Obama Endorses Homosexuality

[Dragoon68]

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. ...

You're still hanging on to the comparison between two different conducts and insisting they be treated alike. They're not the same and there's no requirement to treat them alike. Homosexual conduct is the issue - not fornication in general.

How is it that homosexuals have attained such a high level of support in our society except by weakening our resolve against their conduct? What President, a generation or two ago, would have dared suggest what Obama has made such a driving goal and point of his political agenda? None!

 

[Magnetic Poles]

???

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!

Ever heard the phrase, "Love the sinner, hate the sin?" The trouble is many Christians hate the sin and the sinner.

 

[Dragoon68]

Ever heard the phrase, "Love the sinner, hate the sin?" The trouble is many Christians hate the sin and the sinner.

Of course, that's a good saying but I think the problem can also be that we confuse loving the sinner with acceptance and tolerance and confuse hating the sin with indifference or mild rebuke. That's why homosexuality has gained so much ground in recent times. It is because not enough Godly men have stood up firmly and rightly against it in all aspects of our society. We don't, in my opinion, hate the sin enough or love the sinner enough. Regardless, with respect to the homosexuals in the military, it is not a matter of hating the sinner - it is a matter of recognizing the damage that sin can do in the military and fighting very hard to keep it out. That's because we need to love all the sinners including the ones - perhaps our own children and grandchildren - that would be otherwise exposed to and tempted by the sin of homosexuality in their ranks through its wider acceptance. Even more so we should be concerned about all the sinners - the citizens of our nation - that will suffer should the effectiveness of our military be comprised in battle if the perversion of homosexuality is permitted to grow in the ranks of our services. There's enough temptation as it is without adding this one more openly. We can make a difference if we stand against it. I wish we had a Godly man in the White House who understood this and took the right stance about it.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Of course, that's a good saying but I think the problem can also be that we confuse loving the sinner with acceptance and tolerance and confuse hating the sin with indifference or mild rebuke. That's why homosexuality has gained so much ground in recent times. It is because not enough Godly men have stood up firmly and rightly against it in all aspects of our society. We don't, in my opinion, hate the sin enough or love the sinner enough. Regardless, with respect to the homosexuals in the military, it is not a matter of hating the sinner - it is a matter of recognizing the damage that sin can do in the military and fighting very hard to keep it out. That's because we need to love all the sinners including the ones - perhaps our own children and grandchildren - that would be otherwise exposed to and tempted by the sin of homosexuality in their ranks through its wider acceptance. Even more so we should be concerned about all the sinners - the citizens of our nation - that will suffer should the effectiveness of our military be comprised in battle if the perversion of homosexuality is permitted to grow in the ranks of our services. There's enough temptation as it is without adding this one more openly. We can make a difference if we stand against it. I wish we had a Godly man in the White House who understood this and took the right stance about it.

Obviously, you think homosexuality is a choice. So tell me, do you feel you could choose that for yourself? If not, why are you different than those who do?

 

[just-want-peace]

Military life is highly disciplined, and in most cases a 24/7 life within arms reach of other like-minded souls.

Now would you be comfortable with your daughter living in a barracks that had a known rapist sharing her "bedroom" (depending on the facility, being from 2-20 occupants per "bedroom") and bath facilities? If not why would you disapprove?

(Would you even be comfortable with her living in a barracks that had a male, not a rapist, sharing her quarters? -- think abut this before you get your panties in a wad.)

This, my bleeding heart friends, is exactly what you are asking our troops to do when you insist that "living & serving " with the q----- must wait until he makes his "move" before any action is taken. In the example given, you would have to wait for a rape to occur before any action could be taken. This is utter stupidity!!!!

Get real folks, If God calls this "life-choice" an abomination, who are you to demand that the potential for such "an abomination" be foisted upon a bunch of guys who have no say in the matter, and, as Rev Mitch (IIRC) says, is just opening the floodgates for future charges of hate crimes, discrimination, and God (literally) only knows what other PC induced problems!!!

If you are comfortable with this aberrant life-style and the potential consequences, then you take them in as a project for rehab.

Don't push your PC garbage on a bunch of innocent guys who, as you probably well know, will be the butt of any discipline problems that WILL arise as the standards get laxer.

If I know there's a rattlesnake that has taken up residence in a flower bed next to my house, I sure ain't gonna wait till somebody gets bit before I take eradication measures.

A lot of you folk either have a common sense problem, or you honestly have no idea what you are dealing with.

This thread is a lot like the young marrieds that swear that "My kids will never----, " or "My kids will always---"; while they have yet to be parents! I Know, cause I was one of those and I ate a lot of words later.

