-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Don't ask, Don't tell
- Thread starter freeatlast
- Start date
- Status
Do we really expect the US military to be bound by our Christian standards? Telling people to lie was a good law? Not knowing is somehow better? I think I would like to know which guys in the barracks showers were 'g@y' than not know.
Do you support this open addiction to a perversion as somehow okay?
Do you support this open addiction to a perversion as somehow okay?
No, but who am I more afraid of, homosexuals in the military or a government who can tell me what I do in private? I am more afraid of a government who can tell me what I do in my bedroom.
The church should teach that homosexuality is a sin. Government should let us teach it.
How do these things become "non-illegal behavior"??? That is exactly the point of these laws changing. This law change is equivalent to moral opinion swaying over that 14 years olds should be able to have consentual s3x with an adult, later the law is changed to allow 10 years the same rights. Again, it is a matter of where "you" draw the line...when will "you" call a sin a sin and vote that there should be a law against it??? Morality does and must exist in a civil society! Where you conserve morality or decide to liberally allow others to go against what "you" consider morally right is the only deciding factor here. Where "you" draw the line in these matters.
I happen to think homosexuallity is rooted in moral evil and destructive to our society.
Benjamin,
You ask a great question and I believe is at the heart of this discussion when you said, "How do these things become "non-illegal behavior"???"
The role of Government is designed for the protection of their people. Thus, I believe that Government should engage in protecting contract law, military, and disclosures to ensure honesty.
We cannot legislate every aspect of the moral law. Should it be illegal, for instance, to make it illegal to forsake the assembling of ourselves together? No!
I think we should look at whether the law causes someone a loss or harms other people. When studying Business law for my MBA, I had the privilege of reading a law journal from Regents University that essentially said the same thing. They noted that if I told you x-y-z and it was a lie, but you did not experience a tangible loss, then you do not have the right to sue me. It was immoral, but it was not illegal.
Yet, if I told you x-y-z and you invested based upon my lies, you had a right to sue me if you had a loss. But if you did not have a loss, you had no right to sue.
Regent's Law journal noted that other issues were the same. I think the homosexual issue is the same. There is no loss given to other people (or harm), therefore it should not be legislated or is a legal issue.
Well, God is the God of morals whether someone believes that or not.
We are not allowed to preach the entire counsel of God except in our churches (for now at least). We are not allowed to pray in schools or in Jesus' name if in a public setting. The Ten Commandments have been banned. So just how are you going to teach morals to the next generation if you can't get them into your church? You sure can't do it on a public/civil level.
If you will just study the history of this country, you will find that morals were part of our government. It wasn't until God hating liberals like Madeline Murray O'hare began to push their agenda, that morals were removed from any government establishment, including our schools and now we see the result. We are nothing more than a 2011 version of Sodom and Gomorrah. And it is the church's fault.
I consider it a loss to our society when public opinion is being swayed over to accepting this lifestyle. It affects not only the opinions and tolerances of the new generation coming up but the tragedy is it will ultimately affect and influence the family, values, and work to continue to fulfill the agenda of those who "do" give approval to it to promote it as morally acceptible behavior.
The real issue is still where "you" will draw the line on moral issues...will you defend and work to enforce your values in a society or not. There is a line concerning morality, you act as if there isn't on this issue. So why not allow 10 year olds to have consentual s3x with adults? Isn't it strictly a moral issue also?! By your reasoning where is the loss if it is consentual?!
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Fair enough - I can accept that concept, but the 'middle of the road' DADT law was useless.
You are NOT wrong. Currently the libs are telling us they were forced to lie. That in itself is a lie. DADT means "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". It was unauthorized to ask a serviceman if he was a homosexual. The GI (or applicant) was under no obligation to so state. The "problem" was that he could not talk about his "boyfriend" back home.
I find it amazing that homosexuals demand they be treated equally. I wonder why they did not include polygamist?
Would these libs have a problem if there was a wife beater or child molester within their ranks?
Couple other things, I read where a Chaplain is concerned that he may be required to let homosexual teach Sunday School and be involved in other Chapel activities - see link here
Now that it is legal to be immoral, it appears that homosexual couples will be authorized to live in government quarters. So that "couple" will be in apt 1, and across the hall is your apt where you live with your wife and 2 children. Get the drift
Chaplains will be allowed to preach against homosexuality, but will the non-chaplain GI be able to state his believes openly about this immorality.
The Army has a strict equal opportunity policy. When I was up for a promotion board, I was asked if women should be given equal pay for equal work. My answer on the board was " as long as they give equal work for that equal pay". That was something I rarely saw in the several women who did work for me. (personally, I preferred to be in combat units - as there were no women there)
Salty
PS Once again, I must insist that you all stop being PC, by using the incorrect term of "Gay". The proper term is homosexual. I always wonder why they are reluctant to use said proper term?
freeatlast
New Member
The law never told anyone to lie. That suggestion in itself is false. They were just not be open about their immoral lifestyle. The military already has laws against officers and enlisted personnel having relations between a man and woman. This should be no different. When a homosexual is allowed to parade their immoral activities it is a black spot on our nation and the people as they are suppose to be reflecting moral values as well as protect our interests.
