• 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!

Obama Endorses Homosexuality

Dragoon68

Active Member
They are equally disruptive!

This fits with the desire to normalize all evil such that all regulation of it is reduced to concluding that nothing should be done about any because it is not done to all.

The argument is quickly turned away from its deserved focus. No good will come of allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military yet a lot of people are the bandwagon to make it happen. Why is that? What is it they seek to accomplish? What good can come of it?

When we support homosexual conduct in any way we become culpable for its further corruption of our society. We do no man nor our Lord any good by such a position. We do our military no good service by supporting the cause of homosexuals to serve openly in it. We just add to the corruption that will destroy us.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Johnv

New Member
This fits with the desire to normalize all evil
No, it fits with the desire to call all fornication as evil, rather than pick and choose what forication we will condemn and what fornication will ignore.
When we support homosexual conduct in any way...
How odd that you would consider abhorring of all fornication as "supporting" homosexual conduct.
 

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
This fits with the desire to normalize all evil such that all regulation of it is reduced to concluding that nothing should be done about any because it is not done to all.

The argument is quickly turned away from its deserved focus. No good will come of allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military yet a lot of people are the bandwagon to make it happen. Why is that? What is it they seek to accomplish? What good can come of it?

When we support homosexual conduct in any way we become culpable for its further corruption of our society. We do no man nor our Lord any good by such a position. We do our military no good service by supporting the cause of homosexuals to serve openly in it. We just add to the corruption that will destroy us.
You're speaking platitudes. Evil is evil. Wrong is wrong. I have no issue with that. I don't support homosexuality. But I'm not going to say its something it isn't.
The US military is made up of all sorts of personnel. Many do not have my or your moral convictions. Period. Many are immoral. Its just a fact the immoral are no more superior to homosexuals. They are equally immoral. Homosexual men have proven themselves on the battlefield and so have adulterors, fornicatiors, drunkards, etc...
No one has a litmus test for going into the military as. What are your moral standards? Do you think its ok to fornicate? Are you Homosexual?
However, you seem to want to make a special class for homosexual men as being "more sinful" or "more problematic" than your "run of the mill fornicator or adulteror". Which is inappropiate. I don't think we should specialize the sin. However, you're only consistent answer is to keep all sinful acts out of a military made of different creeds and beliefs. The likelihood of that is remote. No matter what their personal taste and beliefs are there is a code of integrity. The homosexual no more breaks that code than the fornicator and neither relate to God. Unless you only want the military made up of Christians.
 

Dragoon68

Active Member
No, it fits with the desire to call all fornication as evil, rather than pick and choose what forication we will condemn and what fornication will ignore.

How odd that you would consider abhorring of all fornication as "supporting" homosexual conduct.

You're speaking platitudes. Evil is evil. Wrong is wrong. I have no issue with that. I don't support homosexuality. But I'm not going to say its something it isn't.
The US military is made up of all sorts of personnel. Many do not have my or your moral convictions. Period. Many are immoral. Its just a fact the immoral are no more superior to homosexuals. They are equally immoral. Homosexual men have proven themselves on the battlefield and so have adulterors, fornicatiors, drunkards, etc...
No one has a litmus test for going into the military as. What are your moral standards? Do you think its ok to fornicate? Are you Homosexual?
However, you seem to want to make a special class for homosexual men as being "more sinful" or "more problematic" than your "run of the mill fornicator or adulteror". Which is inappropiate. I don't think we should specialize the sin. However, you're only consistent answer is to keep all sinful acts out of a military made of different creeds and beliefs. The likelihood of that is remote. No matter what their personal taste and beliefs are there is a code of integrity. The homosexual no more breaks that code than the fornicator and neither relate to God. Unless you only want the military made up of Christians.


Nope! This continues the false argument that because fornicators are not, in themselves, excluded then neither should homosexuals. It takes the context of sin being sin before God and misapplies it to render man incapable of making any judgment of which sins he can and should regulate through civil government and which he cannot and should not. This argument, if allowed to prevail, would ultimately result in no civil law at all that deals with any aspect of morality and no restrictions to service among men whatsoever based on a persons character as discerned by men. That ignores the Biblical purpose of civil law which is to restrain and punish evil. That ignores the Biblical pattern of making choices about those who serve in various offices based upon their character. That renders Godly men incapable of regulating themselves and others in the daily course of living in this world. It would be wrong and a fatal result yet we increasingly see much support for it.
 

