Obama Endorses Homosexuality

[Bro. Curtis]

Calm down.



One thread on a straight person does not equal untold numbers bashing gays.

You'll have to show me these gay-bashing threads.

Yes, stop trying to derail the thread, it will be most appreciated.

It's not your thread, you have no authority, here. If you can bring up a comparison, I can respond to it.

 

[Crabtownboy]

You'll have to show me these gay-bashing threads.

I am not going to waste my time with your trival requests. Look them up yourself if you do not believe me.

It's not your thread, you have no authority, here.

I did not know anyone had authority when it comes to threads, other than monitors.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I am not going to waste my time with your trival requests. Look them up yourself if you do not believe me.

You made the claim. Inability to prove it does not help your credibility. Suffice to say that I just don't believe you.

I did not know anyone had authority when it comes to threads, other than monitors.

Then it is silly to tell me what I can say, and what I can't.

 

[Dragoon68]

Homosexual conduct is a determent to the military's effectiveness. It always has been and always will be. I think some of us have perhaps seen it more clearly. The difference is that we generally use to know this and dealt with it by excluding homosexuals from the military. Only a short time ago the conduct itself was known to be so vile as to be made illegal by civil law for the sake of maintaining minimum moral standards among us all. We understood God's design for civil government. Now some try to rationalize all that away with endless arguments seeking to minimize the impact. Acceptance is part of the sinner's agenda and that applies to all sin. All of this is very sad.

 

[Trotter]

Can you imagine what would happen if a fellow in the military appraoched another sexually while showering with, as you said, 100 other fellows? It would not be a pretty picture. Your fears are totally ungrounded.

The same was true on the troop ships ... and that was really close living. Nothing out of the ordinary.

Likewise I never saw anything out of order when we were eating and living together. Not even sexual teasing. That also would have been very unhealthy for the person doing the teasing or suggesting.

I really cannot understand where so many irrational fears come from. I knew myself and I knew that if anyone ever bothered me that person was going to be in big trouble ... one of us would have ended up hurt.

You just made the point I had in mind.

Mix a large number of men in tight quarters in a high-stress situation... and then toss in a gay or three. There will be bloodshed and possibly a death or few should these gays step over the line. As it is now that line is obvious. If King Zero gets his way that line will be completely obscured... but the whole of everything will be painted bright pink for the gays. I can see bad things coming from this move. The line will still be there but the government will be telling these gays that it doesn't exist and be pushing them up to and over that line.

 

[Martin]

I don't believe that. What was your experience when you served ?

==As I already made very clear in this thread, I have never been in the military. However I did grow up around the military and I worked with the military for many years (most of my adult life). I have seen plenty of godly men/women in the military, but I have also seen a great host of immoral, godless men/women in the military. It comes with the territory.

 

[Martin]

First it has been noted elsewhere in this thread that immorality of any kind can get you into trouble and possibly get you thrown out. But the comparison to straight verses gay immorality is irrelevant.

==I don't agree with that. Immorality is immorality. One is not worse than the other. All forms of immorality are condemned. I understand your point about how homosexuality can create unique issues. However I don't agree that such issues are reason enough to remove them from the military. After all, these are the same issues faced in college dorms, at swimming pools, lakes, and beaches. We cannot control what other people think. As long as they leave others alone and keep their behavior to themselves and their "circle of friends", and are not creating problems, I don't believe they should be removed.

Having said that immorality of all kinds disqualifies you from service. Not just homosexuality.It is not appropriate to over look this any more than it is to overlook anything else.

==In theory, your right. However, as usual, the reality does not seem to live up to the theory. Night clubs in military cities are full of soldiers being immoral drunks every weekend. Little to nothing is done about it unless it interferes with their performance on the job.

 

[Martin]

The difference is that we generally use to know this and dealt with it by excluding homosexuals from the military.

==Gays have been in the military since the Revolutionary War. Sure, the rules have said that such people are not allowed to serve (etc) but that has not stopped them from serving. This is not a justification of sinful behavior, this is just a recognition of the reality. I know guys from the Vietnam era who knew about homosexuals in the military. It has been and is a reality. And as long as the military allows drunks, fornicators, adulterers, and other type of people in the ranks I don't see how morally we can draw the line here. Immorality is immorality and both will send a person to hell (Rev 21:8).

Only a short time ago the conduct itself was known to be so vile as to be made illegal by civil law for the sake of maintaining minimum moral standards among us all.

==True, but we are dealing with the situation we are in today. Sitting around dreaming about the good old days is not facing the current reality. I would love to see a world free of sins such as homosexuality (etc), but that is not the world we live in. We have to deal with reality as it exists. In short, I would love to live in Mayberry but I don't so I can't pretend I do.

