HeavenlyCalling Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1219352' date='Mar 25 2007, 03:21 PM']Why not also allow drug addicts as well? Dont they have the same rights as all Americans? Why do homosexuals get a free pass for their immoral behavior but not drug addicts for theirs?[/quote] ( I am playing a bit of devils advocate here, so ,be ye warned!) You can be homosexual and not practicing, which offers no physical harm to your fellow soldiers. While under the influence of drugs you can cause serious harm to your fellow soldiers. If you are under hallucenigens, for example, you could mistaken shoot a fellow comrade, not be able to respond to orders, or otherwise be unable to do your duty. As a homosexual, you are not really causing any harm to your fellows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 [quote name='HeavenlyCalling' post='1219438' date='Mar 25 2007, 02:35 PM']( I am playing a bit of devils advocate here, so ,be ye warned!) You can be homosexual and not practicing, which offers no physical harm to your fellow soldiers. While under the influence of drugs you can cause serious harm to your fellow soldiers. If you are under hallucenigens, for example, you could mistaken shoot a fellow comrade, not be able to respond to orders, or otherwise be unable to do your duty. As a homosexual, you are not really causing any harm to your fellows.[/quote] You kinda answered the question for me... while I was in the armed forces, I'd never known someone [or experienced it myself] who'd come under harm from homosexuals [and their sexual preference]. Being homosexual didn't affect their ability to calculate targets, etc. but drug addiction did [and does] affect such. To answer your question of: "why do homosexuals get a free pass", it's not a free pass because nobody is sinless. Therefore everyone that isn't of the right religion, and inside of that religion, everyone that doesn't live to it 100%. I'm not saying that those that engage in the homosexual behavior are the same as those that struggle with sin but are trying to get away from it but I'm saying that their sexual preference can be suppressed as to not affect their operation of a fire arm, etc. Reza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 [quote]First, let me say that I find validity to the argument that if you are against homosexual activity, then writing and endorsing gay marriage laws is condoning an illegal activity, and so shouldn't be done. (i don't think the same can be said about actually making a constituational amendment banning the possibility a local government might do it, but that's another topic) That said, I don't see how allowing gay marraige would be wrong. If you don't have to write policy endorsing it, that is. I don't see how you would have to because you just shouldn't bother caring about their tendency. Also, if you make gays who act on their behavior to get out, then it'd seem you'd have to make straights who act on it with female counterparts. Also, the idea that gays would be distracted is somewhat a valid argument, but I doubt it's as serious a problem as people make it out to be. Is there any evidence for this assertion other than speculation? Plus, if you allow men to serve next to women, shouldn't that be banned? (then it'd all crumble) Also, gay in the military is different than the priesthood, I might think, because priests are going for purity, and are in a time of discernment and don't want distracted. I think they are different animals. Also, as to the idea that you should allow fornication type things because they are less wrong, is essentially the argument. They are still grave sins, even if "less" wrong. Catholics usually aren't willling to speculate into those types of things, why do they here? So overall, unless you are against women in the military, which I might find to be valid after consideration, I don't see how it's in anyway consistant to think gays shouldn't be allowed.[/quote] No one has responded to these important points. The most anyone has said is that officially allowing it is condoning it. I agree that would be the case, and a Catholic couldn't do that. But, I haven't heard yet why it has to be official? Don't ask them them orientation. If they act up, kick em out. Same goes for women and men who fornicate. Without the officially condoning it argument, there's not much left, it seems. That's why no one has responded to the points above. They're relying on something that does not have to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 [quote name='Anomaly' post='1219206' date='Mar 25 2007, 08:31 AM']LOL. Talk about double standards... It is okay for society to allow gays to kill for the country, but it won't be okay for gays to marry and have the same societal benefits that hertero couples do. Jesus didn't say to the woman, 'Your contributions to society that are equivilant to the others who are sinful allows you to continue as you are." Those people were going to KILL her, not boot her out of the Army!. AND he said go and sin no more, not sin how you want, just don't rub the noses of the other sinners in your sin. Nor did Jesus say to the crowd 'Accept her sin as you accept your own.' His act to all parties was that Jesus, the Son of God, forgives those who turn away from their sin. His message to all was to STOP SINNING. There is a big difference between judging someone's actions and condemning them.