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
Nope! This continues the false argument that because fornicators are not, in themselves, excluded then neither should homosexuals. It takes the context of sin being sin before God and misapplies it to render man incapable of making any judgment of which sins he can and should regulate through civil government and which he cannot and should not. This argument, if allowed to prevail, would ultimately result in no civil law at all that deals with any aspect of morality and no restrictions to service among men whatsoever based on a persons character as discerned by men. That ignores the Biblical purpose of civil law which is to restrain and punish evil. That ignores the Biblical pattern of making choices about those who serve in various offices based upon their character. That renders Godly men incapable of regulating themselves and others in the daily course of living in this world. It would be wrong and a fatal result yet we increasingly see much support for it.

Then you are a sin bigot. For you all are not equally guilty under sin but one is more than another. I don't think God sees it that way.
 

Robert Snow

New Member
The title of this thread is false. There is a huge difference between endorsing homosexuality and endorsing homosexual human beings.

???

What is the difference. To say I endorse a "sodomite" (I refuse to call them gays) is to say I accept his behavior.

We should not allow these people in the military at all. Like what was stated earlier in this thread, the problem is we are now accepting sin as though it is acceptable behavior. It is not! As Christians, we should stand up against it, not shake hands with it!
 

Dragoon68

Active Member
Then you are a sin bigot. For you all are not equally guilty under sin but one is more than another. I don't think God sees it that way.

Please read my post again, brother, because I think you completely missed the point.

I've been called many things but I must say I've never heard the term "sin bigot" before!
 

Robert Snow

New Member
The other problem with letting homosexuals in the Military would be all the accusations of discrimination and harassment of those who do not accept their life style. The Military courts would become full of cases involving the false charged of homosexuals who are only trying to push their agenda further. It is bad enough outside of the Military. This would just push the Military into disarray.

Good point!
 

Agnus_Dei

New Member
i was in the US Navy from '92 to '96 on sea duty...i was stationed on an FFG and was at sea or away from the states, just over 3 years total...including 3-6 month deployments, numerous drug Ops, 4 months staring at the same mountain range just off the coast of northern Haiti in '93 and numerous sea trial maneuvers to make you sick...

i never knew if anyone was 'gay', nor was i ever approached or heard of any homosexual activities while at sea or on shore...the last thing a gay guy wants to do in the Navy is make a habit of flaunting his homosexual tendencies around...he may find himself treading water in the middle of the atlantic.

and personally, i really didn't care if there became a known homosexual on our ship...as long as he kept it to himself...i'm fine with that...and furthermore, when it came down to defending our ship and the crap hit the fan, i really didn't give a rats butt if the guy was gay or not...he better know his job and know it well and be ready to put his life on the line for his shipmates as I was for him...the LAST place i desired to visit while i was in the Navy was Davy Jones's locker.

in XC
-
 

Johnv

New Member
Please read my post again, brother, because I think you completely missed the point.
The point is that, according to you, it's okay for a straight fornicator to enlist, but it's not okay for a gay fornicator. You're excusing heterosexual fornication, yet you're accusing those who say "all fornication should be condemned in the military" as excusing evil. In short, you're accusing others of what your'e doing.
 

Johnv

New Member
What is the difference. To say I endorse a "sodomite" (I refuse to call them gays) is to say I accept his behavior.
Well, "sodomite" isn't a scriptural term, but that's neither here nor there. But I think I see where you're going. There's a difference between being gay and engaging in same-gender sodomy. Simply being gay is having an attraction towards persons of the same gender. Engaging in same-gender sodomy is and act itself, and any such person who commits said act while in the course of service should be discharged. Same goes with any heterosexual person who commits an act of fornication while in the course of service. Neither act should be permitted. The question at hand is whether previous acts is worthy of barring someong from service in the first place. Either way, there is no issue of accepting the behavior.
 

Dragoon68

Active Member
The point is that, according to you, it's okay for a straight fornicator to enlist, but it's not okay for a gay fornicator. You're excusing heterosexual fornication, yet you're accusing those who say "all fornication should be condemned in the military" as excusing evil. In short, you're accusing others of what your'e doing.

Please read my post again, brother, because I think you also completely missed the point.
 

Johnv

New Member
Please read my post again, brother, because I think you also completely missed the point.
The problem is that your point is inconsistent. You can't excuse heterosexual fornicators, and then accuse those calling for a ban on all fornicators gay or straight to be guilty of excuing sin.

Not a single person here so far is excusing homosexual fornication. There are, however, several people here excusing heterosexual fornication.
 

Dragoon68

Active Member
Then you are a sin bigot. For you all are not equally guilty under sin but one is more than another. I don't think God sees it that way.

The point is that, according to you, it's okay for a straight fornicator to enlist, but it's not okay for a gay fornicator. You're excusing heterosexual fornication, yet you're accusing those who say "all fornication should be condemned in the military" as excusing evil. In short, you're accusing others of what your'e doing.

