it is sex outside the marriage, strictly for pleasure. Homosexual sexual sex is considered intrinsicly disordered in addition to being sex outside the marriage.

By your own admission, adultery can result in prosecution. Ther are 'morals' standards with the military code of conduct. Yes, it is wrong that people commit adultery, but within the military, there is no requests for the military to create, put in writing, and enforce a clear policy that addresses open and active adultery as not being immoral and being perfectly acceptable within the military code of conduct.

The old addage "Two wrongs don't make a right" applies here. Also, "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander" is appropriate. The military does not ask if a person is an open and active adulterer. The military does prosecute many cases of adultery. The kooky female 'astronut' who drove to Florida is facing morals charges for having an affair outside her marriage because it violates some of the regulations.

Terra,
You bring up good points. We should treat homosexuals with empathy and kindness and love. But we should put in the effort and thought needed to figure out a way to love the sinner without condoning or encouraging them to remain in their "sin". That takes discussion and tough question.[/quote]
I'll have to get back to you later on this ... I'm on spring break and am going to be off for the next few days, and then have a crapload of work to do once I get back, but I'll eventually try to respond to this.

FWIW, I am not convinced on either side of the issue at this point ... I simply haven't put the thought into whether or not it's a good practice.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1217064' date='Mar 21 2007, 09:07 PM']As to the "financial" argument, this would be reason for keeping the original ban on homosexuals, as opposed to "don't ask/don't tell." And I see this as more a problem of our litiginous society.
And sorry, I was forgetting that dollars and cents is more important than honor and morality.

And your second argument could be used for all kinds of lowering of standards - pretty weak, unless you view soldiers simply as cannon-fodder.

It's pretty disheartening that many on here claiming the name "Catholic" seem to be doing all they can to assure that the grievous sin of homosexuality is condoned by law and society with no restrictions.[/quote]
You know, Socrates, you asked for arguments on the other side, then when I provide them -- without EVER saying that I supported them, or intimating that in any way -- you come back with an ad hominem attack and question my commitment to my faith. That is low.

It is possible to weigh the arguments on multiple sides of an issue, to consider the validity of these arguments, and to dismiss them without ever ascribing to them. You seem to think that there is no possible way a person could hold a viewpoint in opposition to your own, and in all honesty that weakens your effectiveness as a debater, because you refuse to respect people who even TENDER arguments in opposition to your own. If you want to have an honest discussion/debate about this issue, then in the future refrain from questioning the faith of people who attempt to engage you in said discussion. If you want a situation where you can simply rant about how people who don't agree with you are a disappointment to you as Catholics, then I respectfully submit that you should start a blog.

One more thing: You don't have a CLUE what I do or don't do in furtherance of "assur(ing) that the grievous sin of homosexuality is condoned by law and society with no restrictions." I don't know why you are bent on making assumptions about my actions off PM, but I'd appreciate it if you restrained yourself from the extraneous comments and stuck to the issue that is being discussed.

Edited March 22, 2007 by Terra Firma

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1217228' date='Mar 22 2007, 08:13 AM']If you want to have an honest discussion/debate about this issue, then in the future refrain from questioning the faith of people who attempt to engage you in said discussion. If you want a situation where you can simply rant about how people who don't agree with you are a disappointment to you as Catholics, then I respectfully submit that you should start a blog.[/quote]Do you own the copyright to this, or can I quote you free of charge? That is great!

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1216115' date='Mar 19 2007, 09:58 PM']Why are you, as a self-professed "Catholic", defending the condoning of an unnatural sin condemned clearly by God and the Church?[/quote]

See message I just sent you.

Edited March 22, 2007 by kujo

[Socrates]

To those offended:

I apologize if anyone's feelings were hurt, but I'm going to stand my ground.
The Church's teachings are clear on the subject of homosexual activity, and Catholics should do what they can to oppose the further "legitimization" of this vice in our society, whether it regards "gay marriage," "civil unions," "gay adoption," or retaining the military's code of honor banning sodomy in the ranks.
The Pope himself has said that morality and the family should be protected in law and society.