[/quote] I still don't consider marriage and military service to be equivalent. One is a sacrament instituted by God. The other is not even close to that, no matter how deserving of respect our servicemen and women are. Allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces does not condone homosexuality and more than allowing adulterers and fornicators to serve condones those immoral behaviors. And my point in bringing up Jesus and the woman (which incidentally was this week's reading) was not to say that Jesus condoned her actions, but rather that he saw her as worth of respect and in possession of dignity despite her sinful behaviors. I'm not saying that we should encourage homosexual behavior. But I am saying that because a person is homosexual should not prohibit him or her from being able to serve his or her country. [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1219352' date='Mar 25 2007, 02:21 PM']Why not also allow drug addicts as well? Dont they have the same rights as all Americans? Why do homosexuals get a free pass for their immoral behavior but not drug addicts for theirs?[/quote] OK, now you're just getting ridiculous. As has been noted, drug addiction (or alcohol addiction) has a very real impact on a person's ability to do the job. The line here, the way I see it, is physical and mental ability to do the job. And I'd sure as heck rather have a sober homosexual behind the trigger than a drunken heterosexual. I'd feel much, much safer. A better comparison is to adultery and fornication, which is why I have been using those examples as I've posted throughout the thread. If we are not going to allow homosexuality, then any open instance of fornication or adultery should be grounds for immediate separation. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 So using drug addicts is weak, however no one supporting homosexuals in the Armed forces has answered why if we allow the immorality of homosexuality in the armed force, why not also the immorality of abortion? And before it said that one deals with two conceiting adults and the other kills a child [i]and also two conceiting adults[/i], both are strictly forbidden by Christ, and He does not consent to either. Allowing homosexuals in the armed forces would allow all homosexuals in the armed forces practicing or not, and thus would allow sodomy, which would be condoning it, like it or not. Should we also as Catholics allow homosexuals in the Swiss Guard? And I agree fornication and adultery should be grounds for immediate removal from the armed forces. It was my understanding this is the case, someone I know was indeed court marshaled and removed for the army dishonorably for adultery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 (edited) [quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1219449' date='Mar 25 2007, 04:16 PM']You kinda answered the question for me... while I was in the armed forces, I'd never known someone [or experienced it myself] who'd come under harm from homosexuals [and their sexual preference]. Being homosexual didn't affect their ability to calculate targets, etc. but drug addiction did [and does] affect such. To answer your question of: "why do homosexuals get a free pass", it's not a free pass because nobody is sinless. Therefore everyone that isn't of the right religion, and inside of that religion, everyone that doesn't live to it 100%. I'm not saying that those that engage in the homosexual behavior are the same as those that struggle with sin but are trying to get away from it but I'm saying that their sexual preference can be suppressed as to not affect their operation of a fire arm, etc. Reza[/quote] A female solider having an abortion can also suppress her immorality, [color="#FF0000"][b]or the military "doctor" that performs the abortion[/b][/color] as to not affect there ability to "do the job." So if we allow one immoral grave sin, why not all? We maybe all sinners but we not all murders, adulterers, or sodomites, things which are grave sins. These graves sins where once all banned. Why should we as Christians dissolve the ban on any of them? Edited March 25, 2007 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 Well I've done it, I've gotten to emotionally involved with this debate. Had one of my heart spells... This was getting old anyway, nothing really new, but I would like to say one last thing, not to long ago in Christendom... Beastilaity, Homosexuality, and pedophilia where seen in or about the as category. These sins were all seen as gravely wicked and greatly evil . And the people that partook in these grave sins where considered wicked and gravely immoral (but I'm sure they were also real nice people, just immoral.) Holy Scripture, which is the inspired would of God Himself, condemns all these grave sins everytime they are