When I enlisted in the military (1965) and went through the Induction Process, all of us young men were provided with ample opportunity "to expose" ourselves, if you will. Then, while in basic training we got "the shot" in the arm. I suppose those who were "that way" would have had a problem with it. I don't know.
Back in the day this was considered a Crime Against Nature. A misdemeanor charge I'm sure, but a crime never the less. I never believed the life style should have been a crime but it was.
To me, before any man or woman can marry the same sex, the definition of Marriage needs to be changed. Marriage is between one man and one woman. So are these people really marrying?
On the down side. Just as soon as the government figures a way to collect taxes on street drugs..., consumption will become legal. Where does it all end?
Back in the day this was considered a Crime Against Nature. A misdemeanor charge I'm sure, but a crime never the less. I never believed the life style should have been a crime but it was.
To me, before any man or woman can marry the same sex, the definition of Marriage needs to be changed. Marriage is between one man and one woman. So are these people really marrying?
On the down side. Just as soon as the government figures a way to collect taxes on street drugs..., consumption will become legal. Where does it all end?
You tell a lie often enough and people will start to believe it. Thats why the homosexuals keep telling us that they had to live a lie.
Not only that, but personnel are prohibited from even dating if one is under the command of the other individual.
Any dating between officers and enlisted is frowned upon.
Benjamin,
Again, let me reiterate my position. As an ordained pastor, I stand solidly against homosexuality. It is a sin, an affront to a holy God. As well, I consider homosexuality a loss, a great harm to society spiritually and proof of our depravity.
Yet, because of my theology of the separation of powers between the three governments (as traditionally defined by most Protestants including Baptists), such moral behavior seems to be outside of the scope of Government's authority to limit or regulate. Just like lying, while some lying could be harmful and cause a loss (which is punishable by government), lying in and of itself should not be illegal. Lying is still an affront to a Holy and Majestic God, an evil. However, just because someone lies does not mean it is punishable or should be a crime enforced by law. Just like lying, homosexuality is an evil but it is not something government should regulate or give special privileges to.
Thus, my philosophy of government is that the government should not enforce laws that falls outside of the realm that I described in another post, even if the behavior itself is evil.
So, I see it as an evil, an affront to a holy and majestic God. However, I do not see Government's role as legislating such behavior.
Last edited by a moderator:
How about a short history lesson. Do you know why homosexuals were not permitted in the military?
OPSEC - operation security - Back in the day - virtually all were "in the closet". If a GI had a security clearance and the enemy found out he was a homosexual, the agent could use that as blackmail to obtain classified material.
OPSEC - operation security - Back in the day - virtually all were "in the closet". If a GI had a security clearance and the enemy found out he was a homosexual, the agent could use that as blackmail to obtain classified material.
And if they can serve openly in the military then it is impossible to blackmail them. Few today in the military could be blackmailed for being homosexual. There is no security risk in our modern era.
Amy,
I am not for jettisoning morals in society. Rather, I believe that Government is a poor contributor to morals and their morals tends towards some form of moralism, whether liberal moralism or conservative moralism.
The solution to our society is not moralism, it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The job for the church is to go out and preach the Gospel to our people.
But I think you miss the point. You don't like Madeline Murray O'hare, but you are making the same mistake she makes. She attempted to rid the world and the public sector of things she thought was harmful for society but that which had no right to be stamped out or was outside of the realm of government. Government overstepped her bounds by telling people they could not talk about religion. In fact, religion became the "DADT" of the public schools. My view, if applied consistently, would allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military and Christians to serve openly in the public schools.
Conservatives hate it when their voice is shut up, but love it when they shut others up. Liberals are exactly the same. If you are going to be consistent, you apply the rules to both groups. I would be comfortable with an openly Christian serving in a government post and an openly homosexual serving in the military. While I call homosexuality a sin and evil, I am not threatened by their presence.
Unless they are cheating on their "spouse"
Don't be fooled - there is plenty of potential security risk in our modern era - and to some extent - maybe even more
You did not answer the questions. Do you, or do you not think the government in a civil society has a role in making the following actions with under-aged children illegal? Would you ever draw a line concerning civil moral issues? On this "very" issue?
If you will draw a line on when you would accept moral laws anywhere on any moral issue your "philosophy" is simply biased and does not logically hold to the truth.
What if a 14 year tells you you have no right to to tell them what to do with their body? What if a 10 year old tells you the same? Can you tell me you would not at some point support a moral law, established by the government, to make certain acts illegal? I contend you not drawing the line on homosexuality is simply having to do with your beliefs of tolerance on this subject and nothng to do with a solid stand on this philosphical position.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status