And while it is true I don't have a clue what anybody does off this forum, when one's posts consistantly argue in favor of "gay rights" - i.e. supporting homosexual "civil unions," "hate crime" legislation giving homosexuals special legal protection, and allowing homosexual activity in the military - this is all the reader has to go on, and the poster should not act shocked when others take the online arguments at face value.

Moral values are coming under increasing attack in today's society, and it really seems that many claiming the title "Catholic" don't know where they stand. That is indeed a crying shame.

And I consider those who say they agree with the Church's moral teachings, but then argue in support of laws that condone homosexuality, no better than those "personally opposed" pro-abort "Catholic" politicians.
One cannot serve both God and liberal political-correctness.
You may consider that harsh, but that's the way it is.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217234' date='Mar 22 2007, 08:41 AM']Do you own the copyright to this, or can I quote you free of charge? That is great![/quote]
It's all yours! :


[quote name='Socrates' post='1217520' date='Mar 22 2007, 08:44 PM']To those offended:
...
You may consider that harsh, but that's the way it is.[/quote]
Look, I have no problem with you holding the views you hold. In fact, I very much respect your position, and may even agree with you. But you have a nasty habit of attacking the person instead of the argument in debate. You'll notice that Anomaly disagrees with the position I forwarded as well, but he did so in a respectful manner, laying out the reasons for his arguments in a logical, mature fashion. This, I can learn from, and can then use his reasoning in a discussion in real life. And, because of the respectful manner that he addresses my arguments, I am inclined to respond in like manner -- as in, to actually ponder his points and come up with a reasoned answer. Hopefully, we will end up having a discussion that benefits not only the two participants but others reading it as well.

You may be right on with all your arguments, but the minute you give up on making your argument and start attacking the the person arguing, you have lost the battle. I'm no longer willing to engage in the conversation -- it becomes about your below-the-belt tactics rather than your points. And, I'm less willing to engage in debate with you in the future. If you want to be more effective as a debater, find ways to be less about the button-pushing and more about the meat of your argument. IMHO, of course.

[Anomaly]

Thanks for the permission to shamelessly steal you line.

But I'd still like to see how you (or any other of you vocal and opinionated Catholics) would answer my questions. Though the methodology is tactless, Soc also has a good point. How do those who profess to be Roman Catholic, claim to have clear and infallible guidance from their infallible Church leaders, identify RC principles and decide on this matter. How does a RC be empathetic to the person, but not 'enabling' the person to easily choose to actively engage in bad moral choices?

[Anomaly]

Bump for you Catholic Answer peeps...

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1216836' date='Mar 21 2007, 08:43 AM']How is it condoning an immoral choice? Here's how:
People are asking the military to create, put in writing, and enforce a clear policy that addresses open and active homosexuality as not being immoral and being perfectly acceptable within the military code of conduct.

Comparing open homosexuality to premarital sex is a bit of a stretch from the Roman Catholic perspective. Premarital sex is immoral because it is sex outside the marriage, strictly for pleasure. Homosexual sexual sex is considered intrinsicly disordered in addition to being sex outside the marriage.

By your own admission, adultery can result in prosecution. Ther are 'morals' standards with the military code of conduct. Yes, it is wrong that people commit adultery, but within the military, there is no requests for the military to create, put in writing, and enforce a clear policy that addresses open and active adultery as not being immoral and being perfectly acceptable within the military code of conduct.

The old addage "Two wrongs don't make a right" applies here. Also, "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander" is appropriate. The military does not ask if a person is an open and active adulterer. The military does prosecute many cases of adultery. The kooky female 'astronut' who drove to Florida is facing morals charges for having an affair outside her marriage because it violates some of the regulations.

Terra,
You bring up good points. We should treat homosexuals with empathy and kindness and love. But we should put in the effort and thought needed to figure out a way to love the sinner without condoning or encouraging them to remain in their "sin". That takes discussion and tough question.[/quote]
OK. Sorry I've taken so long in getting together a response ... I'm on spring break this week and was hiking the Grand Canyon yesterday which was waaaaay more fun than posting. : Today, though, I'm doing laundry.