So basically what I'm saying is that if you have had no experience with q----- other than a business or casual acquaintance, you'd best keep your opinions to yourself cause you know not whereof you speak - reality ain't so cut & dried!!

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Now would you be comfortable with your daughter living in a barracks that had a known rapist sharing her "bedroom" (depending on the facility, being from 2-20 occupants per "bedroom") and bath facilities? If not why would you disapprove?

(Would you even be comfortable with her living in a barracks that had a male, not a rapist, sharing her quarters? -- think abut this before you get your panties in a wad.)

Your analogy is flawed. Just because one is attracted to their own gender does not make them a rapist. Not every gay person is a rapist anymore than every straight person is.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Questions two and three seem like a lead in to something else. I served honorably in peace and war. What's your point?

Just curious. I was in the Army,
97th Signal Battalion, Comany A, Mannheim, Germany. Motto of the battalion was "Tried and True." The batallion fought through Europe in WW II and was in Germany until the 1990's.

 

[Dragoon68]

Obviously, you think homosexuality is a choice. So tell me, do you feel you could choose that for yourself? If not, why are you different than those who do?

Don't try to shame me, brother, because I'm just a liar, thief, adulterer, and murderer. Where it not for the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ I'd be spending eternity in hell and there's no limit to the depth of sinfulness to which I might sink. He, brother, is the only reason that I'm confident I will not succumb to the sin of homosexuality although I must say I've never once had even the slightest interest in doing so. Let me never be shy about standing up against sin no matter how sinful I may be myself because it is to His glory that we should all seek to impart some small measure of restraint to the wickedness of man. Does that answer your question?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Don't try to shame me, brother, because I'm just a liar, thief, adulterer, and murderer. Where it not for the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ I'd be spending eternity in hell and there's no limit to the depth of sinfulness to which I might sink. He, brother, is the only reason that I'm confident I will not succumb to the sin of homosexuality although I must say I've never once had even the slightest interest in doing so. Let me never be shy about standing up against sin no matter how sinful I may be myself because it is to His glory that we should all seek to impart some small measure of restraint to the wickedness of man. Does that answer your question?

You are confident you will not do so, but say you could. If it is a choice, you could do so. I am convinced that no body would choose such a lifestyle that would cause them such derision. Could it be a developmental misstep? Sure. But all the evidence points to it being an inate proclivity. I did not wake up one day and think..."Hmmm...do I like boys or girls". Did you? No choice was made. Nature took its course, and I noticed that girls had some pretty attractive curves. Boys were never a consideration.

BTW, no attempt at shaming you. Just pointing out a logical inconsistency in your argument. Would I wish a gay life on anyone? No. But I believe the evidence points to it not being a selection made by the person.

 

[Dragoon68]

Just curious. I was in the Army,
97th Signal Battalion, Comany A, Mannheim, Germany. Motto of the battalion was "Tried and True." The batallion fought through Europe in WW II and was in Germany until the 1990's.

That's great, brother, and something to be remember I'm sure!

These days I occasionally enjoy the company of old soldiers at some of my unit reunions but the ranks are starting to thin out in numbers as they pass on. It's good to meet with men you served with - especially in combat - because there's a mutual understanding that's shared and everyone knows what you're talking about when you get on the soap box. It's rare to find that outside that community.

 

[Dragoon68]

You are confident you will not do so, but say you could. If it is a choice, you could do so. I am convinced that no body would choose such a lifestyle that would cause them such derision. Could it be a developmental misstep? Sure. But all the evidence points to it being an inate proclivity. I did not wake up one day and think..."Hmmm...do I like boys or girls". Did you? No choice was made. Nature took its course, and I noticed that girls had some pretty attractive curves. Boys were never a consideration.

BTW, no attempt at shaming you. Just pointing out a logical inconsistency in your argument. Would I wish a gay life on anyone? No. But I believe the evidence points to it not being a selection made by the person.

What? There's no inconsistency in my argument! The only "nature" involved is man's sinful nature than he inherited from Adam and his willful decision to rebel against God's design. The other "Nature" - commonly called "Mother Nature" - is not an independent force outside God's control. The lost are hopelessly lost and to that extent they can not help what they do yet it is because of their own willful rebellion that they find themselves so situated. All men are aware of God but most choice to turn away from him. We all have that rebellion in us but most of us don't choose homosexuality because we know it's wrong through those that taught us and protected us from it. If, God forbid, we were raised by homosexual "parents" we would perhaps deem it acceptable to be the same way. I don't buy for one second that homosexuality is a some kind of God given orientation because God does not author such debase sinfulness.