mentioned. And it refers to the people who partook in these sins as wicked and immoral. Now Homosexuality is more condoned and accepted by Christians, thank you modern morality. And in some Christian nations, so is pedophilia. I just find it very sad that we as Christians have conceded our stance against many sins. But has God changed His stance no, so why should we? Love your brother yes, but never condone sin, allowing homosexuals in the armed forces would condone the sin of homosexuality, because it would dissolve the ban on sodomy, thus absolutely condoning that grave and wicked sin. No reasonable response has been given as to why this would not be the case. God Bless the Troops, KoC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted March 25, 2007 Author Share Posted March 25, 2007 (edited) A couple of things here that I am thinking.... 1. The whole drug-addict/homosexual correlation is ridiculous. One concerns someone who is not only living in mortal sin, but is also likely to be doing something that is expressly-prohibited by the laws of our nation (a "drug" abuser) while the other is engaging in immoral behavior. 2. If we are using some sort of moral/religious litmus test to decide who is allowed to serve and who isn't, where does the line end? Social issues? Jews? Muslims? Atheists? Pastafarians? I mean, really, what does any of this stuff have to do with one's capacity and desire to serve our country? If we are so concerned with hetersexuals being uncomfortable with homosexuals serving alongside them, shouldn't we also be concerned about men and women serving beside each other? Couldn't the morale of a unit be compromised by heterosexual-sexual tension? Couldn't the men be distracted by a woman, and vice versa? And, while we're at it, what about segregating the soldiers according to race? There are some people who are very uncomfortable with African Americans, or Asians, or Southern people. And what about those pesky-redheads... Do you see where I'm going with this? This sort of tripe about excluding people based on this sort of stuff is, at least in my opinion, the same as being denied a job because of your age or sex or religion, etc. Edited March 25, 2007 by kujo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 [quote name='Terra Firma' post='1219470' date='Mar 25 2007, 06:45 PM']And my point in bringing up Jesus and the woman (which incidentally was this week's reading) was not to say that Jesus condoned her actions, but rather that he saw her as worth of respect and in possession of dignity despite her sinful behaviors. I'm not saying that we should encourage homosexual behavior. But I am saying that because a person is homosexual should not prohibit him or her from being able to serve his or her country. OK, now you're just getting ridiculous. As has been noted, drug addiction (or alcohol addiction) has a very real impact on a person's ability to do the job. The line here, the way I see it, is physical and mental ability to do the job. And I'd sure as heck rather have a sober homosexual behind the trigger than a drunken heterosexual. I'd feel much, much safer. A better comparison is to adultery and fornication, which is why I have been using those examples as I've posted throughout the thread. If we are not going to allow homosexuality, then any open instance of fornication or adultery should be grounds for immediate separation. Period.[/quote]The comparison doesn't equate. For one, homosexuality occurs a lot less frequently as hetero fornication and is not as inherently disorded because it is 2 things wrong. Fornication AND being with the same sex. Back to Jesus. His point was that we are in control of our actions and he is telling us to go and sin no more. Why do anything to make it easier for people to sin. Banning homosexuality didn't use to be a problem, but now it is. And you did not address why the military has to address homosexuality with written protection while there is not written protection for fornicators. The problem with homosexuality within the military is about some people having to accept and deal with sexual behavior that many consider morally abhorent. There are restrictions for soldiers having relations with officers and others in the military. Having genders seperate helps. Now imagine the interpersonal dynamics if Bob has a crush on Mark who thinks homosexuality is wrong and abhorent and Alex and Jose tease Mark about it while Binh is secretly in love with Bob and resents Mark. That's why women don't often serve in the same platoons in high level fighting units. We're talking about 19 to 24 year olds. There is no need to change and start allowing it with written protection. One, it's immoral. Two, it adds complications. Just because the military isn't perfect with fornicators, doesn't mean it should protect the same failure for homosexuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 [quote name='kujo' post='1219527' date='Mar 25 2007, 06:46 PM']A couple of things here that I am thinking.... 