Obama Endorses Homosexuality

[donnA]

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

being black is not a sin condemned by God, homose*uality is, and christians are supose to be on the side God's on, not the other side.

 

[just-want-peace]

being black is not a sin condemned by God, homose*uality is, and christians are supose to be on the side God's on, not the other side.

:thumbs:

Careful Donna, you're gonna raise some shackles by using logic rather than achy-breaky-bleedy-heart emotion!! :thumbs:

This just ain't PC!!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

:thumbs:

Careful Donna, you're gonna raise some shackles by using logic rather than achy-breaky-bleedy-heart emotion!! :thumbs:

This just ain't PC!!

Ok, so kick out all fornicators, Users of foul language, adulterers, liars, etc as well as the Homosexual. I'm for that. However, if you allow any of the others than you only show hypocricy.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Ok, so kick out all fornicators, Users of foul language, adulterers, liars, etc as well as the Homosexual. I'm for that. However, if you allow any of the others than you only show hypocricy.

And since sin is sin is sin I guess that only those who have never sinned should be allowed in the military.

Using the logic of some earlier posts to allow anyone in who has committed any sin is to condone and defend that sin. Hmmmmmmmmmm.................

Oh, I forgot, some sins are OK while others are not. There are popular sins and unpopular sins. Some change within a culture as time passes.

 

[Dragoon68]

It seems some people just don't have a clue of the difference between God's eternal justice and man's temporal justice nor the role of civil government in the restraint of the more blatant sins - not every possible sin - in society much less the specific adverse impacts of homosexuality in the military - notwithstanding the entire society. Without such understanding there can't be much intelligent dialogue on the subject because every point that's made is simply ignored and only ridiculous counterpoints without substance are repeated.

 

[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 GLBT 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 am posting my remarks above again from Post 230 or somewhere around there.

Also:
It used to be, "we just want to be able to do what we want in the privacy of our homes."

Then it became, "children need to learn about homosexuality in school so they know about AIDS and can also accept that every sexual practice as okay or else they are prejudiced."

Then it was if you said you thought homosexual relationships were immoral, you were called a "homophobe." This is still true.

Then there came the GLBT clubs in high schools, then in some middle schools.

Now, it's if you deny marriage to same sex couples, you are denying basic rights, and we must accept all forms of sexuality in all areas of society as okay.

Why don't some Christians realize that the purpose here is total acceptance of homosexuality in all areas of society?


It's just a pattern plain as day one can trace from the 80s and continues.

It's much, much more than giving rights - it is definitely that everyone is supposed to go along with it as okay. Not all gay people may be pushing this, but the activists and the ones dealing with political and legal issues are, as well as straight counterparts.

 

[Dragoon68]

I am posting my remarks above again from Post 230 or somewhere around there.

Also:
It used to be, "we just want to be able to do what we want in the privacy of our homes."

Then it became, "children need to learn about homosexuality in school so they know about AIDS and can also accept that every sexual practice as okay or else they are prejudiced."

Then it was if you said you thought homosexual relationships were immoral, you were called a "homophobe." This is still true.

Then there came the GLBT clubs in high schools, then in some middle schools.

Now, it's if you deny marriage to same sex couples, you are denying basic rights, and we must accept all forms of sexuality in all areas of society as okay.

Why don't some Christians realize that the purpose here is total acceptance of homosexuality in all areas of society?


It's just a pattern plain as day one can trace from the 80s and continues.

It's much, much more than giving rights - it is definitely that everyone is supposed to go along with it as okay. Not all gay people may be pushing this, but the activists and the ones dealing with political and legal issues are, as well as straight counterparts.

Absolutely correct! Although the topic here is the President's decision to push for homosexuals to be able to serve openly in the military it, also, is just another step in the wider goal of making homosexuality "acceptable" in our whole society.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It seems some people just don't have a clue of the difference between God's eternal justice and man's temporal justice nor the role of civil government in the restraint of the more blatant sins - not every possible sin - in society much less the specific adverse impacts of homosexuality in the military - notwithstanding the entire society. Without such understanding there can't be much intelligent dialogue on the subject because every point that's made is simply ignored and only ridiculous counterpoints without substance are repeated.

Just on a historical basis (not a moral or religious one) homosexuals have not been the undoing of any military. Homosexuals have been the undoing of a society but not he effectiveness of a military operation. Look to the Spartans, Alexander the Great, ad infinitum. There have been many a homosexual military genius. On a societal level its what did the spartans in. Its in society that we wage the war against homosexuals not in the military. Homosexuals must and can maintaint he same level of professionalism as anyone else in the military.

 

[Dragoon68]

... Homosexuals must and can maintain the same level of professionalism as anyone else in the military.