 

[Johnv]

You're still hanging on to the comparison between two different conducts and insisting they be treated alike. They're not the same and there's no requirement to treat them alike.

God treats all fornication alike. All fornication is an abomination, and the one who fornicates is condemned to the lake of fire. Treating them differently is strictly a human differentiation, not a scriptural one. I'm still stumped as to why you would have a problem banning all fornicators from military service, and why you continue to claim that banning all fornicators "excuses" sin.

Homosexual conduct is the issue - not fornication in general.

You say conduct is the issue, but then you say anyone who is gay should be barred from enlisting. You're not differenting between someone identifying themselves as gay, and between homosexual conduct. Everyone here agrees that homosexual conduct shoult not be tolerated in the military. What you're saying, however, is that anyone who identifies themselves as gay should not be allowed in the military, regardless of conduct.

Obviously, you think homosexuality is a choice.

To be fair, we choose whom we have sexual relations with, regardless of whether the sexual desire is one of nature or nurture.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Still on this subject. Here is the issue. Homosexuality is no greater sin than fornication and adultary. Yet we turn a blind eye to people involved in those practices when it comes to the military. Note having lived in the barracks I can tell you fornication and adultary was happening all over the place and the only one who got in trouble were the ones who messed with the "wrong Person". Yet we don't disqualify these people from service. I think its hippocritical to exclude gays who are not greater sinners than the others I've mentioned. Since our country is made up of many different people, culture, and creeds I cannot enforce christian principles on anyone else. Nor should I discriminate a person from service if they hold a different creed. There are homosexuals that will be detrimental to service I dont support those. For the same grounds I don't support heterosexuals that would be detrimental. However, there is a class of homosexual that are honorable, have integrity, are intelligent, and will not let work and personal life mix. Just like there are Heterosexuals of the same ilk though personally they commit adultary and fornicate. Both of these should be able to serve and keep their "sins" closeted from the rest. However, to choose one above the other is Hippcritcal to the extreme. Homosexuals military leaders have not destroyed the cohesion of their units lets look at a few
Yoshimitsu Ashikaga (1358-1408)
Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938),
Amanullah Khan (1892-1960),
Basil II (c. 958-1025),
Beyazid I (1347-1403),
Sir Richard F. Burton (1821-1890),
Louis Cond» (1621-1686),
Enrique IV of Castile (1425-1474),
Charles George Gordon (1833-1885),
Ludwig Andreas Khevenhuller Frankenburg (1683-1744),
T.E. (Thomas Edward) Lawrence (1888-1935),

And these are just a few names from all over the world of successful miliatry leaders that also happened to be homosexual. So I don't think there is a valid point contrary.

 

[NiteShift]

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.

Fine. And that is how it is with the current DADT policy. Gays can serve, just keep it to themselves. Why does Obama need to change this? Partly because he received alot of support from gay organizations during the campaign, and this is payback time. It's a political move and has nothing to do with what is best for the military.

 

[Revmitchell]

Still on this subject. Here is the issue. Homosexuality is no greater sin than fornication and adultary[sic]. Yet we turn a blind eye to people involved in those practices when it comes to the military.

Not sure who "we" is? But in the end it is a strawman argument. Not even the Military does this.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Not sure who "we" is? But in the end it is a strawman argument. Not even the Military does this.

Society but the military community in general. Yes it does. Once I caught a guy climbing out of the back window (in the contonment area) of a house (officer's) in his underwear. He had been sleeping with a pilots wife. He was repremanded but he didn't even loose a stripe. Whats up with that? He lost all his stripes when he damaged a 1008 pick up. But now when he was caught redhanded escaping from sleeping with an officer's wife.

 

[Revmitchell]

Society but the military community in general.

Well so what. How is that relevant to what Christians should support? It certainly is not evidence that we should turn our heads to homosexuals in the service. And the "military community" is so vague who know what that means. But adulterous behavior is against the UCMJ and is enforced all the time.

 

[Johnv]

Well so what. How is that relevant to what Christians should support?

Yet several here are supporting heterosexual fornicators in the military (not you necessarily), and then accusing those who don't agree with them of "excusing sin". That's hypocrisy.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yet several here are supporting heterosexual fornicators in the military (not you necessarily), and then accusing those who don't agree with them of "excusing sin". That's hypocrisy.

Exactly my point.....

 

[NiteShift]

Yet several here are supporting heterosexual fornicators in the military (not you necessarily), and then accusing those who don't agree with them of "excusing sin". That's hypocrisy.

I haven't seen anyone excusing fornicators, maybe I missed that.

Now I see your point i.e. since heterosexual soldiers sometimes fornicate and often get away with, by golly gays should have the same right. That sounds like some good policy