To your first point ... it may be a stretch to compare homosexual sex to premarital sex or adultery, but we're talking degrees -- distinctions between a wrong and a wrong rather than a distinction between a right and a wrong. All are distortions of the marital act, and as such all are immoral.

Adultery and premarital sex are regulated in the armed forces -- they aren't banned. The concern (as I understand it from my discussions with military folk) is not so much the moral nature of the act as it is whether or not the act affects order and discipline, or brings discredit on the military (both of which I believe could be applied to the kooky astronaut). If we can regulate some immoral behavior, why would introducing another level of regulation to the mix result in condoning the immoral act? Could not homosexual behavior be regulated in much the same way that heterosexual behavior is regulated?

[quote name='Socrates' post='1217064' date='Mar 21 2007, 09:07 PM']As to the "financial" argument, this would be reason for keeping the original ban on homosexuals, as opposed to "don't ask/don't tell." And I see this as more a problem of our litiginous society.
And sorry, I was forgetting that dollars and cents is more important than honor and morality.

And your second argument could be used for all kinds of lowering of standards - pretty weak, unless you view soldiers simply as cannon-fodder.[/quote]
Litigiousness has nothing to do with the costs I'm talking about. What I'm referring to are the training costs involved. We invest thousands of dollars in training each soldier. Those costs are lost when someone is dismissed for any reason. I'm not saying that this is an overwhelming argument, but I think it is a consideration for any taxpayer, even if not a big one.

As far as your second point: I would say that what we disagree on here is not WHETHER standards should be lowered, but WHICH standards should be lowered. You seem to be OK with lowering standards for aptitude and education. Is that a fair statement of your position?

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217601' date='Mar 23 2007, 06:22 AM']Thanks for the permission to shamelessly steal you line.

But I'd still like to see how you (or any other of you vocal and opinionated Catholics) would answer my questions. Though the methodology is tactless, Soc also has a good point. How do those who profess to be Roman Catholic, claim to have clear and infallible guidance from their infallible Church leaders, identify RC principles and decide on this matter. How does a RC be empathetic to the person, but not 'enabling' the person to easily choose to actively engage in bad moral choices?[/quote]
Here’s what I would say: My feeling on this, from a realistic standpoint, is that there are not many celibate gay people in the military. (I don’t get the sense that there are a lot of celibate people in the military, period … but that’s beside the point.) I think that it is perfectly possible to draft regulation of immoral homosexual behavior just as it is now possible to draft regulation of immoral heterosexual behavior, and to draft such regulation without condoning said behavior.

In all honesty, if it were me, I would much rather have to share close quarters with someone I knew to be homosexual than with someone who was hiding it. Because even under a total ban on homosexuality there will still be people who are gay who are serving in the armed forces. Just like if we totally banned adultery, there would still be adulterous relationships in the armed forces.

Let’s also remember the purpose of the military. Honestly, if someone who is gay feels so strongly about his or her country that he or she is willing to fight and die for it, and has the physical and mental capabilities to do so, I am willing to allow him or her to do so. When we start putting sex in the way of taking care of business, when we make that a priority over having a strong, smart military, it makes me uneasy.

I don't know about church guidance on this matter ... frankly I have not looked it up. I'm not questioning the immorality of homosexuality -- I am in complete accord with church teaching on this. But I really don't see this as a question of political correctness, or of condoning immoral behavior. I see it as getting the best possible people in the job, and then having a realistic stance on dealing with their sinful choices, whatever those may be.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1218590' date='Mar 24 2007, 01:34 PM']Litigiousness has nothing to do with the costs I'm talking about. What I'm referring to are the training costs involved. We invest thousands of dollars in training each soldier. Those costs are lost when someone is dismissed for any reason. I'm not saying that this is an overwhelming argument, but I think it is a consideration for any taxpayer, even if not a big one.

As far as your second point: I would say that what we disagree on here is not WHETHER standards should be lowered, but WHICH standards should be lowered. You seem to be OK with lowering standards for aptitude and education. Is that a fair statement of your position?[/quote]
People in the military get discharged for all kinds of reasons unrelated to homosexuality. While I don't have the figures with me, I'm sure if you looked at the big picture, only a small fraction of discharges are for homosexuality. While this may cost some money, I believe it worth the price of maintaining military honor. That argument is indeed weak - and as a taxpayer, I would much rather pay that small price, than have my tax dollars support a military which has abandoned its time-honored standards of honor and morality.