1. The whole drug-addict/homosexual correlation is ridiculous. One concerns someone who is not only living in mortal sin, but is also likely to be doing something that is expressly-prohibited by the laws of our nation (a "drug" abuser) while the other is engaging in immoral behavior. 2. If we are using some sort of moral/religious litmus test to decide who is allowed to serve and who isn't, where does the line end? Social issues? Jews? Muslims? Atheists? Pastafarians? I mean, really, what does any of this stuff have to do with one's capacity and desire to serve our country? If we are so concerned with hetersexuals being uncomfortable with homosexuals serving alongside them, shouldn't we also be concerned about men and women serving beside each other? Couldn't the morale of a unit be compromised by heterosexual-sexual tension? Couldn't the men be distracted by a woman, and vice versa? And, while we're at it, what about segregating the soldiers according to race? There are some people who are very uncomfortable with African Americans, or Asians, or Southern people. And what about those pesky-redheads... Do you see where I'm going with this? This sort of tripe about excluding people based on this sort of stuff is, at least in my opinion, the same as being denied a job because of your age or sex or religion, etc.[/quote] Is it immoral to be a Jew? Is it immoral to be a Muslim? Is it immoral to have no idea there is a God? Is it immoral to be a Pastafarian? No. Is it immoral to be a Male? No. Is it immoral to be a Female? No. Is it immoral to be a Black? No. Is it immoral to be a White? No. Is it immoral to be a "Other"? No. Is it immoral to be a from the South or North? No. And is it immoral to be a pesky-redhead? No. But is immoral to be Homosexual? Yes. God, clearly forbids/condemns it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted March 26, 2007 Author Share Posted March 26, 2007 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1219530' date='Mar 25 2007, 08:56 PM']Is it immoral to be a Jew? Is it immoral to be a Muslim? Is it immoral to have no idea there is a God? Is it immoral to be a Pastafarian? No. Is it immoral to be a Male? No. Is it immoral to be a Female? No. Is it immoral to be a Black? No. Is it immoral to be a White? No. Is it immoral to be a "Other"? No. Is it immoral to be a from the South or North? No. And is it immoral to be a pesky-redhead? No. But is immoral to be Homosexual? Yes. God, clearly forbids/condemns it.[/quote] Then we ARE creating an army based on Catholic morals? I thought this was the country of the free... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavenlyCalling Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1219509' date='Mar 25 2007, 06:34 PM']And I agree fornication and adultery should be grounds for immediate removal from the armed forces. It was my understanding this is the case, someone I know was indeed court marshaled and removed for the army dishonorably for adultery.[/quote] At least some part of America still has standereds. God Bless all our men and woman in the armed forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kujo Posted March 26, 2007 Author Share Posted March 26, 2007 I want to make something clear because I fear that perhaps I am being misunderstood by some... I believe that homosexuality is an offense against God. It is immoral in every way imaginable. However, I do believe that homosexuals, active or not, are deserving of our respect, our love and our prayers, regardless of their state of mortal sin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 [quote name='kujo' post='1219548' date='Mar 25 2007, 09:27 PM']I want to make something clear because I fear that perhaps I am being misunderstood by some... I believe that homosexuality is an offense against God. It is immoral in every way imaginable. However, I do believe that homosexuals, active or not, are deserving of our respect, our love and our prayers, regardless of their state of mortal sin.[/quote] Let's be perfectly clear. Homosexuals deserve respect as people, not as homosexuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruthSeeker777 Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 The problem i think you as a God fearing Christian in a dangerous battle situation might have is protection. Say you are in a humvee and you have a practising homosexual next to you, Is the armour of God there or not?I know from expeiriance just sharing a house with non-believers made it possible for all kinds of "evil" to enter the house.Like anything in life the devil needs an reason for intruding and being with an homosexual is an open door for the devil and is definetely a kink in your armour. God detest homosexuals and they are demon infested because of their despicable sins and actions. Being in a battle situation with such an individual must be a very "unsafe" feeling. Just because the "society" feel that gays are "nice" people does not mean God's word have changed. Many new bible translations are gay friendly and have taken out the word 'sodomite' We as Christians must not hate these people but must stand up against their sins!!!! It only takes one rotten apple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now