Obama Endorses Homosexuality

[Johnv]

It seems to me you want to turn this in to a personal fight, Johnv, which could be interesting but I don't think I want to go there on this forum.

Fine. All you need to do is acknowlege that I haven't attempted to normalize sin or excusing homexual behavior.

Do you have some good reasons why you want to see homosexuals openly serve in the military and why you think this is good move by the President or are you going to keep crying that I've falsely accused you of something? State your case and I'll state mine.

I never commented on whether it was a good move or not, and never commented on whether I "want" it or not. I suspect it won't have an effect one way or another, since homosexual activity will continue to be grounds for discharge, and rightly so. Interestingly, Christans generally opposed "don't ask don't tell", and here we are years later, with Christians are opposing its repeal.

 

[Dragoon68]

Fine. All you need to do is acknowlege that I haven't attempted to normalize sin or excusing homexual behavior.

I'm not going to do that, Johnv! I'm not going to fall for that! You'll just have to get over your sensitivity about this. Instead, just make it clear where you stand.

I never commented on whether it was a good move or not, and never commented on whether I "want" it or not. I suspect it won't have an effect one way or another, since homosexual activity will continue to be grounds for discharge, and rightly so. Interestingly, Christans generally opposed "don't ask don't tell", and here we are years later, with Christians are opposing its repeal.

That's the point of the discussion!

It's not a good idea because it will be one more step that benefits homosexuals - who else can it possibly benefit - by making advancing their acceptance in the military. It might still be a violation of the UCMJ today but the President's move signals the next step which would be to remove homosexual conduct as a violation. That will come about by legal challenges and the precedence set from the President's actions. We can be sure the homosexual agenda will never end. Their goal is to force complete submission to total acceptance. The President's action is the wrong motive and will produce the wrong result!

There was nothing wrong with asking a person if they were a homosexual and then excluding them if they were. We ask questions about people's character all the time for a wide number of things. It's better to know up front than find out latter. It's a prudent screening method. Clinton was off base with his "don't ask - don't tell" policy for our military. That move was designed simply to gain favor from the homosexual lobby. It was the wrong motive and wrong result!

This - Clinton's and Obama's decisions - is the kind of process Satan is pleased for us to use. It's a slow steady corruption each step based upon the precedence of the other that ends in hardened hearts that can not cold to God. We need to stand firm that homosexuality is wrong, is a willful sin, and is destructive to society. We need to insist that our civil government take steps to restrain and punish this wickedness. The steps we are taking are in the wrong direction.

 

[Johnv]

It's not a good idea because it will be one more step that benefits homosexuals

In order for it to be a benefit, it would have to grant to them something it does not grant to all. But in fact, if the "don't ask, dont' tell" policy were lifted, a gay man would be subject to the same rules as a straight man, which is: if you fornicate, you're out. Now, whether they currently enforce that rule is a different topic altogether.

 

[Dragoon68]

In order for it to be a benefit, it would have to grant to them something it does not grant to all. But in fact, if the "don't ask, dont' tell" policy were lifted, a gay man would be subject to the same rules as a straight man, which is: if you fornicate, you're out. Now, whether they currently enforce that rule is a different topic altogether.

I'm not sure where this is going and don't want to get too legalistic about it.

Both adultery and an indecent act with another - which could, obviously, involve fornication - are punishable under military law. That punishment may include dishonorable discharge. Private sexual relations between two unmarried persons of opposite gender - which could also involve fornication - are not punishable under military law. Sodomy between persons of the same or opposite gender or between a person and an animal is punishable under military law. That punishment may include dishonorable discharge. Sodomy, as described by law, between persons of the opposite gender, while technically an offense, is not enforced for the same reasons as it was not in the civilian community. This is about as detailed as I want to get about all this on this forum.

The bottom line is that homosexual conduct is grossly unnatural and indecent. While God will ultimately judge all sin man must through civil government seek to restrain sin and provide a system of temporal justice that punishes the wicked. Choices are made about what offenses can and should be a matter of concern. Some are simply beyond the ability of civil government to enforce or would cause them to thread heavily in areas that could have adverse effect because of the corruptible nature of empowered men. Homosexual conduct, however, is clearly and blatantly discernible and should be restrained.

The military screens person for character, aptitude, and ability prior to entry. Some things carry more weight than others. Some requirements can be adjusted depending upon needs. Historically, homosexuality has rightly viewed as a grave character defect with significant adverse effects of the mission of the military. There is no valid reason to burden the military with taking in someone who is openly homosexual and will, obviously, by such declaration pursue that conduct. It is far better to exclude them from the start.

Our current President doesn't understand these things and, by his actions, will burden the military with yet another risk, provide a precedence for more corruption of law by homosexuals, and gain the support of homosexuals in return for shirking his duty to restrain evil and punish the wicked.

 

[just-want-peace]

Interestingly, Christans generally opposed "don't ask don't tell", and here we are years later, with Christians are opposing its repeal.

