Don't ask, Don't tell

There were already there - they just couldn't tell anyone. How is that better?

Not like they are now.

 

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?

 

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.

 

It wasn't better. They should have been asked initially and refused, or if found to have lied dishonorably discharged.

 

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?!

 

Fair enough - I can accept that concept, but the 'middle of the road' DADT law was useless.

 

"was Useless"? Seems you missed my point that it served its purpose well to allow homos protection for being and staying in the military and pave the way to open the closet door. Only now is it useless, because the agenda has moved forward and it will never go back to where it was.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.