We understood God's design for civil government. Now some try to rationalize all that away with endless arguments seeking to minimize the impact. Acceptance is part of the sinner's agenda and that applies to all sin. All of this is very sad.

==I don't believe anyone here is accepting homosexual behavior. What I think we are saying, at least what I am saying, is that it is in the military and there is no consistent reason to remove homosexuals from the military. If you propose we remove all immoral people from the military, fine. However then we would have a very small military.

 

[Marcia]

One of the fellows was busted for adultry, but it didn't stop his immorality.

People need to realize that there are gays:

in the military
in every corporation of any size
in every church of any size ... probably on many deacon boards
probably on every bus or subway you ever ride
in every restaurant you eat at

There are pastors, deacons, Sunday School teachers, secretaries, etc., etc., etc. who are gay. I am not arguing that homosexuality is right. I am saying it is a part of our daily lives whether we know it or not and if we are secure within our own sexuality it is no threat.

I do have a difficult time understanding why so many people are insecure in this area.

I don't think it's an issue of insecurity. Why would it be?

No one can call me insecure or having lived a sheltered life. I used to do astrology charts for many gay people and even picked handfasting dates for lesbian witches (there were quite a few lesbian witches in Atlanta).

I still would not want to be showering, undressing, etc. with a lesbian woman around, especially if she could be openly lesbian.

And the fact that gays have always been in the military is not a logical argument to say it's okay to endorse this.

 

[Revmitchell]

==I don't agree with that. Immorality is immorality. One is not worse than the other. All forms of immorality are condemned. I understand your point about how homosexuality can create unique issues. However I don't agree that such issues are reason enough to remove them from the military. After all, these are the same issues faced in college dorms, at swimming pools, lakes, and beaches. We cannot control what other people think. As long as they leave others alone and keep their behavior to themselves and their "circle of friends", and are not creating problems, I don't believe they should be removed.

Then lets go coed in everything. Coed showers etc. Can you buy into that?

==In theory, your right. However, as usual, the reality does not seem to live up to the theory. Night clubs in military cities are full of soldiers being immoral drunks every weekend. Little to nothing is done about it unless it interferes with their performance on the job.

What theory? Where in the world does "theory" come into play? You lost me. "Theory" is not at play here. You continue to speak on things you have no real knowledge or experience in. Adultery is not accepted and is reason for serious punishment or discharge. Since you see all sin equally should the Military treat adultery as one simply getting drunk? Rhetorical but makes the point.

 

[donnA]

The issue seems to me to be, noth whether or not gays are in the millitary, of course they are now. But when they become openly accepted, then we start paying for homose*ual relationships, by providing houseing , and health ebnefits. when our military, and government start openly accepting this and sying it's alright, we have as a nation openly accepted homose*uality, with the support of christians.

 

[Martin]

Then lets go coed in everything. Coed showers etc. Can you buy into that?

==That is a strawman argument. I'm simply saying that we cannot control what other people think. Be it in military showers, dressing rooms, sports showers, dressing rooms, college dorms, showers, bathrooms, lakes, beaches, and swimming pools there is nothing we can do about homosexuals. They are in the military, they are in college dorms, they are on sports teams, they are at the beach and the pool. There is nothing we can do to change that. Your coed argument is a strawman for that very reason. Kicking open homosexuals out the military is not going to remove all homosexuals from the military. It is my view that as long as they are not bothering other people they should not be removed from the military.

What theory? Where in the world does "theory" come into play? You lost me. "Theory" is not at play here.

==That "immorality of all kinds disqualifies you from service". Technically that may very well be true. Practically it is not.

You continue to speak on things you have no real knowledge or experience in.

==Having grown up at Fort Bragg, lived around, and worked around soldiers and the military all my life, I have no experience with military life at all. Does that make any sense? No. I am speaking from what I have seen.

Adultery is not accepted and is reason for serious punishment or discharge.

==Again, technically you may very well be right. However practically it is a different story. Sure, soldiers are disciplined for these type of behaviors (when caught or when it comes to the attention of their superiors). However if you look at military towns and the lives being lived by many of our soldiers, you see that the military is not going out enforcing these rules. Some soldiers go off base, go to nightclubs (etc), and they engage in behaviors that only sometimes gets them into trouble at work.

Since you see all sin equally should the Military treat adultery as one simply getting drunk? Rhetorical but makes the point.

==If we are going to kick out people for being homosexuals, fornicators, and adulterers, then yes we should remove drunks as well. BTW, there is no "somply getting drunk". Drunkenness is a sin and it, like all sin, will send a person to the lake of fire (Gal 5:19-21, Rev 21:8).