I'm repeating my previous posting with added emphasis: "Nope! This continues the false argument that because fornicators are not, in themselves, excluded then neither should homosexuals. It takes the context of sin being sin before God and misapplies it to render man incapable of making any judgment of which sins he can and should regulate through civil government and which he cannot and should not. This argument, if allowed to prevail, would ultimately result in no civil law at all that deals with any aspect of morality and no restrictions to service among men whatsoever based on a persons character as discerned by men. That ignores the Biblical purpose of civil law which is to restrain and punish evil. That ignores the Biblical pattern of making choices about those who serve in various offices based upon their character. That renders Godly men incapable of regulating themselves and others in the daily course of living in this world. It would be wrong and a fatal result yet we increasingly see much support for it."

In every human institution - the family, the church, and the state - there must be applied the discernment of man as to what is right and what is wrong with appropriate rebuke, correction, and punishment as authorized and commanded by God. We must make decisions that put more or less weight to various sins.

The state is an institution designed by God and empowered to administer justice. A clearly Biblical purpose is to restrain evil and punish the evil. The state can not, because of the imperfection of man, extend that to every detail of God's law because, if allowed, it would be truly corrupted. Therefore, man must choose what sins he wishes to regulate establishing a framework that addresses those which have the most adverse effect on society and which can be reasonably addressed by its authority.

God hates all sin and in the broadest sense it is essentially a rebellion against Him. That's what makes all of us guilty and in need of the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

This, however, does not absolve us of the duty and responsibility to regulate sin in our institutions in so far as we can reasonably accomplish whilst tempered with the knowledge of our own imperfection and risk of corruption. Therefore, for Godly men to condemn homosexual conduct in society is no sin at all. Neither is it wrong from them to specify that the self-professed practitioners of certain sins, such as homosexuality, be excluded for service in one or more of the institutions entrusted to man by God. In fact, it is our duty as Christians to do this when are given the responsibility. In America, all voters are responsible for the governance of our nation and thus none of us can escape the duty and responsibility to judge what is right and what is wrong amongst us. That's why we also serve on juries and decide the merits of an accusation. That's why we approve of laws that restrict a wide assortment of misconduct. That's why we make rules about what are acceptable qualifications and what are disqualifications for various positions. That does not excuse any sin but some are more clearly defined and more readily regulated than others.

Gentlemen, we need to accept the responsibility we have been given by God through His institutions while we are in this world. We need to be the salt and the light among others. We need to stop making excuses for the grossly wicked among us and realize that it is our duty, for the sake of my others to follow us, to do what we can to restrain evil and preserve dignity and honor in civil service and especially in the military.

It is not okay for an openly homosexual to serve in our armed forces no matter how we twist it or how we compare it to the other vices of man. All the vices are evil but homosexuality is blatantly so and clearly, if a person professes to practice it, there can be no doubt about their intentions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Johnv

New Member
The state can not, because of the imperfection of man, extend that to every detail of God's law because, if allowed, it would be truly corrupted.
So we should allow fornicators in the military becuse to exclude them would be truly corrupted? Talk about trying to excuse fornication. How hard can a zero tolerance policy be? Ask everyone who enlists if they've fornicated. If the answer is yes, then out they go. The quesiton of whether their fornication was with a person of the same gender or different gender doesn't even need to be asked.
Gentlemen, we need to accept the responsibility we have been given by God through His institutions while we are in this world.
I agree. Let's start by making all fornicators ineligible to serve. The fact that you would accuse me of "excusing sin" by that position is astounding.
 

windcatcher

New Member
[edited out as I lost the post I meant to quote.].

I disagree with these and some other post.

The military has demands of discipline and mutual trust. It doesn't advertise for drunkards to join. It doesn't ask for promicuous heterosexuals or rapiest to join. It doesn't advertise or request that pedophiles join. It shouldn't make a special privilege for those who wish to openly expose their homosexual identity to join. If it is 'immaterial' to the discipline of the military..... then it should not become an elevated class of individuals who are encourage to openly identify and receive special protection, which will be the end result if this becomes a freely flaunted category... Yes, we generally 'assume' people are of heterosexual orientation unless they've given us reason to believe otherwise..... but the truth is, sexual orientation is not the customary concern of any individual who takes his working relationships and responsibilities seriously ..... or duty to country. Why is it now considered to be an advantage to someone's rights that they openly identify when it has generally been considered to be a private and personal matter.... unless behavior and deportment created a discipline problem..... and the military considers discipline issues from fraternizing, to adultry, rape, criminal behavior, spouse abuse, drunkeness and bar room brawls, etc. What people don't know, they usually have no reason to judge..... But once that door is opened by privileged disclosure a protected class is developed against the 'equallity' of general acceptance and people DO naturally resent a division which gives recognition and protection to some ........... and this without even touching the moral issues or the morale of cohesion required of an interdependent and disciplined force.
 

righteousdude2

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You are So Correct... But,

Christians fornicate, too, unfortunately.