I'm for keeping standards high all-around, but I see things such as lowering educational standards as much less serious than allowing homosexuality in the military. There is nothing inherantly wrong or dishonorable with having a low education; there is, however, with sodomy.

I realize people will probably roll their eyes at the quaintness of my position - but I believe maintaining standards of military honor is indeed very important, and this is something which cannot be measured in dollars and cents (indeed, it is much more valuable). That is why there are rules against sodomy, adultery, etc. Sodomy is by its very nature unbefitting the honorable soldier/sailor/Marine. That is why it has been banned in this country's military since the Revolutionary War. We should maintain this honor - out of respect for God, our country, and our military. I imagine most of the great generals of this country's history from Washington, to Lee (or even Grant, for that matter), to Pershing, to Patton and Eisenhower, are rolling in their graves at the mere suggestion that the military officially allow homosexuality.

America fought and won many wars without allowing homosexuality, so claiming that this is somehow now necessary to have an effective military is nonsensical.

Allowing sodomites in the military would not make a stronger fighting force - quite the opposite. It would likely allow the rise of a "gay subculture" in the military that would have devestating consequences on morale and integrity.

[KnightofChrist]

The Swiss Guard who answer to the Pope, ban sodomy, sodomites, and homosexuals. This should give some clue as to where the Church stands on the matter of homosexuals in the armed forces. To allow open sodomites or homosexuals "active" or not, to serve in the arm forces would be condoning the immorality of a grave sin. Allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the arm forces would allow and would condone the act of sodomy. To argue or think otherwise is counter to reason.

There is too much acceptance by Christians today of homosexuality. "Oh I love you brother, what you do in your bedroom is your private business no business of mine. Even thou I disagree fully with it." Yes love your brother, but what he does is a very grave sin, and counter to what some think even the thought itself is a grave sin. "But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart." Being tempted and seeking forgiveness and repentance right then is one thing, but to think on that sin, is just as wicked as acting out that sin. This is often looked over and forgotten.

To even refer to homosexuals as "gay" is a mockery of the true meaning of the word. Good words like "gay" and "lover" have been perverted, by man or the devil. One can no longer use those words when speaking about God without the idea of the sin of homosexuality, or lust popping into the mind. Like say I tell you, The Lord is gay, and He is my lover, while this is very true, and in fact very biblical, does not the modern perversion of the words have some effect on there true meaning in your mind?

Anyway, the point is there is too much acceptance, to much condoning, of a sin which every time it is mentioned in Holy Scripture is not condoned but Condemned, and allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces would further condone a unacceptable and unbefitting mindset and behaver.

Edited March 25, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1215743' date='Mar 19 2007, 08:17 AM']I think it's important to remember that there is a cost associated with don't ask/don't tell; [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/13/AR2006021302373.html"]here's an interesting article along those lines[/url].[/quote]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1218955' date='Mar 24 2007, 08:03 PM']People in the military get discharged for all kinds of reasons unrelated to homosexuality. While I don't have the figures with me, I'm sure if you looked at the big picture, only a small fraction of discharges are for homosexuality. While this may cost some money, I believe it worth the price of maintaining military honor. That argument is indeed weak - and as a taxpayer, I would much rather pay that small price, than have my tax dollars support a military which has abandoned its time-honored standards of honor and morality.

I'm for keeping standards high all-around, but I see things such as lowering educational standards as much less serious than allowing homosexuality in the military. There is nothing inherantly wrong or dishonorable with having a low education; there is, however, with sodomy.

I realize people will probably roll their eyes at the quaintness of my position - but I believe maintaining standards of military honor is indeed very important, and this is something which cannot be measured in dollars and cents (indeed, it is much more valuable). That is why there are rules against sodomy, adultery, etc. Sodomy is by its very nature unbefitting the honorable soldier/sailor/Marine. That is why it has been banned in this country's military since the Revolutionary War. We should maintain this honor - out of respect for God, our country, and our military. I imagine most of the great generals of this country's history from Washington, to Lee (or even Grant, for that matter), to Pershing, to Patton and Eisenhower, are rolling in their graves at the mere suggestion that the military officially allow homosexuality.