 

[Dragoon68]

==Gays have been in the military since the Revolutionary War. Sure, the rules have said that such people are not allowed to serve (etc) but that has not stopped them from serving. This is not a justification of sinful behavior, this is just a recognition of the reality. I know guys from the Vietnam era who knew about homosexuals in the military. It has been and is a reality. And as long as the military allows drunks, fornicators, adulterers, and other type of people in the ranks I don't see how morally we can draw the line here. Immorality is immorality and both will send a person to hell (Rev 21:8).

==True, but we are dealing with the situation we are in today. Sitting around dreaming about the good old days is not facing the current reality. I would love to see a world free of sins such as homosexuality (etc), but that is not the world we live in. We have to deal with reality as it exists. In short, I would love to live in Mayberry but I don't so I can't pretend I do.

==I don't believe anyone here is accepting homosexual behavior. What I think we are saying, at least what I am saying, is that it is in the military and there is no consistent reason to remove homosexuals from the military. If you propose we remove all immoral people from the military, fine. However then we would have a very small military.

This is exactly the type of bogus rationalization that I note has come about today. It is along the lines of suggesting that because there is sin in the world we can make no choices to restrain certain sin in certain cases. It implies that we must tolerate all sin in all cases. It is argument that ultimately leads to an acceptance of any and all standards of conduct.

There are two arguments here: One is homosexuality in the general population and the other homosexuality specifically in the military.

We need to understand why we have civil law from the Biblical perspective. One key reason is to restrain the wickedness of man. For this reason laws that restrain gross sin are good. Homosexuality is a gross sin - not the only one - but it is one and it can be clearly identified for what it is with little room for doubt. It is a sin that can and should be restrained both by the Church and by the State through civil law. This was once understood but because of the intense lobby of homosexuals and the shortness of Godly leaders we have succumbed to their agenda and lowered the standard in appeasement. This applies to homosexuality in the general population.

We need to understand that the military is not the general public. It exists to accomplish war fighting. It's requirements are different and its members do not have all the same freedoms of choice that other do. They must work closely together as a team to accomplish the desired mission. Any activity that detracts from that - such as but not only homosexuality - needs to be excluded. We need to understand that homosexuality is a serious impediment to discipline and order in the military and that discipline and order in the military are necessary for success in war fighting. Homosexuals have no place in the military regardless of their individual sense of duty or skills. Certainly examples will be advanced - it is the style these days - to demonstrate as many cases as can be found, whether on solid evidence or on hypothesis alone, were homosexuals have served and accomplished great things. It is possible there are such cases but it is far more the case where they have disrupted discipline and good order and their deviant behavior has hindered or harmed the mission. This applies to homosexuality in the military.

Generally speaking gross immorality of any kind is good cause to be removed from the military. Each type of such conduct can effect the mission in different ways and, if it significant enough to be of concern, it should be excluded. Conduct ranging from adultery to drunkenness to fraternization can fit this standard. No military will consistently succeed in war fighting with these drains upon their conduct.

Nothing good comes of homosexuality for a society and, as history demonstrates - Biblical history included, much harm comes to it from homosexuality. We need Godly leaders in our country that understand this and stop pandering to the homosexual lobby. Obama does not fit this qualification.

 

[Dragoon68]

... I know guys from the Vietnam era who knew about homosexuals in the military. ...

No kidding? I can tell you about such conduct but it's not the subject of this thread and it would be rightly prohibited from discussion in this forum. It hurt unit morale, disrupted good order and discipline, and adversely impacted a unit's combat readiness. At least then it was still against the law and dealt with accordingly.

 

[donnA]

This is exactly the type of bogus rationalization that I note has come about today. It is along the lines of suggesting that because there is sin in the world we can make no choices to restrain certain sin in certain cases. It implies that we must tolerate all sin in all cases. It is argument that ultimately leads to an acceptance of any and all standards of conduct.

chrsitians should not tolerate sin, if we do how can we witness to anyone about sin and the need for salvation, we can't. once we start tolerating sin in the world we live in, we lessen the meaning of sin in our own lives, after all we just over looked it in others, why should we have to deal with it in ourselves. It certainly isn't biblical to overlook sin, but call sin sin, even on a national level.

 

[Trotter]

The sad part is, DonnA, is that no one wants to call sin "Sin" any more. No, it is been re-wrapped as "shortcomings" and "choice" and "differences". Sin leaves a bad taste in the mouth and we can't have that.

That's the same reason you don't hear about the blood of Jesus in churches, or anything about hell. God has been tamed and pre-packaged to be as politically correct as all the other crap in today's society.

Where are the prophets crying out about God's coming wrath? Where are the people weeping for their sins and the sins of their neighbors? Where are the watchmen? We are all asleep in front of our televisions, watching the latest song and dance put forth by the powers that be to keep us pacified and ignorant.

Dear God, have mercy on us and our nation...

 

[donnA]

exactly trotter.
we have thrown away our responsibilities as christians, we are not affecting the world around us if we tolerate sin like this.