Folks, right here is one example of the reasons the liberals are taking over, and will(?) succeed barring a direct intervention from God!

The ORIGINAL policy was
1) You stated up front (if you didn't lie) whether or not you were a Q----
2) If you answered in the affirmative, you were refused enlistment into the Armed Forces - end of problem for the military
3) Clinton came along and declared that you could NOT be asked this question; ergo a Q---- could legally enlist. BUT the stigma was still there, so they (the Q-----) were reluctant to advertise the fact.
4) Now the (0) wants to allow (force?) the stigma to be erased so that if you are a Q----, you not only can enlist, but you can now flaunt your deviancy, expecting no negative reaction from others.

So John, you are correct in your statement, BUT, you neglect to put the facts in context. Now IF you go back to the ORIGINAL system, then there will be no opposition from the Christians; well most Christians anyway.

THIS MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN WHAT YOU APPEAR TO SAY; that the Christians are just being tantrum throwing little kids.

This is typical of the way the left has gotten its agenda - ask for $1,000 when all you really want is $100, so when the Rs balk and refuse to give the $1,000, the Ds start calling for compromise and eventually settle on $100, and claim that they (Ds) have really conceded to the Rs.

Unfortunately, this has been so subtle that the Rs have not, until recently, realized that they gave up far more that they thought.

I personally believe that should the conservatives (please note that I DID NOT specify Rs), take control in '10 & '12, there should be a policy of NO COMPROMISE until we at least get back to a true constitutional form of Gov't. 'Course I ain't holding my breath!!!

 

[Johnv]

The bottom line is that homosexual conduct is grossly unnatural and indecent.

And everyone here so far agrees that anyone who who engages in homosexual conduct should be discharged forthwith. And for the record, heterosexual fornication is grossly unnatural and indecent, according to scripture. It even calls it an abomination. If we say some fornicators are okay, and some aren't, we're being inconsistent.

The military screens person for character, aptitude, and ability prior to entry.

But you're okay with some fornicators being in the military, even though they lack character. I'm saying it's not okay for any fornicators being in the military, because anyone who fornicates lacks character.

 

[Johnv]

Folks, right here is one example of the reasons the liberals are taking over...

Oh, please The folks here who oppose lifting DADT aren't generally saying they support a rollback to pre-clinton policy. They do, however, support a policy of "if you want in, keep it to yourself". I myself haven't states support or opposition to a lifting of the ban myself.

That said, I don't think it's unreasonable for a Christian to support keeping DADT. I'm simply noting that we're not consistent about how we as Christians decide who does and doesn't get into the military. IMO, if a guy fornicates, he fornicates, and whom he fornicated with shouldn't make his action any less of an amonination, nor should it make a difference in his ineligibiltiy.

 

[just-want-peace]

Oh, please The folks here who oppose lifting DADT aren't generally saying they support a rollback to pre-clinton policy.

Really???

I have not seen any discussion on this phase of this topic, and I was just pretty much assuming that my view was the typical conservative Christian view - if you have seen otherwise, please point it out for me.

Also if I have mis-spoken re:the Christian view, then I apologize to any Conservative Christian that does not agree with me!

(I know, I know, DON'T ASSUME!! )

 

[Marcia]

And everyone here so far agrees that anyone who who engages in homosexual conduct should be discharged forthwith. And for the record, heterosexual fornication is grossly unnatural and indecent, according to scripture. It even calls it an abomination. If we say some fornicators are okay, and some aren't, we're being inconsistent.

The difference is that homosexuality is a whole lifestyle, even a subculture. It has a certain worldview and in the case of those who profess to be Christians in this lifestyle, a way of interpreting the Bible to support that behavior.

Imo, although all sexual sin is sexual immorality and is wrong, the way homosexuality is advancing today as a worldview, culture, and cause separates it from the other sexual sins in that it is more threatening in a broader way.

For example, are there adultery clubs in schools? Or fornication clubs? No, but there are the LGBT clubs. Do kids read books like, "Mommy has a secret lover?" No, but they read about "Heather's Two Mommies."

It's an animal of another stripe.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Lot offered his daughters to the wicked men of Sodom. They refused, and were destroyed. It does seem there is sin, and there is abomination. There is no way to know what would have happened if the men took Lot's daughters, but I do not believe God sees homosexuality on the same level as immorality.

 

[Marcia]

The difference is that homosexuality is a whole lifestyle, even a subculture. It has a certain worldview and in the case of those who profess to be Christians in this lifestyle, a way of interpreting the Bible to support that behavior.

Imo, although all sexual sin is sexual immorality and is wrong, the way homosexuality is advancing today as a worldview, culture, and cause separates it from the other sexual sins in that it is more threatening in a broader way.

For example, are there adultery clubs in schools? Or fornication clubs? No, but there are the LGBT clubs. Do kids read books like, "Mommy has a secret lover?" No, but they read about "Heather's Two Mommies."