America fought and won many wars without allowing homosexuality, so claiming that this is somehow now necessary to have an effective military is nonsensical.

Allowing sodomites in the military would not make a stronger fighting force - quite the opposite. It would likely allow the rise of a "gay subculture" in the military that would have devestating consequences on morale and integrity.[/quote]
Actually if you read the article that I linked to earlier, it has the stats you're looking for
[quote]According to Pentagon figures provided to the GAO last year, there were 9,501 people separated from the military for homosexuality from 1994 to 2003, compared with 26,446 separated for pregnancy, and 36,513 separated for failing to meet weight standards.[/quote]

While it certainly is not the only or even the largest cause of people being separated, it is a cause. Just because there are other reasons people leave the military doesn't mean this one can't be addressed.

And I hear what you're saying, I really do, and I understand that you have a great respect and honor for the military, which is great. But in the conversations I have had with people who are in the military now, the reality does not match up with the ideal (it rarely does). If you think that there is not already a "gay subculture" in the military, you are grossly mistaken. Every one of the service people I know in the military knows gay and lesbian service members. The subculture is there, and people know about it. And, since homosexuality is not a new thing, I am certain that there have been homosexuals in the armed forces in the past -- especially since several of the wars we've fought involved a draft.

And I don't think that education or aptitude are considerations that should be tossed aside lightly. I still think that the main purpose here is to do the job. Simply because a person is gay or lesbian does not mean that they cannot acquit themselves on the field of battle, and do so honorably. All the generals you mentioned -- is it their sexual orientation that made them honorable, or the actions they took in service to their country? And I am certain that some of these war heroes were adulterers or philanderers -- should their proclivities serve to strip them of their honor? I don't believe so.

Homosexuality is immoral. I am not arguing that in the least. But I don't think that a person's sexual orientation means they are less deserving of respect and honor.

[HeavenlyCalling]

I have several family members who have been involved in various military branches in several eras ( including a cousin who was sent to Iraq, a grandfather who served during the Cuban missle crisis and another who was in Stalag 17-B) and an intimate, brother ( or sister) like relationship is vital to keeping themselves and their compatriots alive. Some might be uncomforable with having that sort of a relationship with a homosexual person.

From a purely political piont of view, I think that there is no way to block homosexuals totally from the military.

It is my opinion that everyone in active duty ( or any duty) homo or heter sexual, should remain chaste, especially with members of the military. I would be just as outraged to hear about an enlisted man and a woman have sex as I would two enlisted men. But if these people want to fight and maybe die for thier country, then I believe they should be able to.

[HeavenlyCalling]

I have several family members who have been involved in various military branches in several eras ( including a cousin who was sent to Iraq, a grandfather who served during the Cuban missle crisis and another who was in Stalag 17-B) and an intimate, brother ( or sister) like relationship is vital to keeping themselves and their compatriots alive. Some might be uncomforable with having that sort of a relationship with a homosexual person.

From a purely political piont of view, I think that there is no way to block homosexuals totally from the military.

It is my opinion that everyone in active duty ( or any duty) homo or heter sexual, should remain chaste, especially with members of the military. I would be just as outraged to hear about an enlisted man and a woman have sex as I would two enlisted men. But if these people want to fight and maybe die for thier country, then I believe they should be able to.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1219057' date='Mar 24 2007, 09:35 PM']Homosexuality is immoral. I am not arguing that in the least. But I don't think that a person's sexual orientation means they are less deserving of respect and honor.[/quote]

I find this statement to be an oxymoron. By the very nature of Homosexuality being immoral means that person is in fact less deserving of respect and honor. Immorality deserves no respect and no honor. Immorality is not respectful and it is not honorable. An immoral person deserves little if any respect and honor than does a Moral person.

[KnightofChrist]

double post smell of elderberries...

Edited March 25, 2007 by KnightofChrist