That's certainly an untruth that Satan really wants us to believe! Don't fall for it, Thinkingstuff! Don't let 'em convince you it's not a problem for our military. You need to put aside some of those books you've been reading and ask the men in the ranks about it. They'll set you straight on it!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That's certainly an untruth that Satan really wants us to believe! Don't fall for it, Thinkingstuff! Don't let 'em convince you it's not a problem for our military. You need to put aside some of those books you've been reading and ask the men in the ranks about it. They'll set you straight on it!

I served for six years. And certainly it wouldn't have been a problem if they kept it to themselves. If they boasted about it as other men had about their heterosexual conquest I would have been very upset by it and would have kept my distance. However, that was almost 20 years ago.

 

[Dragoon68]

I served for six years. And certainly it wouldn't have been a problem if they kept it to themselves. If they boasted about it as other men had about their heterosexual conquest I would have been very upset by it and would have kept my distance. However, that was almost 20 years ago.

Then you should clearly understand why it was and is a problem! Consider also, Thinkingstuff, that when they were boasting about heterosexual conquests - in itself wrong and possibly even against military law depending upon circumstances - they weren't talking about a conquest involving another man perhaps even you. Such a situation would have created a lot of tension between you and them wouldn't it? That's one thing that can really harm the military's effectiveness. Another is the potential for compromised loyalty from the shame of being discovered or the potential favoritism shown between persons involved in an illicit relationship. Homosexuality is the same today as it was from the beginning except that, in the present, we're seeing it being flaunted more openly. It's not the first time that's happened in history and, when it did, it eventually resulted in some dire consequences for the society in which it occurred. Let's do all we can to keep it out of our military specifically and out of society in general. That's something we won't regret but letting it get even an ounce more of legitimacy will only lead to more trouble. As veterans who served honorably we still have a duty to help preserve the effectiveness of our military in support of our brothers in arms because we know what they will learn. It's the right thing to do!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Then you should clearly understand why it was and is a problem! Consider also, Thinkingstuff, that when they were boasting about heterosexual conquests - in itself wrong and possibly even against military law depending upon circumstances - they weren't talking about a conquest involving another man perhaps even you. Such a situation would have created a lot of tension between you and them wouldn't it? That's one thing that can really harm the military's effectiveness. Another is the potential for compromised loyalty from the shame of being discovered or the potential favoritism shown between persons involved in an illicit relationship. Homosexuality is the same today as it was from the beginning except that, in the present, we're seeing it being flaunted more openly. It's not the first time that's happened in history and, when it did, it eventually resulted in some dire consequences for the society in which it occurred. Let's do all we can to keep it out of our military specifically and out of society in general. That's something we won't regret but letting it get even an ounce more of legitimacy will only lead to more trouble. As veterans who served honorably we still have a duty to help preserve the effectiveness of our military in support of our brothers in arms because we know what they will learn. It's the right thing to do!

You have to understand that at that time I was against females in combat positions as well. Actually, I still am. But that's a lost battle. I felt the effectiveness of the unit was degraded by the women serving with us. For many reasons. And some of the reasons you mentioned above apply to women serving. So to be fair Homosexuals should be allowed to serve unless you get rid of females in combat positions, and men who wear sin on their sleaves. Both degrade the units for the reasons you mention. However, I think to support one is only consistant with support of the other otherwise we're being hypocritical.
The way I see it. The military should go back to the way it was with discipline. Not like it is today. Females should not engage in combat positions. Professionalism should be enforced. Alcoholism should be discouraged rather than incouraged. But our society has made changes that I believe are harmful to our military. I just don't think adding a lair of homosexuals would degrade our military further than it already is.

 

[Dragoon68]

You have to understand that at that time I was against females in combat positions as well. Actually, I still am. But that's a lost battle. I felt the effectiveness of the unit was degraded by the women serving with us. For many reasons. And some of the reasons you mentioned above apply to women serving. So to be fair Homosexuals should be allowed to serve unless you get rid of females in combat positions, and men who wear sin on their sleaves. Both degrade the units for the reasons you mention. However, I think to support one is only consistant with support of the other otherwise we're being hypocritical.
The way I see it. The military should go back to the way it was with discipline. Not like it is today. Females should not engage in combat positions. Professionalism should be enforced. Alcoholism should be discouraged rather than incouraged. But our society has made changes that I believe are harmful to our military. I just don't think adding a lair of homosexuals would degrade our military further than it already is.

You're not alone, brother, because I also am against women serving in a "co-ed" military and especially so in combat and combat support roles. You've got courage to say that in this day of "political correctness" and you just won some big points with me! It would take a lot to explain that to the angry mob that would surely seize the issue and, I've got a strong feeling, they wouldn't have clue where you're coming from. Regardless, we don't want to change the topic of this thread by getting into it that here and now.