It's an animal of another stripe.

I think I'm going to save this so that every time someone on the BB starts talking about other sexual sins, I can post this. There is a difference in how homosexuality is advancing into "normalcy" by virtue of how it is being promoted and endorsed vs. the other sins brought up.

 

[targus]

The difference is that homosexuality is a whole lifestyle, even a subculture. It has a certain worldview and in the case of those who profess to be Christians in this lifestyle, a way of interpreting the Bible to support that behavior.

Imo, although all sexual sin is sexual immorality and is wrong, the way homosexuality is advancing today as a worldview, culture, and cause separates it from the other sexual sins in that it is more threatening in a broader way.

For example, are there adultery clubs in schools? Or fornication clubs? No, but there are the LGBT clubs. Do kids read books like, "Mommy has a secret lover?" No, but they read about "Heather's Two Mommies."

It's an animal of another stripe.

Well said.

 

[Revmitchell]

I think I'm going to save this so that every time someone on the BB starts talking about other sexual sins, I can post this. There is a difference in how homosexuality is advancing into "normalcy" by virtue of how it is being promoted and endorsed vs. the other sins brought up.

You would just be wasting your time. They know it already but choose to ignore it. Some hyper intellectuals like to feign objectivity so they make crazy arguments. Others all but condone the lifestyle. They really don't care to hear it.


Although very well said.

 

[Marcia]

You would just be wasting your time. They know it already but choose to ignore it. Some hyper intellectuals like to feign objectivity so they make crazy arguments. Others all but condone the lifestyle. They really don't care to hear it.

I see your point but in my mind, it is never a waste of time to present the truth and counter arguments against it, no matter what the reasons may be of those who post such statements. Sometime people are reading these threads who never post and may need to hear the truth. I post with them in mind as much as anyone else.

Although very well said

Thanks! And thanks to what Targus said.

 

[just-want-peace]

I see your point but in my mind, it is never a waste of time to present the truth and counter arguments against it, no matter what the reasons may be of those who post such statements. Sometime people are reading these threads who never post and may need to hear the truth. I post with them in mind as much as anyone else.



Thanks! And thanks to what Targus said.

Bolded mine

Amen, and this is probably the main reason I still read/post on this board.

When that which is an abomination to God, is excused in the name of "tolerance, love and 'God just created them this way' ", there needs to be the challenging of this heresy. Another issue is abortion!

While there are many other things here that are "not kosher" IMHO, these two are simply a bast@rdizing of His word and need be countered.

 

[Revmitchell]

I see your point but in my mind, it is never a waste of time to present the truth and counter arguments against it, no matter what the reasons may be of those who post such statements. Sometime people are reading these threads who never post and may need to hear the truth. I post with them in mind as much as anyone else.



Thanks! And thanks to what Targus said.

My point was not that you shouldn't post it but that it matters not to those on this board who lend support to homosexuality however vague.

 

[billwald]

Were not the same sorts of arguments made against having black people in the military? Was HST also wrong for integrating the Armed Forces?

 

[Marcia]

Were not the same sorts of arguments made against having black people in the military? Was HST also wrong for integrating the Armed Forces?

No, those were not the same sort of arguments at all. One has to do with race and the other with behavior that is condemned as immoral by God.

 

[Dragoon68]

And everyone here so far agrees that anyone who who engages in homosexual conduct should be discharged forthwith. And for the record, heterosexual fornication is grossly unnatural and indecent, according to scripture. It even calls it an abomination. If we say some fornicators are okay, and some aren't, we're being inconsistent.

But you're okay with some fornicators being in the military, even though they lack character. I'm saying it's not okay for any fornicators being in the military, because anyone who fornicates lacks character.

You keep twisting the words, Johnv, but it doesn't change what I've said.

You can take your ideas about excluding all "fornicators" from the military to Congress and ask them to change the UCMJ. That's there job!

I've just tried to explain to you what the differences are with respect to military law and why homosexual conduct is considered more detrimental to the mission of the service than some other misconduct.

Remember, just because something is or is not against civil law does not mean it is or is not against God's law. Civil law involves compromise because of the corruption of man and the difficulty of his execution of true justice. As Christians we should follow God's law first and foremost but as citizens - or more particularly as agents of civil government - we my enforce civil law only to the extent it applies. Therefore adultery, incident acts with another, sodomy, etc. are violations of the UCMJ while private consensual sexual intercourse between unmarried persons is not.

It's not that difficult to understand.

 

[Dragoon68]

Were not the same sorts of arguments made against having black people in the military? Was HST also wrong for integrating the Armed Forces?

There's absolutely no legitimate correlation between blacks in the military and homosexuals in the military. This argument attempts to make homosexuality an issue of birth rather than of willful sin. It's a terrible position and it just disgusting that many Christians seem to adopt it.