While it is true that Christians fornicate, Johnv, it should be remembered that any and all sin must be acknowledged and repented from I John 1:4-8 "And we are now writing these things to you so that our joy [in seeing you included] may be full [and [f]your joy may be complete]. And this is the message [the message of [g]promise] which we have heard from Him and now are reporting to you: God is Light, and there is no darkness in Him at all [[h]no, not in any way]. [So] if we say we are partakers together and enjoy fellowship with Him when we live and move and are walking about in darkness, we are [both] speaking falsely and do not live and practice the Truth [which the Gospel presents]. But if we [really] are living and walking in the Light, as He [Himself] is in the Light, we have [true, unbroken] fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses (removes) us from all sin and guilt [keeps us cleansed from sin in all its forms and manifestations]. If we say we have no sin [refusing to admit that we are sinners], we delude and lead ourselves astray, and the Truth [which the Gospel presents] is not in us [does not dwell in our hearts]." Amplified Bible


The practicing homosexual is not only fornicating, they are "thumbing their nose in God's face" and continuing to live in the sin of perversion, as they, "fornicate [your words]" If they were sincere, they would acknowledge their sin, repent, then "go, and sin NO more!"

Your Brother in Christ,

Pastor Paul :type:
 

Dragoon68

Active Member
So we should allow fornicators in the military becuse to exclude them would be truly corrupted? Talk about trying to excuse fornication. How hard can a zero tolerance policy be? Ask everyone who enlists if they've fornicated. If the answer is yes, then out they go. The quesiton of whether their fornication was with a person of the same gender or different gender doesn't even need to be asked.

I agree. Let's start by making all fornicators ineligible to serve. The fact that you would accuse me of "excusing sin" by that position is astounding.

You are attempting to reduce a sensible argument to ridicule.

Just substitute any sin you'd like for "fornication" and it still misses the entire reasoning behind excluding homosexuality from the military. You can not justify homosexuality by claiming something else is just as bad yet not excluded in the same way. Think about it! That would rule out our ability to regulate anything at all!

Military service ultimately requires a great deal of teamwork. That teamwork means giving up the needs of one's self and a whole lot of personal "freedom" for the benefit of all. It requires that all members be able to trust the others, to respect and follow orders of leaders without question or hesitation (excepting, of course, the rare case of something blatantly illegal), and to put aside a wide host of personal emotions and feelings to serve the given mission without reservation. A soldier (meaning any warrior of any branch) can not be engaged in homosexual relations with another soldier without that relationship introducing personal emotions and feelings that can ultimately hamper or compromise the mission, interfere with the giving or following of orders, or introduce serious mistrust from other soldiers. Other conduct can also induce these or similar problems but homosexual conduct is an absolute given to stir up this kind of trouble. It can be and should be excluded.

When it comes to war fighting, our first concern should be for maximum effectiveness of the force. We should never let "political correctness" enter into the decision making process. We fight to win wars - not to give homosexuals a place to "prove" themselves. The present focus, even at the highest levels, is all too much on these superfluous issues that risk great harm. The penalty for that may some day be a terrible defeat of a "politically correct" but ineffective military.

Please read through my postings carefully and reconsider what I'm writing relative to the Biblical history as well as the good judgment of Godly men who've passed before us.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Johnv

New Member
You are attempting to reduce a sensible argument to ridicule.
It's just the opposite. It is sensible to say all fornication disqualifies. It is not ridiculous to say some disqualifies, and some doesn't.
A soldier (meaning any warrior of any branch) can not be engaged in homosexual relations with another soldier without that relationship introducing personal emotions and feelings...
I agree. But we've already established that persons engaging in homosexual relations while in service should be discharged forthwith. So that's not at issue in this argument. No one so far is saying that a practicing fornicator should be allowed in the military. I think all (or at least most) are in agreement that anyone caught fornicating, gay or straight, should be discharged.
While it is true that Christians fornicate, Johnv, it should be remembered that any and all sin must be acknowledged and repented from
I agree. I don't think anyone is saying otherwise.
The practicing homosexual is not only fornicating, they are "thumbing their nose in God's face"...
Whether the fornicator is homosexual or heterosexual, a practicing fornicator is thumbing their nose in God's face. Again, no disagreement there, and you probably won't find any disagreement from anyone else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top