 

[just-want-peace]

Martin sez:

Kicking open homosexuals out the military is not going to remove all homosexuals from the military. It is my view that as long as they are not bothering other people they should not be removed from the military.

1 "Kicking open homosexuals out the military--"
Granted, but it sure will keep the closet ones in the closet, which is precisely the point.

2 "--as long as they are not bothering other people--"
Again, precisely! If they are staying in the closet, THEY WILL NOT BOTHER OTHER PEOPLE, again, precisely the point.

As to co-ed showers etc, what is the difference in the ***** ( I refuse to use the G term, 'cuz they ain't) in a shower with his/her s*x, and the male/female in the shower with the female/male s*x.

In either case there's s*xual attraction; in the first case, the aberrant variety, and second case, normal variety.

IOW how would you feel if you were forced to shower with one of the opposite gender that is not your spouse???? You OK with that????

Same thing when there's one "of them" in the shower with you; that OK??

Sure ain't with me, unless I did not know of his "uniqueness"! If I know about it, we just ain't gonna be physically real close under any circumstances --- if I can help it.

Basically what I'm saying Martin, is that I don't care how close you've worked with, lived around, or observed service personnel, it ain't the same as being a part of their daily, 24/7, close quarters life, so just accept that you will never understand the problems that "they" have the potential to cause!

It's been bad enough in the past, but if the (0) gets his way, you can be assured that the problems will increase exponentially.

Don't try to fix something that ain't broke!

 

[Martin]

chrsitians should not tolerate sin, if we do how can we witness to anyone about sin and the need for salvation, we can't.

This will be my final post in this thread because (a) I have stated my views, (b) others have stated their views, and I don't expect anyone will have a change of mind. Also I have to prepare for a major winter storm coming tonight and tomorrow. As I will probably lose power tomorrow I expect this to be a very long weekend.

Nobody, at least not myself, is talking about tolerating any sin. This is certainly not about tolerating homosexuality. I go back to what I said in my first reply in this thread. For me, gays in the military is a non-issue. There have always been gays in the military. The military is a fighting/killing machine, not a church. So as long as we allow fornicators, adulterers, and other immoral people into the military I don't see the problem with allowing homosexuals. As Christians we certainly should share the Gospel with everyone (homosexuals included). We should also call sin what it is, evil. Homosexuality is sinful and those who refuse to repent of that sin will spend eternity in hell (1Cor 6:9-10, Rev 21:8). I have made that point multiple times in this thread. However laws banning homosexuals in the military just are not realistic in today's society. Such laws will not work and unless we are going to ban all immoral people from the military such laws will only be grand examples of inconsistency.

 

[Revmitchell]

==That is a strawman argument. I'm simply saying that we cannot control what other people think. Be it in military showers, dressing rooms, sports showers, dressing rooms, college dorms, showers, bathrooms, lakes, beaches, and swimming pools there is nothing we can do about homosexuals. They are in the military, they are in college dorms, they are on sports teams, they are at the beach and the pool. There is nothing we can do to change that. Your coed argument is a strawman for that very reason. Kicking open homosexuals out the military is not going to remove all homosexuals from the military. It is my view that as long as they are not bothering other people they should not be removed from the military.

Clearly not a "strawman" argument. The problems that arise from both are exactly the same.

==That "immorality of all kinds disqualifies you from service". Technically that may very well be true. Practically it is not.

I do not know how elseto say this but you are trying to talk about something you have no actual knowledge of. And this statement is without foundations and completely false. You are welcome to your opinion but this issue is not a matter of opinion. It is supported by facts.

==Having grown up at Fort Bragg, lived around, and worked around soldiers and the military all my life, I have no experience with military life at all. Does that make any sense? No. I am speaking from what I have seen.

Not enough to know. Unless you lived it and were trained in the UCMJ you just do not know.

==Again, technically you may very well be right. However practically it is a different story. Sure, soldiers are disciplined for these type of behaviors (when caught or when it comes to the attention of their superiors). However if you look at military towns and the lives being lived by many of our soldiers, you see that the military is not going out enforcing these rules. Some soldiers go off base, go to nightclubs (etc), and they engage in behaviors that only sometimes gets them into trouble at work.

Doesn't support your argument. That is another issue all together.

==If we are going to kick out people for being homosexuals, fornicators, and adulterers, then yes we should remove drunks as well. BTW, there is no "somply[sic] getting drunk". Drunkenness is a sin and it, like all sin, will send a person to the lake of fire (Gal 5:19-21, Rev 21:8).

More illogic reasoning. Then no one should be held accountable for anything or discharged for anything. How about murder, should a murderer get kicked out, how about a pedophile? Equating everything in the way you do would disqualify anyone from the ministry if you were to be consistent. Or actually they would all be qualified for the ministry. It is not consistent logic.